D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, but I think the veneer sometimes gets pretty thin!

NPCs have levels, in the sense of having a measure of power. But in classic D&D I don't think we're really supposed to imagine them having "earned" those levels through clever dungeoneering. We just assume that the causal processes that operate in the world bring it about that, over time, some people (but not all people) get better at the stuff they do.

Right, I think I always assumed that by dint of great amounts of practice an NPC could 'get XP' and over time advance, though it would assume such an NPC was of the special subset of all NPCs/Creatures which could advance AT ALL (or at least had the opportunity to do so perhaps).

Of course there were a plethora of other possibilities, maybe some NPCs were just innately gifted, favored by the gods, endowed with great abilities by virtue of their social station (IE kings are all high level), etc. It seems that various settings and modules had NPCs embodying all of these possibilities.

And, honestly, 4e doesn't really clarify things or change much. NPCs have a level, and a monster type (dramatic role really). The game itself doesn't really offer any explanation for this beyond the gamist one. We've also added a sort of dramatic explanation via the process of altering the dramatic role of an NPC (IE making higher level versions of lower level elites/solos that are standard or minion monsters). Still, 4e admits of the possibility that monsters advance in a simulationistic way.

We likewise assumed a "1", for the same reasons!

I don't know if Gygax ever used this system or not. I posted about it a while ago in a thread debating about whether or not pre-4e editions of D&D had "roles" related to character classes. I think it is strong evidence that, at least as written, AD&D classes did have expected roles.

Yeah, its hard to say. He may have done it in a more informal way perhaps, but AFAIK this was a system that appeared whole cloth in the 1e DMG without any written antecedent, unlike virtually all other 1e material, which was pretty much entirely culled from either OD&D or Dragon/SR articles. It may just have been part of his attempt to 'codify the play of D&D' which he attested was a major motive in producing the AD&D rules set. Perhaps it was an adaptation of some rating system used in tournament play? A lot of AD&D material came out of the con scene, so that is a possibility. It might even have simply been that Gary felt a need to explain to his circle, perhaps in a sort of retcon, why some characters advanced faster than others in his own campaigns.

One COULD see that feature of 1e as presaging various other attempts to 'reward RP' such as issuing plot coupons or bonuses to checks (the precursor to 5e's Inspiration mechanic). If so it was one of the roads not taken as the game evolved.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yeah, as I said way back about 50 or 100 pages ago, my opinion of complex timelines is that they generally fall apart pretty soon due to the complexity of interactions of the PCs with the events in the timeline. I'm sure its quite possible to construct adventures where this isn't an issue. OTOH I do think you're equally giving up a lot.

I'm not sure that it's possible to construct a complex timeline where there are a lot of meaningful choices along the way. I mean, best case scenario would give you a sort of pseudo-branching plot that always returns to itself. It's one of the reasons I generally avoid published adventures, is that they kind of need to be railroad-y by definition.

Presumably in your style of play there can't be much impact to whether the PCs rescue the person from the demon or not, since clearly there's no way to determine what will happen. This particular scene can thus only offer 'soft' impacts on the plot, if the PCs rescue the person they gain some advantage later on, but the course of events proceeds roughly as before and they could succeed either way. The alternative of course being that you write 2 very different scenarios and only use one of them.

In my games, the players can have a ton of impact on what happens, mostly because I don't plan the future too far in advance. Instead, I generate the timeline procedurally; whenever an amount of time passes, I consider what each of the significant NPCs needs to do next, and roughly how long that's going to take - almost like I'm controlling my own party of characters, except it's easier to multi-task. That way, when the PCs inevitably end up doing something I couldn't have predicted, the world can respond appropriately in real time.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure that it's possible to construct a complex timeline where there are a lot of meaningful choices along the way. I mean, best case scenario would give you a sort of pseudo-branching plot that always returns to itself. It's one of the reasons I generally avoid published adventures, is that they kind of need to be railroad-y by definition.

Well, consider the 'river of time' theory of history, in which there are no key events. This is how you would have to look at it. That is to say, regardless of the efforts of any one given individual events are a complex process that involves many interrelated factors, no one of which is decisive. Obviously on a small local scale this breaks down, you can have a great deal of effect on what happens immediately around you. The technique would then be to simply allow the plot to 'heal' itself, or at least you would only have 3 or 4 really different plots and certain points would allow 'switching' between them, but within a given plotline things progress without any major forks. I'm not particularly advocating this approach, but if you ARE going to build extensive plotlines this is probably effectively the 'best' way to do it. Of course you notice that the end result is antithetical to the premise of D&D, that characters are significant and their actions matter.

In my games, the players can have a ton of impact on what happens, mostly because I don't plan the future too far in advance. Instead, I generate the timeline procedurally; whenever an amount of time passes, I consider what each of the significant NPCs needs to do next, and roughly how long that's going to take - almost like I'm controlling my own party of characters, except it's easier to multi-task. That way, when the PCs inevitably end up doing something I couldn't have predicted, the world can respond appropriately in real time.

Sure, which again brings us back to the question of exactly how much, EFFECTIVELY does your process really differ from Pemerton's in terms of agency and DM force. Effectively you're authoring a small 'bubble' of space-time around the PCs. Where you may differ is in terms of how you decide what happens next, BUT with only a short horizon you're still very open to the temptations we've discussed before. Most DMs, IME, quickly begin to manage the plot as a primary activity for all the reasons we've outlined earlier.

While 10 years ago I would still probably have considered your technique 'state of the art' for at least games like D&D, I no longer do after my 4e experience, and having played DW and other story-oriented games.

 

[LostSoul]

Right. But you asked about every choice being uninformed, didn't you? You said:

I'm pointing out that nobody is talking about any such game.

You're right, I was the only one who brought up games full of uninformed decisions.

Because, just like real life, most decisions are formed based on context. So, the players make choices based on information they possess or make up about their characters (my character dislikes the taste of alcohol, for example).

<snip>

Does that make sense?

Yup. I wonder if there are any pitfalls to be aware of here. Maybe just basic DM stuff like "have NPCs act appropriately" and "make interesting settings for the PCs to explore".

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My personal view is that if a piece of fictional content is OK to introduce on the basis of a random roll (eg not unbalanced, destructive of verisimilitude, etc) then it is OK to introduce it by fiat.

For me, the process is at least as important as the result. As I player, I need to have faith in the process. Even if a broken clock happened to be right at the instant I checked it, I wouldn't feel comfortable with what it told me if I had reason to believe that it was broken.

From my point of view, there is no such thing as a "mandatory scene" or a "required outcome". My goal as GM is interesting scenes, and the outcomes are what they are.

That's just a reason to avoid railroads, then. By extension, it's a reason to avoid published adventures, which kind of need to railroad if they're going to exist at all.

Where we differ is that I don't have interesting scenes as a goal. I mean, to my mind, any situation that the PCs get themselves into is going to be interesting by virtue of the players deciding to be there. Likewise, the least interesting thing a player can encounter is a scene which occurs because the GM thinks that it should be interesting. As a player, I would rather walk down a hallway and find a dead-end (because that's what is there) than walk down a hallway and find a cultist in the act of sacrificing someone (because that's what the GM thinks I will find exciting).

I mean sure, if I happen to walk down a hallway and find the sacrifice (because that's what is there), then that might actually be interesting.

Applying this to the module example: if a GM is using a module that has an interesting freeze-frame, and mishandles it, that's on the GM. The GM's role (by my lights) is not to run "mandatory scenes" forcing towards "required outcomes" and then, as in the episode of play you mentioned, illusionistically manipulate the backstory to get things "back on track" when the players depart from the script.

By that metric, I would argue that any freeze-frame with a mandatory outcome is not an interesting one. But what is the GM to do, then? Read through the whole book backward and forward, cutting out the boring stuff and placing alternate routes in response to PC engagement? Because that seems like a lot of work, and one of the big draws of Paizo Adventure Paths is that they're supposed to do most of the work for you.

 

[pemerton]

4e doesn't really clarify things or change much. NPCs have a level, and a monster type (dramatic role really). The game itself doesn't really offer any explanation for this beyond the gamist one.

Agreed. I think it's one of the ways in which 4e harks back to earlier editions.

To me, it's a feature; I'm sure that to [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] it's a bug.

 

[pemerton]

I wonder if there are any pitfalls to be aware of here. Maybe just basic DM stuff like "have NPCs act appropriately" and "make interesting settings for the PCs to explore".

I think that this tends to lead to a very GM-dominated game.

For instance, a PC tries to persuade an NPC to abandon his/her post because s/he is serving an evil cause. Or tries to persuade an NPC to turn on his/her spouse or lover. In real life, these sorts of things happen. In fiction, these sorts of things happen. In RPG adjudication based on the GM's conception of what is appropriate for the NPC, not so much.

Once you introduce mechanical systems that allow the player to have an influence (say, AD&D's loyalty system, influenced by the PC's CHA) or some sort of system of social skill resolution, then a further question arises: why are the players (via choices around PC build, action declaration etc) allowed to influence these pivotal plot events, but not others (eg whether or not they arrive in the nick of time). And so then one looks to have action resolution mechanics to resolve other pivotal events (like the idea, mentioned multiple times upthread, of a skill challenge to manage time pressures).

 

[pemerton]

the least interesting thing a player can encounter is a scene which occurs because the GM thinks that it should be interesting.

I can't speak for you as an individual, but as a generalisation I don't think this is true. For instance, movies whose writers and directors set out to make interesting often end up being more interesting than those where this is not the case. (Avant garde stuff like Andy Warhol's movies are deliberate attempts to upend this, but I don't think they're very applicable models for mainstream RPGing.)

any situation that the PCs get themselves into is going to be interesting by virtue of the players deciding to be there.

<snip>

As a player, I would rather walk down a hallway and find a dead-end (because that's what is there) than walk down a hallway and find a cultist in the act of sacrificing someone (because that's what the GM thinks I will find exciting).

Neither of these things has been true in my RPGing experience (which obviously hasn't included you!).

For instance, as a GM I've been guilty of running boring sessions (moreso in the past, I hope, than these days). And I've certainly played in some.

And I've found that players want interesting stuff. For instance, when the player of the samurai declares that his PC goes swaggering through the village, he is generally quite happy to face a challenge from the local tough. Or when the players in the all-thieves campaign have their PCs attempt a bit of second-story work, they are happy for me, as GM, to introduce some interesting stuff like perhaps a guard to sneak past, or treasure in a cunningly hidden and trapped safe. They generally don't want me just to declares "You check out a few houses but find nothing of interest. It's morning. What do you do?"

I mean sure, if I happen to walk down a hallway and find the sacrifice (because that's what is there), then that might actually be interesting.

This goes right back to issues of authorship and the Spartan world. The gameworld is a fiction. It has to be written, by some one, at some time. The sacrifice, or the local tough, or the guard, or the safe "being what is there" is simply a case of that fictional element being written into the gameworld by the GM. As a GM I can either roll on a random table and give the player a 1-in-whatever chance of his/her action declaration resulting in something more interesting than a dead-end corridor; or I can pull out my best stuff.

In my case, I think the game is more fun for all concerned if I pull out my best stuff. The majority of action declarations resulting in dead end corridors, pointless swaggering, houses with nothing worth stealing, etc tends to make for boring play.

it's a reason to avoid published adventures, which kind of need to railroad if they're going to exist at all.

<snip>

what is the GM to do, then? Read through the whole book backward and forward, cutting out the boring stuff and placing alternate routes in response to PC engagement? Because that seems like a lot of work

See upthread, where I explained what I mean by "using a module". The short answer, though, is "somewhat". As a GM I read the whole module, find the interesting stuff, make a few notes about it, and then drop it into my game when it seems relevant/interesting.

I don't need "alternate routes" planned out, because the sequence of events will take care of itself in play. A system which is relatively robust in terms of challenge levels and in terms of adjusting challenge levels is helpful (eg to allow for changes in PC level) but 4e ticks that box on both counts.

For instance, in my 4e game I had notes on a slaad encounter written up for quite a while - when the PCs ended up in the Elemental Chaos, I used it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I can't speak for you as an individual, but as a generalisation I don't think this is true. For instance, movies whose writers and directors set out to make interesting often end up being more interesting than those where this is not the case.

There's a huge difference between an RPG and a movie. An RPG is an interactive medium. In that way, it's a lot more like reality than like a novel.

 

[LostSoul]

I think that this tends to lead to a very GM-dominated game.

For instance, a PC tries to persuade an NPC to abandon his/her post because s/he is serving an evil cause. Or tries to persuade an NPC to turn on his/her spouse or lover. In real life, these sorts of things happen. In fiction, these sorts of things happen. In RPG adjudication based on the GM's conception of what is appropriate for the NPC, not so much.

Once you introduce mechanical systems that allow the player to have an influence (say, AD&D's loyalty system, influenced by the PC's CHA) or some sort of system of social skill resolution, then a further question arises: why are the players (via choices around PC build, action declaration etc) allowed to influence these pivotal plot events, but not others (eg whether or not they arrive in the nick of time). And so then one looks to have action resolution mechanics to resolve other pivotal events (like the idea, mentioned multiple times upthread, of a skill challenge to manage time pressures).

That is a good question. I am not sure what the answer is.

In my game I want the players to be able to determine whether or not they arrive in the nick of time based on time-related choices, e.g. rest, level up, carouse/study/pray, work, research, or adventure. I want the players to make choices related to how they use time as a resource. I don't want it to be part of a skill challenge or action resolution in the way I think you are proposing because, I think, I want to add a more strategic? level of play.