4e is great but here is a part of it I don’t love.
OK, so take as an example this utility power from Dark Sun:
Level 2
Sandstep
Utility Evocation
Primal Guardian Utility 2
In a swirl of wind driven sand, you move across the battlefield,
and the sand obscures you and nearby allies.
Encounter + Primal
Move Action
Personal
Effect: You shift 3 squares. Until the end of your next turn,
you gain concealment, as do your allies while they are
adjacent to you.
To me, playing with actions like this feels like glimpses of another hero's life. It feels like the flavor text in games like Magic, Arkham Horror or Netrunner.
The super-mechanical, Melvin-y effect (“You gain concealment”) feels detached from what I’m doing and the flavor text puts me more into the role of a fan of this character rather than in the role of being that character.
Chris Perkins is a charismatic guy and it’s always interesting to see him DM. One of his videos is about him playing 4e with large parts of the writing team of Robot Chicken (I don’t watch it but I’m a big fan of Zeb Wells’ comics) and one scene in particular illustrates everything that’s wrong with 4e in a single exchange.
Chris has set up a room with a flame-throwing trap and a door that’s frozen shut. It’s possible to bust through the door on brute force with time, but he has the solution in mind to melt it with the flame thrower.
One of the players, I think Tom, has a power called Darkfire that can set a creature on fire. He tries to cast it on the door, Chris asks him to carefully read the power — it says “One creature” — and says it doesn’t work. That’s it. Here we have the one moment. A creative solution — shot down.
I’m not blaming that on Chris. He’s been with D&D through thick and thin and many editions. He’s in a context where playing the game by the RAW is important for didactic purposes. And following system in the long term over a particular player’s feelgood moment in the short term is also a good choice; creating a solid foundation to build further adventures on. I agree with his call. The problem is with the base design.
That the system lacks “tactical infinity”.
When I first saw 4e, I was stoked, because it to me had a closer resemblance to American Thematic style board and card games — which I could understand — than to 3e, which was to me at the time looked daunting and hard to run. But I’ve since gained a lot more understanding about what makes RPG:s so special.
Over the years, I’ve become more and more disillusioned with AT-style games like Netrunner and WHFRP 3 and more into simple RPGs that place a few simple tools in your hands and ask you to do what you want with it.
Take the 5e version of Burning Hands. It deals damage, sure, but it also sets things on fire. It could have melted that ice door.
Or the Dungeon World version of Invisibility which just says “You become invisible”.
Chris has set up a room with a flame-throwing trap and a door that’s frozen shut. It’s possible to bust through the door on brute force with time, but he has the solution in mind to melt it with the flame thrower.
One of the players, I think Tom, has a power called Darkfire that can set a creature on fire. He tries to cast it on the door, Chris asks him to carefully read the power — it says “One creature” — and says it doesn’t work. That’s it. Here we have the one moment. A creative solution — shot down.
I’m not blaming that on Chris. He’s been with D&D through thick and thin and many editions. He’s in a context where playing the game by the RAW is important for didactic purposes. And following system in the long term over a particular player’s feelgood moment in the short term is also a good choice; creating a solid foundation to build further adventures on. I agree with his call. The problem is with the base design.
That the system lacks “tactical infinity”.
I don't see this as a 4e system issue. There are spells like that in multiple editions of D&D and other systems like Shadowrun (I remember Shadowrun having mana attack spells that specifically don't affect nonliving things at all).
In 4e the DM can validly go either way on a call like that.
You can come up with fluff theories that spells that target creatures actually interact with the mana/life force of living creatures and go with the darkfire flame thrower spell not working on the door at all as the flame thrower in the room does, but that is not the only option.
Having a flame type spell work to counter a frozen door instead of a redirected trap flame thrower is perfectly reasonable. He could easily "say yes" here as I believe the 4e DMG advises in general. He could also say "yes, but . . . you have to make an arcana check because it is not a creature you are targetting."
I see the benefits of action specificity that even extends into concepts like damage types, power sources, roles, etc. where you have discrete sections of the game defined. Then when you modify it, it cascades to rules that fall under the same scope or you are free to ignore it.
To me, playing with actions like this feels like glimpses of another hero's life. It feels like the flavor text in games like Magic, Arkham Horror or Netrunner.
The super-mechanical, Melvin-y effect (“You gain concealment”) feels detached from what I’m doing and the flavor text puts me more into the role of a fan of this character rather than in the role of being that character.
Well you can't help how you feel, right? Everyone's got 'em, and yours are as valid as mine.
Chris has set up a room with a flame-throwing trap and a door that’s frozen shut. It’s possible to bust through the door on brute force with time, but he has the solution in mind to melt it with the flame thrower.
One of the players, I think Tom, has a power called Darkfire that can set a creature on fire. He tries to cast it on the door, Chris asks him to carefully read the power — it says “One creature” — and says it doesn’t work. That’s it. Here we have the one moment. A creative solution — shot down.
You mean darkfire, the drow racial power? The one that creates purple heatless 'flames,' just like it does in every other edition of D&D? (I.e., no fire type or fire damage.)
Well, gee you're right! I once tried to use a similar spell to disorient a foe in a 3.x game, and not only did it not work, but I had to actually waste my turn casting it before learning that it didn't work. What a creative idea shot down in its prime! That must make 3.x games super board-gamey and legalistic and punitive! /sarc
I hope you can see how misguided this particular complaint is, and how Chris' call wasn't any less justified in 4e than it would have been in any other game. His real mistake was using the power's targeting rules to explain why it wouldn't work, rather than its lack of actual fire. Which is a small mistake, considering that another DM might have simply let the player waste his turn trying to use a power with a misnomer name that never had any hope of working.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And on that account, I would never want to be a public DM, in reference to hind sight, second guessing, etc. So on that front I can admire Chris. Even if I may disagree on specific approaches or rulings.
Thanks for the clarification that the flames were heatless. That wasn't clear in the clip.
And yeah, Chris does a great job being a public DM, he rarely makes mistakes, he keeps his cool, and he is consistent to his own goals and ideals when it comes to DM style. I tried to be clear that I agreed with his call.
You're welcome, and sorry if my reply was a bit abrasive. This video caused a stir back when it was first filmed, and edition warriors jumped on it as evidence that '4e is a video/board/card game with some background fluff text!!!' Heck, this video might be the origin of this ridiculous meme.
Anyhow, all I really know about Chris Perkins is that he helped create 4e and that he DMed for the Robot Chicken guys that one time. I don't know anything about his attitudes or ideals, which for all I know I might find terrible or amazing.
I honestly didn't know it had been brought up before but I should've realized, and searched for it.
And just left it out and stuck to some basic power examples. The point I was trying to make is that at-wills especially often to me across to me as "slices of somebody elses life" than tools that my own character could use flexibly. That's probably more due to presentation (flavor text, wording and name) than system.
The secondary point I wanted to make was that I used to be a big fan of AT card games (like Netrunner) and, without putting 4e wholly into that category, the features it did share with those have over the years gone from being a pro to a con for me. Also not trying to imply that that is a universal or objective sentiment.
I honestly didn't know it had been brought up before but I should've realized, and searched for it.
And just left it out and stuck to some basic power examples. The point I was trying to make is that at-wills especially often to me across to me as "slices of somebody elses life" than tools that my own character could use flexibly. That's probably more due to presentation (flavor text, wording and name) than system.
Well I'm not exactly following your idea of 'slices of some one elses life' view. At least no more then is the case with any other RPG.
I suppose one could look at the manner n which this power is delivered as the source of that feeling. It is very mechanical as are all 4E powers. Maybe that is the issue. 4E certainly took the idea of stripped down mechanical format to heart in its design. Personally I see a power that allows one to move and use sand as cover for nearby allies. That said the power never explains where the sand comes from which is a hallmark of 4E powers - they work and that tends to be the end of the story. Most other editions would specify where the sand came from and there might be reasons why the power fails due to circumstances. In 4E that is usually not the case - though one does come across 4E DMs that inject this element into their games. I'd not do it myself, probably, but there are DMs who would rule that a power like this does not work if the environment is windy for example.