The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[Raven Crowking]

Yep, Hussar. There are bad mechanics in 3e.

That doesn't mean that the philosophy (mechanics should model tripping) is bad. There are other ways you can do it, without requiring trip cards.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Bleah.
... not bothering with trip mechanics at all. 4e's approach as explained by Hussar is better, but still far too mechanical. Why not just let the DM wing it on those infrequent occasions someone actually tries to trip someone (as opposed to just knock 'em flat) during combat?

Lan-"trippy, man"-efan

Well, the 4e answer would be that movement in combat is REALLY important. I know people don't like the minis centric focus of 4e combat, but, it's a basic design decision. AD&D for example, didn't really focus too much on tactical level movement. Yes, there was stuff there, but, it wasn't a huge deal.

4e focuses very strongly on tactical (read combat) level movement. It's not unusual for a character to move every round, and quite possibly several times per round with all the push/pull/slide stuff going on. It's just another way to engage the players during play.

RC - Oh totally. But, when you have mechanics that are based on the premise that these are modeling the physics of the setting, those mechanics are going to dictate to a large extent how this game is going to be played. Whenever you say, mechanically, that X works like this then that is going to have a huge effect on how play goes at the table.

The thing is, I don't think the 3e trip mechanics are actually that bad. They do the job and work pretty well.

But, at the end of the day, whether you model it before play or you simply leave it up to the players to model it in play, the point is, the mechanics still have a very strong effect on how the players interact with the game world.

And, going back to Lanefan's point about leaving it entirely up to the group, IME, what happens is that these things are just ignored. How often did someone try to trip someone in 2e? I don't know about your group, but I can't think of a single instance that it occurred.

Simply free-forming isn't really an answer. Games lacking particular mechanical resolutions tend to produce games where that element is simply ignored. Games which have some guidance as to how to resolve elements tend to direct play towards those things.

At least in my experience. Obviously YMMV and all that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

2e had trip mechanics. They were located in the Complete Fighter's Handbook.

Other than that, no real disagreement. Where the rules choose to focus is going to have a real effect on play. If I can only have three Jump cards, I'm going to have to look for other solutions to that little jump. Of course, I'm never going to make Batroc the Leaper, either.

Mechanics-First systems are not my cup of tea, but I can certainly accept that others enjoy them. OTOH, I like spinach, brussel sprouts, and liver, so there you go.


RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OTOH, I like spinach, brussel sprouts, and liver, so there you go.

Sounds like a tasty meal to me!

 

[pawsplay]

/And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this: How often, as a DM, did you use a trip attack on a PC when the opponent didn't have some sort of tripping power like a wolf? How often did you see a player use the trip mechanics that didn't have Improved Trip?

I'm pretty sure I would give you the "wrong" answer. The lack of Improved Trip doesn't prevent you from tripping. It makes it more circumstantial, but there are plenty of times it's a useful tactic. I've seen it done lots of times. You have a pretty good chance against any given opponent roughly your size; all you have to do is figure out a way to get rid of the AoO. Reach will usually do it. You can also eat one, then use your second iterative attack to make an easy-peasy touch AC. Figure out some way to get cover. Have an ally or a summoned critter draw an AoO. Etc.

 

[Abraxas]

But, let's drill down a bit. In 3e, if I attempt to trip, I draw an AOO, which, if it succeeds, blocks my trip attempt. Then, I make a melee touch attack and if that fails, my trip attack fails. Then I make a trip check, and if that fails, not only does my attack fail, but I could be tripped in return.

Just a minor nit pick - if the AOO hit it doesn't stop the trip attempt. Plus, if you used one of the tripping weapons you didn't provoke an AOO.

What this adds up to is a heavy mechanical leaning towards forcing players to take improved trip before even trying to trip anyone. The mechanics allow you to try it without the feat, but, make it such a bad idea, that no one actually does it.

And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this: How often, as a DM, did you use a trip attack on a PC when the opponent didn't have some sort of tripping power like a wolf? How often did you see a player use the trip mechanics that didn't have Improved Trip?

I must have an unusual group - tripping came up often enough - not unlike the number of times knocking someone prone comes up in the 4E game I play in now.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, the 4e answer would be that movement in combat is REALLY important. I know people don't like the minis centric focus of 4e combat, but, it's a basic design decision.

Doesn't mean I have to like it.

AD&D for example, didn't really focus too much on tactical level movement. Yes, there was stuff there, but, it wasn't a huge deal.

And as with all things 1e, it varies group by group as to how much it gets used if ever. No problem there.

4e focuses very strongly on tactical (read combat) level movement. It's not unusual for a character to move every round, and quite possibly several times per round with all the push/pull/slide stuff going on. It's just another way to engage the players during play.

Truth be told, I don't much mind the movement stuff; though I suspect 4e may have gone a bit overboard with it. It'd be easy enough to rein in, though: some combat situations are intended to be static e.g. a couple of tough guards blocking the hall while the caster blasts away from behind, and I've no problem with that situation being very static at the front line.

RC - Oh totally. But, when you have mechanics that are based on the premise that these are modeling the physics of the setting, those mechanics are going to dictate to a large extent how this game is going to be played. Whenever you say, mechanically, that X works like this then that is going to have a huge effect on how play goes at the table.

...

And, going back to Lanefan's point about leaving it entirely up to the group, IME, what happens is that these things are just ignored. How often did someone try to trip someone in 2e? I don't know about your group, but I can't think of a single instance that it occurred.

Exactly. Which tells me it's probably not an important feature in the narrative of combat, so why bother with mechanics for it?

Also, as per your point in the previous paragraph, the mechanics dictate what's going to happen. With no trip mechanics, tripping an opponent is only going to come up in unusual circumstances; but once mechanics for it get introduced then tripping as a tactic becomes way more frequent - just because of the mechanic's existence. All this accomplishes is to add another layer to the combat rules, an extra headache for something that has already been proven (by play in prior editions) to be unimportant.

Lan-"take a little trip with me"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Where the rules choose to focus is going to have a real effect on play. If I can only have three Jump cards, I'm going to have to look for other solutions to that little jump. Of course, I'm never going to make Batroc the Leaper, either.

I think this is exactly right - including that if the game is meant to make Batroc possible, something will have to be done about the jump card mechanic.

I think eyebeams is right in saying upthread that people will try to do all sorts of things with an RPG that the designer(s) didn't anticipate or didn't intend. So I can imagine some players of "3 jumps only RPG" coming up with clever mechanical workarounds to make Batroc possible. And then posting about them on the internet, looking for more tips. And then getting very annoyed when others tell them to find a system better suited to playing Batroc-oriented hijinks!

To the extent that there are still different views in this discussion, my bottom line remains: (i) 4e is not the best RPG system for running an exploration-heavy game; (ii) this doesn't mean that 4e isn't a good vehicle for roleplaying; and as a corollary (iii) this is because there are viable approaches to roleplaying other than exploration, and (iv) 4e (in my view) tends to support them better than other versions of D&D.

I think that (iii) and (iv) mean that I'm on the anti-Rome side - 4e works best to take me to a roleplaying experience different from that that I get from (for example) AD&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

pemerton, I agree with everything in your post.

Of course, the three jump card rule would also eliminate Olympic Hurdlist Edwin Moses from a non-houseruled game.

And I know Edwin Moses is real; I've met him.


RC

 

[Gryph]

For me the "D&D experience" is best served with any system that is fantasy based, has distinct classes that are really distinct in the way they work not just in the "flavour text".

So for me this would not be 4th edition but would be amongst others systems like:-

AD&D, 2nd ed D&D, 3 and 3.5 ed D&D, Pathfinder, Cosmothea, Castles and crusades.

Well thats the ones i've played and I know there are lots of others.

But 4th edition although it gives an experience in the same genre as D&D, in that it is closer to D&D than say the traveller system perhaps, it does not give a close enough experience to D&D as the others I mention do.

And the reason 4th edition to me does not give a close D&D experiance is the classes are too samey.

This is a pretty good working definition. Though, with feats/multi-classing/prestige class rules I think 3e and its variants no longer have distinct classes that are really distinct in the way they work. Your Mileage has clearly Varied.