Major Design Choices of 4e D&D

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:23 am

I suppose that's a definition of terms issue.

What I was looking at was:
You have a bunch of small inhabited areas (effectively points). Anything outside of them is wilderness. Wilderness is dangerous and monsters live there. Most of the world is wilderness, some more dangerous than others.

Now, yes, from any given town the PCs pretty much only have one direction they can go: Into the wilderness, and they have to go through the wilderness to get anywhere. But, going through the wilderness, you can still go (almost) anywhere (you can be railroaded with "no, you can't cross these mountains," but that can happen regardless of whether or not the mountains are dangerous wilderness).

Communication difficulties make picking tasks from different places difficult, since you don't know what they need until you put the effort in to going there, but you can still pick your mission. Also, the difficulties in overland transport through dangerous wilderness can make setting up cities difficult, although not impossible.

Also, players can build castles and so on pretty easily in a system like this, since you can go in and clear a chunk of wilderness and put in a town. With 95% of the world being dangerous wilderness, you have plenty of room to grow; building a town out in what was once wilderness and securing some roads with regular patrols is actually a huge accomplishment.

This isn't exactly the way 4th edition implemented it, but 4e implemented a lot of things wrong.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:41 am

It's also a general setting goal. When communication and travel between Points of Light is arbitrarily difficult, then different cultures can arise in isolation without impacting their neighbors.

This was a stated advantage of Mearls, as he outright stated world-building to be boring to him, and wanted the ability to bring in what was cool without trying to fit it into the world. This is for explicitly mixing vikings and samurai and whatever monster you feel like without having to care about how they fit in the world, because they just come from the sea of darkness.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:52 am

I don't like Points of Light, mostly because I don't like crapsack worlds.

I try to be a touch optimistic for the games I run. I try to make a coherent world and give some allies for the players to have--and some cool stuff to do/see/find along the way.

On the other hand, I know someones whose games are often intentionally pessimistic. In one, he, as a DM, kept finding ways for the quests the PCs were sent on (Find this guy and bring him to the local lord) to go wrong in the most horrible way possible (The guy was shot with a dozen crossbows as soon as he entered the throne room and the lord told them they had an hour to get out of town or be hanged). He explicitly said he wanted to inspire a sort of hopelessness as long as the players went with the system and expected them to catch onto the pattern and the appropriate response any time now. Which...yeah. I wouldn't want to play in a game like that.

And I haven't bothered to pick up the latest Drizzt book because it looks like Salvatore is having to move with the 4e conversion and it looks like it's shaping up to be a crapsack.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:51 am

Eh. I like world-building but the Points of Light bit adds something to do other than "confront another ancient conspiracy". In my personal setting its half settled, half crapsack/Points of Light. Works well for precisely the reasons stated: lots of opportunity for wilderness chicanery and strange cultures.

TavishArtair · Post by **TavishArtair** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:07 am

The defining difference between whether you are playing Points of Light or Points of Darkness is whether you can go to multiple Shadowlands, as it were, without leaving Lightsources. If you can only go to one Shadowland, because you have to once you step foot outside of the Lightsource, you are playing Points of Light, unless the degree of danger you encounter is so low as to be meaningless. If you can go to multiple Shadowlands, because you have room to maneuver between each, you are playing Points of Darkness, unless the choice is so meaningless as to be an illusion.

So, for you, mean_liar, I would say your game was probably Points of Darkness anyways, but some of them were Very Large.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:08 am

And I haven't bothered to pick up the latest Drizzt book because it looks like Salvatore is having to move with the 4e conversion

If 4e forces Bob Salvatore to adapt to it instead of the other way around that is hands down the single biggest improvement in the edition.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:34 am

Combat abilities are designed for inside use only.

Outside (other than dungeon, castle, house, cave, etc) 4e tile-based combat and chasing becomes a chore, almost as if you need those four walls to get use of your push/pull/slide positioning.

If you are outside, strive for a social encounter or shoot arrows.. oh wait, you'll need to calculate the tile distance for the shot, cover, and so on.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:38 am

It's possible, but really, really hard to have Points of Lights and D&D's interpretation of society and the economy.

Just the fact that it's practically impossible to get a decent farm up and running makes Points of Light a non-starter. Even if you could find peasants willing to work in the DARKNYZZ, the fact remains that if Ankhegs or Hill Giants stroll by and want to smash up the farm, the feudal lords can't actually do anything about it.

And in return, vassals can't actually supply their lords with troops they need for threats. They would need to turn to adventurers, which then undermines the system for several reasons. The biggest one being is that the peasantry doesn't actually have anything an adventurer wants or needs for their job.

souran · Post by **souran** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:59 pm

Interesting thread.

It appears a little dead but basically the things people have said they dislike is why I like 4e very much.

Funny when people complain they don't like things that make the game a breeze to play.

Having played most systems that are out there I have to say that the genius of 4e is the design as a game. Its the only game I have ever played where I don't have to dm fiat anything in order for it to work.

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:19 pm

souran wrote:It's the only game I have ever played where I don't have to dm fiat anything in order for it to work.

How do you run 4e Diplomacy without DM fiat? The DCs are set by the DM.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:28 pm

souran wrote:It's the only game I have ever played where I don't have to dm fiat anything in order for it to work.

Ya know, I almost didn't catch that sarcasm there. Well played.

souran · Post by **souran** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:57 pm

MartinHarper wrote:
souran wrote:It's the only game I have ever played where I don't have to dm fiat anything in order for it to work.
How do you run 4e Diplomacy without DM fiat? The DCs are set by the DM.

Depends on what you mean by diplomacy. Story relevant diplomacy is a skill challenge. The DC's are written in advance. Using diplomacy for other stuff is single success/failure with a health dose of nobdy can convince people to commit suicide 10 seconds after meeting them.

However your agrument breaks down prima facia. All DCs are essential game master fiat.

What I mean is that the level of difficulty of encounters and other challenges does not have to be ramped way up for even remotely compotent players. The table of suggested DCs by level in the dmg is actually usable.

I have played lots and lots of games. I have actively played 3 editions of dnd and used by dad's books to do one off games of the original.

4E is the only one where the difficulty/satifaction point is set right. Everything else is to easy for characters who are even remotely optimized for their roles. All the other editions break down once a character has access to more than 1 4th level spell.

Most of my group plays numberous games. In almost all of them I simply have to have every monster every foe from a prewritten source just constantly cheat to not get consistantly 1 shotted.

Anyway, the other complaint was that combat was less interesting than a game of descent.

So for real, my experience after about a little over a years worth of sessions of 4e is that its just more playable than other games.

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:14 pm

souran wrote:All DCs are essential game master fiat.

Well, that was my point. Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I agree that 4e is better balanced than many games, which makes it easier to DM.

souran wrote:The table of suggested DCs by level in the dmg is actually usable.

Do you use the original version, or the errata'd version?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:27 pm

Depends on what you mean by diplomacy. Story relevant diplomacy is a skill challenge. The DC's are written in advance. Using diplomacy for other stuff is single success/failure with a health dose of nobdy can convince people to commit suicide 10 seconds after meeting them.

But the DCs are set in advance by DM fiat. There isn't even a set of guidelines or sample DCs. And more importantly, the skill challenge system is a giant flaming piece of shit that completely fails to meet all design goals.

Most of my group plays numberous games. In almost all of them I simply have to have every monster every foe from a prewritten source just constantly cheat to not get consistantly 1 shotted.

Whoa there. Fuck you. I'm serious.

In games of 3rd edition D&D, or AD&D, or Shadowrun, or world o darkness, one shotting people is the game. If you as a DM decide to fucking cheat in order to not play the game there is seriously something wrong with you and I don't want you on the other side of the DM screen ever.

You personally like padded sumo. That's obvious. And to that extent, 4e is clearly written for you. You can't shoot people in the head and have them die, they take many many attacks to grind down. But that's not "better" or "right" - that's just different. And maybe you like that aspect better. But since you were fucking cheating while playing the other games and not even playing them for real, we will never fucking know, will we?

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:37 pm

Hey now, Frank.

I don't think it's cheating if the players actually want and expect their DM to cheat in their favor.

I personally hate it, because as anyone who knows me for more than a month knows that I want as little DM unilateralism as possible in a game. I have played at enough games to know that a lot of people do indeed like it when the DM cheats. They just don't want their DM to be obvious about this or cheat in such a way to force the story to go in a direction the players don't want to go or denigrates their characters.

If the version of D&D that you're playing (2nd or 3rd Edition) doesn't match up to what you want in the game or a player is threatening to walk because they don't want their Pretty Pretty Paladin to die on the first encounter I can't really fault you for inflating monster hp behind the scene or generating a necromancer on the fly who stops the ghouls from eating your party or lying about dice rolls.

I think a degree of trust is permanently impinged by doing this but believe it or not a good deal of people actually want a degree of this.

souran · Post by **souran** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:42 pm

Well, that was my point. Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I agree that 4e is better balanced than many games, which makes it easier to DM.

Again, its all about ease of table play for me. So what your saying is important to me. I would have to go practically line by line to 3.0/3.5 adventures in order to make them playable. The writers basically said you should. 4.0 I can open the packing and run the game.

Do you use the original version, or the errata'd version?

I use the harder original version because its on my dm screen which is often the only thing I need besides the adventure to run a game. I know its got an update and I use the updated one when I write stuff but on the fly I use the one on the screen because its easy.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:59 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Hey now, Frank.

I don't think it's cheating if the players actually want and expect their DM to cheat in their favor.

I personally hate it, because as anyone who knows me for more than a month knows that I want as little DM unilateralism as possible in a game. I have played at enough games to know that a lot of people do indeed like it when the DM cheats. They just don't want their DM to be obvious about this or cheat in such a way to force the story to go in a direction the players don't want to go or denigrates their characters.

If the version of D&D that you're playing (2nd or 3rd Edition) doesn't match up to what you want in the game or a player is threatening to walk because they don't want their Pretty Pretty Paladin to die on the first encounter I can't really fault you for inflating monster hp behind the scene or generating a necromancer on the fly who stops the ghouls from eating your party or lying about dice rolls.

I think a degree of trust is permanently impinged by doing this but believe it or not a good deal of people actually want a degree of this.

That's not what he said. He said that he as DM was having the monsters cheat to avoid getting one shotted.

That be fucked up yo. It's a violation of trust, it's a rejection of the game the other players are trying to play, and it's a waste of time for everyone involved. He's telling the players that their accomplishments don't meant anything, that their dice rolls and decisions don't mean anything, and that he as a DM is just going to tell them a fucking story about a 6 rounds D&D combat instead of allowing them to play the game.

-Username17

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:06 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote:Hey now, Frank.

I don't think it's cheating if the players actually want and expect their DM to cheat in their favor.

I personally hate it, because as anyone who knows me for more than a month knows that I want as little DM unilateralism as possible in a game. I have played at enough games to know that a lot of people do indeed like it when the DM cheats. They just don't want their DM to be obvious about this or cheat in such a way to force the story to go in a direction the players don't want to go or denigrates their characters.

If the version of D&D that you're playing (2nd or 3rd Edition) doesn't match up to what you want in the game or a player is threatening to walk because they don't want their Pretty Pretty Paladin to die on the first encounter I can't really fault you for inflating monster hp behind the scene or generating a necromancer on the fly who stops the ghouls from eating your party or lying about dice rolls.

I think a degree of trust is permanently impinged by doing this but believe it or not a good deal of people actually want a degree of this.
That's not what he said. He said that he as DM was having the monsters cheat to avoid getting one shotted.

That be fucked up yo. It's a violation of trust, it's a rejection of the game the other players are trying to play, and it's a waste of time for everyone involved. He's telling the players that their accomplishments don't meant anything, that their dice rolls and decisions don't mean anything, and that he as a DM is just going to tell them a fucking story about a 6 rounds D&D combat instead of allowing them to play the game.

-Username17

Thank you. This is also why coddling, aka cheating the other way is bad. The moment the DM starts cheating, the game becomes worthless and meaningless.

souran · Post by **souran** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:11 pm

But the DCs are set in advance by DM fiat. There isn't even a set of guidelines or sample DCs. And more importantly, the skill challenge system is a giant flaming piece of shit that completely fails to meet all design goals.

Actually your wrong on the sample DCs. The skill challenge rules are not supposed to be used for everything. They are supposed to be used when using skills would take the place of some other sort of encounter.

Whats more, what are you saying would be better? Honestly the skill challenge is the first real system I have seen in a game where anything associated with skills doesn't have a "the party will succeed or the game will come to a complte fucking screeching halt."

Compared to social combat a diplomacy skill challenge is substantially easier to run, ends up with the same results, can be done faster and can involve more people more easily.

Whoa there. Fuck you. I'm serious.

In games of 3rd edition D&D, or AD&D, or Shadowrun, or world o darkness, one shotting people is the game. If you as a DM decide to fucking cheat in order to not play the game there is seriously something wrong with you and I don't want you on the other side of the DM screen ever.

I used to let people just get one shotted. However it had two effects. Combat became boring as fuck. Nobody cared. There was no challenge. The initiave roll was all that mattered. That was stupid. The other thing was the players were getting pissed. The druid had the highest init modifer and so nobody else even got to use their stupidly over powered 1 shot vecna attack. Because the druid always got to use his first.

Your argument is really that these games are more fun to play because you one shot people? I also take it that you never cheat in any of these games. Honestly, in my perspective the things you are holding up about those games is what made them frustrating to play. You never once saw your final villian to an encounter get one shotted and didn't decide fuck it. He getting to use some of his abiltiies if I spent that much time on him?

You personally like padded sumo. That's obvious. And to that extent, 4e is clearly written for you. You can't shoot people in the head and have them die, they take many many attacks to grind down.

With my gaming background I do like the padded sumo. However, in all the above games you mentioned people do not technically die if you shoot them in the head either. In fact, in all the games you mentioned shooting somebody in the head at point blank range is only fatal by dm fiat. Otherwise ever single one of those systems includes a way for that action to fail. So if you have ever had somebody die because they were shot in the head and you didn't go through all the menutia of kiling them then you CHEATED.

But that's not "better" or "right" - that's just different. And maybe you like that aspect better. But since you were fucking cheating while playing the other games and not even playing them for real, we will never fucking know, will we?

I said it was easier to play at the table which even most of the detractors of 4e will admit. Yes, I like the style of play of 4e better. I am not saying anybody else has to. I am saying that I think that the rules were written logically to achieve a game that does certain things.

I have played way to many games that were good on paper or were fun to make characters but shit to play to be bullied by your blowhard opinions. Everybody has used gamemaster fiat. My point is 4e requires a LOT less of it than other games.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:12 pm

Did the players actually want the monsters to go down in one round?

Or did they in fact want some sort of kayfabe bullshit where they know ahead of time that their PCs are going to win and the story will advance in the direction they want? Not only that, but did they also want to shoehorn in the story of their characters fighting an epic battle (of 30 rather than 6 seconds) against foes?

Considering that padded sumo is what a lot of 4th Edition players like I'm not particularly surprised if souran had to cheat. I mean, really Frank, I'm sure you've played or DMed games where what the group wanted out of the rules was something the rules couldn't provide. This would be the point where you house-ruled, but for some reason house-ruling something so severe as combat length makes players balk. So it becomes a one-sided willing suspension of disbelief.

It's an ugly hobby.

souran · Post by **souran** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:23 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Did the players actually want the monsters to go down in one round?

What the players say they want and what they really want are differnt. What the players say they want is to win as fast and easy as possible. What they really want is to overcome a challenge.

1 shotting is only a challenge of whose best at rule-booking.

Yes, when my players would one shot somebody they would be initial happy. Then when they discovered they had just one shotted the final boss it felt like the whole adventure had been pointless.

"The town guards could have delt with this guy" I really did have players complaining they were not getting enough actions AND that after the adventure was done that things were not tough enough.

So I gave everything max hp, hard things 2x hp and boss things 4x hp. I gutted boss and hard monsters attack options.

I swapped their feats with the same ones the pcs were taking.

I stopped worrying about spell lists/spells a day and just made the bad guy casters have the spells that would make their fights intersting and a challenge.

Note that there were still plenty of fights where save or die effects just resulted in everything being over in round 1. spell resist could be toyed with but it has an exalted like effect where increasing it small amounts makes things unbeatable.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:26 pm

You didn't try, you know, adding more enemies? What the fuck dude?

-Username17

souran · Post by **souran** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:28 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:You didn't try, you know, adding more enemies? What the fuck dude?

-Username17

Cloud kill doesn't care how many enemies there are.

Also, who cares about litteraly 100s of bad guys if you can get next to their leader and 1 shot him.

Then killing his minions feels like a chore. Its not hard in dnd to get powers that let you teleport, or even just fucking JUMP to next to your foe and pwn him.

Actually all of this still goes to my point.

with a 4e adventure I DO NOT HAVE TO ADD BADDIES. I don't have to adjust hp. I have to make things any more difficult. Players have a hard enough time.

Thats important to me.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:53 pm

The problem with 4E is that it's impossible to really create a trivial battle. While yes, you can make things easy, you'll never make things actually fast. Even easy battles are a grind.

Of course, I agree with most of the criticism of 3E. I mean, keeping bad guys alive is tough, and you have to generally play it less like a main villain and more like a team of villains for it to work.

Big Villain + minions doesn't work in 3E, because in 3E, minions are trivial and there's no reason not to gank the boss. This is actually different in 4E, where its often better to kill the minions first, because they die quickly and then take out the main guy.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:55 pm

Wait, this guy is fucking serious isn't he?

...Wow.

He just caused a rollover error of Fail. Though Myth Weavers did most of the work.