D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not disputing your preference, or your knowledge of your own psychological states, but I think you might be exaggerating how those who do prefer other styles think of their PCs. There are some styles of skilled play where the character really is just a game-piece, but I think there are proponents of skilled play who "inhabit" their PCs - it's just that their PCs have exactly the right motivations to make hunting through ruined tombs for treasure a rational occupation.

When it comes to what I have called "player driven" play, the player doesn't think of his/her PC as the protagonist of a novel. S/he thinks of him/her as a person - it's just that, as a person, s/he has motivations and concerns that are (by real world standards) a little larger-than-life! If the system is well-designed, then protagonism and associated story will emerge without anyone having to actually think about the story.

I'm not saying that you, the human being Saelorn, could play in these styles and inhabit your character, because there may be features of them that are jarring to you. I'm just saying that you might be exaggerating the difference between your preferred mental state and the mental state that these other players get into when they play their PCs.

That would coincide with my experience as well. Simply because you play in a narrative driven fashion doesn't obviate roleplay. My character's decisions are made from the perspective and understanding of the character. That's simply the nature of RP. As a PLAYER I can step out of character and point out how the plot could incorporate my interests, then I simply need to have RPed my character as a character interesting to me. I guess there could come some form of tension there, but in general I haven't sensed that in games I've played. Beyond that the interest in the character itself and crafting it in an interesting and internally consistent way never leaves.

 

[hoffrg86]

4e had some good ideas, really liked at will powers, {note i liked 4e the least of all editions}

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Adventure paths have "freeze frame" rooms or situations. In I6 Pharoah, for instance (somewhere on the border between a classic dungeon and an AP), the dervishes will be looking for their missing members whenever the PCs arrive at the pyramid. I assume that Dragonlance, and the modern APs, are full of this sort of thing.

I know that Paizo is still doing it with their recent APs.

In a recent game, we came across a large, outdoor encampment. Given that we were rather high level at this point, we decided to split up and do some scouting (while Invisible and incorporeal, with a move speed of 600; it being exceptional difficult to perform coordinated actions when you can't see or hear the person next to you anyway). One of the party members came across a demon, with undead sniper flunkies, consuming a plot-relevant corpse.

This is the first time I've seen this sort of thing in action. We were supposed to all be together when we came across the scene, because there's no way that one of us could survive such an encounter. The DM had to make up something later on in order to make the campaign solvable, since this was a mandatory encounter with no reason to stick around beyond its initial appearance.

But I can't blame the player for disrupting the plot, because there's no way that any of us could have expected that. It's ridiculous to think that our observance of an act would cause it to happen.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

When it comes to what I have called "player driven" play, the player doesn't think of his/her PC as the protagonist of a novel. S/he thinks of him/her as a person - it's just that, as a person, s/he has motivations and concerns that are (by real world standards) a little larger-than-life! If the system is well-designed, then protagonism and associated story will emerge without anyone having to actually think about the story

I'm entirely an advocate of players making characters who are suitable to become heroes. They can be real people, as real as anyone else in that world. No arguments on that front.

The thing that drags me out of it is when the character gets protagonized by the GM - when those sorts of contrived coincidences happen, like stumbling across the bad guy at the exact time of the sacrifice, when nobody was planning it that way. I mean, what are the chances? And since we're on the topic of player perception, that's the level where it does matter whether the GM rolled randomly or just decided.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So, no, I don't think there's really such an adage. I think the original concept was 'competition is fun'. Now, I'm not convinced that competition was always the primary aspect of play, and I certainly don't think that it has remained so, but then you are getting away from the roots of the game in skilled play.

It may have not been D&D where the adage originated, although I know 5E specifically states that it's okay for a character to die, and you're winning as long as you have fun and tell a cool story.

Sure, my only contention is that the character you are playing is already highly special and virtually unique simply as a given of the game. I don't know for sure what 3.x or even 5e have to say on the matter, but in AD&D and in 4e the very fact that you could gain XP and level up was an attribute shared only by the most significant PCs and (possibly, its not clear in all editions) NPCs. So, why then balk at their adventures and such being unlikely and ultra-mundane?

I think there deserves to be more distinction between who can gain levels and who does gain levels, and D&D hasn't always been very clear on the topic. Certainly, most NPCs in AD&D didn't gain levels, but they also weren't in a position to gain levels. What about henchpersons and hirelings? Did they not gain levels? Or were they also assumed to be as special as PCs?

In 3E, everyone had a class and a level. The difference was that PCs probably had better stats, and took their levels in better classes. The exercise was left to the reader as to how an NPC reaches level 9 as a Commoner.

In 4E, only PCs had the traditional class and level (in most cases), but NPCs could reach high levels of competence as enemy (or allied?) monsters. The exercise was left to the reader as to how an NPC becomes a level 9 Soldier. If you take the view that monster stats or PC-stats are just a matter of perspective, such that you could reflect the same individual either way as the circumstances warrant, then there's clearly nothing special about casting spells or being really good with a sword.

In 5E, only PCs must have a class and level, and NPCs are allowed to use a monster stat block if the DM feels like it. The way it's set up, NPC stat blocks are designed to reflect class abilities. The question of whether to model someone as a monster or with a full PC-grade write-up is just a question of expedience, but there's nothing inherently special about possessing the abilities of a level 9 Fighter or Wizard.

That being the case, from a certain perspective, PCs have gotten less and less special with each edition.

 

[DMCF]

At will powers, turned into cantrips in 5e. They add more flavor to the magical classes right from the get go.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think there deserves to be more distinction between who can gain levels and who does gain levels, and D&D hasn't always been very clear on the topic. Certainly, most NPCs in AD&D didn't gain levels, but they also weren't in a position to gain levels. What about henchpersons and hirelings? Did they not gain levels? Or were they also assumed to be as special as PCs?

In classic D&D, NPCs were frequently given race/class/level. Maybe in a very condensed, in-line stat block, like 'Blarg is a 4th level fighter,' but it happened, a lot. Monsters often got class abilities, particularly spellcasting, as a caster of a certain class and level, but actual monsters (as opposed to PC-race entries in the monster manual) didn't have or gain levels. So PCs were more special than monsters, but no more special than NPCs with classes - some NPCs even often 'broke the rules,' combining races, classes or class abilities PCs couldn't (for instance, NPCs of certain races could be Clerics, while PCs of those races could not), so in a way, PCs were a bit less special than really extra-special NPCs.

In 3e, anyone and everyone, any sort of sentient monster included, could have class & levels, and PCs could, with an LA, be almost any sort of creature. PC's weren't at all special, but neither was anyone else.

In 4e, monsters and NPCs didn't have class or level, only got a surge/tier, and didn't get second wind, though NPCs could have class templates that lifted a few powers from a class and elites or solos got action points. PCs were pretty special.

In 5e, NPCs can have class & level, or a condensed monster block. Most monsters don't seem to get class & level, though some have casting or other abilities lifted straight from classes. About 1e level specialness, without the NPC rule-breaking.

That being the case, from a certain perspective, PCs have gotten less and less special with each edition.

No perspective I can find.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It may have not been D&D where the adage originated, although I know 5E specifically states that it's okay for a character to die, and you're winning as long as you have fun and tell a cool story.

Oh, I think it has LONG been true that D&D has advocated a 'cooperative fun' approach. I think that approach was even in existence in the early days (though Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign was largely a battle between good and evil PCs!). I just think there was EVEN SO a notion of 'doing well' or 'doing badly' that was held to reflect on the skill of the player. Having a 15th level PC in early Greyhawk might not have been literally 'winning', but it DEFINITELY came with bragging rights! For that reason, and that the players were rivals as much as allies, made the neutrality of the DM very important, much more so than it would be in say a 4e game today, where the players are expected to be a team.

I think there deserves to be more distinction between who can gain levels and who does gain levels, and D&D hasn't always been very clear on the topic. Certainly, most NPCs in AD&D didn't gain levels, but they also weren't in a position to gain levels. What about henchpersons and hirelings? Did they not gain levels? Or were they also assumed to be as special as PCs?

I don't know about 3e or 5e, in AD&D and other versions of 'classic' D&D henchmen were able to gain XP (albeit sometimes at a much reduced rate). Henchmen were considered to be a pretty rare commodity in 1e. I don't think 2e ever had explicit rules for recruiting them though. Hirelings are less clear, they are likely to be ordinary persons, but COULD possess classes or levels.

4e really is fairly agnostic about this topic. Companion Characters can earn a share of XP and advance in level, but they don't have classes. There IS a rule in DMG1 for creating leveled NPCs with classes, though the mechanics are still considerably different from PCs and there's no specific statement about XP anywhere. Nothing is ever stated about monster advancement.

In 3E, everyone had a class and a level. The difference was that PCs probably had better stats, and took their levels in better classes. The exercise was left to the reader as to how an NPC reaches level 9 as a Commoner.

Yeah, 3e.... honestly a game which I was never at all impressed with. No other version of D&D of course ever had exactly this conceit.

In 4E, only PCs had the traditional class and level (in most cases), but NPCs could reach high levels of competence as enemy (or allied?) monsters. The exercise was left to the reader as to how an NPC becomes a level 9 Soldier. If you take the view that monster stats or PC-stats are just a matter of perspective, such that you could reflect the same individual either way as the circumstances warrant, then there's clearly nothing special about casting spells or being really good with a sword.

Its still just as special as the rarity of these abilities is. While nowhere is it ever stated how many figures of various levels exist in a 4e world we do get some ideas just from how they are portrayed. Up to level 10 characters are 'heroes', they are probably not unique, but are certainly 'special'. From level 11 they become arguably unique, as a level 11 PC is a 'Paragon', which carries the connotation of "the best of his kind." So its arguable that a level 11 fighter is intended to be the greatest living fighter in the world. Likewise a level 21 fighter is 'Epic', and given that the main characters in epics are unique in history we would then assume that AT BEST there have ever been only a few comparably powerful individuals ever in recorded history.

Going by 4e published materials, in mundane places on the edge of civilization like Fallcrest you can frequently find figures of levels 1-5. You might potentially meet figures of up to level 10 in some unusual situations. Paragon level characters are rare, but a few exist up to around level 15, beyond that there's very little but 'monsters' and a few unique individuals.

So, I would say that in 4e being 5th level is pretty good, you're not likely to have a ton of competition around you all the time, unless you hang with some VERY tough crowds. If you're level 10, you're the baddest-assed mofo pretty much anyone has seen in these here parts since way back. Just being level 1 makes you at least 1 in 1000, assuming that say all the higher figures in Fallcrest are detailed, which is a fair assumption.

In 5E, only PCs must have a class and level, and NPCs are allowed to use a monster stat block if the DM feels like it. The way it's set up, NPC stat blocks are designed to reflect class abilities. The question of whether to model someone as a monster or with a full PC-grade write-up is just a question of expedience, but there's nothing inherently special about possessing the abilities of a level 9 Fighter or Wizard.

That being the case, from a certain perspective, PCs have gotten less and less special with each edition.

Eh, I don't think so. In classic D&D there was always a definite notion of 'higher hit-dice individuals'. Every humanoid race has them for instance, and you can easily run into higher hit dice humans, though they're not quite described in the same language as PCs in all sources. I would say that PCs are and have always been something of a rare breed. Not unique, but pretty special. What is ALWAYS said to be special about them, and has been repeated in every PHB since the dawn of D&D, is that the PCs have a special place in the world. They might not be uniquely powerful, but they ARE uniquely selected by fate.

 

[pemerton]

In a recent game, we came across a large, outdoor encampment. Given that we were rather high level at this point, we decided to split up and do some scouting (while Invisible and incorporeal, with a move speed of 600; it being exceptional difficult to perform coordinated actions when you can't see or hear the person next to you anyway). One of the party members came across a demon, with undead sniper flunkies, consuming a plot-relevant corpse.

This is the first time I've seen this sort of thing in action. We were supposed to all be together when we came across the scene, because there's no way that one of us could survive such an encounter. The DM had to make up something later on in order to make the campaign solvable, since this was a mandatory encounter with no reason to stick around beyond its initial appearance.

But I can't blame the player for disrupting the plot, because there's no way that any of us could have expected that. It's ridiculous to think that our observance of an act would cause it to happen.

I don't know anything about your GM other than this report - but as you report it, it sounds like bad GMing (framing a PC into a situation that can't be meaningfully resolved by that PC); and also illusionism - the GM "had to make up something later". That is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about upthread when I referred to manipulation of the backstory so as to undo the effects of resolving an encounter.

that's the level where it does matter whether the GM rolled randomly or just decided.

Why? If the dice would dictate an unexpected thing happens, why not just have the GM decide that an unexpected thing happens?

 

[pemerton]

in AD&D and other versions of 'classic' D&D henchmen were able to gain XP (albeit sometimes at a much reduced rate). Henchmen were considered to be a pretty rare commodity in 1e. I don't think 2e ever had explicit rules for recruiting them though. Hirelings are less clear, they are likely to be ordinary persons, but COULD possess classes or levels.

In 1st ed AD&D, mercenary hirelings could include officer-types: sergeants (1st level), lieutenants (2nd-3rd level) and captains (4th-7th level). These NPCs had the abilities of a fighter of their level, but were stated to be unable to gain levels.

This is just one of the factors that makes me think of gaining levels in AD&D as a PC-oriented, "winning/losing" thing (as you have characterised it). It was not primarily about modelling a person's development of skill.