The Power System, Combat, and the Rest of the Game

[merelycompetent]

I've participated in several discussions on this topic, and I think I understand a major part of the reason behind why some people have so much trouble with "Vancian" 4e martial powers while they didn't have trouble with 3.xe...

The real problem, at least for many players, is something more subtle. The problem is that it forces characters to know the mechanics. In other words, with 3.5e, players didn't have to know the mechanics of how a trip works in order to trip an opponent. Theoretically, a player wouldn't even have to read that section of the rulebook - he could just say "I try to trip the opponent," and the DM could translate that into the appropriate mechanics (the PC makes a trip attempt.) However, with 4e, that's no longer possible. Suppose the player says "I try to trip the opponent," and he has a power that knocks the target prone. Does the character want to use his encounter power now? Should this be resolved as "the character tried to trip, but couldn't find an opening to trip, so he used an at-will instead?" What if the character has multiple encounter powers that trip - which one should be used? Or does the character want to trip, but doesn't want to use his encounter power right now, so this should be resolved as a stunt?

Similar things occur with other abilities. For example, an ability that says "recharge an encounter power of your choice" implies that characters know about encounter powers and know which ones they have so they can choose one to recharge. An ability that says "one of your allies makes a save against an effect that a save can end" implies that characters can identify effects that saves can end, and distinguish them from effects that saves can't end (like "until end of next turn" effects)...

Wow. Just... wow.

That is so insightful... You've just introduced a very large hammer to use on some the nails I've got for 4E. Uhm. XP for you. I wish I could award more.

In one post you've given me a whole lot to think about. Even with the misunderstanding of Vancian magic, that's... Hrm. I'm too tired to think this through -- too much sand grinding in the gears.

Wow.

 

[Dausuul]

As you read this, please keep in mind that I am thinking out a lot of these ideas as I type them...

A few questions:

1. How does the power system make improvised stunts harder? Powers just give you additional options.

Crucial concept that I learned from designing user interfaces: More options can be, and often is, an actively bad thing.

There are a number of reasons for this, but they all boil down to brain space. When a 4E player's turn comes around, that player looks down at a character sheet full of powers. It takes time and mental effort to evaluate each power and compare it to the rest. By the time the player is done with all that evaluating and comparing, there's not a lot left to say, "Hmm, is there anything clever I could do that isn't on this list?"

This is especially true with players who aren't particularly good at abstract strategy games. For these players, it's a major effort to sort through all the "Well, if I do this, and that, and this happens..." questions. These are often the very same players who, before they get tangled up in the rules, are likely to come up with all kinds of exciting and crazy stunts. They're the guys who want to snag the dragon with a grappling hook as it flies past, climb up its back, and put a knife in its eye.

If you could do stunts in 3e, I don't see why you can't do them in 4e. (Or, to be specific: can you give an example of an "improvised stunt" you could do in 3e but not in 4e? And, e.g., disarming doesn't count, because disarming was an explicit rule in 3e, so not an "improvised stunt.")

Oh, I don't think any edition of D&D has offered much support for stunts. But previous editions - and I'm thinking more of 2E and earlier here - had less clutter getting in the way, at least for martial characters. (One of the things I liked about 4E was that it reined in spellcasters' tendency to override any attempt at cleverness with "Oh, I have a spell that'll take care of that.")

Now, this was not in all ways a good thing. Fighters could be very boring to play when you just made a basic attack over and over. But it did encourage fighter players to look for cool fun stuff to do. Instead of providing them with a zillion variations on the basic attack, I'd like a system that helps them come up with cool fun stuff.

2. Does page 42 give you the tools you need to create clever improvised stunts?

It's certainly useful; but being as it's in the DMG, it does nothing to encourage players toward improvisation. It only helps the DM adjudicate results when they go that way of their own accord. (Which is quite helpful and needed to happen, no doubt about it, but it's not enough by itself.)

I think what I want are mechanics that are only half defined. In other words, I want feats/powers that read like this:

"Arsonist (Heroic-tier feat): You get a +2 bonus to the roll when performing a stunt to set something on fire."

Then leave it up to the player to come up with something useful to set on fire; and let the DM use page 42, and some other pages like it, to translate the player's clever idea into mechanics on the fly.

The main function of a feat like this is to provide a "hook" on the character sheet. When the player is poring over the list of options, s/he will come across the Arsonist feat and think, "Hey, I could set something on fire!" The "improvise a clever idea" option is thus pushed into the forefront of the player's mind, instead of languishing behind a list of rigidly defined abilities.

Does 3e give you the tools you need to create clever improvised stunts?

Nope. As I said, earlier editions of D&D didn't provide active support, they just offered fewer distractions, at least for some characters. 4E actually has a few tools that older editions didn't, but they're too easily lost in the power shuffle, especially at higher levels when characters' power lists are getting ever longer.

Note: I'm not in any way saying there's anything wrong with preferring 3e over 4e, or vice versa. I'm just trying to understand in more detail what the issue is here, so we can possibly come up with ways to solve it.

Heh. You'll note that my above rant was triggered by running a 4E game. My list of beefs with 3E is a mile long, and I certainly wouldn't go back. If I do end up abandoning standard 4E, it will probably be for some weird mutant 4E offspring that I end up hacking together, or a different system entirely.

(Also, I agree with others that your comments regarding in-character knowledge of the game mechanics are very insightful and offer a lot of food for thought. XP!)

 

[Alex319]

Thanks for the compliments and XP! (The funny thing is, I personally have no problem with the PCs knowing game mechanics, manly because I don't mind a little OOTS-style fourth-wall-breaking humor in my games. My post was basically attempting to understand and synthesize what other peopls seem to be saying in these threads.)

Anyway, Dausuul, may I suggest FateRPG.Com: Fate: Fantastic Adventures in Tabletop Entertainment (TM) ?

I think the FATE combat system has several features that fit your goals.

The basic way it works is that every attack is attack skill vs. defense skill with possible situational modifiers, and there's a standard set of "damage" effects based on how high you make the roll by. For example, IIRC, there's "scratched" wihich is -1 next round, then "wounded" which is -1 for the rest of the combat, etc.

The following are all features that make it look like a good ift:

1. It's pretty simple without that many modifiers, so not a lot of mechanics to get in the way.

2. Most of the modifiers are relatively general (like "superior positioning" and "superior weaponry") so lots of opportunity for creativity.

3. Stunts are very easy to use because all you have to do is choose an appropriate attack and defense skill, and (possibly) a different damage effect.

4. There are so-called "aspects" that characters have, which are basically any adjective you can think of, like "bookworm," "intimidating," or even "arsonist." Any time you are in a situation where an aspect could be useful, you can spend a "fate point" to "tag" the aspect in order to get a bonus to your roll. This sounds almost exactly like your idea for "arsonist" type feats.

 

[Dausuul]

Thanks for the compliments and XP! (The funny thing is, I personally have no problem with the PCs knowing game mechanics, manly because I don't mind a little OOTS-style fourth-wall-breaking humor in my games. My post was basically attempting to understand and synthesize what other peopls seem to be saying in these threads.)

Anyway, Dausuul, may I suggest FateRPG.Com: Fate: Fantastic Adventures in Tabletop Entertainment (TM) ?

I think the FATE combat system has several features that fit your goals.

The basic way it works is that every attack is attack skill vs. defense skill with possible situational modifiers, and there's a standard set of "damage" effects based on how high you make the roll by. For example, IIRC, there's "scratched" wihich is -1 next round, then "wounded" which is -1 for the rest of the combat, etc.

The following are all features that make it look like a good ift:

1. It's pretty simple without that many modifiers, so not a lot of mechanics to get in the way.

2. Most of the modifiers are relatively general (like "superior positioning" and "superior weaponry") so lots of opportunity for creativity.

3. Stunts are very easy to use because all you have to do is choose an appropriate attack and defense skill, and (possibly) a different damage effect.

4. There are so-called "aspects" that characters have, which are basically any adjective you can think of, like "bookworm," "intimidating," or even "arsonist." Any time you are in a situation where an aspect could be useful, you can spend a "fate point" to "tag" the aspect in order to get a bonus to your roll. This sounds almost exactly like your idea for "arsonist" type feats.

Man, I need to go to bed... for a second I misread your recommendation as being for FATAL, and I was gonna have to hunt you down and beat you over the head.

I will definitely look into FateRPG. It sounds quite interesting, and one of the groups I play in is currently at a bit of a loose end, so would probably be open to giving it a shot. Thanks!

 

[Mephistopheles]

Thanks for the compliments and XP! (The funny thing is, I personally have no problem with the PCs knowing game mechanics, manly because I don't mind a little OOTS-style fourth-wall-breaking humor in my games. My post was basically attempting to understand and synthesize what other peopls seem to be saying in these threads.)

I think you've done a good job of articulating the disconnect some people feel with the power system. Sometimes I don't mind that style of game, sometimes I do.

 

[Ariosto]

When it comes to verisimilitude, different people notice different things.

The basic combat round structure in 4E make so much so bizarre, that to consider it is such a headache ... that weirdness with the powers system is by comparison at least graspable. I have not seen anyone even try to "rationalize with a narrative" the sequence of events, and for good reason.

If the round represents 6 seconds, and your figure is the 11th to act, then a full minute's worth of activity has passed. ("Oh, but one-minute rounds were sooo unrealistic ... !") Things setting out at the same time, at the same speed, don't meet halfway.

Try to imagine it all happening simultaneously, and you end up with stuff literally "hitting him where he ain't". This is all a lot easier for me to accept in an operational or strategic game, in which the real events being modeled display a sequence of moves and counter-moves.

PAGE 42 displays vividly the philosophy that came to the fore in 3E and thoroughly permeates 4E. It's all about enforcing the abstract mathematics of the design, the Wonderland logic of an amorphously "level appropriate" world. It is utterly useless for assessing phenomena in other terms. A simple statement that "the DM sets a reasonable probability" would be no more directly useful in that regard, but it would at least not get in the way by presenting a "proper and official" way at odds with the enterprise.

The rules for specific skills in the PHB are generally much more helpful, although in the long run one never really gets any better at opening locks or disabling traps.

The combination of the paucity of guidance along the semi-realistic line and the overwhelming mass of not merely non- but anti-realistic rules creates a built-in inertia.

That so many powers are just variations on the same routine is what makes their alleged "coolness" obscure to me. As well, most of the design is to the end of reducing the significance of choices. It comes so close to ensuring that it really does not matter what players do while "along for the ride" that I suspect that would be the designers' ideal -- if only they could figure out how to foist that off as "offering more options".

I've seen the psychological effect in play. Come up with a tactic other than using a power listed on the character sheet, and the DM's first response (in my experience) is to prohibit it. If one can get past that, then the next response is to make sure that it's at least as ineffective as an at-will power. It does not matter how obvious and sensible it is; things that would have been routine in the old (pre-3E) days are actively discouraged.

Heck, a character nowadays can scarcely find his own buttocks without a Perception roll.

 

[AllisterH]

I have to admit, I'm still surprised that so many people interpreted initially page 42 as making 4E a "world constantly levels" world.

My initial assumption was that page 42 being that it was in the DMG, was that it was intended for the DMs to know what would be a level appropriate challenge for the PCs.

I mean, the PHB tells the players what the "high quality lock" means to their character but the DMG needs to know "WHAT shotuld be a good lock for the players".

Together, the PHB and the DMG work in conjunction AND this is how it is intended to work (supported by the designers mentioning "yes that's how it is supposed to work").

When people iniitally sawpage 42 and said that 4E was a "level nebulous" world, I'm honestly wondering how they get that to work in conjunction with the PHB.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think you've done a good job of articulating the disconnect some people feel with the power system. Sometimes I don't mind that style of game, sometimes I do.

Mmmm...I don't have a problem with PC's knowing the rules per se, but I will say this.

#1: It makes it harder for newbies. The easiest thing in the world to say to someone just starting off with D&D is: "Tell me what you want to do, and I'll translate it into mechanics." In that respect, "I trip him," becaomes something you imagine doing and want to do. In 3e, you could know the mechanics or not and it wouldn't matter. In 4e, you HAVE to know the mechanics.

#2: It puts an extra step in between Imagination and Result. You have to translate the effect into mechanics, and then back out of mechanics, to achieve what you imagine. In many ways, this ties what you imagine to what you can possibly have mechanics to accomplish. You don't think out of the box so much because the box is defined for you (as your powers).

Keen insights, I like where this thinking is taking me.

 

[Ariosto]

Where does the PHB mention a "high quality lock"? I see it neither under Thievery in the skills chapter, nor in the Equipment chapter (which offers no locks at all).

 

[Ariosto]

That so many rules are buried in "exception based" powers, and that "niche protection" gives powers value, is another hurdle.

Instead of a general rule for "shield bashes", we get the Tide of Iron power. If someone without the power (or some other of similar effect) tried the tactic, then the DM could reverse-engineer a general rule ... but that would involve the sort of assessment of what the advantage of having the power ought to be that the designers ought to have done. Presumably, they in fact did it -- but chose the obscurity of "exceptions" to rules not stated in the first place.

Small wonder if many players assume that the general rule to which the power is an exception is YOU CAN'T DO THAT.