D&D 4E Where the break between pro and anti 4e is

[Delta]

[6]Healing Surges and the loss of Vancian magic takes away resource management aspect of the game, and may make characters invincible. (Unless of course you fight in several encounters in a row. Instead of calling it the end of the 15 minute workday, they should have called it the end of the 4 easy challenges and 1 difficult challenge workday.)
[7]Using healing surges to recover from wounds may be a good way to simulate an action hero shrugging off broken ribs or deep cuts, but I want a serious wound to cripple or kill my characters.

I'll praise the discussions around 4E "Healing Surges" this way -- it's made me reflect more deeply on what I want for rates of healing in my D&D games. And what I've decided is that I want much less healing -- even 3E has too much, and I didn't realize that until now (I guess it was right on the tipping point).

In early D&D clerics had no healing whatsoever at 1st level. Thereafter, with preparation necessary, they would have maybe 1 or 2 bursts per day (and none on the 2nd, 3rd level lists), so it felt kind of special. In 3E with spontaneous healing and opening up cure wands, a cleric could very likely do nothing but heal every round of every encounter.

I actually want my PCs spending a week healing up, so it now occurs to me that 3E has too much healing for that. Even if it makes little in-game difference to say "you break for a week and heal" vs. "a day" or "6 hours", it makes a big difference in how much stuff occurs in the larger campaign world at the same time.

I now think that the converse of the so-called "15 minute day" problem is something like a "20-level week" problem, where the adventurers plunder every encounter and become superheroes in the same time it takes a prince somewhere to travel to town and have a single audience. It's been the "Healing Surges" discussion that made me realize that I want to go in entirely the opposite direction from the 3E point (back towards 1E & OD&D).

 

[The Little Raven]

I have.

I've seen players forget to flank, move in weird directions, move through threatened areas although it was easy to not do so, etc.

The more tactical rules there are, the more there is to remember and the more there is to forget.

Which is why they're taking things out of the core tactical system and applying them to particular classes (like trip, disarm, etc.). Less things for EVERYONE to have to remember, while each class has a few extra things to remember for their particular shtick.

From the sound of it, the players you're talking about have trouble learning/remembering the basic rules of the game since they have trouble with the most basic element (movement). If someone can't remember the basics, is it so surprising that small complexities escape them? I mean, it sounds to me like these same people would have trouble with chess (all kinds of fiddly rules) or poker (so many hands to remember), so it sounds more like a personal problem than a flaw in the game's design.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

As I stated, I was completely ignorant of this trope. Just so you know, to an outsider it come's off as potentially racist. I am sorry if I came off as a jerk Kobu, but I tend to be a little overzealous on the human rights issues.

 

[variant]

[2]Dragonborn & Tieflings are not traditional races, and are too monstrous to integrate with other races believably.

This is basically the deal breaker for me, or the last straw, I should say.

 

[KarinsDad]

Which is why they're taking things out of the core tactical system and applying them to particular classes (like trip, disarm, etc.). Less things for EVERYONE to have to remember, while each class has a few extra things to remember for their particular shtick.

Which creates new problems of its own:

Player 1: "WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CANNOT EVEN TRY TO TRIP A HALFLING???"

From the sound of it, the players you're talking about have trouble learning/remembering the basic rules of the game since they have trouble with the most basic element (movement). If someone can't remember the basics, is it so surprising that small complexities escape them? I mean, it sounds to me like these same people would have trouble with chess (all kinds of fiddly rules) or poker (so many hands to remember), so it sounds more like a personal problem than a flaw in the game's design.

Well, that's fairly superior and arrogant sounding of you.

It could just be that they are intelligent people who are more into immersion than into tactical mechanics. Roleplaying instead of rules.

 

[Campbell]

And what "classic" game-play paradigm would that be? Because the most classic, kill dudes and steal their stuff, is still strong and kickin'.

'Kill dudes and steal their stuff' isn't really that strong of a defining trait for a role playing game. A large number of RPGs which are not D&D also emphasize combat and looting. Even those games that don't emphasize pillaging tend to have a good deal of murderizing.

As far as classic game play goes I see some elements of 4e that are tacit rejection of classic tropes. While D&D has always been driven mostly by game play elements, D&D game play as conceived by Arneson and Gygax focused on a structure that was reminiscent of extended war game campaigns where attrition, logistics, and preparation played a much larger role than they do in 4e. Classic play also focused more on adventuring and world building than the current paradigm does. World fidelity was considered a crucial element of play. There wasn't very much attention paid to the creation of a satisfying narrative or action oriented play. Some critical components of classic play include:

• Adventurers lived in a dangerous world where life was cheap.
• It was often assumed that PCs would have a litany of henchman and many players ran multiple PCs.
• Direct combat was rarely seen as a positive occurrence. You were expected to find ways to deal with creatures without putting your life on the line.
• PCs started out as normal folk and grew into something greater. They were still not special (no protagonism).
• Keeping track of things like arrows, spell components, and rations was considered a critical element of play.
• PCs were often out only to serve their own ends. Heroism was not assumed.
• Preparation and strategy were more important than combat tactics.
• Attrition of resources was a critical element of play.

4e basically embraces a more action adventure oriented approach that assumes a certain degree of PC protagonism. It also places the importance of the creation of a satisfactory narrative above world building and modeling. Additionally there is further emphasis being placed on each individual encounter serving as challenge (tactics over strategy). It continues a process that started with AD&D 2e material and continued with 3e. The difference this time is that Wizards has basically abandoned the incremental approach. They are creating an edition that matches their vision of the way D&D should be played without looking back and taking half measures. They did not construct a list of sacred cows this time around. That is a huge difference.

 

[The Little Raven]

Which creates new problems of its own:

Player 1: "WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CANNOT EVEN TRY TO TRIP A HALFLING???"

Are you sure Player 1 would even remember he can trip, since he can't remember how to move properly?

And your complaint is inconsistent. First you complain about "too much tactical fiddliness" saying your players never remember it (or even the basic movement rules), then complain if it gets moved into particular roles because it removes their base tactical options. You can't have it both ways.

It could just be that they are intelligent people who are more into immersion than into tactical mechanics. Roleplaying instead of rules.

I'm way more into immersion than tactics, personally, but I can remember how movement works after moving for the 100th time. Unless I'm some kind of genius, which I doubt, I don't think it's that hard to remember these things. It's one thing to say "My players have trouble remembering all the fiddly bits of abilities and spells" and entirely another say "My players can't seem to remember the most basic elements of the rules, like proper movement."

Call it arrogant, if you like, but your example paints those example players as people who can't really remember much if you talk about them continuously forgetting basic rules (like move more than 5 feet through threatened space and you get ganked). That's like a chess player constantly forgetting that his knights can only move in L shapes or his bishops can only move diagonally.

 

[FadedC]

I have.

I've seen players forget to flank, move in weird directions, move through threatened areas although it was easy to not do so, etc.

The more tactical rules there are, the more there is to remember and the more there is to forget.

Well this is certainly true, and I certainly see even the best players do stupid things on occasion. But I'm not sure we should necesarily remove flanking, threatened squares and role defining activated class abilities from the game just because people occasionaly forget them.

 

[KarinsDad]

I actually want my PCs spending a week healing up, so it now occurs to me that 3E has too much healing for that. Even if it makes little in-game difference to say "you break for a week and heal" vs. "a day" or "6 hours", it makes a big difference in how much stuff occurs in the larger campaign world at the same time.

I now think that the converse of the so-called "15 minute day" problem is something like a "20-level week" problem, where the adventurers plunder every encounter and become superheroes in the same time it takes a prince somewhere to travel to town and have a single audience. It's been the "Healing Surges" discussion that made me realize that I want to go in entirely the opposite direction from the 3E point (back towards 1E & OD&D).

I think you have hit on something that was in the back of my mind as well.

Unfortunately, my players will not see it that way. Several have already stated that they want to try 4E without any house rules.

So, I will need to compromise with them. Taking Surges away completely would result in a major revolt.

One idea is to use the 4E rules, but to add some type of "wound points" or something.

For example, every attack does 10% (round up) real damage and real damage can only be healed via lengthy bed rest (or possibly rare rituals).

So, this adds a little bookkeeping where players keep track of two sets of hit points. But, it should not be that bad to handle:

Real Total: 50
Subdual Total: 50

take 5 points of damage:

Real Total: 49
Subdual Total: 45

take 11 points of damage:

Real Total: 47
Subdual Total: 34

etc.

Surges bring the Subdual Total up, but not above the Real Total. Although the PCs can fight a long time this way, there are limits. Eventually, they will need to go rest and rest for quite a while.

Not much different than Body and Stun in Champions. In fact, I'll probably call them that.

 

[KarinsDad]

Are you sure Player 1 would even remember he can trip, since he can't remember how to move properly?

Arrogant and sarcastic.