D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[Hussar]

It's really not... unless everything is "subjective" since the DM is the one setting the DC's in the first place. n fact your definition of "subjective" means I would have to run an entire game without deciding a single DC since otherwise it would be subjective... do you see how absurd that is?

The number doesn't change (and thus the DC doesn't change) but your ability or inability to make a roll to achieve said DC can... it isn't that hard of a concept to grasp so I'll try one more example but beyond that I don't have enough invested in trying to get you to understand to keep going with this conversation...especially since, as you haven't addressed when you've been mistaken or wrong in our previous exchanges in this thread, I don't think this will be any different.

cliff face X is a Very Hard climb... the DC is 25. However your character has been dumped at its base with arms and legs bound and no equipment...

You state..."My character climbs the cliff face."

As DM I rule a roll to climb the cliff face is inappropriate and impossible for your character. Did the DC change...nope it's still a DC 25/Very Hard cliff face in the game world and barring some drastic change in the fiction it will always be an objective DC 25 cliff face. However, I've ruled your character cant make the roll to achieve it because his legs and arms are bound (apparently in your game irregardless of the fiction, method or whatever if you can roll a 25 you should be able to climb the cliff face.... I gues the bound character does it Fonzie style ) that's not how I run my game. The cliff face has an objective DC but your character is not guaranteed a chance to achieve said DC. They are 2 different axis

No, instead I rule that the PC has disadvantage (at least) for trying to climb with bound hands, and possibly smack in a -5 just for kicks. Ends up probably being impossible, but, then again, maybe not. Even with simple disadvantage, a DC 25 is more or less impossible, so, end of story.

I just don't pretend that it's somehow "objective" for me to rule that way.

Nor do I keep finding corner case examples in order to try to "prove" my point. My point always was, character tries to run up the wall parkour style. You've ruled that doing so requires proficiency in acrobatics, and regardless of the character's actual score when making an unskilled attempt (possibly assisted with any number of options) it is impossible for the character to do that. Instead of actually addressing my point, you've gone off and talked about bound captives, breakdancing and various other non sequiturs.

Again, your repeated claims to the contrary, the whole misunderstanding at the beginning was because you insisted on ignoring the point I was trying to make. And, all you've done since then is ignore the point I was trying to make in order to build all sorts of straw men. It's tiring and boring now. I'm done.

 

[Imaro]

No, instead I rule that the PC has disadvantage (at least) for trying to climb with bound hands, and possibly smack in a -5 just for kicks. Ends up probably being impossible, but, then again, maybe not. Even with simple disadvantage, a DC 25 is more or less impossible, so, end of story.

I just don't pretend that it's somehow "objective" for me to rule that way.

Nor do I keep finding corner case examples in order to try to "prove" my point. My point always was, character tries to run up the wall parkour style. You've ruled that doing so requires proficiency in acrobatics, and regardless of the character's actual score when making an unskilled attempt (possibly assisted with any number of options) it is impossible for the character to do that. Instead of actually addressing my point, you've gone off and talked about bound captives, breakdancing and various other non sequiturs.

Again, your repeated claims to the contrary, the whole misunderstanding at the beginning was because you insisted on ignoring the point I was trying to make. And, all you've done since then is ignore the point I was trying to make in order to build all sorts of straw men. It's tiring and boring now. I'm done.

Well actually the first thing you did was rule that the PC has a chance to attempt the action (if he/she didn't well then no DC would be set would it??)... then all the stuff you're talking about takes place, including setting the DC...


Anyway I guess we've reached the land of...agree to disagree... cool.

EDIT: I'm sorry I have to ask this... so according to what you are stating above... assigning modifiers to a task due to outside factors affecting a particular characters chances... is now considered setting a non-objective DC... even though it's still the same number?? What?? I can't... yeah we just are not viewing this from the same place.

 

[pemerton]

The beauty is as long as the book states that the DM determines if a roll is appropriate or not before determining a DC... you can run your game in the world of Happy Days and I can run my game in a world where some kind of tool is necessary to pick locks and neither of us is having badwrongfun.

I'm just lost as to how this is any different in 5e from 4e. Here is some text from p 178 of the 4e PHB:

The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstances call for one.​

That said, I don't think that either 4e or 5e is very well-suited to running a game set in the world of Happy Days. The game elements speak of both speak to an entirely different genre of fiction.

The example you brought up was foreign to me, and, quite honestly, needlessly busy, and much more complicated than it needed to be

So I went back to my example. There's a para of scene-setting info and two paras about fallout. Here's the actual resolution:

The fighter-cleric had succeeded at Dungeoneering (the closest in 4e to an engineering skill) and Diplomacy (to keep his dwarven artificers at the forge as the temperature and magical energies rise to unprecedented heights). The wizard had succeeded at Arcana (to keep the magical forces in check). But the fighter-cleric failed his Religion check - he was praying to Moradin to help with the process, but it wasn't enough. So he shoved his hands into the forge and held down the hammer with brute strength! (Successful Endurance against a Hard DC.) His hands were burned and scarred, but the dwarven smiths were finally able to grab the hammer head with their tongs, and then beat and pull it into its new shape.​

So you're saying that the idea of making a check to work a magical forge and to keep the artificers going; of a check to keep magical forces in check; of a check for prayer (which failed); and then a check to hold the artefact in place in the forge; is "needlessly busy"? And "more complicated than it needed to be"?

How do non-combat things like this work out in your game?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Manbearcat]

Hmmm... @Garthanos seemed to imply that the numbers to reach a paragon level of DC's wouldn't be all that hard for a heroic 4e character to reach...

Paragon DC's...
Level 11 Easy(13)/Moderate(19)/Hard(27)
Level 20 18 25 34

Let's take a 4th level character with just the basics (No theme/background/feats/etc.)... 20 Ability (+5), 1/2 level (+2), Trained (+5)...

So to accomplish an early paragon easy task they have to roll a 1 or higher, moderate 7 or higher and hard task they need to roll... 15 or higher, not exactly beyond their ability to achieve at all.

Far end of paragon roll a 6 for easy, a 13 for moderate and they can't accomplish a hard task (though with magic and/or feats, utility powers, themes, backgrounds, etc it's probably doable... again no real hard barier mechanically.

1) The conversation is about “the dearth of conceptual non-combatant space between Heroic Fighters (those who fight Red Dragon Wyrmlings) and Epic Fighters (those who fight Ancient Red Wyrms).”

If you want to talk about the bleed between adjacent tiers, we can have a conversation about that. I have a lot to say about that, but that is a different conversation.

Can we continue this one for now?

Ok... so DM force/choice/fiat/whatever doesn' allow the PC's to choose to interact with obstacles, threats, etc. that are higher then their tier...

It seems to me that the main element in either edition preventing the lower mythic character from doing the same feats as the higher mythic character is the DM not actual mechanics

A few things here:

Force is “when a GM subordinates a players thematic/tactical/strategic choices to that GM’s own whim/will by manipulating play outcomes (through various techniques).

Fiat (as it pertains to TTRPGs) - A GM decree where system is absent/silent or a mode of GMing where system specifically requires a GM to mediate the evolution of the gamestate (both on screen action resolution and off-screen machinery), but does not provide constraining structure.

Neither of those things remotely apply to 4e non-combatant conflict resolution.

The system is not remotely silent on procedures and techniques, and the GM-side structure and constraint was one of the primary points of contention with the edition (and one of the primary pillars of the “boardgamey epithet”).

 

[Manbearcat]

One thing on “Freeform RPGing”:

In the games that I know of that are called Freeform games, there is an implicit “Structured” descriptor at the beginning of that.

“Structured Freeform”

My guess is to some of you that seems like an oxymoron.

It’s not.

The idea is that play conversation is mediated through system in particular ways, similar to how an artist may be given a few constraints (“oil on canvass”, “theme x”, “ hour”), in order to focus creativity. The playspace is contracted in a focused way and at the few, but important, parts where dispute may arise around “what happens”, the system has an answer to resolve it.

Conversation is focused around very specific ethos and procedures and, to ensure minimal intrusiveness in terms of dispute handling, “all-participant-facing” resolution methods (which are low overhead and quick in terms of handling time) are deployed.

The structure of play becomes a natural rhythm as a result. Simultaneously, the possible fictional results of an instantiation of any given situation expands.

 

[Imaro]

1) The conversation is about “the dearth of conceptual non-combatant space between Heroic Fighters (those who fight Red Dragon Wyrmlings) and Epic Fighters (those who fight Ancient Red Wyrms).”

If you want to talk about the bleed between adjacent tiers, we can have a conversation about that. I have a lot to say about that, but that is a different conversation.

Can we continue this one for now?

Sure I'll stick to epic tier. Let's look at the DC for a low epic character

Easy: 19 Mod: 26 Hard: 35

That same 4th level character can achieve the easy difficulty with a roll of 7, a roll of 14 for moderate and could probably hit hard with the help of magic...


Top Epic

Easy: 24 Mod: 32 Hard: 42

That same 4th level character can achieve the easy difficulty with a roll of 12, a roll of 20 for moderate (probably easier when everything available to a 4e character is factored in) and could possibly hit hard with the help of magic (Not certain about this but then this is the same effect the DC 30 in 5e creates)...

I think my general point still stands... these are supposed to be the feats of near gods and a 4th level character can accomplish them if given the chance to roll.

A few things here:

Force is “when a GM subordinates a players thematic/tactical/strategic choices to that GM’s own whim/will by manipulating play outcomes (through various techniques).

Fiat (as it pertains to TTRPGs) - A GM decree where system is absent/silent or a mode of GMing where system specifically requires a GM to mediate the evolution of the gamestate (both on screen action resolution and off-screen machinery), but does not provide constraining structure.

Neither of those things remotely apply to 4e non-combatant conflict resolution.

The system is not remotely silent on procedures and techniques, and the GM-side structure and constraint was one of the primary points of contention with the edition (and one of the primary pillars of the “boardgamey epithet”).

Ok I apologize for my poor choice of words but let me make my point clear... there is no hard separation mathematically between the tasks a heroic tier character could achieve in the game and what an epic character could achieve ( except possibly at the most extreme end, and I believe even that is attainable if everything available to a 4e character is factored in).

My larger point is that I understand 4e tied certain fiction description, tropes, etc. to certain DC's... but it is only through the hand of the DM gating DC's that said fictional differences are mathematically maintained. This can be accomplished in 5e (or not if one chooses to disregard the possibility of gating DC checks) as well (and I gave examples of how earlier). The main difference I see in the two editions is that 4e has more tightly bound it's game to a specific genre with specific tropes but gives more robust advice and direction around gating (thus the claims of it feeling more restrictive and narrow)... while 5e leaves it pretty much open giving one the tools and a minimum of advice around genres and leaving it up to the individual DM to decide how said tools can be used to create said genre (thus the claims of it not being precise enough or too open in it's resolution for some).

EDIT: Just thought about it the other big difference is that 4e has DC's that are subjective (what a Hard DC is numerically changes depending on level) while 5e has objective DC's (what a hard DC is, 20 stays the same number no matter what level...though the actual check to make the DC's in both games are still subject to DM determination on appropriateness, DM set modifiers, DM set adv/disadv, and so on.

 

[Imaro]

I'm just lost as to how this is any different in 5e from 4e. Here is some text from p 178 of the 4e PHB:

The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstances call for one.​

That said, I don't think that either 4e or 5e is very well-suited to running a game set in the world of Happy Days. The game elements speak of both speak to an entirely different genre of fiction.

I think @Manbearcat is answering this question in our discussion and my reply to him goes more into it but in general 4e more tightly ties specific genre, specific tropes, mood, etc. through it's play procedures, mechanics and scaling DC's. While 5e doesn't (see @Hussar and his Happy Days game examples)

 

[pemerton]

This would be considered a purely non-game element taken care of in downtime ("I want to increase the power of Whelm"). Primarily because it is only 1) about increasing a single character's power, and 2) involves only a single character.

Given time constraints, we limit game activities to group activities that involve exploration, social interaction, and combat, and solo activities ("I want to increase the power of Whelm," "I want to research a new spell," "I want to build the following fortifications in my keep") are dealt with by non-game communication.

So you weren't commenting on the approach to resolution at all? Which is what I was trying to talk about, given the topic of the thread..

 

[Campbell]

This would be considered a purely non-game element taken care of in downtime ("I want to increase the power of Whelm"). Primarily because it is only 1) about increasing a single character's power, and 2) involves only a single character.

Given time constraints, we limit game activities to group activities that involve exploration, social interaction, and combat, and solo activities ("I want to increase the power of Whelm," "I want to research a new spell," "I want to build the following fortifications in my keep") are dealt with by non-game communication.

As I wrote- if this works for you, awesome sauce. But it would be needlessly busy for my group, where I depend on my players to handle solo world-building that I can mostly just sign off on. In 99% of the circumstances, I neither need to police nor roll for what they are doing.

As a player this is almost the exact opposite of what I am looking for in a role playing game. I want character defining moments like this to be on screen and salient to the entire group. I take a strong interest in the characters other players play. I want to know their struggles and triumphs. If someone is playing a Paladin who worships Kord I want that to be salient to what happens on screen. I want differences between characters to be meaningfully affect their interactions.

From where I stand there can be no story without protagonists. In order for player characters to be protagonists we need to know what is important to them. We cannot have that without specificity of fiction and them being meaningfully grounded in the lore.