"Stuck" playing 4e (i.e. unwilling converts)

[LostSoul]

4th Edition dissociates the game mechanics from the game world. For those of us who believe that character and story arise from the game world, this dissociation is poisonous.

I think that is one interpretation of how to run the game, sure. I don't think it's the only one.

My interpretation is like this: I set DCs based on how hard the task is in the game world, just like I did in 3e. 4e provides me with information to figure out what the DCs should be for certain tasks*; I figure out how hard it would be and use that DC. It also tells me what kind of difficulties the PCs should be facing based on their level. I reverse-engineer that to figure out what gameworld things they should be going up against.

* - DCs by level. Something a normal guy could do? Low heroic tier. Something only a well-trained guy could do? Medium heroic tier. Something only the most elite could do? High heroic-low paragon. etc.

My point is that you don't have to dissociate the rules from the gameworld if it's important to you.

But with 4th Edition, this glitched up. And it glitched up for a couple of reasons: First, the mechanics of 4th Edition frequently don't model the game world -- so translating what they want to do into game mechanics is either difficult or impossible. Second, the system is mechanically balanced in a way that has little to do with the game world. If you don't play the mechanics in an optimized way your character will be significantly disadvantaged.

Example: The difference between a fighter's cleave and reaping strike abilities. The advantages and disadvantages of these abilities have nothing to do with the reality of the game world and everything to do with the game mechanics.

First: I don't think it's too hard to translate what they want to do into game mechanics. I think it's really easy, actually!

Second: I think that's true for any game.

Your Example: I don't know why you think there isn't any game world difference between these two mechanics.

 

[Zustiur]

Can you explain this to me? I don't get it.

I'm planning a new campaign for 4e and I don't feel my storytelling options are reduced in any way from previous editions. What am I missing?

Your storytelling options are not reduced in any way. What you're missing is the point of my post, because I didn't explain very well. I will try again.

To me (and of course your opinion may differ), DnD is about telling interesting stories, that I and the players will recount for years to come. I find that the best type of rules to have for this, are the type that are there to model, or simulate the action. That is, you/wotc describe what you're trying to do, and then pick a mechanic that models this to a reasonable level of accuracy, and believability, while maintaining a reasonable level of game balance.

4E does not do this. 4E focuses on balance and smooth scaling across levels. The rules are not there to model the action, the rules are there to be 'fair', and to ensure that the numbers are always about the same. i.e. always having a ~50-60% chance to hit is a 4E-ism.

An example of how rules are made:
Character 'Bob' wants to jump across a pit.
3E references the real world (albeit not with a great level of accuracy) to determine a suitable mechanic for jumping.
4E says, your chance of reaching the other side should be x%, and will use the same mechanic as every other challenge.

Yes I know jumping is a bad example. The important part of this example is NOT JUMP. The important part is the method by which the resulting rules are determined.

A better example, again, focusing on the different method used to determine the mechanic:
Fred wants to pick the lock on the treasure chest.
3E says the lock is a good lock. Good locks are hard to pick (IRL). Mechanically it would be about this hard to pick (DC). Roll a lock pick attempt against that DC.

4E says you should succeed x% of the time. Roll against that %. Oh incidentally this is a good lock, but because you're Y level, the numbers have been adjusted to ensure you still need x%.

I find the 3E method superior, as it lends itself to a greater level of real life simulation, which makes the game easier to believe. A game that is easier to believe is better at suspending my disbelief. Of course it is important to maintain a level of balance so that everyone gets a roughly equal share of the fun. Balance comes more or less as an afterthought.

I dislike the 4E method because it enforces balance as the be all and end all. The design philosophy appears to be that a game is only fun if it is perfectly balanced. This is the basic premise behind board games. Everyone must have exactly the same chance of winning in a board game or a card game, therefore balance is everything. (And skill kicks in at that point).
Computer games generally follow this same ideal - either because their based on board games, or because they're played competitively (usually online) and in competitive play balance is highly important.

Do you see where I'm going with this?
DnD is about telling stories. The rules should assist in the story telling.
Board/computer games are about winning. The rules should be balanced.
DnD is not about winning. Balance is nice, but it is less important than helping to make a good story.

Fixed that for you. 3E was FAR more rules-intensive than 4E and virtually everything had a roll based on specific skills or tables.

No, you broke it. 3E was far more rules-intensive. I agree with you on that. That was not the point I was talking about. Again, I didn't explain terribly well (and I should really learn not to post when I'm that tired!)
3E rules are there to model the story. 4E rules are there to enforce balance.
I've been playing 4E for about 8 sessions. In nearly every session I've had to remind someone that "It's 4E, it doesn't have to make sense". I never had this issue in 3E because the rules always complemented the action - they always made sense, because they were modeled on a believable level of reality first, and balanced second.
Of course there were more rules in 3E, that was the design philosophy of 3E in particular. A rule for everything. Plus it's older, and has many more books to contain those rules. 4E will look a lot more complex in a few years!

Having a rules for everything wasn't necessarily a great solution, but it worked better for people like me than 4E does. It shouldn't be necessary for us to dig into the examples of tripping gelatinous cubes, or the so called Schroedinger's wounding to make people see what I'm getting at here. The rules of 4E do not attempt to model (fantasy) reality at all. They are rules of a balanced game, not guidelines for telling stories. The balance consistently trumps logic and believability, and this makes 4E a terrible game, FOR ME.

You can tell a story without any rules at all. But you can't play a game without rules. 4E has turned DnD into more of a game, and thus moved away from the story telling experience.

Let me summarize this:
Assuming you know what Hero Quest is, which game rules are closer to hero quest? 3E? or 4E?

You could tell just as much of a story in Hero Quest as in 3E, if you really wanted to. But that is not what the rules were designed for. I'm sure it's possible to tell a story using the rules of poker or backgammon if you tried hard enough, but I'd still find it easier to use 3E.

 

[LostSoul]

A better example, again, focusing on the different method used to determine the mechanic:
Fred wants to pick the lock on the treasure chest.
3E says the lock is a good lock. Good locks are hard to pick (IRL). Mechanically it would be about this hard to pick (DC). Roll a lock pick attempt against that DC.

4E says you should succeed x% of the time. Roll against that %. Oh incidentally this is a good lock, but because you're Y level, the numbers have been adjusted to ensure you still need x%.

I think the idea is that when you're high level you'll be working with different locks.

When you're level 1, it's a crappy goblin lock.
When you're level 5, it's a well-made steel lock.
When you're level 10, it's the work of a master locksmith.
When you're level 15, it's the work of a legendary locksmith.
When you're level 20, it's a lock that no one could ever possibly open.
When you're level 25, it's a lock made by Vecna.
When you're level 30, it's a lock made out of Vecna's bones and embued with his power and will to protect secrets.

4E gives you the DC but it doesn't give you the colour. (It gives a nod to the colour when it describes the tiers.) Use that however you want.

It shouldn't be necessary for us to dig into the examples of tripping gelatinous cubes, or the so called Schroedinger's wounding to make people see what I'm getting at here. The rules of 4E do not attempt to model (fantasy) reality at all. They are rules of a balanced game, not guidelines for telling stories. The balance consistently trumps logic and believability, and this makes 4E a terrible game, FOR ME.

The thing about tripping cubes is that you are the one saying that the cube has been tripped. What the rules are saying is that it has the Condition Prone, which means it needs to take a Move action to move normally again.

If you want to describe the cube being tripped, even if that description bothers you, that's cool. 4e's not for you. I will describe the cube shuddering, groaning, its locomotion all messed up, and happily say that it's Prone.


Also: I think that the fact that 4E has Quests means that it is far better system for telling stories than 3E.

edit: Here's the way I see things. 4E models the (heroic fantasy) world just fine. What it doesn't do is reinforce the feeling that the player is the character (what is commonly called Immersion).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the idea is that when you're high level you'll be working with different locks.

Why?

If my players choose where to go and what to do, and the world doesn't reshape itself to them, why wouldn't they encounter locks that are wildly inappropriate for their levels in appropriate places? Why wouldn't my level 5 party encounter a lock made by Vecna? Or my level 30 party encounter goblin locks? Shouldn't that depend more on if they're fighting goblins or Vecna-priests than their level? Why shouldn't my epic-level party be fighting the Goblin King? Why shouldn't my level 3 party be thwarting Vecna's plans?

"Well made locks are DC 20" allows me to stick well-made locks in wherever they would make sense and rely on the PC's to figure out how they're going to beat that DC 20 if they want what's in there.

 

[LostSoul]

Why?

Because when you're level 30, strolling through goblin warrens is gauche? Just think of how the other adventurers back at the inn are going to talk smack about you, grubbing around for loot in goblin warrens.

Then again, you're level 30, so you could probably beat them down, but still.

"Well made locks are DC 20" allows me to stick well-made locks in wherever they would make sense and rely on the PC's to figure out how they're going to beat that DC 20 if they want what's in there.

I think you missed my point. That's what 4E does.

I think it could have been more clear about it, but the rules of the game support exactly what you're talking about. No, they don't give you a catalogue of DCs; they give you a loose framework for the DM to hang things off of.

That framework is: 1-10 Heroic, 11-20 Paragon, 21-30 Epic.

Maybe that just doesn't cut it for you. That's cool. I'm the other way; too many set DCs in the books and I get stupid, looking all of them up. I'd rather play fast and loose with a simple framework and run from there.

 

[Blizzardb]

Hate to throw myself in the middle of what might turn into an edition war, but I would just like to point out the passage on page 23 in the DMG that states that if two wooden doors are exactly the same, they should also have the same break DC.

The suggested DC per level just suggests what kind of door you may decide to use at this level. This doesn't mean however, that wooden doors will suddenly cease to exist at high levels - players just get through them with ease.

Edit: To clarify, my point is that you shouldn't take the suggested DC (for doors, locks or anything else) as mandatory, just as what it is - a suggestion for a challenge appropriate for the level of the party (just as the CR in 3.0/3.5 is a suggestion of a monster appropriate for a certain level). There should be harder and easier challenges, even so hard that the players have no chance of succeeding and so easy that they are not challenges at all. If a DM uses only the suggested difficulties for the respective level, he is the one to blame, not the system.

 

[Jack99]

Hate to throw myself in the middle of what might turn into an edition war, but I would just like to point out the passage on page 23 in the DMG that states that if two wooden doors are exactly the same, they should also have the same break DC.

The suggested DC per level just suggests what kind of door you may decide to use at this level. This doesn't mean however, that wooden doors will suddenly cease to exist at high levels - players just get through them with ease.

Edit: To clarify, my point is that you shouldn't take the suggested DC (for doors, locks or anything else) as mandatory, just as what it is - a suggestion for a challenge appropriate for the level of the party (just as the CR in 3.0/3.5 is a suggestion of a monster appropriate for a certain level). There should be harder and easier challenges, even so hard that the players have no chance of succeeding and so easy that they are not challenges at all. If a DM uses only the suggested difficulties for the respective level, he is the one to blame, not the system.

Please do not bring logic and actual rules into this discussion. Some people might realise that some of their problems with 4e derive from a lack of understanding of the rules, instead of something else.

 

[Zustiur]

I think the idea is that when you're high level you'll be working with different locks.

While you're right, it doesn't read/feel that way. It reads as:

When you're level 1, it's a DC 15 lock.
When you're level 5, it's a DC 19 lock.
When you're level 10, it's a DC 24 lock.
And so on.

4E gives you the DC but it doesn't give you the colour. (It gives a nod to the colour when it describes the tiers.) Use that however you want.

Yes exactly. I argue that colour should be coming first, and rules last. Rules to fit the colour, not colour to fit the rules.

The thing about tripping cubes is that you are the one saying that the cube has been tripped. What the rules are saying is that it has the Condition Prone, which means it needs to take a Move action to move normally again.

True again, I have a problem with "Trip" not meaning "trip". Just like I have a problem with calling "cheese", "eggs".
[edit]Also, being prone counts for a lot more than needing to take a move action to move normally again. For reference: Prone
* combat advantage (fair enough)
* +2 defenses (huh? it's a cube...)
* You're lying on the ground (huh??? it's a cube!)
* you take -2 penalty on attack rolls (fair enough)
* You may go prone voluntarily as a minor action.

How do you explain the +2 defense bonus for a 'staggered' cube? How do you interpret "You are lying on the ground"? Those are technically rules, associated with prone, not with trip, ergo trip isn't the problem. Having a cube go prone IS the problem, because it doesn't make sense. Yes, you can do all sorts of things to work-around the issue. But that doesn't stop it being an issue in the first place.[/edit]

Also: I think that the fact that 4E has Quests means that it is far better system for telling stories than 3E.

WHAT? I fail to see how quests didn't exist in any previous edition of DnD. It's a story mechanic, it's just been given a little more text in 4E.

edit: Here's the way I see things. 4E models the (heroic fantasy) world just fine. What it doesn't do is reinforce the feeling that the player is the character (what is commonly called Immersion).

I agree with your final sentence.

Because when you're level 30, strolling through goblin warrens is gauche?

... *looks up gauche*. Is it? Surely the merit of strolling through goblin warrens is based on WHY you are there. Not on the fact it's a goblin warren. Take dragon mountain as an example. You can put high level characters up against the lowest level critters, and still have it be highly exciting, and worthy of tavern tales. Compare the tavern brutes who think beating up a handful of goblins is trivial... to the party who just waltzed through an entire warren containing several thousand goblins. I hardly see how the idea of fighting goblins at level 30 automatically lacks grace. Heck, wiping out that entire system of goblins may have been the plot of the whole campaign.

Maybe that just doesn't cut it for you. That's cool. I'm the other way; too many set DCs in the books and I get stupid, looking all of them up. I'd rather play fast and loose with a simple framework and run from there.

It certainly doesn't cut it for me. I want my example DCs because it allows me to draw comparison to the real world, in order to structure my imagination of the fantasy. This lock is a DC 12 lock because it was made by goblins... what does that mean? It means it's a really poorly made lock that you can open with a hair clip. Okay, NOW I know what it is. Without the real-world comparison, there's nothing to base my imagination on.
Much like if you had the following:
"You enter the room, there are 4 goblins in the room". What is a goblin? <insert description of goblin here> Okay, NOW I know what it is.
You and I already know what a goblin is because we've been playing this for years, but without that initial real world comparison (short orange skinned evil humanoid), we'd still have no idea. Without some examples of what a goblin/poor lock IS, we have no comparison with which to draw the mental image.

The suggested DC per level just suggests what kind of door you may decide to use at this level. This doesn't mean however, that wooden doors will suddenly cease to exist at high levels - players just get through them with ease.

Indeed. Now tell that to module designers.
"Hmm, we're writing this as a level 30 adventure. I guess we better make the door to the inn out of adamantine". *sigh*

p.s. Please note that all examples given other than dragon mountain have been pulled out of thin air.

 

[Zustiur]

Please do not bring logic and actual rules into this discussion. Some people might realise that some of their problems with 4e derive from a lack of understanding of the rules, instead of something else.

Or indeed, people might begin to recognize that there are problems with the rules. Problems which (going back to the OP) might have caused a person a change of heart about the rules (for better or worse).

While this has gotten way too close to edition war territory (and I am one of the culprits!), highlighting our problems with any given edition can and will help people in the situation presented by the OP. That is, "We're trying to work out which edition to play to best suit our group".

 

[Cadfan]

4E does not do this. 4E focuses on balance and smooth scaling across levels. The rules are not there to model the action, the rules are there to be 'fair', and to ensure that the numbers are always about the same. i.e. always having a ~50-60% chance to hit is a 4E-ism.

An example of how rules are made:
Character 'Bob' wants to jump across a pit.
3E references the real world (albeit not with a great level of accuracy) to determine a suitable mechanic for jumping.
4E says, your chance of reaching the other side should be x%, and will use the same mechanic as every other challenge.

Yes I know jumping is a bad example. The important part of this example is NOT JUMP. The important part is the method by which the resulting rules are determined.

A better example, again, focusing on the different method used to determine the mechanic:
Fred wants to pick the lock on the treasure chest.
3E says the lock is a good lock. Good locks are hard to pick (IRL). Mechanically it would be about this hard to pick (DC). Roll a lock pick attempt against that DC.

4E says you should succeed x% of the time. Roll against that %. Oh incidentally this is a good lock, but because you're Y level, the numbers have been adjusted to ensure you still need x%.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- some people are simply not psychologically prepared to understand game design.

I don't mean this as an insult!

Let me try to explain.

Every game sets things like task difficulty by determining how likely it is that a character should succeed, and then adjusting the difficulty to match. 3e did it, 4e does it, non D&D game systems do it, its how game design works.

After all, its not a coincidence that an easy lock in 3e is a DC 20, and an amazing lock is a DC 40, giving you almost exactly the same chance of success at level 1 on a level 1 appropriate lock as you will have at level 20 on a level 20 appropriate lock. Or that a generic CR 1 trap has a Disable Device DC in the early 20s, and a generic CR 10 trap has a Disable Device DC in the early 30s.

Those are NOT coincidences. You are seriously crazy if you think these things are coincidences.

Its game design. The designers worked out how hard they wanted a "good challenge" to be. Then they calibrated the game to match.

4e did the same thing. It made ONLY ONE CHANGE: it made explicit the assumptions that went into this calibration process.

Some people are not psychologically prepared to handle that.

D&D is a game about fantasy. One of the things that you have to do, and some people have to do more than others, is have a sense of verisimilitude to the game.

Things work the way they do because some guys in business casual clothing decided to calibrate the difficulty of the game against a baseline spreadsheet of numbers representing the expected skill level of player characters at each level of the game. For some people, knowing this absolutely destroys any hope of verisimilitude they might have had.

I don't know what to tell you if this is how you are, except that there's no shame in deciding that you're better off not knowing the nuts and bolts of how a game is designed. JAWS wouldn't be as cool of a movie if you watched the DVD "The Making of JAWS" extra before you watched the actual movie for the first time, right? Knowing how the animatronics were created and why the author chose each victim and how the director tweaked your adrenal glands would probably reduce the effect.

That's fine and all. Just avoid the sort of information that will ruin your fun. And when you do encounter it, try to ignore it.