Tobold's Blog
Monday, May 28, 2012
 
Fixing 4th Edition

What is a role-playing game? While a complete definition would be hard to find, we can at least make one empirical observation: In the large majority of games which call themselves role-playing games there is a series of combat sequences, embedded in something like a story or a world. That is as true for let’s say World of Warcraft as it is for Dungeons & Dragons. And because of RPGs having a combat part and a non-combat part, there is a fundamental conflict about what the relative weight of each of these parts should be. The main problem many people have with 4th edition D&D is that the combat part appears heavier than in previous editions and the non-combat part lighter. So how can we fix 4th edition, other than reverting to previous rule editions, which is what D&D Next is doing?

One important thing to notice is that “the game” of D&D is *not* the product you buy in a shop. You only buy a rule-system, which is a necessary but not sufficient part to make a game. The rest of the game is made up by the DM and the players, so that the same adventure of D&D played by two different groups with different DMs can be very different from each other. How the DM prepares his adventures, and how the interactive story-telling with the players goes makes up a significant part of the D&D experience.

At the core of most RPG combat systems is an exchange of blows between player(s) and monster(s). Each side has a number of hit points (life), a probability to hit the enemy, and a way to determine how many hit points to remove from the enemy in case you hit him. Now you can make a very simple combat system which just has those basic elements, and relies on the imagination of the players to fill this combat with life and excitement. In reality you will always get some players who will just roll their dice and do the numbers, and some players who are swinging from the chandelier, or trying other interesting combat moves.

Thus having a very simple combat system makes life easy for the unimaginative player, who can quickly find out what dice to roll; and it makes for a light form of combat in which the imaginative player has the opportunity to come up with all sorts of interesting moves. But there is a reverse side to that as well: The unimaginative player will play a very boring game in which he just performs very simple dice rolls. And the imaginative player is in constant conflict with the Dungeon Master, because his interesting combat moves aren’t covered by any rules, and thus the outcome relies on judgment calls of the DM.

The alternative, which is what 4E is doing, is to have a more complex combat system. If they want, the unimaginative player and the imaginative player can still continue as before: The unimaginative player can use the same at-will power every round of combat, the imaginative player can swing from his chandelier. But the advantage is that the unimaginative player has a list of options on his character sheet (or in the form of cards, which is what I use), making it easier for him to try something else. And the imaginative player will find more of his interesting ideas actually covered by the rules, removing a lot of conflict. Of course there is also a downside: Combat can get more complicated, slower if badly executed, and characters and their roles can be harder to understand. Some people feel that if they have five options in front of them, that is all they can do, and won’t think of inventing a sixth one.

Although it isn’t called “Advanced Dungeons & Dragons” any more, 4th edition could be said to be for advanced dungeon masters and players. It would be easy for a dungeon master and group who are new to role-playing to get bogged down in rules and power descriptions. When given an official adventure in which three quarters of the pages are about combat encounters, it is easy to fall into the trap of running an adventure which is just a string of just those combat encounters with too little story and roleplay in between. There were good reasons for me to start my 4E campaign with house rules for zero level characters, having just a single at-will power. And the following 1st-level adventure of my campaign had only 5 combat encounters to level 2, and not the standard 10.

But that was all it took for me to “fix” 4th edition at the lower levels: Make a slightly less complicated introduction to get the players used to the rules, and reduce the number of combat encounters in the adventures. By spending some time with rules study and preparation of combat encounters, I didn’t have problems with fights being too slow or complicated. In fact I get a better degree of engagement, more interest, from my players than evidenced in previous campaigns with other rule systems. And it hasn’t stopped my more inventive players from trying out things. At the higher levels it is possible that I will need to intervene again, because there appears to be a problem with the complexity caused by too many interrupts and powers triggering each other. But then, I'm a Level I certified DCI judge for Magic The Gathering, so I should be able to handle complicated interrupt rules. ;)

I think of the 4th edition rules as being very modern, and there being a conflict of those modern rules with adventure modules which are often still very old-fashioned. A rules system which offers very interesting tactical combat instead of just a series of simple to hit rolls can live with there being less combat encounters in an adventure. Which is a better solution than keeping the number of fights high and lowering the complexity. What 4th edition needs is better adventures, with more roleplaying, more interesting stories, memorable NPCs, and better flow. Having lots of combat and making it very simple is not such a good solution, because it becomes boring too quickly. I’d rather have a few memorable fights than lots of uneventful ones. And the 4th edition rules system fully supports such an approach, with just a few minor tweaks in handing out quest xp for roleplaying needed. It isn’t the rule system which needs fixing, but the adventures.

Comments:
I guess what I find so funny about many 4th edition vs 3.5 (in specific, or just "older editions" in general) is this concept of the way things were and then those ways changing.

Doesn't 4th edition really harken back to the TRUE roots of DnD, Chainmail and other tactical wargames? Where the focus was on making a very strong, tactical combat game and in general, roleplaying was just however you wanted it to work, without needing a strong rules structure for that part?

So the argument is more old school vs old old school...
 
Fewer, more spectacular combats are the best thing for 4e. I think too many people still use 4e for the "you're ambushed by 5 goblins in the woods" filler content. Rather, if you're fighting in 4e, there better be a damn good story reason and some damn interesting mechanics at hand. To use MMO terms, 4e wants all of the boss fights and none of the trash packs.

Instead of trash packs, you string the boss fights together with interesting story mechanics. Mysteries, intrigue, ethical dilemmas, puzzles, exploration, etc.
 
> What 4th edition needs is better adventures... a few memorable fights than lots of uneventful ones.

Well said. The most memorable fight we had in our last session was all about stopping runners in an otherwise unchallenging fight. It really put pressure on the group, added some really good tension and made terrain and maneuver much more critical.

One thing to watch though - when reducing the number of combat encounters it interacts with the power system (daily / encounter / at-will), second wind and action points.
 
It's still a ROLE-PLAYING game. You don't need a taunt mechanic, you need a player. The fighter stands at the front and sets fire to the goblin's 'holy' object, or the party finds out that group X is proud of their prowess/heritage/whatever and insults it. Or (if they still have them) bluff, intimidate etc checks.
 
You don't need a taunt mechanic, you need a player.

If that is true, then why would it apply to only one class? Why not say "You don't need a burning hands / cure light wounds / sneak attack mechanic, you need a player."?

Furthermore I doubt your proposed solution would work on monsters like skeletons or oozes or wolves. How exactly do you insult a skeleton?
 
"The fighter stands at the front and sets fire to the goblin's 'holy' object..."

In addition to Tobold's point, no system prevents any of this from happening. In fact, systems that offer taunt mechanics make it even easier to adjudicate this.

For example, in D&DN, if the rogue swipes the goblin idol, the DM has to factor that into his mental math when determining who the goblins attack. But in 4e, the DM can simply note that the rogue has marked all of the goblins. In general, I find fluff to be more enjoyable when there is crunch to back it up.
 
@Total Bastard

Actually, one of the things that I love in 4th is the actual mechanics of the "taunt"-like ability. Take the Fighter -- if you attack someone else while you are next to him, he's going to get a free attack on you. Taking your eyes off of an adjacent Fighter is a *bad* idea.

I contrast this to the taunt mechanics of something like EQ or WoW, where the Warrior casts "taunt" and the monster just has to hit him. Or earlier versions of D&D, where a fighter rumbles up to a monster and is promptly ignored in favor of the high-damage low-AC targets like a mage. 4th's "mark" mechanic just feels very workable to me.

Video-game like? Well, maybe. But it feels very right to this "old school" D&Der.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home
Newer›  ‹Older

  Powered by Blogger   Free Page Rank Tool