Tony Vargas
Legend
My others include (in no particular order): Minions, clarity of presentation, Solos, transparency in play, Elites, class balance, Warlords, encounter balance, universality of Second Wind, and remarkable ease of DMing. That includes many of the below, and the ones I don't mention, I still found to be positives.
That said, your 'illusionism' isn't such a terrible play style. Indeed, for some games - like most other versions of D&D, and, I'm rapidly deciding, 5e, is arguably the /best/ way to deliver a positive experience to your players. If you can't depend on the rules to deliver a fair, genre-supporting resolution, breaking out the smoke & mirrors (and DM screen, and conveniently (un)lucky dice), and applying liberal DM fiat may be the best way to save the experience. As long as you don't make it too obvious...
Action Points. Specifically, the way they were implemented in 4e, where an AP gave you an extra action.
The designers were explicit about the maths so that player groups can use it and morph it if they must to create the game they want. Power effects are explicit so that the game does not become an enforced "beauty contest" where, if the GM likes* your idea it will succeed (albeit you might need to make a roll), but if they dislike* your idea it will likely fail ("well, you need an athletics check to catch up to where the giant is, followed by acrobatics to jump on his back and a STR and a DEX check to stay on. Then roll your attack - but you get a -4 modifier because he's thrashing about").
The other "other" is the standard mechanisms that can be adapted to so much. The disease track. The skill challenge mechanisms. Hirelings, companion characters and so on.
I forgot to add characters that play as the desired concept from the beginning rather than waiting 3, 4, 7, 11 levels before becoming the character concept the player envisioned.
I like how I can use refluff the classes and powers as anything and play in any setting with only a few additional rules like ammunition and sanity checks.
Also how every class is viable and play differently from others in their roles with their own uniqueness.
Also, I goddamn love warlords.
I voted Other. Minions were the big innovation that I really liked from 4E. I think the idea was great and really lends itself to creating cinematic, dramatic combat scenarios. I'm not a 4E fan, but the Minions rules are inspiring.
I liked the cosmology, especially the fey and shadow planes, or whatever they were called. I liked the "bloodied" status. I liked the alignments. I liked minions and solos.
The "best thing" here is the support the game gives for the full spectrum of D&D play, from saving villagers from goblins at low levels, to taking the fight to the gods and the Abyss at epic levels.
I've used more artefacts in 4e than in any other D&D-style game I've run - the Rod of Seven Parts, Whelm/Overwhelm, the Eye of Vecna, the Crystal of the Ebon Flame, the Sword of Kas. The clear maths and power system of the game has made these artefacts usable in play rather than the game-breakers of yore. And many items - not just these ones, but the Corellon-worshipper's power jewel ("Jewel of Corellon"), the tieflling paladin's khopesh of bonus damage vs bloodied enemies, and others - have been core elements in PCs' identities, which for me is the classic role of magic items in D&D.
While I know you're trying to spin it as bad and exaggerating for effect, you're not far off the mark. The 4e treadmill was slightly slower for PCs than for monsters, so at very high level you were 2 or 3 behind in raw attacks & defenses (and were probably even farther behind on your worst defense). OTOH, you had more & more potent dailies (which had effect lines or did something on a miss), more healing (including non-surge healing), leader classes who could hand out bonuses larger than that 2 or 3 point gap, critical hits that did huge damage, and magic item dailies and a half dozen utilities each that might help in various odd ways now and then.There is an actual mathematical problem in 4e, especially when you also factor in that higher level groups tend to face a higher range of opponents.
Part of that problem is that PCs fall somewhat behind, at higher levels, without extensive effort.This is particularly noteworthy in parties that don't focus on certain sets of powers that alter defenses or attacks.
Part of that problem is also that powers which add/subtract 5 or Stat to a d20 roll (let's say, attack here) completely throw the math off. And then, worse, also invariably stack. Cause maybe the system can withstand one +-5, sure, but +-15 or more? d20 only has so many sides. Worse, the folks who know about this most certainly took expertise, so hitting "all the time" becomes a standard event.
So, a typical low epic godhunt might start with "I need 20s to hit" and two characters later go "Well, with his +9 to hit for a round, and her -9 to defenses for a round, I now hit on 2s. Guess we better go through all 1200 hp in one round, guys."
Ironically, Bounded Accuracy is just the 4e Treadmill with much smaller numbers. The Pendulum didn't swing, it held up a mirror and blew some smoke.There's a reason why the pendulum swung so sharply towards Bounded Accuracy in 5E.
It's uncomfortable to acknowledge, but, yes, you're likely onto something there. Your 'illusionism' is probably only one example of a questionable playstyle that 4e's in-play transparency made too obvious to easily get away with.Transparency again. I'm going to piggy-back on this. Transparency is kryptonite for my most disliked GMing technique; illusionism (by way of GM force). The abridgement or suspension of the formula of GM framed situation + player action declaration + the action resolution mechanics as the primary driver of play is never good. ... It comes in multiple shapes and sizes, but illusionism's best friend is unclear/incoherent/hand-wavey rules, vague GMing principles/guidance, and a stout invocation that the GM is always right/can do what they want for the sake of story/"its the GM's game"; see White Wolf's "Golden Rule" and D&D's historical "Rule 0".
4e's transparency kicked that approach in its teeth and took its lunch money. Though it would never be readily admitted, I have absolutely no doubt that much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands was had in the edition wars because many GMs had their precious illusionism taken from their toolbox.
That said, your 'illusionism' isn't such a terrible play style. Indeed, for some games - like most other versions of D&D, and, I'm rapidly deciding, 5e, is arguably the /best/ way to deliver a positive experience to your players. If you can't depend on the rules to deliver a fair, genre-supporting resolution, breaking out the smoke & mirrors (and DM screen, and conveniently (un)lucky dice), and applying liberal DM fiat may be the best way to save the experience. As long as you don't make it too obvious...
Last edited: