"It's what my character would do!"

I rubbed my temples and sit my headset down. I’ve heard this term before in multiple places as a GM and as a player. I have yet to hear it used in a positive light. This time it’s to justify attacking another character in the party, causing the game to enter an almost an hour and a half side path over a misunderstanding. As a GM I should of shot the idea down but this group of players has always been chill with almost solitaire like play, and thus I let it play out. No characters were killed and the matter was resolved but it really made me think back to one of my biggest buttons that can be pressed.

This is something that I blame TTRPG systems that claim to be solid for roleplay on, they often lack systems for inter-party conflict resolution. As a player it is very easy to justify a bit of theft from your fellow adventurer, or maybe a quick haymaker followed by a shield slam. It’s drama and no group of individuals in any setting will journey for years free of confrontation. There has to be a line though where the players about to embark on conflict stop and think… is it worth it? Will this cause an actual argument at the table and ruin someone’s fun? Will this stop the game flow for no gain? I have always tried to encourage any serious in character beefs to be talked about between the parties out of character first, either between sessions or at the table via texts while we play. I think it’s vital to address what a character wants to do to another, and work together on a scene that will result in all parties addressing the tension and providing a fun scene for all involved.

“If I talked to them then they would of been ready for <insert action>!” This is often used when I have suggested in the past to address the issue OOC before acting. It’s a selfish take and I would suggest any GMs in the future who get this sort of an excuse along these lines to let them know in the future, it may result in leaving. Often TTRPG games are a team game and are designed for party cooperation, where loot and life go hand in hand. For someone to remove either from another player out of the blue can lead to either a nasty argument or a game dissolving as others at the table want to avoid the game after the fallout.

People are flawed and as such, characters should and do have personality flaws. Some steal, some have bad tempers, some interrupt the party in key moments all the time. These quirks can lead to enjoyable moments in games but it should be heavily considered during the character planning stages if it’s a fun take for the rest of the table. People are quick to be turned off to a game when a problem player’s character has a funny quirk which means they scream “ice peppers” when things are serious in a tense diplomatic setting. Players can be confused when the party’s fighter turns out to be a thief, or the wizard raises the fallen sorcerer as a skeleton without asking. Do these characters -need- to have some quirk or moral rationality that will guarantee run deep grooves in the party without mentioning them first?

It can be avoided, or at least discussed during character creation.

“It’s what my character would do” is an excuse to get away with actions that others dislike. Never accept it.

Tracking the passage of time!

When playing D&D and similar systems, often the passing of time is left out of the equation for simplicity sake. When players buff themselves it’s often considered that the buffs will last most of the dungeon, if not the whole thing.

One method I have switched to during areas where the passing of time is important is switching to initiative for asking what people are doing. The party rolls initiative, then until the next combat encounter we go down the list to ask what people are doing. On Roll20 I use a custom Round Counter that raises by 1 every time it comes up on the turn order. In person I use a handheld counter device that I bought for Hackmaster.

Structuring the gameplay in this manner may seem very board gamey, but it gives you an accurate passage of time as often one round is six seconds, so 10 rounds is one in-game minute. It also gives people a chance to roleplay, or get involved if they feel they may be stepping on the toes of their allies, or are shy to butt in. This system allows for ease in triggering and resolving traps as players move on their turn and thus, can accidentally get in front of a rogue who’s on the lookout for such devices.

I use a house rule that every x number of rounds an encounter roll is made. The rate of encounters varies based on the location. In a tomb in the middle of an old mountain pass the rate will be high, 15-20 rounds for a random encounter due to isolation. Places like a castle or a big bads hideout the rate may me 5-10 as more individuals are in the location to intercept the party.

It can slow the game down a bit, and some players can get confused on how to handle when actions happen. It’s best to make clear “when” actions happen, and if people are waiting for others to act first in the round. Delaying actions and readying is all easy to do, as long as no immediate threats are present. When it comes to moving on a per square basis (if you use a map) I usually just let everyone move at the system’s Run speed and still take an action for game flow sake.

A big takeaway from switching to this system is realistically it takes the average party of mine 3-5 minutes to clear a dungeon from start to finish. That can take all game session, but it really breaks down the scope of how time actually passes. It feels like in-game it should take literal hours but the 6 second round helps to make it feel fast and deadly. Another situation I find that my games have gone in when I switched to keeping people constrained to the initiative is people tend to separate from the party. The ability to feel as if they have to act on their own causes groups to form, and the party indeed becomes split, often times over large areas.

Three combats happening at once while the party is spread out over the dungeon.

Of course if you and your players enjoy a more organic turn and burn with no pauses that’s great! I always like to try to use the rules the best I can, and I found this is a good way to keep effects tracked and encounter rate balanced.

4th Edition, did it really butcher player choices?

When 4th Edition came out I was excited after seeing the preview materials at Gencon, playing a few demos in the second floor ballroom, and keeping tabs on it during it's late days of development. Before this edition even hit the shelves, I had to go to two different stores in order to secure a set of book at launch (the first store refused to order the books for me, a paying customer, because "I disagree with 4th Edition").

Throughout the life of the edition, I would find that my local group would slowly sour on the AEDU power system, eventually refusing to play in any games I ran with the system. My personal feelings were the opposite, I loved being able to keep combat to a level where I could focus on the small things to keep my players on their toes, instead of worrying if certain monsters could instantly tee off on unsuspecting players.

The biggest gripe my players had was they felt that AEDU power system took away agency... which made me scratch my head because these were the same players that rarely did anything more than say "I swing" and roll a D20. Suddenly I had players trying to 'break' the system by asking how they can jump off a table, do a cartwheel, and land and attack two enemies. If they failed at whatever check I gave them, they'd blame "these damn limiting powers" and grumble the rest of the session. "I don't like how I have WoW abilities" a player playing a fighter would say as they spend two turns masterfully navigating the battlefield and setting up a knock back that caused the entire party to be in range of a critical foe.

Spells worked on the AEDU power system in 4e, which I can understand made some people apprehensive since it tossed out some utility spells and made a lot of the standby spells Rituals (which were still usable, just required more time and some gold cost). Healing was redone to use Healing Surges, a system where each character can only recover hit points so many times between rests. The game focused on allowing 'healer' based characters to heal allies while attacking foes, and gave temporary hit points a greater focus to help mitigate damage between fights. When you were healed, often you spent a healing surge which meant you healed either a fixed dice type, or a number of dice equal to your class's Hit Dice. This meant heals scaled with level better based on a class's expected hit point pool.

Milestones happened if the party managed to clear multiple fights without taking a rest. A milestone gave players Action Points, essentially allowing them to spend them to gain an extra turn in combat, among other things. This gave incentive to avoid the ten minute workday, and for a party to push forward.

When I type all of this out I get a sick feeling in my stomach because I -love- all of this but know a majority of my friends hated it. From a DMs perspective 4th Edition took the combat of D&D and gave it a much needed work over. Roleplaying has always been a side effect of D&D, and when addressed in past editions has been very slim and relying on player/DM imagination.

I do think though all of the gripes are because 4th Edition did what past editions had tried to do but failed. It offered a combat system that put the tactical aspects past editions had talked about on the pedestal. Powers for each class gave you options to move around the battlefield, move others, shift, and manipulate space around your character from melee or afar to punish enemies and help allies. In other systems often combat boiled down to get near something and swing until it falls, or hope an ally has a spell to neutralize it. The option to knock things back, do a cartwheel off of a table and land on the other side of your target, or grapple someone and fall backwards was always there. When 4th Edition gave everyone the Dummies Guide to Doing More in combat through powers, people lost their minds because now it was the -system- saying they can do more. "Oh I have to spam this ability over and over" was a common complaint, which while there was a such a move for each class it was just "Basic Attack, but better based on your role". The simple act of adding a name to "I swing" and giving it a keyword turned people inside out.

So in retrospect, I don't think 4th Edition took away from player agency or from combat. It paired down the skill list, made combat more tactical, and allowed for staying power of the PCs to scale with level. The system had a section dedicated to doing 'off the wall' actions such as using improvised weapons, skill checks to do extra things, etc. If anything I think 4th Edition better prepared a DM and the party for thinking outside of the box, even if the Powers built a sort of odd 'wall' to see it. Granted 4th Edition had it's issues with horrible modules, bloated HP for some monsters in the first Monster Manual, and skill challenges.

I am sure there are other issues with 4th Edition no listed above, and I am sure there are other mechanics I have glossed over that people enjoyed or hated. Many of the smaller systems from 4th Edition were carried over into 5th Edition (Short Rest healing with Hit Dice, Recharge abilities on monsters being two immediately notable ones).

No system was or is perfect, but I do think 4th Edition received a bad shake. Here's to you 4th Edition, hopefully one day you'll get a revisit by WotC.