D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[pemerton]

I don't imagine that the characters are thought of as saying to one another "hey, I just got better at X because drama!"... There will be some in-game imagined rationale - which may even very from player to player - for the character improving their abilities. This need not be the same for every time a character improves an ability

Sure - in the fiction the PCs know they are improving (skills and DCs in BW map to "objective" ingame capabilities and circumstances, not "subjective" factors like in HeroQuest revised and 4e). They have a story to tell about practice, necessity being the mother of invention, etc.

It's just that for gameplay purposes we ration that one way (drama-driven) rather than another.

 

[pemerton]

we had @GMforPowergamers and @pemerton and a great deal many inform everyone on another thread that those roles have always existed within D&D

No. I had multiple posts on that thread explaining that, in AD&D, there was no scope for a difference between the defender and melee striker roles because of the completely different rules of that edition for moving in melee.

Here's a link to one of those posts. I won't repost the whole thing in this thread - it's hundreds of words long - but here's the key bit:

AD&D has some but not all of 4e's features. There is no difference between melee strikers and melee defenders in AD&D, because the default action resolution mechanics make combat sticky, with no need to give condition-imposition powers to generate this outcome. AD&D also has no melee positioning rules comparable to 4e's, so forced movement and granting bonus movement actions matter only for governing closing into melee rather than the flow of melee itself. But AD&D does have a difference between hit point ablation and other forms of condition imposition. So one possible role in AD&D, although one never explored in any AD&D class that I'm familiar with (some monk/martial artist options come closest), is a melee character who specialises in imposing conditions rather than in degrading hit points.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A one-off punt isn't going to prove anything, one way or another, but an ongoing series of trials might, as a body of evidence is built up. To this end, you might have something like "for each previous successive failure with a similar task take -2 to your roll" and "for each trial after the first you can choose a specific idea about the limitations/requirements, and if you succeed you get +1 whenever you leverage that feature".

That seems like an awful lot of work, just to track your accumulating knowledge about one of the laws of magic. Can you imagine tracking two or three experimental lines, simultaneously?

And even then, you're down to DM fiat on whether or not a task is similar enough. But how would the DM even know if it's similar enough, if the DM doesn't already know the underlying principles well enough to determine that?

Remember, the whole point of having a codified game system (at least from my perspective) is that it simplifies the natural laws of the universe down enough that we can track it all easily. I mean, what's the point of having extremely detailed and nuanced rules for magic, and then put so little work into modeling the physical laws?

 

[LostSoul]

Two things I have always said:
1) I don't think any game system that tries to solve every problem for you will ever come close to be as good a game (or what *I* want) as a game system that presumes it can't anticipate every possibility.

2) 3E made no effort to protect you from running a bad game.

If you are making up rules on the fly, and being inconsistent and completely arbitrary, then you are to blame for your bad game. (The general "you", I don't mean you personally)
I agree that what you are saying sounds like crappy experiences.
But crashing a bike sounds like a crappy experience.

I could say that when I hear people talk about taking training wheels off bikes I think about all the new chances for people to crash.
But I don't think that, I think about how much more you can do with the bike now.

1) I agree. My game asks the DM to make a lot of judgement calls in explicit places. Like I said, I don't use damage dice, I use the description of the attack to determine how much damage has been done (and then I consult a table because I find HP a useful game element). What puzzles me is when the rules don't explicitly call for the DM to make a judgement call. I was hoping that 5E's skills would not be a codified list - Stealth, Perception, Religion, etc. - but instead simply the PC's background. Does the skill proficiency modifier apply? "The DM determines if the skill proficiency modifier is applied to the check." I think that rule - to explicitly call for a ruling - is a lot more robust.

I prefer games that have clear rules and procedures and, since I don't think it's feasible to cover every situation, use the fact that the game has a DM to good effect. My rules say that at the start of every encounter you make a Reaction Roll. The DM is then expected to determine what "Uncertain, cautious, and wary" means in context. A list covering every possible NPC reaction seems like it'd be difficult to use, let alone make! I don't enjoy games that basically say that the DM needs to determine if the rules are followed or ignored, moment-to-moment, based on meta-game considerations. I can see that being very difficult on the DM, how it makes it difficult for players to "just play" (that is, make decisions based on the rules and mechanics of the game), and how it creates "perverse incentives" for the players (playing the DM instead of the game).

2) I'm not sure what your point is here. Does it have to do with rulings and rules?

 

[BryonD]

1) I agree. My game asks the DM to make a lot of judgement calls in explicit places. Like I said, I don't use damage dice, I use the description of the attack to determine how much damage has been done (and then I consult a table because I find HP a useful game element). What puzzles me is when the rules don't explicitly call for the DM to make a judgement call. I was hoping that 5E's skills would not be a codified list - Stealth, Perception, Religion, etc. - but instead simply the PC's background. Does the skill proficiency modifier apply? "The DM determines if the skill proficiency modifier is applied to the check." I think that rule - to explicitly call for a ruling - is a lot more robust.

I prefer games that have clear rules and procedures and, since I don't think it's feasible to cover every situation, use the fact that the game has a DM to good effect. My rules say that at the start of every encounter you make a Reaction Roll. The DM is then expected to determine what "Uncertain, cautious, and wary" means in context. A list covering every possible NPC reaction seems like it'd be difficult to use, let alone make! I don't enjoy games that basically say that the DM needs to determine if the rules are followed or ignored, moment-to-moment, based on meta-game considerations. I can see that being very difficult on the DM, how it makes it difficult for players to "just play" (that is, make decisions based on the rules and mechanics of the game), and how it creates "perverse incentives" for the players (playing the DM instead of the game).

I've fiddled around with 5E so much that I sometimes forget what is in the books and what is my own addition. So I may need so forgiveness here.
But as I recall it, and as I play it, the defaults are just that, defaults. Under the right circumstances, a character may be able to apply proficiency to just about anything, if it makes sense that the character *would be proficient* If you have a character that doesn't have stealth from either class nor background, then this won't come up often. But it can come up.

In short, I thunk I'm going at it differently, but completely agree with the point you are making.

I want as few specific rules as possible, but I also want as many rules as necessary. "Clear rules and procedures" combined with a DM who is working to make the game fun and consistent, allows a lot fewer rules with a lot more rulings to achieve this balance.

2) I'm not sure what your point is here. Does it have to do with rulings and rules?

sorry, it seems I had a bit of inner dialog going and forgot to let anyone else in on it.

I see statements in this thread that see very wary of DM rulings in 5E. To me this is highly reflective of comments sometimes made of 3E, which I obviously have vastly more years experience playing. I think the bottom line is pretty similar. A system that presumes a quality DM as part of the overall experience is free to be a better system because it is not spending part of its resources on propping up the DM. Now, if someone presumes bad DMing, then this logic fails because the bad DM is not propped up. But that doesn't mean the system itself is bad. It may just not be an appropriate system for the group in question.

3E could EASILY suck in a hurry. It just did not have to. I think 5E is in the same ballpark.

 

[Balesir]

That seems like an awful lot of work, just to track your accumulating knowledge about one of the laws of magic. Can you imagine tracking two or three experimental lines, simultaneously?

Not from where I'm sitting. I would not "track" much - just note the similarity when I notice it and poll the players. If one were to get really picky about tracking every nuance, I can see it would be a lot to do - but being picky is apt to make a lot of work tracking stuff in any case.

And even then, you're down to DM fiat on whether or not a task is similar enough. But how would the DM even know if it's similar enough, if the DM doesn't already know the underlying principles well enough to determine that?

You make it up to the player, not the GM. Ask if they are trying to do basically the same as last time. Leave open options for either (a) trying to the point of hopelessness a desperate idea or (b) proving a notion impossible to eliminate the possibility that enemies might use it.

Generally, the minute the GM stops trying to micromanage and control everything, it gets immensely easier all round. For everybody.

Remember, the whole point of having a codified game system (at least from my perspective) is that it simplifies the natural laws of the universe down enough that we can track it all easily. I mean, what's the point of having extremely detailed and nuanced rules for magic, and then put so little work into modeling the physical laws?

I don't try to model physical or magical laws because I don't think it's a useful pursuit. I just stipulate what the rules are and let all involved draw their own conclusions about why the world might be that way. Maybe they'll be right, maybe they'll be wrong but maybe we'll never find out for sure. Just like the real world, really.

 

[Sadras]

1 I was hoping that 5E's skills would not be a codified list - Stealth, Perception, Religion, etc. - but instead simply the PC's background. Does the skill proficiency modifier apply? "The DM determines if the skill proficiency modifier is applied to the check." I think that rule - to explicitly call for a ruling - is a lot more robust.

In the DMG there is a section called Dungeon Master's Workshop and it lists possible Skill System Variants
Ability Check Proficiency - the characters dont have skill proficiencies, instead they have proficiency in two abilities, one tied to class and the other to background. Expertise works differently in that they select an ability to have expertise in.
Background Proficiency - the characters dont have skill or tool proficiencies, instead a character can add his/her proficiency bonus to any ability check to which the character's prior training and experience (reflected in the character's background) reasonably applies. It does caution it requires players to develop their characters' background and its not meant to lead to endless debates at the table.
Personality Trait Proficiency - the characters dont have skill proficiencies, instead they select 4 positivie traits and gain proficiency if the required check relates to those traits (similar in line with the RPG Summerland)

Based on the above, I believe 5e has the rule you are looking for. The system is meant to be more robust and from my perspective it certainly is.
As I said upthread, the only thing I wish they had properly included is skill challenges, but I'm guessing/hoping they might bring it about in a later supplement - given the additional page count they would need to explain it properly. The only thing close to that is in the DMG where they speak of multiple ability checks but very brielfy.

 

[Sadras]

No. I had multiple posts on that thread explaining that, in AD&D, there was no scope for a difference between the defender and melee striker roles because of the completely different rules of that edition for moving in melee.

True, my sincere apologies.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I get the same feeling when I hear about "rulings, not rules". I always understood that to mean that the rules said: DM, now is the time to make a ruling. Instead what I'm getting from all the 5E posts is that the DM can override whatever's written for whatever meta-game considerations they have at the moment. Which seems like a terribly difficult way to DM! Not only do you have to keep all the NPCs in line, but you have to make sure you know how the players are feeling at any given time.

I'm busy with my own game and HP damage is determined by fictional positioning - I have a little table with some keywords and numbers associated with them. So as DM I'm expected to say, "I think that is a "Killing Blow", so it deals 24 damage." Determining where the damage falls on the chart is obviously a judgement call - a ruling. That's what I think of when I hear about rulings: points in the rules where they ask the DM to make a ruling. B/X Reaction Rolls are like that.

When I read the 5E posts, "rulings not rules" seems to mean "the DM should take meta-game considerations into every bit of action resolution". Are the players bored? Then you succeed and the conflict ends. Are the players feeling like this is too easy? Then make it more difficult - add some HP, make an NPC save, overrule a PC ability.

If I were running things that way I'd get burnt out in no time. I made my system so I trust it, and it hasn't let me down so far - well, during this last campaign, at least! I'm not afraid to attack the marrow of the system. (I'm considering going to a die-pool system instead of the bonus die system I have at the moment.)

That's not my understanding of what 5e means by 'rulings, not rules'. It literally means "we aren't going to write precise rules at all. Instead we are going to leave it unclear when different things apply, exactly how you handle common situations, and just exactly what the rules are supposed to mean. We intend this to result in the DM bending the game in whatever direction he cares to." I think this is pretty well backed up by statements made by MM and other 5e designers. When asked questions for instance about the giant muddle of skills/tools/proficiencies and exactly how you accomplish various common tasks their answer was roughly "figure it out, we didn't precisely define how it works, you can do that yourself."

THAT is exactly what many of us are taking issue with in terms of 5e. Such a situation can lead to nothing BUT some form of 'Illusionism', or else the equally disappointing "well, guys, first we have to sit down and write some definite rules for this game we just bought..." In fact our group spent the last 2 weeks reconstructing the skill system so it actually makes sense and everyone can agree on how it works and to get rid of the mysterious 'tool proficiency' weirdness so things don't overlap anymore. Like many other people I generally pay for games so that I get professional game designers to do this stuff for me. Its not 1974 Mike.

 

[Imaro]

That's not my understanding of what 5e means by 'rulings, not rules'. It literally means "we aren't going to write precise rules at all. Instead we are going to leave it unclear when different things apply, exactly how you handle common situations, and just exactly what the rules are supposed to mean. We intend this to result in the DM bending the game in whatever direction he cares to." I think this is pretty well backed up by statements made by MM and other 5e designers. When asked questions for instance about the giant muddle of skills/tools/proficiencies and exactly how you accomplish various common tasks their answer was roughly "figure it out, we didn't precisely define how it works, you can do that yourself."

THAT is exactly what many of us are taking issue with in terms of 5e. Such a situation can lead to nothing BUT some form of 'Illusionism', or else the equally disappointing "well, guys, first we have to sit down and write some definite rules for this game we just bought..." In fact our group spent the last 2 weeks reconstructing the skill system so it actually makes sense and everyone can agree on how it works and to get rid of the mysterious 'tool proficiency' weirdness so things don't overlap anymore. Like many other people I generally pay for games so that I get professional game designers to do this stuff for me. Its not 1974 Mike.

Could you give an example... outside of stealth as to what you are talking about? I'd be especially curious in what "issues" surround the tool proficiencies...