D&D 4E Who's still playing 4E

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, but SCs are distinct in having players make all the action declarations.

Well, the SC has the pattern: DM sets scene, player declares action, DM narrates effect and new scene, player declares action ... The 'effect and new scene' can quite easily be effectively a DM action declaration "the bad guy responds with X" and the next player's response could quite easily be purely reactive too, though SC examples rarely describe this sort of scenario. I agree that the presentation of SC has largely been such that the players are considered to be the initiators of action, almost to the point where many tables seemed to believe the intent was a fixed situation that the players just tallied success and failure against without anything changing at all!

So one could say that 4e presented the rules like it was all player action declarations, but it isn't really so much so in RULES terms.

 

[pemerton]

Well, the SC has the pattern: DM sets scene, player declares action, DM narrates effect and new scene, player declares action ... The 'effect and new scene' can quite easily be effectively a DM action declaration "the bad guy responds with X"

By "no action declartions" I was meaning that the GM doesn't engage the mechanics - s/he just says what is happening, and the burden shifts to the players.

It's not quite the same as "players roll all the dice", because in that sort of system the GM still makes a decision for the monster (eg declares an attack) - the "defence" roll in that sort of system is just like the traditional saving throw.

It's more like DungeonWorld, except I think even more free-form: the only constraint on what the GM describes as happening is the group's shared sense of acceptable fiction relative to genre, the current situation etc. So in the wild mine cart ride scenario )that I think I've seen you use a few times as an example), the GM is free to just state that "a rail has come loose in front of you" or "another car is careening towards you, out of its siding onto your track" or "sparks from the brakes look like they might set fire to your [widget]" or whatever else makes sense and will keep the pressure on. Contrast to combat resolution, where - unless it's a fudge-for-all - the GM can't just say "the giant's club is on a collision course for your head - what do you do?"

Other closed scene resolution systems that I'm familiar with tend to be more like D&D combat. BW is - and is mostly opposed checks; MHRP is always opposed checks, either against the Doom Pool or another character, and to introduce new adversity into the situation the GM has to spend resources to create a new scene distinction or scene complication, or to introduce a new NPC; HeroWars/Quest is always opposed checks, with the GM rolling with a bonus determined either by the opposing character or by an analogue of the DC-by-level chart (with pacing considerations as well as level factoring in: the more successes in a row the PCs have experienced, the bigger the GM's bonus on the chart).

One upside of the skill challenge approach, compared to these other approaches, is because there are no opposed rolls in a SC you can't fall into the lazy fun of "dice bingo": we can't just both roll and see whose number is bigger. Ideally, this means the GM has to put effort into describing the fiction, and the player has to explain how his/her PC is engaging that fictional situation in order to frame the check. (The ugly shadow cast by this is that if the GM turns the SC into bingo - "Who can make a skill check to beat DC X?" - then it is the most boring "bingo" ever, because you're not rolling against anyone else, just a static target number.)

One downside of the SC approach is that, by default, it can't handled PvP. The DMG2 had a clever example of how to adapt the system to a type of PvP, where the PCs are on different sides of a debate, and the first to get to N successes wins for their team. But that is still not direct PvP (eg an argument between PCs). I don't think the SC structure can handle that.

 

[The Fighter-Cricket]

I'm curious if your group has had much attrition over those 15 sessions? And were they already a group in some other sense before trying a TTRPG?

Yes, they were a group of friends before. I got to know them a year before they talked about "this one game where you play heroes and it's like a boardgame but bigger and you fight orcs". I suggested myself for DM and off we went. This was about one and a half years ago.

About attrition: Do you mean if the composition of the group changed much over time? Or do you mean something else? (Sorry, I'm not a native speaker and get confused at times.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

By "no action declartions" I was meaning that the GM doesn't engage the mechanics - s/he just says what is happening, and the burden shifts to the players.

It's not quite the same as "players roll all the dice", because in that sort of system the GM still makes a decision for the monster (eg declares an attack) - the "defence" roll in that sort of system is just like the traditional saving throw.

It's more like DungeonWorld, except I think even more free-form: the only constraint on what the GM describes as happening is the group's shared sense of acceptable fiction relative to genre, the current situation etc. So in the wild mine cart ride scenario )that I think I've seen you use a few times as an example), the GM is free to just state that "a rail has come loose in front of you" or "another car is careening towards you, out of its siding onto your track" or "sparks from the brakes look like they might set fire to your [widget]" or whatever else makes sense and will keep the pressure on. Contrast to combat resolution, where - unless it's a fudge-for-all - the GM can't just say "the giant's club is on a collision course for your head - what do you do?"

Other closed scene resolution systems that I'm familiar with tend to be more like D&D combat. BW is - and is mostly opposed checks; MHRP is always opposed checks, either against the Doom Pool or another character, and to introduce new adversity into the situation the GM has to spend resources to create a new scene distinction or scene complication, or to introduce a new NPC; HeroWars/Quest is always opposed checks, with the GM rolling with a bonus determined either by the opposing character or by an analogue of the DC-by-level chart (with pacing considerations as well as level factoring in: the more successes in a row the PCs have experienced, the bigger the GM's bonus on the chart).

One upside of the skill challenge approach, compared to these other approaches, is because there are no opposed rolls in a SC you can't fall into the lazy fun of "dice bingo": we can't just both roll and see whose number is bigger. Ideally, this means the GM has to put effort into describing the fiction, and the player has to explain how his/her PC is engaging that fictional situation in order to frame the check. (The ugly shadow cast by this is that if the GM turns the SC into bingo - "Who can make a skill check to beat DC X?" - then it is the most boring "bingo" ever, because you're not rolling against anyone else, just a static target number.)

One downside of the SC approach is that, by default, it can't handled PvP. The DMG2 had a clever example of how to adapt the system to a type of PvP, where the PCs are on different sides of a debate, and the first to get to N successes wins for their team. But that is still not direct PvP (eg an argument between PCs). I don't think the SC structure can handle that.

Well, yes, that's true, the DM in an SC is not really constrained by any sort of resource or specific rule that governs the potential contents of the SC fiction. He DOES have a constraint in that he's got only so many chances to present the plot of the SC and its various twists, since the players will exhaust either the failure or success count.

I think one of the more practical flaws with the SC system is the variability in the number of checks, and thus player actions, that get to be made. Its quite possible a DM can get into a bind when Character A attempts some fairly modest initial action and fails, then Character B does the same. Now where does that leave us? In some cases this may not be an issue, but in others it may be that the GM is now in an awkward position where he doesn't know if the next check will suddenly end the SC or be merely one of many more. So how much does he advance the fiction? He could risk losing a chance to present some vital part of the story, or he could, depending on a die roll, end up with some awkward pacing where he has to slow things down greatly.

Obsidian created a fixed number of checks, but it wasn't built around addressing this, it just turned all SCs into chase scenes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

He could risk losing a chance to present some vital part of the story,

I guess that's the queue for 'fail forward.' Or just not giving something vital a chance of failure in the first place.

or he could, depending on a die roll, end up with some awkward pacing where he has to slow things down greatly.

Or speed things up, depending on what the SC was about. How you'd narrate it really depends on the SC, early failures could leave the scene in a skin-of-their-teeth mode the rest of the way.

About attrition: Do you mean if the composition of the group changed much over time? (Sorry, I'm not a native speaker and get confused at times.)

Yes. Has anyone left since they started playing D&D, or is it still the same circle of friends?

 

[The Fighter-Cricket]

Yes. Has anyone left since they started playing D&D, or is it still the same circle of friends?

We had at first six players (plus DM) and after two sessions one left. Since then everybody else kept playing.

 

[Manbearcat]

By "no action declartions" I was meaning that the GM doesn't engage the mechanics - s/he just says what is happening, and the burden shifts to the players.

It's not quite the same as "players roll all the dice", because in that sort of system the GM still makes a decision for the monster (eg declares an attack) - the "defence" roll in that sort of system is just like the traditional saving throw.

It's more like DungeonWorld, except I think even more free-form: the only constraint on what the GM describes as happening is the group's shared sense of acceptable fiction relative to genre, the current situation etc. So in the wild mine cart ride scenario )that I think I've seen you use a few times as an example), the GM is free to just state that "a rail has come loose in front of you" or "another car is careening towards you, out of its siding onto your track" or "sparks from the brakes look like they might set fire to your [widget]" or whatever else makes sense and will keep the pressure on. Contrast to combat resolution, where - unless it's a fudge-for-all - the GM can't just say "the giant's club is on a collision course for your head - what do you do?"

Its even more clear how related 4e SC procedures and principles are with Dungeon World when you take a look at Strike! The basic resolution mechanics (non-combat and the non-tactical combat engine) is just the PBtA-izing of 4e (more or less). Players roll d6 (whether you have the skill or not) with 5 results (rather than PBtA 3); Success with a bonus, Success, Success with a Cost, Twist, Twist with a Cost.

Play snowballs from that. Then there are a few conflict resolution frameworks for closed scene resolution (I primarily use for chases and dogfights in my Star Wars game).

 

[Manbearcat]

It definitely had those problems. But I think it's weird that you associate eliminating those problems with 4e. Not because 4e had them, but because eliminating those flaws (as well as many, many others) was a goal for my own homebrew, which was significantly based off of 3.X.

But maybe you meant that because you didn't encounter those problems in 13th age, it reminded you more of 4e? I'm guessing that's it, but I'm curious.

Well, when I think of the fundamental essence of 4e its:

* The expectation to "go to/find the action." Relentless action and adventure.

* Mythic history overflowing with interesting conflicts (my personal favorite being the elemental primordials, the primal spirits, and the Feywild).

* Noncombat conflict resolution (of the closed scene variety) featuring fail forward (along with intent broken out from the process of task).

* Swashbuckling combat that ranges all over the battlefield due to rampant forced movement/mobility (along with the robust on-turn and off-turn action economy) and battlefield features (terrain, hazards, etc) that are elegantly integrated into the whole.

* Tactical-overhead-intensive play. Team monster has dynamic synergy. Team PC even moreso.

* The built-in "Rally narrative".

* Character stories built into the PC build mechanics (which span the tiers of play) which propel play (of their own volition and Quests).

* Stunting that works and encourages its use.

* Rigorous balance, transparency, and efficiency in prep and play (therefore ease-of-use in GMing).

Of all that stuff, the 4e signal inherent to 13th Age is much more significant than the 3.x signal. That being said, its definitely not tremendously significant. The two play experiences are extremely different specifically because the signal is fairly modest. Now Strike! feels a heaping helping more like 4e in its actual play.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Now Strike! feels a heaping helping more like 4e in its actual play.

I'm very intrigued by Strike! and I'll have to give it a go, I think. Sounds like lots of fun.

 

[pemerton]

I think one of the more practical flaws with the SC system is the variability in the number of checks, and thus player actions, that get to be made. Its quite possible a DM can get into a bind when Character A attempts some fairly modest initial action and fails, then Character B does the same. Now where does that leave us? In some cases this may not be an issue, but in others it may be that the GM is now in an awkward position where he doesn't know if the next check will suddenly end the SC or be merely one of many more. So how much does he advance the fiction? He could risk losing a chance to present some vital part of the story, or he could, depending on a die roll, end up with some awkward pacing where he has to slow things down greatly.

Obsidian created a fixed number of checks, but it wasn't built around addressing this, it just turned all SCs into chase scenes.

I've never tried Obsidian. I remember reading it (or maybe some progenitor of it?) back in the day, but not being especially inspired to try it.

I agree with your comment about pacing awkwardness (though being a "glass half full" guy, I'd describe it as a "challenge" rather than a flaw!). I think I tend to handle it more by intuition rather than consscious prep, but reflecting on my approach I think what I try and do is have two "strands" or dynamics in the fiction: one running the PCs' way, or that they are building up to help them (eg they're befriending the baron); and one running against them, that is trying to undo them (eg the evil vizier); and then by trading off one against the other - even in a "sudden death" way, if necessary - it's a bit easier to modulate the pacing around the sort of issue you describe.

That's not foolproof. But it's an attempt to avoid having just one "strand" or "track" in the situation, which can certainly lead to weird U-turns or speeding/slowing if the rolls unfold in the way you've described.