[4.0] Insults intelligence.

[Panda-s1]

If grappling swarms and unconscious wizards still add IQ bonus to AC isn't insulting, check out the Rustmonster in DnD4.0, which is as much a rustmonster as DnD4.0 is Dungeons and Dragons.

Seriously, you gotta pick up the MM2 and read it to believe it.
How is grappling a swarm insulting to intelligence? Just 'cause you can't wrap your brain around how it could work? Hell coming up with ways how that works sounds fun (and makes me feel kinda smart).

And honestly, old rust monster is broken, not from a OP standpoint, but the fact that it could be so disruptive to a group of PCs. I really don't see how the new rust monster is nothing like an old one, it still rusts things, still eats metal, and while it doesn't make things disappear left and right, it still has the potential to take magic weapons and armor from the party.

This is like level draining issue. If I don't want level draining or save or die, I will not use Wights, Spectres, Bodaks and Basilisk. But If I want that kind of challenge and monster, I have one.

The different nasty things a monster can do make the encounter more challenging and interesting, IMHO.

And snatch a weapon or a PC/NPC and flee, I can do with previous editions too.

Things like save or die and level drain weren't interesting, more like "interesting." It could be downright infuriating, I mean if I lose to save or die towards the beginning of combat, that means I'm out of that encounter. Then what? Sit it out? What if it keeps happening encounter after encounter?

Level drain is a similar idea. It has a possibility of not being permanent, but when it does, goddamn does it sting. All that work you put into your character, lost because some undead creature touched you. And from a point of verisimilitude, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Like my friend likes to say "Ow! My levels!"

What exactly do you mean by snatching an NPC? Like the monsters steal them or something? That's definitely possible, as a DM all I have to do is say "The gnoll grabs the princess and starts running off with her!" Same with PCs, but that'd probably involve making the PC unconscious.

Well, you are without an item for a while... you are without an item for a while. No backups? And maybe challenges muste be faced always the same way?
No, but it's like if you're building a shed, and I take away your power drill and tell you to keep working. You have a perfectly usable screwdriver, can't you just use that?

No adventures resolved during a dinner at the duke's castle, I've done that. The players stopped an assassin from killing, lol, a duke! (Wow, it was actually a duke they saved, that's awesome).
the fighter improvising weapons with tables and chairs, Improvised weapons.
the wizard avoiding spells with material component? There are no material components in 4e. I guess you mean things like wands, but I reinstate my statement about the shed.


This brings to me an idea of infinite sameness.

Why so? Is PC debilitation that important to you? Isn't what they do and how they advance the plot even more important? Or are you gonna run encounters like "Fight a bunch of goblins!" followed by "Fight goblins. In an anti-magic field!" which then proceeds to "Fight a bunch of goblins. With your hands tied behind your back!" I really don't see where the sameness is coming from.

[MickJay]

And hell, why sunder? That makes no sense, cutting through someone else's weapon is incredibly hard to do in real life, and AFAIK never happened in battle throughout history.

Just a nitpick (and I generally agree with the rest of your post), but breaking of weapons in combat was always bit of a problem; sundering covers not only "cutting through", it's breaking, smashing, crushing etc. Bronze weapons? Tend to break. Low quality iron weapons? Same. Spears and similar? Break. Of course irl the destruction of weapons was more often due to a fault in making (or weak materials used) rather than some mad sundering skills of the enemy, but I'd interpret sundering as - primarily - finding those weaknesses and exploiting them rather than just cutting through with sheer force.

[Sebastian]

So while grabbing a swarm is possible, it's almost completely pointless.


It doesn't matter if it is pointless, That you can do it is still stupid, really stupid, I mean, brain-hurting stupid, and note that this not apply only to swarms, but also to ghosts, air elementals and in general any incorporeal monster.

More in general grabbing is a stupid mechanic. just consider, you grab someone/thing, now not only that grabbed target can still attach/shoot a bow/cast a spell/dance a little gig/ do whatever he want aside from moving with no penalties at all, but even you while still grapplng it are free to, for example, make AOs with your two handed sword if someone provoke them (technically you need a free hand to start the grapple, it says nothing about mantaining it) and if you use an action point you are still free to do whatever you want while still mantaing the grab.
Look like they were not even trying to make mechanics that made sense.

[Kaiyanwang]

Things like save or die and level drain weren't interesting, more like "interesting." It could be downright infuriating, I mean if I lose to save or die towards the beginning of combat, that means I'm out of that encounter. Then what? Sit it out? What if it keeps happening encounter after encounter?


If aren't interesting for you, good. Don't use it. But for someone, they are. They make the gameworld more dangerous, and push PC to find different ways to go through the encounter.

More: do you realize that for a Medusa the petrifyng gaze is more a defense than an attack?

The point, as above:

-3rd you can choose to have encounters with save or die, or not.

-4th: save or die is badwrongfun, it's assumed as non-fun and so screwed.



Level drain is a similar idea. It has a possibility of not being permanent, but when it does, goddamn does it sting. All that work you put into your character, lost because some undead creature touched you. And from a point of verisimilitude, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Like my friend likes to say "Ow! My levels!"


Makes sense because they drain your lifeforce. And the way 3.x managed them was way too carebear-style, because in previous editions it was "lose 2 levels, princess, and shut up".

I recognize that maybe 3.5 way is more balanced, but again, dangerous creatures make a dangerous and interesting world. No-more-level-drain suggest a world in wich monsters exist to be killed by PCs, fullstop. Another dumb assumption of 4th edition, IMHO.



What exactly do you mean by snatching an NPC? Like the monsters steal them or something? That's definitely possible, as a DM all I have to do is say "The gnoll grabs the princess and starts running off with her!" Same with PCs, but that'd probably involve making the PC unconscious.


You don't realize the havoc you can spread with a single Bar-lgura, just to say.



No, but it's like if you're building a shed, and I take away your power drill and tell you to keep working. You have a perfectly usable screwdriver, can't you just use that?


I don't understand well here, sorry (could you please explain :smalltongue:)



I've done that. The players stopped an assassin from killing, lol, a duke! (Wow, it was actually a duke they saved, that's awesome).


yeah, so you like different kind of encounter, too.



Improvised weapons.


Was meant as a verb - maybe does not work in english :smallredface:



There are no material components in 4e.


Yeah, quite sad.



Why so? Is PC debilitation that important to you? Isn't what they do and how they advance the plot even more important?


Here is the point - plot maybe can be important, but the coherency of the world around PCs come first. Plot come after. maybe the importance one bring to this makes like/dislike 4th, I guess.

I don't like PC debilitation, I like true heroes overcoming problems in a true dangerous world. What's the value of the quest if wasn't so dangerous? You always have the time to be generous with PCs, make them swear make them appreciate more the glory they obtain after.



Or are you gonna run encounters like "Fight a bunch of goblins!" followed by "Fight goblins. In an anti-magic field!" which then proceeds to "Fight a bunch of goblins. With your hands tied behind your back!" I really don't see where the sameness is coming from.


You encounter in the duke's all.. was so different from a "standard" one? just to say, there were a "spell" a wizard couldn't cast? What I said about sameness - material component was about this.

[Blackfang108]

If aren't interesting for you, good. Don't use it. But for someone, they are. They make the gameworld more dangerous, and push PC to find different ways to go through the encounter. .

Here's the problem with this arguement:

Players don't have enough control over what they're fighting.

Players can talk to the DM and say: We really don't want to face anything that can (drain our levels/instan-kill/rust monsters/etc.).

The DM can still use those monsters if HE wants, and a player's only options are to:
1. Fight it, risking the problem.
2. Try to escape, risking the problem.
3. Leave the table, throwing away a character you may have spent a LOT of time on.

But the player has no power. So the "If I don't want it, I don't use it" arguement is flawed at best, and utter Bull's Excrement at worst.

[Kaiyanwang]

Here's the problem with this arguement:

Players don't have enough control over what they're fighting.

Players can talk to the DM and say: We really don't want to face anything that can (drain our levels/instan-kill/rust monsters/etc.).

The DM can still use those monsters if HE wants, and a player's only options are to:
1. Fight it, risking the problem.
2. Try to escape, risking the problem.
3. Leave the table, throwing away a character you may have spent a LOT of time on.

But the player has no power. So the "If I don't want it, I don't use it" arguement is flawed at best, and utter Bull's Excrement at worst.

Option 1: There is communication between players and DM, and they work together to create en enjoiing game experience. But since this seems, as you very politely say, bovine excrement, and common sense is a super-power in these times, let's go with:

Option 2: PCs flee. And regroup. And organize to face the challenge. And maybe such challenge becomes more memorable this way.

Or PCs must pass above monsters like steamrollers?

[Nu]

Or PCs must pass above monsters like steamrollers?

Excuse me, but you seem to be presenting your argument as such: if the monsters don't have incredibly annoying abilities that lock players out of entire combats, they're just cannon-fodder to be killed by PCs? Surely that's not what you mean.

Personally, I think it's a lot better (and more interesting) to make combat challenging and potentially lethal WITHOUT effects that are just plain annoying, lock a player out of all/most of their options temporarily or permanently, or require a bunch of extra bookkeeping.

You don't need level drains or save-or-dies to make combats unique or difficult. In fact, I see that as taking the easy way out. It's just a cheap shot to the players.

[jseah]

No, I don't constantly ask myself why the world works the way it is, I'm playing a game of pretend. The world isn't real, and just 'cause the system I'm using doesn't specify exactly what happens doesn't mean the world is going to fall apart.

Hell, I don't even do that in real life, 'cause unless we're living in some crazy-ass Matrix-like world, nothing weird is gonna happen to the world. That's not to say I don't ever observe my world, but I don't constantly think about why things are the way they are when I'm walking around.
Mmm. Perhaps that is where we differ. I do it all the time. (for that matter, I have given up on some movies at points because I didn't like how they worked)

Think of it this way. I as a player want to design an airship. I open the PHB to look for powers that could help do this.
"Oh look, continual flame, perhaps I heat a balloon... darn, it gives out no heat..."

That was me when I was looking at 3.5E for the first or second time. It... just can't be done in 4E in this kind of detail. And I hate having this happen:
"DM, I want to design an airship. "
"Let's see, 30k gp should do. "
Just because 30k gp was a reasonable price for an airship (balance wise), doesn't mean an airship should cost 30k. There are better and poorer designs, which might trade cost for performance or just be simply better.

I take pride in making a physical system work and knowing its details.
eg. The boiler is powered by a continuous flame modified to create heat which heats the air that is pumped into the balloon.

Saying "The airship flies because it's magic!" isn't satisfactory to me. What if someone hit a dispel? Where does he have to hit on the ship to dispel it? (assuming the dispel area is smaller than the ship)



But what about things the rules don't cover? That's what a DM is for. The rules are intentionally missing holes in 4e 'cause the designers knew that a) they couldn't possibly attempt to cover everything with a rule, and b) just 'cause they made a rule doesn't mean that everyone would agree with it.

This is why, to me, 4e doesn't insult intelligence, and if anything rewards it. The PHB makes very clear that D&D is a game of the imagination, and what your character does is only limited to what you can think your character would do. And the DM is there to make sure that can happen (within reason, again rewarding intelligence), I mean there's a section in the DMG dealing with this very issue. Yes I can do this in 3.x, it's definitely possible, but having so many rules created an atmosphere of "Well you can try and do it, but it works like this," which evolved to "Hang on, there's a rule for it somewhere," and now has a prevailing attitude of "Well there's no rule for it, so you can't do it."
You can't include everything. But you can make a system that gives the results you want.

In my airship example, if continual flame put out heat (by houserule), you could design the ship. The maneuverability, armour, lift and various stats of the ship would come down to the player discussing it with the DM.

The stats COULD be calculated. You don't because it's too difficult/unwieldy. That's the role of the GM in my opinion, to provide a final authority to turn to in order to simplify things.

The story taking place is the circumstances your character is placed in. You make what you can of it, just like in the real world. But a player can't make a good/interesting decision without a solid base to build from.



You may say this could be solved by a bunch of handwaving, but as a DM ignoring an established rule means you broke a rule just so something could happen. Adjudicating what happens when a rule doesn't specify something is very much different, it means the DM has a major role in rules interpretation and game play. More importantly it allows more room for good ideas to work. I mean when I was first running 3.5, I don't know how many times the PHB was shoved into my face 'cause I did something wrong. I love running games, and I love coming up with stories and interesting encounters, but I hate it when it seems the rules are trying to confine what I want to do.
Then I suppose it comes down to differences in the game. If me and my players can't find a way to do something in a game, then it can't be done. The universe just doesn't support it. Building a ring that gives you ultimate power is not possible unless the person building it has ultimate power.

If a player asked me for a ship that could travel faster than light, I'd ask him for how he'll intend to do that. If a way can't be found, then I'll reply, "How about a teleporting ship? Why did you want an FTL drive?"

It could be too expensive. It could be too difficult to make. That's a problem of the circumstance (not enough gold, no manpower, etc.). It's not a problem of design. (I have my own ideas of how to get to near-light speed in 3.5E, involving magic items and some high-school physics)
If at some point (say far epic levels), a character got enough ability and gold build an FTL drive, and I agree that the design should work, then I'll let it work. And build/change the plot around it, sometimes even before it's complete.

If the design won't work, but the player is convinced it would, I'll still let him build it, but have it fail. At least I know where in the design is the wrong thing and I can estimate the consequences of that flaw. Then I'll make it a plot point in figuring out why and how it failed. And how to remedy that failure.

At all points, everything is just "how do we creatively use spells/powers/magic items that were presented in the rules to achieve an aim? Can we simplify this process? What about getting some NPC help?"

At practically no point, do I, as GM, have to make a specific change to the rules. I simplify things, I interpret and I run the NPCs. I also collaborate with my players to make things work.
The plot rises naturally out of this. And I find such plots to be far far deeper and more meaningful than any high fantasy.

[Blackfang108]

Option 1: There is communication between players and DM, and they work together to create en enjoiing game experience. But since this seems, as you very politely say, bovine excrement, and common sense is a super-power in these times, let's go with:

Option 2: PCs flee. And regroup. And organize to face the challenge. And maybe such challenge becomes more memorable this way.

Or PCs must pass above monsters like steamrollers?

What I'm saying is that the "don't like it, don't use it" arguement is bunk, when the person hates it from the player's perspective. Talking to the DM is all well and good, but he might LOVE Rust Monsters/Ghouls, and want to have a few encounters with them anyway.

Like steamrollers? No.

Here's a few difficult but fair(assuming level appropriate, i.e. no lvl 20 monsters v level 1 players.) monsters.

Dragons, Kraken, Grell, Tsochari, Harpies, Winter Wolves, Worgs, Chokers, Blues, Pseudonatural X, etc.

I could keep going on, but there are a LOT of monsters in 3.x

[Oslecamo]

They do? I own the 3.5e MM and MM3 and I don't recall a single suggestion to that effect.


On the DMG sugestions for building random ecounter tables, it says that monsters of lower CR than of the party level should appear in multiples.


Never wondered why goblins and kbolds have CR of less than 1?



Perhaps you are referring to the monster ecology entry (which details how the monsters live/travel)?


So the monsters in your 3.5 world stop thinking when the party aproaches, and all but one of them die instantly, leaving it to face the party by itself? You tought those numbers were there just for the lulz?


The New Bruceski: Then I have bad news for you. Pick a minion. Throw 16 them at a party of their level with a wizard. See them geting slaughetered while hardly doing any damage.

Now pick a solo monster. Throw it against a party. 90% of the time the solo monster will be easily controled by the party and again slaughtered while dealing really few damage.

The 4e system only worcks well for one monster for each player, but heck, it starts geting strange when the party only finds enemy groups of their size.


On save-or-die: Some people like to play a game where you have a real risk of dying. Others don't. In that matter, 4e is for the later.

[Britter]

Re: save or die.

This is just my opinion, of course, but I don't feel that save or dies add a chance of dying.

They add a chance of being hosed by a dice roll, or not having the right protections, or not having the right class in your party, or any number of other things that may or may not be within your control as the player.

Challenge me all you want. Force me to choose to fight or run, attack me with monsters many times my level, outnumber me, do your worst, that I can live with. Heck, kill me if I make stupid mistakes or just plain can't survive what I am fighting. Go for it.

Kill me because the dice rolled poorly against a save or die, and I will just feel cheated.

Now, sure, the dice rolling poorly can kill you. If you don't hit any of your foes or do very low damage while the bad guys are confriming crits like no ones business, well, then you died due to bad rolls. But you were allowed to keep makng those rolls, adjust your tactics, and keep taking actions to try to salvage the situation.

I feel the same way about the less nasty save or sucks. They create challenge, and they can be lethal, but they don't necessarily hose you completely. Some save or sucks, otoh, are really bad, so again, ymmv.

Some people may not see a difference between the two(failing a save vs death as opposed to losing a fight and dying due to bad rolls in general). I do.

So, I fall into the camp that likes a lot of what they did with 4e. Ironically, 4e reminds quite a bit of my 2e days, and I really liked played 2E. Sure, the flavor is a lot different, more heroic and cinematic and a lot less girtty, but hey, I like it.

[Shadowtraveler]

Mmm. Perhaps that is where we differ. I do it all the time. (for that matter, I have given up on some movies at points because I didn't like how they worked)

Think of it this way. I as a player want to design an airship. I open the PHB to look for powers that could help do this.
"Oh look, continual flame, perhaps I heat a balloon... darn, it gives out no heat..."

That was me when I was looking at 3.5E for the first or second time. It... just can't be done in 4E in this kind of detail.Why not? I can think of at least one ritual that might help you here: Delver's Fire. It lasts 8 hours and requires no fuel.

If you're really crazy, you can try to dig out of a Font of Power (fire) and put it on your airship.

[Artanis]

Pick a minion. Throw 16 them at a party of their level with a wizard. See them geting slaughetered while hardly doing any damage.

Now pick a solo monster. Throw it against a party. 90% of the time the solo monster will be easily controled by the party and again slaughtered while dealing really few damage.

Re minions: Minions are not designed to make up an entire encounter. Saying a nothing-but-minion encounter works poorly is basically the same as saying, "when I use the game in a way designed to break the balance, it breaks the balance!"

Re solos: This I grant you. They screwed up solos. But it's not like other editions were perfect either.




On save-or-die: Some people like to play a game where you have a real risk of dying. Others don't. In that matter, 4e is for the later.
I take offense to this because in 4e, you DO have a real chance of dying. Ever thought that maybe, just maybe, it's possible for a monster to be a threat by actually outfighting you, rather than forcing you into a rocket tag shootout?

[The New Bruceski]

No, you are just not reading things correctly. I never said two groups of players. I said two parties, just like Bill said in the video.

On one side you have the player party, and the other side you have the "monster" party.

Like two warbands for DDM.

Group vs group, is the way 4th is inteded to be played via Bill's design rules. Listen to the report.

But you asked why players don't have minions. That's where you're misrepresenting things. "Two groups" doesn't mean "two identical groups." Players don't have solos either.

[Britter]

Artanis, while I do agree with you, I can also see where some people can view 4E combat as not challenging. I think that, given the healing surge mechanic and the encounter power mechanic along with the higher player HP, that a lot of pressure is on the DM to create encounters and scenarioes that work to challenge the characters. 4E does seem to make it easier for players to recover their resrouces and much harder to force them to use up all their resources without making them too easy to kill in the next encounter.

My DM recently had us defending a castle gate gainst all manner of nasty stuff, in about four or five waves of foes, starting very weak and numerous and ending with a few really big bruisers. It was well done, because it kept us aware of our resources, allowed us the occasional short rest to reset our encounters and do some healing, but did not allow us a way to simply retreat and take an extended rest. By the end of it, we had no dailies, and maybe half a dozen surges left between the five of us. Half the group was in single digit HP. It was a real brown trousers time near the end.

Without a lot of care, I think that a DM in 4E can seriously under challenge his players. To be specific, I think that the first encounter of a day, or even the first encounter after a short rest, has very little chance of stopping the PCs.

I guess this is why I see 4E as cinematic. In 2 or 4e, you, as a hero, could die at the hands of a single equal level foe, or even a lower level if things went pear shaped. In 4E, the big bad has to send his henchmen at you, then his bruisers, then enter the fray himself and he might have a chance to kill you. I LIKE that style of cinematic action, so I like the way 4E plays. People who want the feeling of being equaly as likely to be killed by a mook as a BBEG might not care for this style. (I should note that I really don't feel that any prior edition of D and D could maintain that gritty style past maybe the first 5 levels, but people generally concede that 3E at least works best at mid levels anyway, so it is a bit of a moot point.)

That being said, I think in 3E that it was a little to easy for a DM to over challenge the pcs. No system is perfect, of course, and I know that any flaw can be revised by the effort of a skilled DM, but to be fair to our 2E and 3E brethern, I can see their point.

[jseah]

Why not? I can think of at least one ritual that might help you here: Delver's Fire. It lasts 8 hours and requires no fuel.

If you're really crazy, you can try to dig out of a Font of Power (fire) and put it on your airship.
Yes, yes. The airship is just to illustrate the detail I can use. Take a party of characters, one of every class so you have access to all powers, go build a security system that has to function without the characters around. I doubt it can be done in 4E. So how did the NPCs, who presumably built their traps, do it? (I'm talking about magic traps, mundane ones are just engineering)


Besides, rituals are not a good solution as they take way too much money to use regularly (count as 24/7, 1 month continuous operation). Not good if you just need heat. I'd just build a normal balloon if rituals are the only way to go.


XD I wonder if things like an automatic wine-chiller could be made with Icy Terrain based items... Or used to smooth down an ice skating ring.

[Britter]

jseah, I would argue that magical traps would be made with a ritual, essentailly a variation on the item creation process. Of course, that is not RAW, and therefore is not a "real" solution to the problem.

That being said, you are correct in stating that, outside of GM Fiat, there are some things you just can't do. For you, it appears that not having a mechanically defined way to recreate the game world is an immersion issue. For me, it is a story telling situation, wherein I would (to use your airship example) try to make an airship by coming up with a list of items or quests or some such to undertake to create the end product. Perhaps such an endeavour would require some skill challenges to negotiate for the services fo an air and a fire elemental or bargin with gnomes for their construction services, as well as killing some appropriate creatures to make air bladders from thier hides. It just doesn't bother me that there is no way by RAW to do it, because like some of the 4E crowd, I disliked the pervassive simulationism of 3.xE

Neither approach is wrong, but 4E doesn't accomadate the former. If thats the way you like to play, you won't like 4E. I know, that is a really obvious point. I just want to be clear that I agree that you can't force the ruleset to accomadate every style of play.

I guess where I disconnect from all this is that I simply can not fathom how people could look at the system and claim that it is insulting to them or that they hate it. I mean, I understand saying, as you and others have "Here is how I like to play and this system doesn't support my type of game. Have fun guys, I like what I am doing now just fine." I can totally grok that. I just don't grok the attitude of some which seems to run along the lines of "Because I don't like this method of playing the game I must fervently dislike or be insulted by the game. If I don't become enraged by it, I am afraid that people will assume that I am approving of it through inaction".

I think that saying that WoTC is insulting the 3.5 player base makes a certain degree of sense, given that they went and more or less abandoned a pretty vibrant game license and in the process put out a game with very different assumptions and play styles. I just don't get why people have such a violent negative reaction to the ruleset itself.

As an example, I really don't care for the way the newest Shadowrun Edition changed the game. So I play an older edition. Some of the new rules are easy to back-port, and if I like them I do so. Some of the new rules don't seem to back-port well, so I stick with the old system that I like. Everything past a certain point just doesn't exist for me. I don't hate it. i just don't use it, same way I wouldn't use a sourcebook I don't like.

I dunno. I guess I just figure that you should play the way you like using a system that supports it, and let the rest of the world do their thing, and reserve strong emotions like hate for something more worthy then a couple of game books.

[Gnaeus]

To me the part that really insults my intelligence is the straitjacket that 4.0 puts on my character design.

First and Second editions stuck you with essentially being a vanilla member of a basic class and race. Thats fine, they were still figuring out the hobby.

But then competitors demonstrated that you can make almost anything into an RPG character. Gurps...Build anything. Rolemaster...dozens of classes, and any class could take any skill, they were just better at some than others. Point based systems like the White Wolf games or Shadowrun 4e...You may have some advantages based on your general type, but you could build your character to conform with your idea of him, or to grow as the character grows.

3.5 responded with free multiclassing, level adjustments, skill selection and feats. If I wanted to make a half dragon, bugbear, cleric/fighter/rogue, I could do that, and in CORE.

Now, I like Save or Dies, Alignments, and most of the other features of 3.5. But maybe 4.0 can give a good tactical game. Its possible. But I only get to sit down at a gaming table once every 2-3 weeks. For every hour at the table I get several hours of enjoyment and escapism thinking about my character. I sit in traffic and ponder what feat to take at level 6. I pore through books to figure out which spells to take 3 levels from now, and how that will affect my item crafting options. 4.0 takes away my hobby. People who play it have nothing in common with gaming as I understand the term.

In my mind, 4.0 throws the gaming industry back 20 years. A modern RPG is one in which I can do advanced character creation. Making characters is the fun for me, the time spent at table is almost a field test to see if my ideas work. And the best thing about save or dies? I get to build a NEW character!

One last thing. Balance insults my intelligence. 3.5 is poorly balanced. But people aren't balanced, they are good at different things. I know that I can build a cleric, druid, or wizard in 3.5 and dominate the fighters in the party. So if I play those things I give other characters opportunities to excel in their own areas. As a DM, I don't care how powerful or weak the characters are, you adjust balance to what is at the table. 4.0 took the cowards way out, by tying all the classes down to tight lists of attack powers so that everyone would be sure to be equal. Equal makes me sad. My favorite characters in fiction arent equal, they are better, or worse, or really good at one particular thing.

[ImmortalAer]

The New Bruceski: Then I have bad news for you. Pick a minion. Throw 16 them at a party of their level with a wizard. See them geting slaughetered while hardly doing any damage.

Now pick a solo monster. Throw it against a party. 90% of the time the solo monster will be easily controled by the party and again slaughtered while dealing really few damage.

The 4e system only worcks well for one monster for each player, but heck, it starts geting strange when the party only finds enemy groups of their size.


You turn the corner and see six thousand Hobgoblins in rusty chainmail, most of them have spears, of varying quality, and others are covered in tribal tattoo's, with literal skull-caps.

What do you do?

:smalltongue:

[Britter]

Gnaeus:

Sure, and that would make sense as an insult if 4E was the only system out there.

But it ain't.

So how is it insulting? I am not trying to be argumentative here. I just don't get how you can make that leap, thats all.

I mean, those are all legitimate differences between the editions. Or they are legitimate perceptions of differences between the editions. Either way, they indicate the type of game you want to play. It ain't 4E. Thats cool by me.

So you play the editon you like and have fun, right? Al those other games are still out there and continuing to help the hobby grow, right?

Why imply that somehow you are being insulted by a game system, one of many out there, that plays in a way you legitimately dislike?
It is like saying, for example, that Blackjack is a horrible cardgame compared to Poker, and that you are therefore insulted by Blackjack. No one is forcing you to play either game. Go do what is fun.

I would posit that people are really not insulted by 4E as much as they are insulted/offened by the way that Hasbro/WotC is treating them by removing support for the game that they enjoyed and replacing it with another game. That makes total sense to me, because that was how I felt during the 2e-3e transition. I just never thought I was being insulted by the new rules.

I appreciate the differences in play style. I agree with some of the reasons people bring up for disliking 4E. What gets my goat is the jump from "things I don't like" to "insulting".

Anyway, it is largely a subjective thing in the end. I am not trying to imply that anyone is wrong in feeling the way they feel. I am just trying to make sense out of it.

[Britter]

One last thing. Balance insults my intelligence. 3.5 is poorly balanced. But people aren't balanced, they are good at different things. I know that I can build a cleric, druid, or wizard in 3.5 and dominate the fighters in the party. So if I play those things I give other characters opportunities to excel in their own areas. As a DM, I don't care how powerful or weak the characters are, you adjust balance to what is at the table. 4.0 took the cowards way out, by tying all the classes down to tight lists of attack powers so that everyone would be sure to be equal. Equal makes me sad. My favorite characters in fiction arent equal, they are better, or worse, or really good at one particular thing.

apologies for the double post.

I have to argue with you here a bit.

I disagree that the way 4E provides balance is by forcing a mechanical equality on all characters.

I believe that the design goal of 4E was actually to achieve what you are referencing, i.e. that there is character differentiation by class/role, and that, for example, a fighter is balanced against a wizrd in that they can both exert meaningful influence over an encounter. They are not "equal" imo, they are balanced. They are, in effect, good at very different things.

Equality would be boring.

Now, you can definitely argue how well the designers managed to achieve their goals, and argue what the costs were to the various classes in achieving this balance.

For my money, I appreciate that the system has essentially been hard-coded to prevent one class from being as dominant as, say CoDzilla or a well played wizard. I don't think that a player should have to intentionaly dumb-down a well engineered powerful character to allow his comrades to shine. I like the 4E method of giving each character a niche where they do something unique while allowing all characters to be able to make measurable and meaningful contributions to the game. You can build a super dmage dealer, but that damage dealer will rarely be able to take more of a beating then a character designed to tank big hits, forexample. So, the two characters will play differently, be balanced, but not be equal.

Thats just my two cents, and it was the only thing you said that I really disagreed with. I think 4E is trying to set up a system that mechnicaly makes every character good at their specialty, without making every character perform at a uniform level of sameness all the time. Thats how i define balance.

Anyway, once again, sorry for the double post.

[shadzar]

No, I don't constantly ask myself why the world works the way it is, I'm playing a game of pretend.

:smallconfused: Then why are you playing? I am serious on this. If the world doesn't interest you, then why take part in it?

Do you never question what is going on in the world? Why are the kobolds attacking? Why does the second sun revolve around the moon? Why does swinging your sword at someone violate Newtonian physics and pull someone closer to you when you hit them? :smallconfused:

Are you the gamist or actor? :smallconfused:

[RebelRogue]

:smallconfused: Then why are you playing? I am serious on this. If the world doesn't interest you, then why take part in it?

Do you never question what is going on in the world? Why are the kobolds attacking? Why does the second sun revolve around the moon? Why does swinging your sword at someone violate Newtonian physics and pull someone closer to you when you hit them? :smallconfused:

Are you the gamist or actor? :smallconfused:
There's a big difference between being interested in the world and demanding the level of detail outlined above.

[shadzar]

But you asked why players don't have minions. That's where you're misrepresenting things. "Two groups" doesn't mean "two identical groups." Players don't have solos either.

And you stil miss the point. I think you are mixing two posts, but not going back through the pages to find it.

Minions don't work because they disrupt the balance. The balance was created a foundation of the game for each PC to have a monster to fight in battle. Over time this will start making monsters die off and PCs can double up on others.

The problem is that with minions, you can create a group of monsters that has more numbers than the PC group. Well to fix this you weaken the minions so they are easier to kill.

:smallconfused:

Now say you are using minions only enough to equal the number of persons in the PC party so each monster has a PC to fight and vice-cersa. This means minions break down the system where have of the "monster party" is decimated with little work, and the remaining monster, because there was more than likely only enough room for one depending on party size, is quickly out-numbered and not going to really be able to do anything against the PC party.

Now we make those monsters stronger. This way they can put up a fight after the minions are dead, right?

Ok now create an encounter without minions with these tougher monsters and each PC gets on, and you have created a system that will drag out and could easily be predetermined TPK.

:smalleek: Looks like 4th edition.

Say instead of all that that still doesn't work, you tailored a monster to be equal to a PC in power. Created minions to add a few extra combatant for more interesting fights. Give PCs ability to have their own minions, called henchmen they could hire to help them.

Now when you use an encounter without minions those other monsters aren't stupidly overpowered, bor lack of a better term. When the PCs have their own minions, aka henchmen, it doesn't mean they will always get involved in the fight as the monster minions would, so it is still even sides on the battle field.

The balance comes into play where you are trying to balance group vs group type combat, but thematically one group has an option for external play that the others do not. Why should PCs not get the advantage of henchmen?

So many people complaining about AD&D and multiple systems for things such as saves, etc; but do not recognize the multiple systems of things in 4th and just accept them, when they were so complaining about multiple systems for doing things in the past? :smallconfused:

Sounds kind of flaky if you ask me. :smallconfused:

Minions don't work because minions were poorly designed, and more poorly thought out. Combat is intended to be man-to-man as Bill started mentioned basketball team.

The henchmen aspect comes into play when you can see an option not available for PCs, because the combat system doesn't allow for it, so can never be done in 4th without reworking the combat system for those weaker "PC types", as the combat system is based on a party of 5 players of the same level, with X amount of magic items of Y pluses. So the PCs can't even hire a tag along 1st level NPC to help carry crap or whatever for roleplaying aspect. No little squire whipping boys or anything like that. Snoopy go home, no Nodwicks allowed.

The closest to a minion/henchmen a PC can get is a pretty useless familiar. Can you can a human familiar? :smallconfused:

Gnaeus:

Sure, and that would make sense as an insult if 4E was the only system out there.

But it ain't.

They still sell PHBs, DMGs, and MMs, (the core books of the game) for previous editions? No, didn't think so, because they do not support anything other than 4th edition, so it IS the only system out there if you want to play D&D.

Child: I would like a D&D set for my birthday
Parent: I want the D&D set
~~
Parent: Here you go, Happy Birthday!
Child: :smallfrown: This is 4th edition, and everyone else plays 3.5, I can't use these.

:sigh:

[Nightson]

On the one hand, people who actually play the system say that minions work.

On the other hand, you who do not play the system say that minions don't work.

Tough call there.

[The New Bruceski]

They still sell PHBs, DMGs, and MMs, (the core books of the game) for previous editions? No, didn't think so, because they do not support anything other than 4th edition, so it IS the only system out there if you want to play D&D.

Child: I would like a D&D set for my birthday
Parent: I want the D&D set
~~
Parent: Here you go, Happy Birthday!
Child: :smallfrown: This is 4th edition, and everyone else plays 3.5, I can't use these.

:sigh:

If you find that encounter surprising, you never had a child and never were a child. I've personally experienced it with video games, trading cards, CCGs, transformers (over the years my grandparents got me and my brother a bajillion autobots and no decepticons), wargaming minis, all sorts of stuff.

...and I just got back from my friendly local game store, where 3.5 books are on sale next to the 4.0 ones. So apparently they do still sell them.

[Artanis]

And you stil miss the point. I think you are mixing two posts, but not going back through the pages to find it.

Minions don't work because they disrupt the balance. The balance was created a foundation of the game for each PC to have a monster to fight in battle. Over time this will start making monsters die off and PCs can double up on others.

The problem is that with minions, you can create a group of monsters that has more numbers than the PC group. Well to fix this you weaken the minions so they are easier to kill.

:smallconfused:

Now say you are using minions only enough to equal the number of persons in the PC party so each monster has a PC to fight and vice-cersa. This means minions break down the system where have of the "monster party" is decimated with little work, and the remaining monster, because there was more than likely only enough room for one depending on party size, is quickly out-numbered and not going to really be able to do anything against the PC party.
Honest question: have you actually read the guidelines regarding encounter design? :smallconfused:

[shadzar]

There's a big difference between being interested in the world and demanding the level of detail outlined above.

I demand the level of detail, or I had better be playing a miniature wargame.


On the one hand, people who actually play the system say that minions work.

On the other hand, you who do not play the system say that minions don't work.

Tough call there.

Mike Mearls says minions don't work....that is why he changed them in MMII. :smallconfused:

You would think maybe a designers plays the game he designs, but I guess not.

[shadzar]

Honest question: have you actually read the guidelines regarding encounter design? :smallconfused:

Yes, but I am also going with what the designers say by what they mean when something is said in the book, and the reasons it is written one way. They didn't have room in the books, to explain this whole new non-D&D game with the first set of books, so they are having to explain elsewhere.

So why do the books say one thing, and yet everything said by any designer comes across differently? :smallconfused:

Watch the G$ video, read the designers blog, etc. and you will find the books them selves to be utterly flawed.

Skill challenges, stealth, minions, encounter design, etc have all been changed already within a year.

PHBII and the other II books and everything based on them, are 4.1 edition. :smallwink:

[Nu]

And you stil miss the point. I think you are mixing two posts, but not going back through the pages to find it.

Minions don't work because they disrupt the balance. The balance was created a foundation of the game for each PC to have a monster to fight in battle. Over time this will start making monsters die off and PCs can double up on others.

The problem is that with minions, you can create a group of monsters that has more numbers than the PC group. Well to fix this you weaken the minions so they are easier to kill.

:smallconfused:

Now say you are using minions only enough to equal the number of persons in the PC party so each monster has a PC to fight and vice-cersa. This means minions break down the system where have of the "monster party" is decimated with little work, and the remaining monster, because there was more than likely only enough room for one depending on party size, is quickly out-numbered and not going to really be able to do anything against the PC party.

Now we make those monsters stronger. This way they can put up a fight after the minions are dead, right?

Ok now create an encounter without minions with these tougher monsters and each PC gets on, and you have created a system that will drag out and could easily be predetermined TPK.

:smalleek: Looks like 4th edition.

Say instead of all that that still doesn't work, you tailored a monster to be equal to a PC in power. Created minions to add a few extra combatant for more interesting fights. Give PCs ability to have their own minions, called henchmen they could hire to help them.

Now when you use an encounter without minions those other monsters aren't stupidly overpowered, bor lack of a better term. When the PCs have their own minions, aka henchmen, it doesn't mean they will always get involved in the fight as the monster minions would, so it is still even sides on the battle field.

The balance comes into play where you are trying to balance group vs group type combat, but thematically one group has an option for external play that the others do not. Why should PCs not get the advantage of henchmen?

So many people complaining about AD&D and multiple systems for things such as saves, etc; but do not recognize the multiple systems of things in 4th and just accept them, when they were so complaining about multiple systems for doing things in the past? :smallconfused:

Sounds kind of flaky if you ask me. :smallconfused:

Minions don't work because minions were poorly designed, and more poorly thought out. Combat is intended to be man-to-man as Bill started mentioned basketball team.

The henchmen aspect comes into play when you can see an option not available for PCs, because the combat system doesn't allow for it, so can never be done in 4th without reworking the combat system for those weaker "PC types", as the combat system is based on a party of 5 players of the same level, with X amount of magic items of Y pluses. So the PCs can't even hire a tag along 1st level NPC to help carry crap or whatever for roleplaying aspect. No little squire whipping boys or anything like that. Snoopy go home, no Nodwicks allowed.

The closest to a minion/henchmen a PC can get is a pretty useless familiar. Can you can a human familiar? :smallconfused:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Magil/New/stupidparts.png

Drawing conclusions from arbitrary assumptions does not an argument make. Just because you believe that "combat is intended to be man-to-man" (whatever that means) does not mean that minions are poorly designed. It just means you don't like the concept of them, and have some bias against certain encounter designs.

Oh, and to make things clear, PCs and NPCs should never be handled in the exact same manner by the rules. That either restricts player choice too much or requires too much bookkeeping on the part of the DM.

[MartinHarper]

So if someone refluffed their fireball to be a rain of firey spirits that swarm their enemies, the thing won't light on fire anymore?

That fluff isn't compatible with the mechanics for fireball. Fireball damages all creatures in an area, whereas a rain of intelligent fire spirits would presumably only target enemies. If the fire spirits are indiscriminate, then the mechanics and fluff match. But then they'll also set detonators on fire.


Animate an object. Make that object a perfect sphere that magically rolls around and hits things. That can be made prone.

Sounds like a custom monster, which should have immune: prone in its custom stat block.


Unfortunately there are no sunder or disarm rules in 4e.

There are a few PC powers that disarm. Disarmed monsters can't use attacks with the Weapon keyword, so they're mostly reduced to making basic unarmed attacks.


All powers that specifiy a target can legitimately target objects. This was errata'd onto PHB p.57.

Errata says: "At DM's discretion, a power that targets a creature can also target an object".


If one power can hit objects (fireball), why cannot Otherwind Stride?

Because it's up to DM discretion. Though, reading the power, I'd be happy to have it target objects and be used outside combat. I was thinking of Misty Step.

[Gnaeus]

Gnaeus:

Sure, and that would make sense as an insult if 4E was the only system out there.

But it ain't.

So how is it insulting? I am not trying to be argumentative here. I just don't get how you can make that leap, thats all.

I mean, those are all legitimate differences between the editions. Or they are legitimate perceptions of differences between the editions. Either way, they indicate the type of game you want to play. It ain't 4E. Thats cool by me.

So you play the editon you like and have fun, right? Al those other games are still out there and continuing to help the hobby grow, right?

Why imply that somehow you are being insulted by a game system, one of many out there, that plays in a way you legitimately dislike?
It is like saying, for example, that Blackjack is a horrible cardgame compared to Poker, and that you are therefore insulted by Blackjack. No one is forcing you to play either game. Go do what is fun.

I would posit that people are really not insulted by 4E as much as they are insulted/offened by the way that Hasbro/WotC is treating them by removing support for the game that they enjoyed and replacing it with another game. That makes total sense to me, because that was how I felt during the 2e-3e transition. I just never thought I was being insulted by the new rules.

I appreciate the differences in play style. I agree with some of the reasons people bring up for disliking 4E. What gets my goat is the jump from "things I don't like" to "insulting".

Anyway, it is largely a subjective thing in the end. I am not trying to imply that anyone is wrong in feeling the way they feel. I am just trying to make sense out of it.

I would give 2 reasons really. One is that for the reasons that I listed, it seems "like but less than" D&D. Rather than the poker /blackjack analogy, I would compare it to a tournament bridge player who discovered that the national bridge organization had switched to spades instead, or a scrabble player who woke up one day and found that they had switched to a dictionary written for 5th graders. If they called it 4th edition Basic, and I had hopes that they were planning to write a 4th edition Advanced with a more developed optional rules set, that would be different. Book of 9 Swords showed that many of the ideas behind 4th ed could be incorporated with a more complicated system, they just couldn't be bothered. I feel that they dumbed down my game.

The other reason is that a gaming system cannot survive indefinately without support. I still can and do play 3.5 in my local gaming group, but my favorite convention events have already folded. Unlike poker, which can be played with the same materials as blackjack, eventually 3.5 will die from lack of printed support. I have heard from some convention DMs that they have been actively discouraged or prevented from running games in 3.5. Maybe thats false, I don't run con games anymore, I only play in them. I don't feel that I have a choice, at least not in the long term. 3.5 will die. I will move to a competitor's game. I feel that they abandoned and were openly hostile to a group of players/consumers who had spent years and hundreds of dollars supporting their products.

[Kemper Boyd]

Mike Mearls says minions don't work....that is why he changed them in MMII. :smallconfused:

I'd like a source for this.

[shadzar]

I'd like a source for this.


In this episode, we learn the exact pronunciation of Rob "Heinsoo", as well as dive into new design philosophies for the MM2's minions and solo monsters

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20090527

1:20:00


Minions, usually were not worth the XP we were giving for them. ~ The truth is PCs compare to what we thought...PCs end up with a lot more powers that can take out multiple~Minion just actually weren't worth their value.~Oh 16 minions weren't as really hard as 4~ Why shouldn't minions just have a role like every other monster, and you were right [to Jeremy or Mike].~

[Nu]

Mike Mearls says minions don't work....that is why he changed them in MMII. :smallconfused:

Unless there is some earth-shattering subtle change I am missing, I am not seeing any noticeable difference in the way minions are handled between MM1 and 2.

Other than the minor difference that monsters may now have a secondary role other than leader (which may result in Minion Brute, etc), but I'm not seeing anything game-changing here.

[FoE]

Minions work fine. They're one of the best design choices about 4E, really. The one issue with minions is that they tend to be ineffective at higher levels, especially in the epic tier.

I haven't read the MM2 yet, but if they've introduced some changes to make minions more effective, that's terrific.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Re: save or die.

This is just my opinion, of course, but I don't feel that save or dies add a chance of dying.

They add a chance of being hosed by a dice roll, or not having the right protections, or not having the right class in your party, or any number of other things that may or may not be within your control as the player.

Challenge me all you want. Force me to choose to fight or run, attack me with monsters many times my level, outnumber me, do your worst, that I can live with. Heck, kill me if I make stupid mistakes or just plain can't survive what I am fighting. Go for it.

Kill me because the dice rolled poorly against a save or die, and I will just feel cheated.

Now, sure, the dice rolling poorly can kill you. If you don't hit any of your foes or do very low damage while the bad guys are confriming crits like no ones business, well, then you died due to bad rolls. But you were allowed to keep makng those rolls, adjust your tactics, and keep taking actions to try to salvage the situation.

I feel the same way about the less nasty save or sucks. They create challenge, and they can be lethal, but they don't necessarily hose you completely. Some save or sucks, otoh, are really bad, so again, ymmv.

Some people may not see a difference between the two(failing a save vs death as opposed to losing a fight and dying due to bad rolls in general). I do.

So, I fall into the camp that likes a lot of what they did with 4e. Ironically, 4e reminds quite a bit of my 2e days, and I really liked played 2E. Sure, the flavor is a lot different, more heroic and cinematic and a lot less girtty, but hey, I like it.

Some people like save or die, some don't. I get that.

There are many ways to fix save or die. For example, doing damage to hit points instead of outright killing the character on a failed save. Or doing some sort of "psychic" damage instead of dominating the character on a failed save.

What 4e did was throw out the baby with the bath water. You don't have enchantresses dominating enemies or changing them into animals, or necromancers killing with a thought or animating undead, or a conjurers summoning fiendish monsters, or anything else that deals with high fantasy.

(I thought player minions might have been the way that undead animation or summoning would get into the game but that's no the case either.)

The insult is to the intelligence of the designers. They could not solve certain problems with certain elements, so they just got rid of the elements altogether.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the way 4e gave a bump to melee classes, much like Tome of Battle did. And, sure, spellcasters needed nerfing. But what 4e did was not so much nerf casters as make them boring: do some damage, move this figure to that square, etc.

[RebelRogue]

I demand the level of detail, or I had better be playing a miniature wargame.
The level of detail will always leave things in that "insults my intelligence" or makes you do physically impossible stuff/stuff that makes no sense, no matter how complex the game. It's up to the designers' judgement to settle on an appropriate complexity to catch the spirit of the game. Unless you play roleplaying games like this (http://xkcd.com/505/), these situations will always happen! Different people will have different ideas of what is a necessary/appropriate detail level, but a "one true" setting or a universal threshold at which intelligence is insulted does not exist. You don't like 4ed - we get that! But please stop claiming it to be a horrible game as if it's an objective fact!

[shadzar]

You are walking in the woods and trip and break your legs. You are going to die if you do not get back to civilization or get some kind of healing/treatment there.

Cleric does a cure spell, or an extended rest and you are cured up.

Had you not gone back to get healed, had not cleric, or rest to cure all wounds you died. This was save-or-die. You fault for slipping down a hole and breaking your leg.

But some people ignore that, because damage is only mental fatigue and emotional distress that prevents you from fighting...

Save or die exists for those that don't want to play a minis games that pretty much just says you are perfectly healthy and just slightly drained of energy, or you are dead.

Save-or-die gives you the inbetweens, and unaccountables, where fate is not always in your hands.

As long as you have HP/life points/etc, you have save-or-die; so why try removing them form anywhere in the game?

Petrification isn't even save-or-die when someone has a stone to flesh spell. :smallwink:

[MartinHarper]

What 4e did was throw out the baby with the bath water. You don't have enchantresses dominating enemies or changing them into an animal, or necromancers killing with a thought or animating undead, or a conjurers summoning fiendish monsters, or anything that deals with high fantasy.

I've seen everything you mention there except polymorph enemy. Monsters like the succubus charm enemies, and there are various PC powers to do the same. Necromancers kill with a thought by using spells that do damage. There are monsters that create undead or demonic allies during play. PC summons aren't in PHB1 much, but are in later books.

[shadzar]

It's up to the designers' judgement to settle on an appropriate complexity to catch the spirit of the game.

And in many people's eyes they failed, and failed so badly that it insulted them in being told what level of detail was acceptable for the game, including but not limited to what you yourself define as fun.

Talking to two guards at the city gate isn't fun so skip it.

Um, no. I like it, ergo it is fun; who the hell are you to state otherwise? :smallconfused:

And if what you say is true, then 4th edition is NOT an RPG, but a tactical combat resolution game with some elements of persona thrown in just for flavor....aka a minis game with some fluff, aka Warhammer 40k.

:smallconfused:

I spend $6000 on both D&D and 40k, and I would prefer to be able to choose which one I play when. Since I already have 40k, I don't need another one of it. I would like an RPG for when I don't want to play a minis game with a little fluff. Heck I even still have Mage Knight which has a lot more fluff than 4th edition, and its better, and the combat makes more sense to reality as well, so even that defunct game is better at what 4th tries to do, than 4th.

:smallconfused:

Offer me a steaming pile of poo and I will treat it like a steaming pile of poo. Offer me fake poo and I will have more things, and be more inspired to do things with it other than just throw it in the refuse.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I've seen everything you mention there except polymorph enemy. Monsters like the succubus charm enemies, and there are various PC powers to do the same. Necromancers kill with a thought by using spells that do damage. There are monsters that create undead or demonic allies during play. PC summons aren't in PHB1 much, but are in later books.

Later, always later. The bard gets buffs to diplomacy and such. The illusionist finally starts getting better with things like eyebite but the bard, illusionist and necromancer came in the PHB2, no? And some kind of polymorph and summons/undead minions/constructs are still missing? The game has always felt incomplete.

Like the succubus, the illusionist powers are very combat oriented. And though I have seen one or two cool effects most combat actions do some damage and/or give a bonus and/or debuff an enemy and/or move some figure from A to B. The spellcasters are not that different from the other classes. It's the Hero-ization of D&D as in it's similar to generic games like the Hero System.

The magic in 4e is ubiquitous (everyone has it) and low powered (no world changing effects) but at the same time flashy (energy bolts from my hands!).

Now I played Runequest and loved it. That was melee heavy game with ubiquitous but low powered and non-flashy magic (for the most part). D&D's previous editions (normally) had ubiquitous, high powered and flashy magic.

However, the magic system in 4e feels to me more like you're playing a super-hero blaster than high fantasy wizard. And that's OK, if you like that.

As a player and DM who likes high fantasy magic, the spellcasting in 4e seems incomplete, boring and not that flavorful.

It's not terrible. And I can see where others would like it. It's just not for me. But I do think the designers could have done a better job.

Edit: And it's not that the entire magic system is bad. For ex, I like the idea of rituals and that even non-spellcasters can do rituals. (But like almost anything, this has its origins before 4e. In the case of rituals, it was Unearthed Arcana.)

[Shadowtraveler]

Yes, yes. The airship is just to illustrate the detail I can use. Take a party of characters, one of every class so you have access to all powers, go build a security system that has to function without the characters around. I doubt it can be done in 4E.Guards and Wards. If the duration is extended for a year and a day (which costs only one healing surge per day), it becomes permanent.


So how did the NPCs, who presumably built their traps, do it? (I'm talking about magic traps, mundane ones are just engineering)Rituals most likely.


Besides, rituals are not a good solution as they take way too much money to use regularly (count as 24/7, 1 month continuous operation). Not good if you just need heat. I'd just build a normal balloon if rituals are the only way to go.If you don't wish to spend the money, just use an at-will fire spell. 4 classes have one (not including the Hell-lock)

[jseah]

They are not "equal" imo, they are balanced. They are, in effect, good at very different things.
As much difference as a red deck and blue deck in MtG.

I think he meant that he wanted them to play completely different games.


That fluff isn't compatible with the mechanics for fireball. Fireball damages all creatures in an area, whereas a rain of intelligent fire spirits would presumably only target enemies. If the fire spirits are indiscriminate, then the mechanics and fluff match. But then they'll also set detonators on fire.
No... Not exactly. I'll clarify what I meant:
Fire spirits home in on any life force in the area and burn them. Thus dealing fire damage to all creatures in the area. Anything not a creature, they don't attack.


Errata says: "At DM's discretion, a power that targets a creature can also target an object".

Because it's up to DM discretion. Though, reading the power, I'd be happy to have it target objects and be used outside combat. I was thinking of Misty Step.
That's part of the problem. How this power works out of combat is "up to your DM".

What's my DM gonna say when I ask him/her how practically the entire list works out of combat and use barely 1/4 of it, and even less than that out of combat?

Because there's no clear guideline, I as a player cannot assume how something will work and will have to ask about it for every campaign.

As a DM, I'll follow the description as a guideline. Hence my proposed solution to take the fluff given as canon and change the mechanics to fit the fluff.


Guards and Wards. If the duration is extended for a year and a day (which costs only one healing surge per day), it becomes permanent.

Rituals most likely.

If you don't wish to spend the money, just use an at-will fire spell. 4 classes have one (not including the Hell-lock)
Guards and wards doesn't compare with glyph of warding, or some funky magic-detection-linked mundane trap. I'm sure the only security system NPCs use can't just be Guards and Wards.


The problem with saying: It's a ritual!
Is that you'll have to create stuff not RAW. And thus isn't a solution... it's just handwaving a solution in. What happens if someone hits with a dispel? Where does it have to hit? What if the magic contraption should be behind the locked door and thus not hittable? Saying "it's a ritual" tells me nothing about how the trap operates and how a player could get rid of it or a DM justify what happens when some part gets broken (by an angry warrior say).


People get tired. How long can you channel magic continuously? (presumably it's as tiring as any other at-will)


jseah, I would argue that magical traps would be made with a ritual, essentailly a variation on the item creation process. Of course, that is not RAW, and therefore is not a "real" solution to the problem.

<...>

I dunno. I guess I just figure that you should play the way you like using a system that supports it, and let the rest of the world do their thing, and reserve strong emotions like hate for something more worthy then a couple of game books.
Mmm... That's pretty much it. It's not like there's a problem with the powers being restrictive. It's that there isn't much of alternative solutions other than the ones we're used to in RL. =/

Well, I guess I have to agree with that. It's a completely different playstyle from 3.5E to 4E and I just don't like it.
That said, anything that implies, "It works that way because the plot wouldn't work otherwise", instantly earns my dissatisfaction and I get this urge to scratch it to pieces. Add my tendency to wriggle at little details until they break and it's not a good combination for 4E enjoyment.

The following bit is just my gripes, so it doesn't apply:
And yes, I suppose I'm also a little disappointed that they took away the possibility that magic could be used usefully anywhere outside of combat. Rituals do not count...

The magic can organize groups of information, can create complex phenomena, can summon massive amounts of heat from nowhere. Can I seriously believe no one has made a fly spell before prismatic spray? It's nowhere near as complex (information wise) and nowhere near as powerful. (speaking of energy requirements)

I suppose no one is ever going to be allowed to play a winged creature, since WotC thinks fly is so overpowered.

[MartinHarper]

I'll clarify what I meant:
Fire spirits home in on any life force in the area and burn them. Thus dealing fire damage to all creatures in the area. Anything not a creature, they don't attack.

Ok. So have that as your fluff for your PC's "fireball", and tell your DM about it. You'll want to discuss with your DM whether the power still works on undead and golems and the like. Perhaps the spirits also home in on unlife force? Other characters may have different fluff for the same power. In all cases, the DM will use the selected fluff to decide what effect the power has on objects.


Can I seriously believe no one has made a fly spell before prismatic spray? It's nowhere near as complex (information wise) and nowhere near as powerful. (speaking of energy requirements)

Level 16 Fly means applying an opposing force precisely equal in size to gravity, over five minutes, applied evenly to the casters entire body, without causing damage, with a built in feather-fall effect if the caster loses concentration. That requires a lot more control and finesse than a damage spell.

[Artanis]

As much difference as a red deck and blue deck in MtG.

I think he meant that he wanted them to play completely different games.
I was under the impression that a blue counterspell deck played very differently - almost entirely different games differently - than a red burn deck. But then, I'm waaay out of touch, so maybe that's changed by now :smallconfused:



That's part of the problem. How this power works out of combat is "up to your DM".

What's my DM gonna say when I ask him/her how practically the entire list works out of combat and use barely 1/4 of it, and even less than that out of combat?

Because there's no clear guideline, I as a player cannot assume how something will work and will have to ask about it for every campaign.

As a DM, I'll follow the description as a guideline. Hence my proposed solution to take the fluff given as canon and change the mechanics to fit the fluff.
And it's suggested to the DM that the default answer should usually be "yes". It doesn't have to be yes, of course, but if you ask if you can torch something with a fireball, the DM will probably say yes.


Guards and wards doesn't compare with glyph of warding, or some funky magic-detection-linked mundane trap. I'm sure the only security system NPCs use can't just be Guards and Wards.


The problem with saying: It's a ritual!
Is that you'll have to create stuff not RAW. And thus isn't a solution... it's just handwaving a solution in. What happens if someone hits with a dispel? Where does it have to hit? What if the magic contraption should be behind the locked door and thus not hittable? Saying "it's a ritual" tells me nothing about how the trap operates and how a player could get rid of it or a DM justify what happens when some part gets broken (by an angry warrior say).
:smallsigh:

Yes, yes, we know that the 4e Wizard is not as powerful as he was in 4e. We get it. We've been over it so many times and for so long that there's no point to bringing it up yet again. So can we please discuss something that hasn't been beaten to death a thousand times?



It's a completely different playstyle from 3.5E to 4E and I just don't like it.
And that is the crux of the matter.

You not liking the playstyle is legitimate, and I respect that. Your stated reasons are legitimate, and I respect them. But really, we've had this discussion a thousand times. The playstyle is different, you don't like that playstyle, so let's leave it at that.

[jseah]

Ok. So have that as your fluff for your PC's "fireball", and tell your DM about it. You'll want to discuss with your DM whether the power still works on undead and golems and the like. Perhaps the spirits also home in on unlife force? Other characters may have different fluff for the same power. In all cases, the DM will use the selected fluff to decide what effect the power has on objects.
That point was meant to show that by changing the fluff, you can change the mechanics of how the spell works. ie. Fire spirit style fireball won't burn objects.

Which leads to the conclusion that fluff should not be up to the players.


Level 16 Fly means applying an opposing force precisely equal in size to gravity, over five minutes, applied evenly to the casters entire body, without causing damage, with a built in feather-fall effect if the caster loses concentration. That requires a lot more control and finesse than a damage spell.
Doesn't matter to the argument, it was just me complaining about things that don't apply to any reasonable argument.
Screw the in-built feather fall. I just need to get up that cliff. Or peg myself 20ft above the ground.

It's not more difficult than stinking cloud or prismatic spray. It's really just a telekinesis effect. A uniform forcefield will accelerate everything equally. (density differences in the human body < tensile strength, so no damage unless we're talking more than a few Gs)
That's it! A uniform forcefield is enough to fly... So why no empowered mage hand? A mage hand with a higher carrying load will quite easily carry people. (including the caster)
And considering mage hand is a cantrip, the control required to exert a forcefield is low...


I was under the impression that a blue counterspell deck played very differently - almost entirely different games differently - than a red burn deck. But then, I'm waaay out of touch, so maybe that's changed by now :smallconfused:
I think he wants the difference to be like: Fighter plays MtG, Wizard plays tactical wargame.

That's more different than any two decks in MtG can be. The difference between a Chain Tripper fighter and a non-combat diviner wizard. One is concerned with tactical superiority, the other is concerned with information management and espionage.

Totally different spheres. Totally different mindsets.


And it's suggested to the DM that the default answer should usually be "yes". It doesn't have to be yes, of course, but if you ask if you can torch something with a fireball, the DM will probably say yes.
Ye-ah. That's the thing. I still have to ask for every little thing, because there's a possibility of a 'no' which is not the same from game to game.

I'm sure almost all DMs will say yes to fireball burning things. What about scorching burst? Is using an at-will tiring? How about a cantrip? I'm thinking of using mage hand to crank wheels. Many many mage hands (there's an item) can potentially drive machines or trigger traps. Or even be able to lift people.


:smallsigh:

Yes, yes, we know that the 4e Wizard is not as powerful as he was in 4e. We get it. We've been over it so many times and for so long that there's no point to bringing it up yet again. So can we please discuss something that hasn't been beaten to death a thousand times?
It wasn't the power of a wizard. It's the construction of a magic trap/device. Because magic exists, there will be ways to use it. The more devices available to the people in the world, the better the traps can potentially be. Builders with access to magic and mundane devices can build a better device than mundane-only. It's simple logic.
How it is done can't just be "Oh, it works because it's magic".

My questions as to what happens when someone does something is sort of like the experiments a wizard would do when he meets an interesting phenomena.

Sort of like a scientist. You poke it to find out what it does and how it does it. Hopefully you can understand and make something useful.

Let me ask this: What's your first reaction to this? (in spoiler because it's a bit long and slightly off-topic)
It's an anime (Clannad) that I'm talking about, one particular arc.
Some supernatural phenomena occurs around this girl, causing people to forget about her. (and she's invisible and silent to them)
Eventually everyone forgets and she's left alone, not before the main characters manage to work up a friendship just in time to lose it tearfully. Cue sad music and end of arc.

My first reaction was: "Hey, she can pick up things and put them down. And there was one scene where someone was surprised to find themselves suddenly holding a wooden carving. So she's solid, and only things she's holding are invisible. Why can't she just write on a piece of paper? Or for that matter, she can hold someone's hand and they'll know something is there. "
I do admit that my reaction is partially caused by the sad ending, which somehow prompts me to find solutions. Which I did after 5 minutes...

I think that might underline much of the difference between our thinking styles.
If not, then I hope it was a good demonstration of how 4E falls apart. It does so in much the same way. I ask a few questions, try a few things and poof, we have a problem that might completely derail a campaign.
So much for leave your logic at the door.


And that is the crux of the matter.

You not liking the playstyle is legitimate, and I respect that. Your stated reasons are legitimate, and I respect them. But really, we've had this discussion a thousand times. The playstyle is different, you don't like that playstyle, so let's leave it at that.
Mmm... So how many people does it affect? I understand some people will like the new heroic style fantasy 4E is. Is the loss of the simulationist and hard-core gamist groups worth it? (speaking from a financial standpoint, since WotC is a company)
How many people can "leave their logic at the door"? It can't be just me that these holes are a problem for.

Did WotC make the wrong decision in changing the playstyle?

[Artanis]

Let me ask this: What's your first reaction to this? (in spoiler because it's a bit long and slightly off-topic)
It's an anime (Clannad) that I'm talking about, one particular arc.
Some supernatural phenomena occurs around this girl, causing people to forget about her. (and she's invisible and silent to them)
Eventually everyone forgets and she's left alone, not before the main characters manage to work up a friendship just in time to lose it tearfully. Cue sad music and end of arc.

My first reaction was: "Hey, she can pick up things and put them down. And there was one scene where someone was surprised to find themselves suddenly holding a wooden carving. So she's solid, and only things she's holding are invisible. Why can't she just write on a piece of paper? Or for that matter, she can hold someone's hand and they'll know something is there. "
I do admit that my reaction is partially caused by the sad ending, which somehow prompts me to find solutions. Which I did after 5 minutes...

I think that might underline much of the difference between our thinking styles.
If not, then I hope it was a good demonstration of how 4E falls apart. It does so in much the same way. I ask a few questions, try a few things and poof, we have a problem that might completely derail a campaign.
So much for leave your logic at the door.
My first reaction was, "wow, must suck to be her" :smalltongue:

My reaction to your reaction was twofold:
1) With the information at hand, I don't know if writing on a piece of paper would help because, for all I know, they might forget that. It is a supernatural thing, after all.
2) The information at hand is almost certainly horribly insufficient because I haven't seen the series :smallwink:



Mmm... So how many people does it affect? I understand some people will like the new heroic style fantasy 4E is. Is the loss of the simulationist and hard-core gamist groups worth it? (speaking from a financial standpoint, since WotC is a company)
How many people can "leave their logic at the door"? It can't be just me that these holes are a problem for.

Did WotC make the wrong decision in changing the playstyle?
It affects everybody who plays DnD. Not everybody is affected in a bad way though :smallwink:

I don't know what WotC's balance sheet looks like, so I can't say how much money they're making. And neither one of us - and probably very few, if any, people on this board - know how many said "simulationist" groups were actually lost. Nor does anybody know how many "hardcore" groups were lost, which is not the same number as simulationist groups. Really, most people here seem to like both versions, with very, very few actively hating one or the other.

"Leave their logic to the door" is a bit misleading because 3.5 required you do that as well, just not necessarily to the same extent as 4e. A better question would be how many people can "leave their logic at the door to the extent required by 4e, rather than the extent required by 3.5."

At any rate, that's another thing that nobody knows. And you're right, you are far from the only person that has trouble with this.

As for whether the decision was right or wrong, only a peek at WotC's balance sheet will tell us :smallwink:

[jseah]

Artanis:

I suppose that's as far as we'll get then. That discussion certainly helped iron out my thoughts and vague dislike into something concrete. And helped me see that my problems with 4E is really much smaller than I thought it was.
Although I'm not about to pick up 4E again until they fix it. =P


About Clannad:

Well, the girl is really a ghost-thing whose main body is in a coma in the hospital. How she's able to manipulate solid objects is beyond me.

The main point about that anecdote was that drama and a semi-good story isn't something that can excuse poor logic and loosely defined rules. Your point about forgetting written down stuff is one of them. The first thing the characters should have done is examine the phenomena in detail, not cry! Bleh...

Examination of details... Hmm... why exactly is "leaving your logic at the door" considered a good thing by some people? I don't understand that...

[Artanis]

Artanis:

I suppose that's as far as we'll get then. That discussion certainly helped iron out my thoughts and vague dislike into something concrete. And helped me see that my problems with 4E is really much smaller than I thought it was.
Although I'm not about to pick up 4E again until they fix it. =P


About Clannad:

Well, the girl is really a ghost-thing whose main body is in a coma in the hospital. How she's able to manipulate solid objects is beyond me.

The main point about that anecdote was that drama and a semi-good story isn't something that can excuse poor logic and loosely defined rules. Your point about forgetting written down stuff is one of them. The first thing the characters should have done is examine the phenomena in detail, not cry! Bleh...

Examination of details... Hmm... why exactly is "leaving your logic at the door" considered a good thing by some people? I don't understand that...

I'm always glad to help :smallbiggrin:

[Sebastian]

Let me ask this: What's your first reaction to this? (in spoiler because it's a bit long and slightly off-topic)
It's an anime (Clannad) that I'm talking about, one particular arc.
Some supernatural phenomena occurs around this girl, causing people to forget about her. (and she's invisible and silent to them)
Eventually everyone forgets and she's left alone, not before the main characters manage to work up a friendship just in time to lose it tearfully. Cue sad music and end of arc.

My first reaction was: "Hey, she can pick up things and put them down. And there was one scene where someone was surprised to find themselves suddenly holding a wooden carving. So she's solid, and only things she's holding are invisible. Why can't she just write on a piece of paper? Or for that matter, she can hold someone's hand and they'll know something is there. "
I do admit that my reaction is partially caused by the sad ending, which somehow prompts me to find solutions. Which I did after 5 minutes...

I think that might underline much of the difference between our thinking styles.
If not, then I hope it was a good demonstration of how 4E falls apart. It does so in much the same way. I ask a few questions, try a few things and poof, we have a problem that might completely derail a campaign.
So much for leave your logic at the door.


Or she can comunicate via internet or use a phone, make photos or a movie. Is it a localized effect (i.e. works only near to her?) or apply to everything she does, so if she write something people don't see it? What if she write something and xerox it?


Yes, I know perfectly what you mean, Jseah, I'm right there, too, and i dislike 4e exactly for the same reason. And also because I find it really boring. :smallsmile:

[jseah]

That said, I find 4E to be a nice system to use.

Not for the characters/races. I mean the general powers and levels system. At-will, encounter and dailies work nicely. Replacing encounter with "recharge" of course.

Mod out all the races for custom ones. Mod out all the classes/powers. Change around a few core rules, like importing grappling and FF/Touch attacks from 3.5, also removing the random 1/2 levels + bringing back the skill point system.

Or basically, it's 3.5 but without the classes and using Defenses instead of saves. (same deal probabilistically, more streamlined) Plus a few other random stuff.

Then homebrew in all the classes & powers to your taste.

In other words, use their mechanic, but rewrite everything you don't like. (in my case would be practically all powers)

Perhaps it'll be a better system than either 3.5 or 4E and you'ld be a better DM for doing that.

[Mando Knight]

Change around a few core rules, like importing grappling and FF/Touch attacks from 3.5, also removing the random 1/2 levels + bringing back the skill point system.

What. Import 3.5's grappling? And touch attacks?

1/2 level stuff: It's a unified system. I like it. WotC likes it (see Star Wars SAGA edition.). It's simple and easy to remember. It cuts out about ten minutes of character creation time, especially when starting at higher levels without retroactive skill point increases.

Touch attacks: WotC rolled those in with attacks vs Reflex, which are basically the same thing.

Grappling: Grabbing an opponent is easy in 4E. The entire grapple rules for 4E take up two text boxes (Essentially, Str vs Ref for grab, Str vs Fort to move opponent, sustain minor, immobilize opponent when grabbing). 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple) is like this (http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0233.html).

[Poru93]

After following this debate, I decided that while I have played a lot of 4th Edition (easily over 200 hours), have had lots of fun doing it, and have run into very few of the problems stated, that I should give 3.5 a chance. I found pdfs of almost every core book written for 3.5 and after downloading them, started to read through the players handbook. I distinctly remember (I know this hasn't been mentioned recently, but I believe it's one of the major complaints against 4E, correct me if I'm wrong) that WotC have pushed miniatures as key to 4E. A lot of people don't like this and see it as more marketing. However, I haven't gotten past the 2nd page of the PHB for 3.5 before I see a list of what I need to play. One of the items? Miniatures. I suppose it annoys me how many people criticize something, in this case 4E, about something that the very thing they support, usually 3.5, does as well. IMO, this is what causes many defenders of 4E to present the rose-tinted glasses argument as a counter.

[shadzar]

I suppose it annoys me how many people criticize something, in this case 4E, about something that the very thing they support, usually 3.5, does as well. IMO, this is what causes many defenders of 4E to present the rose-tinted glasses argument as a counter.

I don't like either 3.x or 4th. Come talk to me somewhere else about 1st/2nd vs 4th. :smallsmile:

There minis were a greed item and wanted only by those who painted. They were less useful for gaming since the minis always fell over, and never fit in the hex maps. So they were just collected for quick "Look this is what the guy looks like" where some people can paint not draw, and others just used minis unpainted to say "s/he looks like this".

It annoys me that the only editions ever thought of are 3.x and 4th. Like nobody ever played D&D before WotC came around. :smallfurious:

[Poru93]

I don't like either 3.x or 4th. Come talk to me somewhere else about 1st/2nd vs 4th. :smallsmile:

There minis were a greed item and wanted only by those who painted. They were less useful for gaming since the minis always fell over, and never fit in the hex maps. So they were just collected for quick "Look this is what the guy looks like" where some people can paint not draw, and others just used minis unpainted to say "s/he looks like this".

It annoys me that the only editions ever thought of are 3.x and 4th. Like nobody ever played D&D before WotC came around. :smallfurious:

True, and that is my mistake. However, at the same time, I think comparisons in general, regardless of the context or subject will be made with the current status and the most recent status. For example, does anyone compare the United States government and how it handled matters today to how it handled matters during the early 1800s? No, it just seems to be a common habit to compare the two most recent incarnations of something.

In addition, one of the main reasons 3.5 is so often compared with 4E or discussed together is that, at least from what I've seen, people who still play 1st/2nd aren't as vocal about disliking 4E as those who play 3.5. Now why they are or aren't vocal, I could speculate, but that offers no point. The fact is, 3.5/4th are argued together because the fans of both feel, IMO at least, that the other represents the greatest "threat" to their happiness. Sounds crazy I know, but in some twisted way that's the mindset of many, I think.

*Disclaimer: I could be completely wrong here in my speculations. I'm only a high school student after all (which incidentally is my excuse for not having 1st/2nd in my conscious thoughts when I debate D&D:smalltongue:)

[Callista]

If you can't find people who play your favorite game because somebody came out with a new edition, then yeah--it is a "threat". Especially if you happen to really be unable to enjoy the new version, since it requires next to no role-playing at all and has completely taken the fun out of magic. (And no, I don't mean power; I mean fun. As in, versatility. The ability to use magic for more things than just blasting things.) Oh, yeah, and the ability to print out the SRDs for those of us who didn't have the money for a full set of books. We had one set between us in one group of three, three sets in one group of eight.

Re. Minis: My group bought a couple bagfuls of colored glass beads for $2.50. They worked great for characters and monsters alike, and fit just fine into the laminated paper grid we used for maps. (Laminated paper can be drawn on with dry-erase markers to outline various features of the area around you, without having to print out maps specially or outline rooms on a pre-made map. Some people use dry erase boards, apparently, but that was always beyond my price range.) Point being, there's no reason to pay a lot of money for accessories. Heck, we even used pieces of candy for the monsters, and ate them when we killed them... delicious victory :P

[shadzar]

The fact is, 3.5/4th are argued together because the fans of both feel, IMO at least, that the other represents the greatest "threat" to their happiness. Sounds crazy I know, but in some twisted way that's the mindset of many, I think.

Interesting that, because I recall the time that it was 2nd/3.0 being compared.

2nd/3.0/3.5 compared.

How easily it is forgotten where it all began.

It isn't solely your fault, but I am often confronted with things in discussion of 4th like "Well tell me how much better it worked in 3.5". To which I can only respond: "Don't know don't play 3.5"...and get thrown back at me: "So you never played D&D, why should you care."

:smallconfused: Like My playing from 1984~current doesn't account for anything.

This is one of the biggest insults from not only 4th edition, but WotC in general in regards to its fans. A dislike of its fans that was shared by LW, when she was in charge of TSR in its final days.

While I dislike 4th and don't considered it D&D, I cannot understand how those fans can dismiss any of the past, be it editions, or the similarities in which the company now is treating them, such as the company then treated us.

The fans are once again disposable commodities, to be thrown away when they stop buying every last product and online service package, and will be replaced with the next group of fans for the next product.

So not only is 4th insulting for doing that all over again to the fans, but the fans these days are insulting for letting a company treat them like that as if the fans owe the company anything.

Just some things for peoples to think about, as history repeats itself because people never learn from it. :smallsmile:

[Chrono22]

I can't empathize with your situation Shadzar- I just joined DnD at the tail end of 2nd, and was in diapers in the late 80's. Some of your points do ring true, though.

This is one of the biggest insults from not only 4th edition, but WotC in general in regards to its fans. A dislike of its fans that was shared by LW, when she was in charge of TSR in its final days.

While I dislike 4th and don't considered it D&D, I cannot understand how those fans can dismiss any of the past, be it editions, or the similarities in which the company now is treating them, such as the company then treated us.

The fans are once again disposable commodities, to be thrown away when they stop buying every last product and online service package, and will be replaced with the next group of fans for the next product.

So not only is 4th insulting for doing that all over again to the fans, but the fans these days are insulting for letting a company treat them like that as if the fans owe the company anything.

Just some things for peoples to think about, as history repeats itself because people never learn from it. :smallsmile:
It does seem like WotC has stopped respecting its fans. Mostly for reasons that aren't related to 4e directly. The pdf/antipiracy fiasco. The notable absence of advertised digital aids for the new addition, and the dishonesty surrounding them. The crappy, more expensive new miniatures lines. The negative ad campaign that lead up to 4th's release. The firing of many popular writers. The blatant disregard for FR fans and their setting (some of the changes to FR make no sense. It's like whoever made them didn't like FR, but still wanted the name recognition.. so he ripped out its soul and put on its face. A shallow mockery of what it once was.)

Whatever WotC might do to change the edition, or the brand of DnD- your memories and experiences of what it is can't be erased or replaced or "improved". Your way of having fun can't be taken away from you. So, stop seeing 4e itself as a threat to your way of playing. Bringing new players into the game/industry is a good thing, even if 4e is mediocre. That just means that many more people will have the opportunity to experience fulfilling and enjoyable roleplay.
The way I see it, DnD right now is like Narsil. It was forged by many players, many styles, many ideas. It was a concept that bound us together, like a fellowship. Corporate greed, and the pride of men has broken it in half. The DnD community is fracturing. Infighting and argument isn't going to solve the problem. To unify us again, the game must be reforged.

[jseah]

What. Import 3.5's grappling? And touch attacks?

1/2 level stuff: It's a unified system. I like it. WotC likes it (see Star Wars SAGA edition.). It's simple and easy to remember. It cuts out about ten minutes of character creation time, especially when starting at higher levels without retroactive skill point increases.

Touch attacks: WotC rolled those in with attacks vs Reflex, which are basically the same thing.

Grappling: Grabbing an opponent is easy in 4E. The entire grapple rules for 4E take up two text boxes (Essentially, Str vs Ref for grab, Str vs Fort to move opponent, sustain minor, immobilize opponent when grabbing). 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple) is like this (http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0233.html).
XD They were more realistic.

Which is what I'm after. Besides, I didn't ever have problems with grappling rules in 3.5E. Including things like requiring precise shot to shoot into a grapple without hitting allies.

As for retroactive skill point increases, it's simple, just mod it to be retroactive.
The reason why I dislike 1/2 level is that by adding 1/2 level to random things, it feels like "I'm better because I'm higher level" rather than "I'm better because I'm better trained".

I liked how in 3.5E, a high level wizard without buffs could have an AC of 24. And a FFAC of 16. Without armour and buffs, a wizard is unprotected. That makes sense. 1/2 level does not.

[shadzar]

The way I see it, DnD right now is like Narsil. It was forged by many players, many styles, many ideas. It was a concept that bound us together, like a fellowship. Corporate greed, and the pride of men has broken it in half. The DnD community is fracturing. Infighting and argument isn't going to solve the problem. To unify us again, the game must be reforged.

Sadly instead of making Andúril, WotC decided instead to turn Narsil into Rabbitslayer (http://www.dlnexus.com/lexicon/15855.aspx). :smallfurious:

[Nu]

Examination of details... Hmm... why exactly is "leaving your logic at the door" considered a good thing by some people? I don't understand that...

There is a Trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) for this (Willing Suspension of Disbelief could also work). Though, I guess for some and 4E, it's more of a rule of balance than rule of cool (though the cool factor can certainly play into it at certain points).

I don't give a damn if the system is realistic, and I don't care if it doesn't make perfect sense when every single aspect of it is examined from every angle. It better have a semblance of balance and it better be fun.

That right there? That's the most important thing. When you write the rules, storytelling comes secondary to game play, because you can tell a story within the boundaries of any given system. So I expect the majority of the developer's effort to go into making the system work rather than making it give off a sense of realism.

Also, (not directed to anyone in particular) I love how we've reached the point of the thread where we're spouting the conspiracy theories of "Wizards doesn't care about its customers anymore!" Here's a news flash: this thing, this thing here? It's a product. Made by a business, that enjoys staying in business. It always has been, and if you think it's any different now you're deluding yourself.

[Nu]

You are walking in the woods and trip and break your legs. You are going to die if you do not get back to civilization or get some kind of healing/treatment there.

Cleric does a cure spell, or an extended rest and you are cured up.

Had you not gone back to get healed, had not cleric, or rest to cure all wounds you died. This was save-or-die. You fault for slipping down a hole and breaking your leg.

But some people ignore that, because damage is only mental fatigue and emotional distress that prevents you from fighting...

Save or die exists for those that don't want to play a minis games that pretty much just says you are perfectly healthy and just slightly drained of energy, or you are dead.

That is not the point of save-or-dies. If it were, DnD would have called shots, rules for punctured organs, severed limbs, torn muscles, BLEEDING, etc. As far as I know, no edition had very specific rules for these kind of things as part of the core game.

When you poke at the point that HP is an abstract concept that doesn't reflect reality, you should make sure to note that this was the case in all editions.

[Oslecamo]

That is not the point of save-or-dies. If it were, DnD would have called shots, rules for punctured organs, severed limbs, torn muscles, BLEEDING, etc. As far as I know, no edition had very specific rules for these kind of things as part of the core game.


It has. It's spread out between critical hits, death for massive damage, meta sneack attack feats, ability damage, ect, ect.

Plus it would be kinda of a waste to have detailed rules when half your enemies won't have an humanoid body anyway. You're not suposed to be killing humans, you're suposed to be killing dragons, elementals, undeads, plants, oozes and other stuff wich probably doesn't even has muscles.

Well before 4e at least. Right now, there really isn't any sense for there to be ability scores any more, since you're hiting and dodging with your int while using magic with your strenght, and neither of them can be increased or reduced except every 4 levels.

Plus in 4e you can recover your HP willy nilly with just your concentration no matter what class you are, wich shows that HP has become even more abstract.

[shadzar]

That is not the point of save-or-dies. If it were, DnD would have called shots, rules for punctured organs, severed limbs, torn muscles, BLEEDING, etc. As far as I know, no edition had very specific rules for these kind of things as part of the core game.

When you poke at the point that HP is an abstract concept that doesn't reflect reality, you should make sure to note that this was the case in all editions.

You couldn't be more wrong on anything you just said.

HP has reflected reality in quite a bit of D&D, otherwise -10 wouldn't be an optional rule to let you live rather than die when reached 0 HP.

Also everything else you mention is in AD&D. Well you got one thing right maybe...the part about you not knowing any of that which you were speaking about.

But check out AD&D and you will find all that which you claim was never a part of any edition of D&D. :smallwink:

Again the history of the game just cast off by the newest edition and false claims implied about past editions. :smallfrown:

[Nu]

You couldn't be more wrong on anything you just said.

HP has reflected reality in quite a bit of D&D, otherwise -10 wouldn't be an optional rule to let you live rather than die when reached 0 HP.

Correct me if I am wrong (which I can admit is possible), but as far as I can tell, that rule being optional is about the only thing that is different (there are some notes about unconsciousness requiring heftier recovery, and certain levels of damage POSSIBLY leaving scars). So...I guess SLIGHTLY more realistic than what we saw in 3.5 and 4E? Only, not really. You were still just as able to fight at 1 HP as you were at full HP.


Also everything else you mention is in AD&D. Well you got one thing right maybe...the part about you not knowing any of that which you were speaking about.

But check out AD&D and you will find all that which you claim was never a part of any edition of D&D. :smallwink:

Actually, the fact that those things are in AD&D are the reason I brought them up--because most of them were only included in supplemental material. I guess I should have been clearer there (I DID say the core game, by which I mean without supplements), but the point is that they seemed to be optional rules.

Edit: Upon quick consultation of AD&D Core books, I did not find any mention of the things I mentioned. If you would like to point me to where they are located in the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, or Dungeon's Master's Guide, however, please give me the references. Again, note that my original post only referred to Core game, not optional supplements/rule sets.


Again the history of the game just cast off by the newest edition and false claims implied about past editions. :smallfrown:

Yes, because 4E is the one that cast off the "realistic rules of HP." Aren't you contradicting yourself here, trying to blame 4E for something you admitted that was already the case in previous editions?

...Also, for the record, do you consider any change made to the game to be "casting off the history of the game?" Because that's a pretty broad statement. Isn't the point of new editions to change things?

[Nu]

It has. It's spread out between critical hits, death for massive damage, meta sneack attack feats, ability damage, ect, ect.

None of those really cover the fact that a dragon could break your arm with a basic claw attack. Or that, realistically, at 1 HP your fighting ability should be severely diminished if you're so wounded a cat bite would send you over the edge to unconsciousness/"staggered."


Plus it would be kinda of a waste to have detailed rules when half your enemies won't have an humanoid body anyway. You're not suposed to be killing humans, you're suposed to be killing dragons, elementals, undeads, plants, oozes and other stuff wich probably doesn't even has muscles.

Players take damage just as well as monsters do, so it would make sense to have rules for all those things IF you were going for a nonabstract representation of hit points (which they clearly aren't).

[MrEdwardNigma]

Also, not looking to turn this into edition war, so let's keep discussion to the specific question.
Perhaps we've lost sight of the original poster's intentions?

[Artanis]

You couldn't be more wrong on anything you just said.

HP has reflected reality in quite a bit of D&D, otherwise -10 wouldn't be an optional rule to let you live rather than die when reached 0 HP.

Huh?

You can use an axe to smash tank armor into uselessness almost as easily as you can kill a naked, 10-CON level twenty Barbarian. How the hell is that even remotely realistic? :smallconfused:

[shadzar]

Huh?

You can use an axe to smash tank armor into uselessness almost as easily as you can kill a naked, 10-CON level twenty Barbarian. How the hell is that even remotely realistic? :smallconfused:

:smallconfused: What are you talking about? There isn't any M1A1 Abrams in D&D. :smallconfused:

Hey look more vague statements made with no context, but plenty of hyperbole used to win an arguement on the internet.

:smallannoyed:

[Artanis]

:smallconfused: What are you talking about? There isn't any M1A1 Abrams in D&D. :smallconfused:

Hey look more vague statements made with no context, but plenty of hyperbole used to win an arguement on the internet.

:smallannoyed:
1) I did not specify the Abrams
2) Many tanks in service today have steel armor, and even those that don't can often be counted as having a rough equivalent in inches of steel.


A naked, 10-CON barbarian will average 135hp. Steel is 30hp per inch. I'm sure somebody still has at least one tank out there with less than, say, ten inches of armor.

[shadzar]

1) I did not specify the Abrams
2) Many tanks in service today have steel armor, and even those that don't can often be counted as having a rough equivalent in inches of steel.


A naked, 10-CON barbarian will average 135hp. Ten-inch thick steel armor would have 200hp. Considering that tanks during WWII had as little as 2 inches of steel armor, I'm sure that there's somebody out there who has at least one tank still in operation that has ten inches or less.

Show/explain your math for the "HP" of each of these things. Then we can start to breakdown what you are talking about.

[Artanis]

1) I messed up the math in the original post and re-worked it in the edit.
2) http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#hitPoints

[Mando Knight]

XD They were more realistic.

If you want realistic, then D&D has never been the correct system.

This would be, though:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/GURPS_Characters.jpg

[shadzar]

1) I messed up the math in the original post and re-worked it in the edit.
2) http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#hitPoints

Ok, so you are saying both 4th and 3.x are faulty screwed up systems.

I cannot argue with that as I don't like either of them either.

But they are not all of D&D, and D&D shouldn't have been tainted with their screwed up mechanics. Just ignore they exist and then it works fine for D&D. :smallwink:

[Artanis]

Ok, so you are saying both 4th and 3.x are faulty screwed up systems.

I cannot argue with that as I don't like either of them either.

But they are not all of D&D, and D&D shouldn't have been tainted with their screwed up mechanics. Just ignore they exist and then it works fine for D&D. :smallwink:

So I should just ignore the topic of almost twenty pages' worth of discussion? :smalleek:

[shadzar]

So I should just ignore the topic of almost twenty pages' worth of discussion? :smalleek:

You stated hit points never were real, that is where we started right?

If your problem is in 3rd they didn't work, then I cannot argue because I don't know 3.x well enough. And of course HP in 4th is just mental anguish and emo PCs not wanting to fight. 4th edition HP = emo points.

So ignore 3.x system that was made to be able to try to cover all genres and failed, and ignore 4th editions, and look at the other ways HP has worked. Then we can further discuss if you still feel HP never had any bit of realistic representation to them.

Then with that discussion figured out, we can compare it with 4th editions very loose interpretation of HP and see what has changed to note how that change is insulting to players.

:smallsmile:

[Nu]

You stated hit points never were real, that is where we started right?

If your problem is in 3rd they didn't work, then I cannot argue because I don't know 3.x well enough. And of course HP in 4th is just mental anguish and emo PCs not wanting to fight. 4th edition HP = emo points.

So ignore 3.x system that was made to be able to try to cover all genres and failed, and ignore 4th editions, and look at the other ways HP has worked. Then we can further discuss if you still feel HP never had any bit of realistic representation to them.


Ahem, and I quote from the AD&D 1E player's handbook:



Each character has a varying number of hit points,' just as monsters do.
These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the
character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit
points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained.
The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands
for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take
about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th
level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his
constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This IS the equivalent of about 18 hit
dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It
is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much
punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and
the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit paints are symbolic of combat
skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.

Hmmm, so only a certain amount of hit points represents physical damage, and the number is actually very small at higher levels. Interesting.

From the D&D Online SRD for 3.5:


What Hit Points Represent

Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

Effects of Hit Point Damage

Damage doesn’t slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0 hit points, you’re disabled.

At from -1 to -9 hit points, you’re dying.

At -10 or lower, you’re dead.

Massive Damage

If you ever sustain a single attack deals 50 points of damage or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take 50 points of damage or more from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt 50 or more points of damage itself, the massive damage rule does not apply.

There's really not much change here. Though 3.5 doesn't specifically say that hit points don't all include physical damage, they'd have to if they don't affect your ability to fight unless you reach 0 or less. Though, oddly enough, 3.5's representation of hit points seems like even more of a departure from 1E than 4E is!

Though, I suspect if I actually pulled up the 3.0/3.5 PHB rather than the SRD it would give something closer to the other two editions. Finally, we have D&D 4E's description:


Over the course of a battle, you take damage from
attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand
up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing
blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit
points represent more than physical endurance. They
represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all
the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a
combat situation.

The only real difference I see in the description between 4E and AD&D 1E is that D&D 4E added "resolve" in there and took away "magical forces." I'm not really sure what "magical forces" are keeping people alive unless they're referring to buffs and/or magical items (which seems redundant to me, as magic is intended to strengthen your body or enhance your skill), and "resolve" makes more sense to me. I hardly think that adding "resolve" into the list of things that hit points represent makes them into "emo points;" you act as though 4E is saying that hit points are ONLY resolve.

In summation, stop being melodramatic.

[Panda-s1]

If you can't find people who play your favorite game because somebody came out with a new edition, then yeah--it is a "threat". Especially if you happen to really be unable to enjoy the new version, since it requires next to no role-playing at all Care to elaborate? I wasn't aware previous editions of D&D required you to roleplay everything you did.
and has completely taken the fun out of magic. (And no, I don't mean power; I mean fun. As in, versatility. The ability to use magic for more things than just blasting things.) Jeez, there's still more to spells than just blasting things. Last I saw, spell descriptions from older editions were pretty specific about what happened when you cast them, anyway.
Oh, yeah, and the ability to print out the SRDs for those of us who didn't have the money for a full set of books. We had one set between us in one group of three, three sets in one group of eight. Okay, here's my biggest nitpick. You're not entitled to free game material. Whether or not you get free game material is one thing, but you shouldn't expect it unless that was the creator's intent. The SRD wasn't meant for people not buying their rulebooks, they're meant for designers who need to know verbatim what they can and cannot say in d20 compatible material. I mean honestly, supplements are one thing, but not buying the core book and complaining you can't get a free copy of it? That's hardly an argument against a gaming system.

[shadzar]

Care to elaborate? I wasn't aware previous editions of D&D required you to roleplay everything you did.

Nobody said it did, only that the newest edition seems to purposely focus away form roleplaying in the interest of making a more accessible game, so that people not wanting to roleplay can play a roleplaying game, through just the dice mechanics. :smallsmile:

[Panda-s1]

Nobody said it did, only that the newest edition seems to purposely focus away form roleplaying in the interest of making a more accessible game, so that people not wanting to roleplay can play a roleplaying game, through just the dice mechanics. :smallsmile:

Then how come there's all kinds of roleplaying in my 4e games?

[Jayabalard]

Hmmm, so only a certain amount of hit points represents physical damage, and the number is actually very small at higher levels. Interesting. It says that "a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors" ... that doesn't even necessarily mean that portion is a majority, let alone a large majority of what HP represents. 20% is a significant portion of the total. So it's not reasonable to draw the conclusion that you're drawing here, that physical damage is is actually very small portion of what HP represents at higher levels.


Then how come there's all kinds of roleplaying in my 4e games?Because you can ignore the rules and roleplay anyway. That doesn't really have anything to do with how much the rules focus on encouraging roleplaying.

[Nu]

It says that "a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors" ... that doesn't even necessarily mean that that's a majority, let alone a large majority of what HP represents. 20% is a significant portion of the total. So it's not reasonable to draw the conclusion that you're drawing here.

You can mince words as you like, but the text providing the exposition (about it requiring the same effort to bring down 4 huge warhorses as bringing down a high level fighter) seems to support that my reasoning is in fact the correct one.

[Jayabalard]

You can mince words as you like, but the text providing the exposition (about it requiring the same effort to bring down 4 huge warhorses as bringing down a high level fighter) seems to support that my reasoning is in fact the correct one.you're right it does say majority; but I still can't agree that it implies that the physical punishment portion is a small number... that's overextending past what is actually said.


If you want realistic, then D&D has never been the correct system.

This would be, though:/nod D&D has never been very good at simulating reality, except perhaps at really low levels.

[Callista]

Yeah, they're a business. Whether they're an ethical business that tries to provide a good product, or a business that will sell crap for as long as people will buy it, is still up in the air.

Just because it gets you money to sell what amounts to a brand name doesn't mean it's right to do it.

[shadzar]

Then how come there's all kinds of roleplaying in my 4e games?

Because you aren't one of the degenerates that didn't like D&D, but wanted to play it anyway, and didn't need a system that could be played solely with dice and needing nothing else?

Still missing the point by failure to read.

Does 4th require ANY roleplaying to play, or can everything be done solely with dice rolls?

[Mando Knight]

Does 4th require ANY roleplaying to play, or can everything be done solely with dice rolls?

Require? Not any more or less than any previous edition.

[Nu]

you're right it does say majority; but I still can't agree that it implies that the physical punishment portion is a small number... that's overextending past what is actually said.

/nod D&D has never been very good at simulating reality, except perhaps at really low levels.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the written explanation from the AD&D 1E Player's Handbook, my primary point was to refute shadzar's implications that somehow 3.5 and 4.0 had drastically changed how HP works.

[Callista]

Require? Not any more or less than any previous edition.Yes. 3.5 had its share of non-RP-oriented gamers... 4th ed just seems to be encouraging the war-game, power-game aspect of it even more. It was bad enough before the publishers started encouraging it. We didn't need this on top of everything.

[Jayabalard]

Does 4th require ANY roleplaying to play, or can everything be done solely with dice rolls?That's really not very telling. Many systems, even ones that have a strong RP focus, can be done solely with dice rolls if people really want to.

The important thing is how much the system encourages roleplay. Are the mechanics influenced or subverted by roleplay? Is the rewards system skewed toward roleplaying? etc.


Regardless of whether or not you agree with the Rules As Written from the AD&D 1E Player's Handbook, my primary point was to refute shadzar's implications that somehow 3.5 and 4.0 had drastically changed how HP works.You'd make a stronger point if you stick to what the text actually says. Exaggerating like that just has the opposite effect (it makes your statements look weaker).

Starting with 3hd at level one is a pretty drastic change in and of itself; adding in the changes to nature of non-magical healing and the nature of HP has made a pretty huge change since 1e.

[Reverent-One]

Does 4th require ANY roleplaying to play, or can everything be done solely with dice rolls?

Depends on what sort of game you're playing. If you're just playing a "kick in the door, kill things, take their items" style, no. If the DM and players want to have a campaign with an ongoing story and develop their characters as well, then it does. So in other words, it's just like 3.5 and similar to earlier editions, from what I've hear (though I admit I have no experience with D&D before 3.Xe).

[Panda-s1]

Because you can ignore the rules and roleplay anyway. That doesn't really have anything to do with how much the rules focus on encouraging roleplaying.

How am I ignoring the rules by roleplaying? The PHB pretty much tells you that's what you do in the game: roleplaying.


Does 4th require ANY roleplaying to play, or can everything be done solely with dice rolls?

Technically no, but you're gonna have to say "My character goes to the dungeon," sooner or later. Unless you're doing a skill challenge, the rules do say that you have to say what your character is doing when you make a skill check, so in that case yes.


Yeah, they're a business. Whether they're an ethical business that tries to provide a good product, or a business that will sell crap for as long as people will buy it, is still up in the air.

Just because it gets you money to sell what amounts to a brand name doesn't mean it's right to do it.

Wow, okay.... Um, business ethics concerns things like fraud, embezzlement, knowingly selling a faulty or harmful product, y'know things like that. If a company sells lint and it makes them millions, so long as they aren't using unfair business practices and follow the law they're a good business.

And after a year of playing 4e, I'm pretty sure it falls under the D&D brand.


Yes. 3.5 had its share of non-RP-oriented gamers... 4th ed just seems to be encouraging the war-game, power-game aspect of it even more. It was bad enough before the publishers started encouraging it. We didn't need this on top of everything.

A) You make it sound like anything combat oriented is bad. Here's a tip: roleplaying and combat aren't mutually exclusive. Sure you do less of one when doing the other, but nothing's stopping you from going "I charge at the orc, shouting out 'For Myrnham!' at the top of my lungs while I try and cave in his skull."

B) Who's "We"? And what's "this on top of everything."

[Nu]

You'd make a stronger point if you stick to what the text actually says. Exaggerating like that just has the opposite effect (it makes your statements look weaker).

Starting with 3hd at level one is a pretty drastic change in and of itself; adding in the changes to nature of non-magical healing and the nature of HP has made a pretty huge change since 1e.

I am sticking to what the text says, and I am not exaggerating. I am drawing a logical conclusion from block of text I quoted. It is quite clear that a rather large portion of HP at higher levels of play, going back as far as AD&D 1E, is based on factors other than the body's ability to take injury. As said before, you can try to play with the words if you wish, but the only way that makes complete sense given how HP works in the context of the game would be as an abstract concept rather than pure physical toughness.

[Jayabalard]

I am drawing a logical conclusion from block of text I quoted. It is quite clear that a rather large portion of HP at higher levels of play, going back as far as AD&D 1E, is based on factors other than the body's ability to take injury. That's not a logical conclusion. The quoted text does not in any way imply that the portion that represents physical damage is not also a large portion; 40% is a large portion. It certainly does not imply that the physical punishment portion is "very small".

[shadzar]

Require? Not any more or less than any previous edition.

Yet again people refuse to answer a simple question and try to pervert it. :smallfurious:

I did not ask about anything about any other game or edition, just 4th edition in mind.

Does it [4th edition] require roleplaying to play, or can it be played solely with dice rolls?


That's really not very telling. Many systems, ~~~


4th edition only. do NOt compare with anything else.


Depends on what sort of game you're playing.

No it doesn't. Out of the box 4th edition is the game you are playing. We aren't talking about playstyles of choice, but the game itself in an unbiased manner.


Technically no, but you're gonna have to say "My character goes to the dungeon," sooner or later. Unless you're doing a skill challenge, the rules do say that you have to say what your character is doing when you make a skill check, so in that case yes.

We have a winner here!

No, roleplaying is NOT required to play using 4th edition. a player mentioning what actions the character is taking is not roleplaying, but describing which dice roll mechanic they wish to employ. Like typing in this post there is not gameplay being done, even though I am telling the system what function I wish it to perform.

Skill challenges only require telling which skill you are rolling against.

Diplomacy, Streetwise, etc. You need not go into any further details to play 4th edition, because they are not required from the game itself.

[Jayabalard]

How am I ignoring the rules by roleplaying? The PHB pretty much tells you that's what you do in the game: roleplaying.You've kind of missed the point. It doesn't really matter how much you personally role play when you're playing a game. Doing so doesn't actually imply that roleplaying is handled by the system at all. You can roleplay while playing candyland if you really want to. You can ignore the fact that the game doesn't deal with roleplaying at all (ignore the gamerules), and do it anyway.

Though... based on the below statement, I'm not sure you'd have people universally agree that you're are, in fact, roleplaying.


Technically no, but you're gonna have to say "My character goes to the dungeon," sooner or later. Unless you're doing a skill challenge, the rules do say that you have to say what your character is doing when you make a skill check, so in that case yes.I personally wouldn't qualify saying "My character goes to the dungeon," as roleplaying.


Yet again people refuse to answer a simple question and try to pervert it. :smallfurious:That's because it's an irrelevant and meaningless question.

[Nu]

That's not a logical conclusion. The quoted text does not in any way imply that the portion that represents physical damage is not also a large portion; 40% is a large portion. It certainly does not imply that the physical punishment portion is "very small".

I suppose I shouldn't have said "very small" because the amount is somewhat imprecise, but it is regardless a subjective matter since no edition states exactly how much is what. Realistically, a high-level fighter could not be that much stronger physically than one largehuge warhorse (though he has the hit points of about four), and that's why he's aided by other things, like magical items, skill, and luck, at high levels. Based on that, I do not feel it is an unfair assumption to say that the amount of hit points based on physical toughness is very small.

Regardless, it's clear that this matter is subjective and you are unlikely to be swayed from your opinion regardless of how many logical conclusions I can draw from the greater body of the text (other than just repeating statements like "large portion could be 40%" or "significant can mean 20%"), so I guess I'll have to leave it at that.

Either way, there is no basis for assuming that the % is somehow larger in 3.0/4.0, given these excerpts.

[Jayabalard]

I suppose I shouldn't have said "very small" because the amount is somewhat imprecise, but it is regardless a subjective matter since no edition states exactly how much is what.Correct. Making that exageration prevents your statement from being a logical conclusion; a logical conclusion requires that the statement follows from the previous, and your statement does not.

Based on the rest of the rules that govern hp in 1e (especially the various rules on healing and recovery), the portion that represents physical damage is far from small.


Either way, there is no basis for assuming that the % is somehow larger in 3.0/4.0, given these excerpts.I'd have to disagree. The sheer number of HP is quite a bit larger in 3e, and even more so in 4e than it was in 1e.

combined with the much larger HP numbers, the non-magical healing rules imply to me that the % of non-damage HP in 4e is larger than it was in any previous edition, and much more so than it was in 1e.

[Nu]

Based on the rest of the rules that govern hp in 1e (especially the various rules on healing and recovery), the portion that represents physical damage is far from small.

Incorrect. See the comparison of hit points between a high level fighter and a huge warhorse given above, not to mention the fact that the fighter still suffers no ill effects at 1 HP, while if HP was in any large way based on physical toughness than a fighter at 1/85 HP should be severely wounded (and thus his ability to fight significantly hindered).

Rest and recovery recovers hit points at an obscenely slow rate, but even that is not much evidence for physical wounds accounting for a good portion of hit points, as realistically, you would require treatment to heal severe wounds (there isn't much in the way of rules for nonmagical treatment). As they recover at a steady rate, it seems to be more just a game mechanic hamfisted in there.

[oxybe]

4th ed minus roleplay, a short play by oxybe:

SCENE: a solo campaign, played in the GM's kitchen with his buddy on a Thursday night

Player- *roll dice*
Player- *roll dice*
Player- *roll dice*
Player- *roll dice*
Player- *roll dice*
Player- *roll dice*
DM- why are you rolling dice?
Player- i'm proving 4th ed can be played without roleplaying *roll dice*
DM- what are the dice rolls for though?
Player- ...
DM- so you're just rolling dice for no particular reason?
player- umm... i'm trying to get the local lord to~
DM- is that plot and character development and I hear?
player- ...

END SCENE

sure you can roll dice until the cows come home in 4th ed and theoretically play without roleplaying.

then again, you could do the same thing in virtually any system that allows dice rolls (any mechanic really, as long as it can be used to judge if you succeed or fail) to resolve conflicts (social or otherwise), be it D&D or World of Darkness.

[Jayabalard]

Incorrect. See the comparison of hit points between a high level fighter and a huge warhorse given above, This doesn't say anything about the actual % ... just that it's not reasonable to assume that 100% of the HP represents damage. Less than 100% does not logically imply a small number.

You could claim to make educated guesses about what that means... but you can't draw a logical conclusion from that other than "HP representing physical is less than 100% of the fighter's total HP".

[shadzar]

That's because it's an irrelevant and meaningless question.

No it is not when the object of the game by its own genre of game is not even required within the game.

Roleplaying not needed in a roleplaying game....:smallconfused:

It would be like taking the game out and still calling it a roleplaying game, when in fact you would just have impromptu acting instead as there would be no game.

It is one of the MOST relevant questions to be asked about what 4th edition is in how it is expressed and presented for the first time adopter of such a game.

The fact that roleplaying isn't at all required defeats the purpose of having a roleplaying game. You might as well be playing Magic the Gathering where your reasons for playing card X matter little as the result of playing it are the only important thing, and the reasons for doing so don't matter. (This has nothing to do with the use of power cards so don't even try to drive it that way.)

Where motivation for doing something isn't required, then you lose the roleplaying part of the roleplaying game, especially when the game itself de-emphasizes the need at all for roleplaying.

[Nu]

I'd have to disagree. The sheer number of HP is quite a bit larger in 3e, and even more so in 4e than it was in 1e.

combined with the much larger HP numbers, the non-magical healing rules imply to me that the % of non-damage HP in 4e is larger than it was in any previous edition, and much more so than it was in 1e.

I would heartily disagree. I believe the reason that extended rests heal more HP than resting and recovering in previous editions was to get rid of the "okay we just rest for two weeks until we're fully healed." In other words, my take on it is that it's a mechanic intended to improve the flow of the game.

Larger numbers don't mean anything when they're larger around the whole board.

[Jayabalard]

No it is not when the object of the game by its own genre of game is not even required within the game.Not at all. It's not required that anyone to roleplay in most (and I'd personally say all, but I know some would disagree) roleplaying games.

[Nu]

This doesn't say anything about the actual % ... just that it's not reasonable to assume that 100% of the HP represents damage. Less than 100% does not logically imply a small number.

You could claim to make educated guesses about what that means... but you can't draw a logical conclusion from that other than "HP representing physical is less than 100% of the fighter's total HP".

But there there are definite numbers involved...the high level fighter given had the HP of about 4 huge warhorses. If we assume that the fighter is about as tough as one of them unaided by luck, skill, and magic, then that means that his physical toughness is represented by about 25% of his HP (these are estimates, yes, but they are placed well within reason). Less if we assume that the horses also had skill and luck accounting for a portion of their HP (even a small one).

[Panda-s1]

You've kind of missed the point. It doesn't really matter how much you personally role play when you're playing a game. Doing so doesn't actually imply that roleplaying is handled by the system at all. You can roleplay while playing candyland if you really want to. You can ignore the fact that the game doesn't deal with roleplaying at all (ignore the gamerules), and do it anyway.

Though... based on the below statement, I'm not sure you'd have people universally agree that you're are, in fact, roleplaying.
But I'm not ignoring the fact, there's nothing to ignore! And if it were true then things like bluff and insight and diplomacy wouldn't exist in 4e. And I'd really hate to say it, but for all the "handling" of roleplaying 3.5 does, I personally think it can hamper roleplaying.

What if I ran a skill challenge that was purely social? Would that not qualify as "being supported by the rules."

I personally wouldn't qualify saying "My character goes to the dungeon," as roleplaying.

Then what does? "Forsooth! My companions, let us make haste to the temple of Orcus, lest the foul sorcerer Kranth doth turn the city of Myrnham into a maelstrom of fire and chaos!"? :smallconfused:

[shadzar]

DM- is that plot and character development and I hear?

Those do not constitute roleplaying. Do you consider yourself roleplaying when reading a book?

Those are just story elements.

Dice CAN fulfill those things.

Roleplaying is interaction with the world/other players/DM, without or in conjunction with dice.

"My character speaks to the king"
~rolls diplomacy check~

That is not roleplaying. When you can do it solely with a described action followed by a dice roll you are not roleplaying.

Talking for the character to someone else talking for the king wherein the spoken words decide the result, is roleplaying. Actually playing the role of the character, rather than the character being your playing piece like the sportscar in Monopoly.

Damns WotC perverting more terms like "core" and "role". :smallfurious:

You know what when dealing with 4th, if you have a class then that is all it takes to roleplay, since you are playing a game with a character with a role of either: Leader, Defender, Striker, Controller.

So I have now quit playing ALL roleplaying games, as they don't exist anymore.

:smallsigh:

[Alteran]

No it is not when the object of the game by its own genre of game is not even required within the game.

Roleplaying not needed in a roleplaying game....:smallconfused:


I think you're missing the point. It is possible to play 4th edition without any meaningful roleplaying. You may not describe your actions in any depth, you may have no motivation. Go ahead, it's possible. I'm going to say that the same is possible in any edition of D&D. You never need to roleplay, because roleplaying can't be forced.

It's something that needs to come at natural times, and flow with the players and DM. Can you imagine what would happen if there were strict rules for roleplaying? People were already upset when skill challenges used initiative, do you think they'd appreciate hearing "All right Bobby, the orc hits you with a greataxe. What do you say?" or "Now that you've defeated the High Priest of Tiamat, go ahead and roleplay for a bit. Right now."

4th edition does have rules for roleplay, and room for roleplay outside of the rules. Just because these rules are not necessarily a part of every game doesn't make it any less of a roleplaying game. That is entirely up to the players, and it would be these individuals who are ignoring a large part of the RPG experience. Not the designers, not other players.

Edit:



Damns WotC perverting more terms like "core" and "role". :smallfurious:

You know what when dealing with 4th, if you have a class then that is all it takes to roleplay, since you are playing a game with a character with a role of either: Leader, Defender, Striker, Controller.


Damn them! Damn WotC for using a word with multiple possible meanings for more than one aspect of a game! It's not like this has ever happened before, right? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html)

[Jayabalard]

I would heartily disagree. I believe the reason that extended rests heal more HP than resting and recovering in previous editions was to get rid of the "okay we just rest for two weeks until we're fully healed." In other words, my take on it is that it's a mechanic intended to improve the flow of the game.Certainly, that's the motivation for the game designer to change the game mechanic. But the result of changing that mechanic means a real change to what is happening in the game. Because of that change, HP in 4e is much less representative of physical damage than it was in any previous edition.


Larger numbers don't mean anything.I can't agree; the fact that a 1e fighter has his hp increase 5 or 6 fold over his career, and a 3e fighter has it increase 15 fold over his career is quite telling. The fact that a 1st level 4e fighter starts off the game with 3x as many hp as a 1e fighter would while the enemies have the same or less in some cases is also quite telling.

[Caewil]

I'd say that 4E insults intelligence. Its the new charisma. Useless unless you play a wizard or a warlord. And even so, the warlord is better off going for a charisma based build.

[Panda-s1]

No it is not when the object of the game by its own genre of game is not even required within the game.

Roleplaying not needed in a roleplaying game....:smallconfused:

It would be like taking the game out and still calling it a roleplaying game, when in fact you would just have impromptu acting instead as there would be no game.

It is one of the MOST relevant questions to be asked about what 4th edition is in how it is expressed and presented for the first time adopter of such a game.

The fact that roleplaying isn't at all required defeats the purpose of having a roleplaying game. You might as well be playing Magic the Gathering where your reasons for playing card X matter little as the result of playing it are the only important thing, and the reasons for doing so don't matter. (This has nothing to do with the use of power cards so don't even try to drive it that way.)

Where motivation for doing something isn't required, then you lose the roleplaying part of the roleplaying game, especially when the game itself de-emphasizes the need at all for roleplaying.

I dunno, most new players I've had go crazy in the roleplaying department. From duping the paladunce, to making up contacts in the thieves guild, to groping another character's ass in the middle of battle. In terms of presentation, the first chapter of the PHB pretty much tells you this is a game of the imagination, and the strong point of a table top RPG is almost anything can happen in the game so long as you imagine it.

Edit:

Damn them! Damn WotC for using a word with multiple possible meanings for more than one aspect of a game! It's not like this has ever happened before, right? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html)
That strip becomes even funnier knowing that the first AD&D PHB says they were originally contemplating renaming everything but dungeon levels into something else :P

[Nu]

Certainly, that's the motivation for the game designer to change the game mechanic. But the result of changing that mechanic means a real change to what is happening in the game. Because of that change, HP in 4e is much less representative of physical damage than it was in any previous edition.

Not necessarily, because as stated earlier, the rest and recovery of previous editions were about as arbitrary and unrealistic, just taken to the opposite extreme.


I can't agree; the fact that a 1e fighter has his hp increase 5 or 6 fold over his career, and a 3e fighter has it increase 15 fold over his career is quite telling. The fact that a 1st level 4e fighter starts off the game with 3x as many hp as a 1e fighter would while the enemies have the same or less in some cases is also quite telling.

I do not understand what you are saying. Monsters and PCs are handled much differently under the rules of 4E, even a significant amount more so than 3.5. Monsters range from having much less HP than the fighter (minion) to much more (solo elite), depending on how the encounter is supposed to go. The number is a game mechanic first and foremost; the increase in the number does not indicate a greater % is accounted by any way, rather it was just made that way because it works within the game system better. I do not see how you draw the conclusion that luck/skill/morale are a larger % simply because the numbers are bigger. It makes no sense.

[Jayabalard]

But I'm not ignoring the fact, there's nothing to ignore! And if it were true then things like bluff and insight and diplomacy wouldn't exist in 4e.It really looks like the problem here is that you and I (and Shadzar) don't mean the same thing when we say "roleplaying".


Then what does? "Forsooth! My companions, let us make haste to the temple of Orcus, lest the foul sorcerer Kranth doth turn the city of Myrnham into a maelstrom of fire and chaos!"? :smallconfused:There's alot of ground between that statement and "I go into the dungeon" ... The latter is strictly a declaration of an action and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with playing the role of a character.


Not necessarily, because as stated earlier, the rest and recovery of previous editions made about as much sense as 4E's, just taken to the opposite extreme.Making sense doesn't really enter into it. 1e was not the opposite extreme when it comes to rest and recover; you'd need to go with a very different system (there are several) that have extremely simulationist rules for such things, and where injuries have lasting consequences before you'd be near the opposite extreme.

In any case, those rules were the "opposite extreme" because HP meant physical damage more in 1e than it does in 4e.

[Nu]

And even so, the warlord is better off going for a charisma based build.

I wouldn't say that, the INT Warlords are very strong, and most optimization posts I've seen put them ahead of the CHA Warlords in terms of raw power :P

Also, you forgot the Swordmage!

[Alteran]

It really looks like the problem here is that you and I (and Shadzar) don't mean the same thing when we say "roleplaying".


Well, what more do you want in the rules? The beauty of roleplaying, for me, is that the rules are so loose on it. My friends and I can handle it however we want. Honestly, I can't see stricter rules for roleplaying doing any good. It just restricts your options even more, and could limit people to certain actions that they think are what you're supposed to do. Saying "I roll for diplomacy" isn't roleplaying, I agree. It's just the mechanical backbone that grounds roleplaying in the game's rules. Any more rules than that and it may as well be another form of combat.

[Panda-s1]

It really looks like the problem here is that you and I (and Shadzar) don't mean the same thing when we say "roleplaying"
Then what exactly do you mean? Doing things in character? Yeah there's no rule saying you have to, but I don't think there ever was in the history of D&D (except for alignment penalties), so I don't see how this becomes a valid argument. What about backgrounds? They've added support for things like that (though it seems like they did it to help better encourage what they hoped players would do to begin with).


There's alot of ground between that statement and "I go into the dungeon" ... The latter is strictly a declaration of an action and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with playing the role of a character.

But I'm not gonna go "My character skips merrily into the dungeon! ^_^" every time I want my character to do something, that just gets tedious, and only serves to annoy other players and the DM.

[Jayabalard]

Well, what more do you want in the rules? Me? Nothing. Roleplaying doesn't need to be in the rules in any way as far as I'm concerned. As a matter of fact, I'd say that putting mechanics in the rules that depend on roleplay is generally counter productive. At most, I'd be ok with the reward system encouraging roleplay, and the social conflict resolution system being influenced by roleplay... but even if it's not in the rules that way I can (and will) play that way.

I'm primarily trying to help bring about a meeting of minds between Panda-s1 and shadzar;

[shadzar]

Not necessarily, because as stated earlier, the rest and recovery of previous editions were about as arbitrary and unrealistic, just taken to the opposite extreme.

Yeah, cause in real life you regain health form injury overnight. There is no long term downtime that prevents you from being at full health in real life. So that must have been arbitrary.

:smallannoyed:

[Nu]

Yeah, cause in real life you regain health form injury overnight. There is no long term downtime that prevents you from being at full health in real life. So that must have been arbitrary.

:smallannoyed:

My point was that it's also stupid that an 85 hit point character needs to take a week off to recover 7 hit points without the aid of magic. After all, we've established with my quote from the AD&D 1E PHB that not all damage is physical harm, so why does it take that long to completely heal such a minor wound?

You seem to love taking things out of context and attempting to twist them to support your own points, while ignoring the intent of the original poster.

[Jayabalard]

Then what exactly do you mean?Whether you personally "roleplay" or not doesn't have anything to do with what sort of focus the game system has on roleplay. So your anecdotal quip ("Then how come there's all kinds of roleplaying in my 4e games?") isn't really a valid response to his question.


so I don't see how this becomes a valid argument. If you look at my responses to shadzar, you'll note that I've said that it's not a valid argument.


But I'm not gonna go "My character skips merrily into the dungeon! ^_^" every time I want my character to do something, that just gets tedious, and only serves to annoy other players and the DM.It's only tedious because it's not the sort of gaming that you enjoy; for some people, describing that sort of thing in detail is what they play the game for... it's far from tedious.


4th edition only. do NOt compare with anything else.Why not? It's a universal issue with roleplaying games, not something specific to 4e. Being restrictive like this accomplishes nothing.


My point was that it's also stupid that an 85 hit point character needs to take a week off to recover 7 hit points without the aid of magic. After all, we've established with my quote from the AD&D 1E PHB that not all damage is physical harm, so why does it take that long to completely heal such a minor wound?Even minor wounds take a long time to heal, and a week is not a long time. The reason that it heals so quickly is because not all of it is actual physical harm. If it was all physical harm it would be a very serious wound that would take months to heal.


You seem to love taking things out of context and attempting to twist them to support your own points, while ignoring the intent of the original poster.I'm not sure what you think he's taking out of context in this particular case.

[Panda-s1]

It's only tedious because it's not the sort of gaming that you enjoy; for some people, describing that sort of thing in detail is what they play the game for... it's far from tedious.

I know some people play that way, and I know some people would find that tedious. My problem from this perspective comes from two things: A) Some people make it out as though you couldn't do this in 4e, like there's some rule that says your character automatically dies if they describe their character's actions. B) Some people make it out as though previous editions had rules or rewarded you for such behavior.

[Nu]

Even minor wounds take a long time to heal, and a week is not a long time. The reason that it heals so quickly is because not all of it is actual physical harm. If it was all physical harm it would be a very serious wound that would take months to heal.

A week IS a long time in any game I've played. And if a fighter gets a minor cut in the shoulder with a blade (which is a fair description of a 7 HP loss in my book), he should be back at full strength the next day, even if the wound isn't completely invisible.


I'm not sure what you think he's taking out of context in this particular case.

The original intent in my post was to show that healing at a steady rate is as arbitrary as 4E's method, and his response had nothing to do with that.

[Jayabalard]

A week IS a long time in any game I've played.A week is a long time in your games... it's not a long time in everyone's games, and it certainly not a long time in reality.

And if a fighter gets a minor cut in the shoulder with a blade (which is a fair description of a 7 HP loss in my book), he should be back at full strength the next day, even if the wound isn't completely invisible.7hp is the maximum damage from a reasonably strong man (non-fighter) wielding a dagger. If that's completely representative of a physical damage, it's a potentially crippling injury and should take months to heal. Since we're talking about a high level fighter, it's not; it's a minor cut on the shoulder and it heals quickly, in only a week of game time because only some of the damage is physical injury.

In 4e, he heals overnight because virtually none of the hp loss is an actual injury; it's an inconsequential wound... in fact, the fighter can just ignore it completely if someone yells at him loud enough.

Clearly, based strictly on these healing rules, HP is more representative of physical injury in 1e than it is in 4e.


The original intent in my post was to show that healing at a steady rate is as arbitrary as 4E's method, and his response had nothing to do with that.The post he of yours that he answered was a response to my post. His responses matches up with my point pretty much exactly, so to me it looks like he's answered your post in context.

[oxybe]

Those do not constitute roleplaying. Do you consider yourself roleplaying when reading a book?

Those are just story elements.

Dice CAN fulfill those things.

Roleplaying is interaction with the world/other players/DM, without or in conjunction with dice.

"My character speaks to the king"
~rolls diplomacy check~

That is not roleplaying. When you can do it solely with a described action followed by a dice roll you are not roleplaying.

Talking for the character to someone else talking for the king wherein the spoken words decide the result, is roleplaying. Actually playing the role of the character, rather than the character being your playing piece like the sportscar in Monopoly.

Damns WotC perverting more terms like "core" and "role". :smallfurious:

You know what when dealing with 4th, if you have a class then that is all it takes to roleplay, since you are playing a game with a character with a role of either: Leader, Defender, Striker, Controller.

So I have now quit playing ALL roleplaying games, as they don't exist anymore.

:smallsigh:

dice are rolled to indicate there is a chance of failure. player skill does not = character skill. my characters are generally much stronger, swifter, tougher, smarter, wiser and more sociable then myself; there is no way i can bench press what the half-orc barbarian can, cross the small beam the halfling rogue is dashing across, shrug off poisons like the dwarven fighter, solve complex riddles like the gray elf mage, track the frog on a wet rock like the human ranger or be as glib as the gnome bard.

on that same track, just because Player A is smarter then his GM, doesn't mean that Player A's character is smarter then the GM's NPCs. some GMs are bad with describing actions or can't make up complex dialogue on the spot. heck the group's "best" roleplayer might not be the GM at all... the GM might just happen to be the guy with the best grasp of the ruleset.

the reason why i play an RPG is it allows me to become another person who's abilities are different then mine. to punish the gnome bard because his player is meek and shy is bad form, IMO. the character should not be punished for his player's shortcomings. i doubt you'd punish the half-orc barbarian because his player isn't a trained axe murderer who flies off the handle every now and then.

simply describing what your character is doing IS roleplaying. it ain't stellar, but it is RPing. it won't win you an academy award, but then again, neither will bad faux-scottish accents, slurred speech or talking like a caveman. it all depends on what the individual player and the group as a whole are comfortable with.

roleplay and dice rolling are not exclusive. roleplaying is describing the action in as much detail as you want. dice rolling is used to see if it works in context with the situation if the GM deems it necessary.

[shadzar]

After all, we've established with my quote from the AD&D 1E PHB

Nothing has been established except for your claim.


Why not? It's a universal issue with roleplaying games, not something specific to 4e. Being restrictive like this accomplishes nothing.

This thread is not, why do roleplaying games pis me off, but what about 4th edition is insulting. That is why not.

[Jayabalard]

A) Some people make it out as though you couldn't do this in 4e, like there's some rule that says your character automatically dies if they describe their character's actions.Noone is doing this in this thread as far as I've seen. It's a straw man.


B) Some people make it out as though previous editions had rules or rewarded you for such behavior.earlier editions did have rules that rewarded such behavior in the form of roleplaying XP; there were also XP rewards for finding treasure that were better than the rewards for killing things (including bonus treasure XP for thieves, so another bit of bonus xp for playing in character). The rules also explicitly laid out RP type rewards of gaining followers, titles, and lands as part of the leveling up processes.


This thread is not, why do roleplaying games pis me off, but what about 4th edition is insulting. That is why not.If something can be shown to be a global issue RPGs in general... and this particular complaint can... then it's not a valid reason to complain about 4e in specific.

It's like complaining that you don't get free tacos with 4e D&D... you don't get them with any other system, so it's not a valid complaint.


simply describing what your character is doing IS roleplaying. it ain't stellar, but it is RPing. You'll find that quite a few people will not agree with this statement

[shadzar]

If something can be shown to be a global issue RPGs in general... and this particular complaint can... then it's not a valid reason to complain about 4e in specific.

Then you must prove that everyone everywhere sees this as an issue for you to claim it is a global one. :smallsmile:

State the issue you see, and provide its proof that it is a global one for all.

:smallsmile:

[The New Bruceski]

I think people should be required to post a thesis statement when starting their argument.

We have quite a few people in here fond of padding their statements with flowery prose, and being one of them I can sympathize; nobody likes to respond to two paragraphs with a single line. Unfortunately this is accomplished by talking your way around the issue, responding to sentences in single-quotes lines and excessive smileys. The end result is perfectly legible to the writer but nigh-incomprehensible to anyone else.

Then comes the response. The creator doesn't realize that he's talked an outline around his goals, and everyone else finds that the outline surrounds a bunch of very different goals. Ththis comes to guessing as to the guy's point, with responses of "that's not what I'm saying", "just answer the question", and frustration on all ends.

A valid argument from improper beginnings is still flawed. Being clear in your topics can help others identify if it's actually something to be discussed, or a case of measuring intangibles.

[Sebastian]

sure you can roll dice until the cows come home in 4th ed and theoretically play without roleplaying.

then again, you could do the same thing in virtually any system that allows dice rolls (any mechanic really, as long as it can be used to judge if you succeed or fail) to resolve conflicts (social or otherwise), be it D&D or World of Darkness.
Or WH40K, or monopoly, or candyland, or risk, or snakes and ladders, all games famous for being RPGs.

Oh, wait, they are not.

[Kaiyanwang]

In 4e, he heals overnight because virtually none of the hp loss is an actual injury; it's an inconsequential wound... in fact, the fighter can just ignore it completely if someone yells at him loud enough.

Pretty much. Think about a poisoned knife. How did poisoned you if it didn't actually armed you? Schroedinger harms.



Clearly, based strictly on these healing rules, HP is more representative of physical injury in 1e than it is in 4e.


Agree. HP has always been abstract but 4th edition, for my tastes, went too far (as an example of a high level 1e-3rd ed melee, take Gatsu from the manga Berserk*).

More, Ifthey were too abstract in previous editions, it doesn't mean that designer couldn't improve it later, basin maybe on strikes, ambush feats, spells and so on targeting a specific part.

They instead went to a direction of more abstarct HP - and this definitively made someone angered (like me).



* but before, put children asleep. Seriously.

[jseah]

If you want realistic, then D&D has never been the correct system.[/IMG]
Quite true in fact. Maybe I'll go take a look at that.

Perhaps it's that 4E crossed an invisible line the sand and tripped me up.

************************************************** *******

About roleplaying and 4E:

Roleplaying has never been much of a concern for me since it's easy enough to do it in any system.
I do have to think a bit harder in 4E as the system is less predictable because more things are "GM's discretion". I can't build a nefarious plan because... well... neither I nor my character understands exactly how the system works. And these kinds of Xanathos Roulettes depend on a very good understanding what can and cannot be achieved.

It's like Light trying to use the Death Note without understanding it's rules. The least I'm asking from a system is for it to define it's rules clearly and absolutely. It will be a great aid to any roleplaying.

If we go absolutely by RAW and the PHB says to do that (ie. fireball doesn't hit objects regardless of how illogical that is), I'll be much happier with 4E than I am now. Not as much as if it fit nicely with basic physics, but better than now. At least it's solid.

[Leeham]

Exactly, roleplaying is the one part of the game that shouldn't need massive rules to it, you should just get on with it.

To get back to the original point, i don't think 4e insults your intelligence at all. I mean, what part of it specifically does this? When i was running 3.5 i had players who felt that certain parts of the game were a little complex, and now with 4e, they're tottaly getting it, not cause it's simple, just because it's better.

[Kaiyanwang]

To get back to the original point, i don't think 4e insults your intelligence at all. I mean, what part of it specifically does this?

I admit that now, say "reread the whole thread" would be cruel, but regardless the thing that you could agree or disagree, a lot of point has been made.

Take a look.

[shadzar]

Exactly, roleplaying is the one part of the game that shouldn't need massive rules to it, you should just get on with it.

Sadly that is the insult, that many feel 4th have removed the need for roleplaying with a system only needing dice and roll-playing.

[oxybe]

Or WH40K, or monopoly, or candyland, or risk, or snakes and ladders, all games famous for being RPGs.

Oh, wait, they are not.

d'you know what this post reminds me of?
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2152/logicalfallacyny2.jpg


the bloody heck does WH40K, monopoly, candyland, risk or snakes and ladders have to do with anything? yes you can add RP in those games. you can also RP that you're an old man in a retirement home playing cribbage while playing cribbage.

you learned how play pretend, bravo. you may now join the illustrious ranks of my cousin's 3 year old kid and several pompous drama students.

he asked if you can use D&D's task resolution mechanic in place of RP. technically yes. then again, D&D isn't the only game that has mechanics in place to judge if you succeed in a social situation.

[shadzar]

the bloody heck does WH40K, monopoly, candyland, risk or snakes and ladders have to do with anything?

The fact they are done with dice and require no roleplaying, ergo removing the roleplaying doesn't mean every game without it is now a roleplaying game.

I think its something like that. :smallconfused:

[Kemper Boyd]

Sadly that is the insult, that many feel 4th have removed the need for roleplaying with a system only needing dice and roll-playing.

"Many" in this context means "a bunch of people on internet forums, some of who have not even played the game".

[Jack Zander]

"Many" in this context means "a bunch of people on internet forums, some of who have not even played the game".

[Citation Needed]

The people on Internet forums are also people in real life, and are only a fraction of everyone who is discontent with 4e. I play with about 8-10 different people, none of whom bother arguing about edition wars, but all of us are rather discontent with the new system. There are tons more gamers at my school, many of them who are not satisfied as well, and I know most of them don't bother to complain on the Internet either.

And while it's true that "some" people haven't played 4e, "some" can be as little as 2 people, so we shouldn't go assuming that the only people who complain about 4e are those who haven't tried it.

[oxybe]

The fact they are done with dice and require no roleplaying, ergo removing the roleplaying doesn't mean every game without it is now a roleplaying game.

I think its something like that. :smallconfused:

RP doesn't need dice, but it's nice since it adjudicates the character's actions in context of the game world.

remember, it's not "Dave the player" talking to "John the GM". it's "Sir Swordshurtalot" talking to "King Steve the IVth".

the player's ability to talk fancy does not actually represent entirely what is being told in game. to represent what is being said (through both verbal and non-verbal cues), we have skills like diplomacy/bluff/intimidate. most games i play in involve the players describing their actions or giving a rough idea of what is said, the exact detail will vary among players some being more elaborate on the idea while others on the words used. depending on the GM he may or may not give bonuses if more detail is given to the roll, if one is required.

[Sebastian]

the bloody heck does WH40K, monopoly, candyland, risk or snakes and ladders have to do with anything?

WH40K, monopoly, and risk (I drop the other two) are games that use dice to resolve conflicts. Exactly like 4e.
Just because a game have a way to resolve conflicts with dice and you can "roleplay" these conflicts doesn't necessarily mean that it is a roleplaying game.


Note: I think that 4e is a roleplay game (even if a not very good one), this doesn't mean that Oxybe argument is not flawed.

[Kemper Boyd]

The people on Internet forums are also people in real life, and are only a fraction of everyone who is discontent with 4e. I play with about 8-10 different people, none of whom bother arguing about edition wars, but all of us are rather discontent with the new system.

Thats what we call anecdotal evidence. Look up sales figures of recent 4e releases instead. They're selling rather well.

[oxybe]

WH40K, monopoly, and risk (I drop the other two) are games that use dice to resolve conflicts. Exactly like every edition of D&D.

Just because a game have a way to resolve conflicts with dice and you can "roleplay" these conflicts doesn't necessarily mean that it is a roleplaying game.

fixed for you.

what constitutes a roleplaying game then? if you don't need roleplay to have a roleplaying game, then what's needed?

see i can make those same illogical leaps as you can? if you want to debate and exchange ideas, i'm happy to oblige, just don't go putting a windmill in your beard and calling that an argument.

please (people in general) stop using an appeal to ridicule as the basis of your position.

[shadzar]

Thats what we call anecdotal evidence. Look up sales figures of recent 4e releases instead. They're selling rather well.

Please show in your sales figures what percentage of people do not like the product known as 4th edition.


:smallconfused: You mean you cannot?


Odd you would bring up something so unable to support any facts against the arguement you are debating against eh?

So your opinion aside, those "many" on the forums prove that MANY do in fact feel as I stated it, and the proof is in the forums posts themselves.

4th edition CAN be played with NO roleplaying at all and only with dice. Ergo roleplaying as a requirement has ben removed form a roleplaing game. :smallconfused:

[Kemper Boyd]

Please show in your sales figures what percentage of people do not like the product known as 4th edition.

:smallconfused: You mean you cannot?

Odd you would bring up something so unable to support any facts against the arguement you are debating against eh?

So your opinion aside, those "many" on the forums prove that MANY do in fact feel as I stated it, and the proof is in the forums posts themselves.

4th edition CAN be played with NO roleplaying at all and only with dice. Ergo roleplaying as a requirement has ben removed form a roleplaing game. :smallconfused:

Yeah I'm mostly going by common sense here. I think most people who buy something like Arcane Power or PHB2 most likely do like 4e. Why would they be buying gaming material if they don't like the game?


4th edition CAN be played with NO roleplaying at all and only with dice. Ergo roleplaying as a requirement has ben removed form a roleplaing game. :smallconfused:

Now you're just being silly.

[Jack Zander]

Thats what we call anecdotal evidence. Look up sales figures of recent 4e releases instead. They're selling rather well.

Are they now? (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=557512)

If Wizards only publish a small number of books and then sell out, their sales aren't doing well. Their marketing department just knows how to make it look like they are.

4e isn't selling anywhere as near as well as 3.0 did when it was first released. When looking for how sales figures are doing, try using a 3rd party source, rather than asking the company in question.

[MickJay]

4th edition CAN be played with NO roleplaying at all and only with dice. Ergo roleplaying as a requirement has ben removed form a roleplaing game. :smallconfused:

Well, so can any other *roleplaying* game, if you really want to make it so (except for the few that don't require any dice at all and perhaps those where you roll them a couple of times per session). You can eliminate roleplaying from any D&D version in existence and reduce it to rolling and most basic descriptions of players' actions (I enter the dungeon. I want to kill the kobold. I take the loot).

[Kemper Boyd]

When looking for how sales figures are doing, try using a 3rd party source, rather than asking the company in question.

At least all of the products have sold well on Amazon, I think the upcoming Eberron book is rather high on their sales list and that's just pre-orders at the moment.

[Sebastian]

what constitutes a roleplaying game then? if you don't need roleplay to have a roleplaying game, then what's needed?



That is a good question and the whole point of the discussion.

roleplaying is necessary but not sufficient, as other have said you can roleplay in Risk, and yet Risk is not a roleplaying game.

So why D&D is a RPG while Risk is not?

P.s. have you missed the point where i say that IMHO 4ed is a RPG? why are you so aggressive?

[Jack Zander]

At least all of the products have sold well on Amazon, I think the upcoming Eberron book is rather high on their sales list and that's just pre-orders at the moment.

[citation needed]

Also, try comparing 4e to 3e in sales, rather than comparing 4e to, well, nothing.

[Kemper Boyd]

[citation needed]

Also, try comparing 4e to 3e in sales, rather than comparing 4e to, well, nothing.

This is the GitP forum, not Wikipedia.

And why do a comparison? It does not have much to do with how many people actually like 4e.

[shadzar]

This is the GitP forum, not Wikipedia.

And why do a comparison? It does not have much to do with how many people actually like 4e.

Why do a comparison indeed. AD&D 2nd edition is selling better than any other RPG right now.

Like yourself, I have no proof to back this up, but believe it and say it long enough and it will be true correct?

The point of comparing sales volume is to know the truth about your baseless statements.

Otherwise you are just regurgitating your opinion over and over, and it gets tiring because you cannot prove what you say and are presenting your opinion as fact.

Where you compare the sales numbers, then you will have facts to back up your claims.

[Jack Zander]

This is the GitP forum, not Wikipedia.

I'd like to see you back up your claims is all. Any Joe Shome can say anything he wants, but I'm not going to believe anything he says until he can verify it.


And why do a comparison? It does not have much to do with how many people actually like 4e.

Oh this is great! Now your argument is that over 6 billion people in the world do not like 4e, because they didn't buy the books. That sounds like many people to me.

You do a comparison to see how many people like the new edition. If 3e sales revolutionized the industry and put competitors out of business (which it did), and 4e didn't come anywhere close to that, is it reasonable to assume that there are many people who do not like 4e?

[Kemper Boyd]

Where you compare the sales numbers, then you will have facts to back up your claims.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/4442/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_4_last

I suggest that you start dealing with it.

[MickJay]

You do a comparison to see how many people like the new edition. If 3e sales revolutionized the industry and put competitors out of business (which it did), and 4e didn't come anywhere close to that, is it reasonable to assume that there are many people who do not like 4e?

Not really, low sales can represent a lot of things, for example:
1) no need for a new version when the old one is still "working"
2) attachment to known and liked system
3) instinctive negative attitude to change
4) unwillingness to invest another few thousand dollars into new rulebooks
5) poor marketing
etc.

Plus, to actually dislike something (as opposed to being prejudiced to something) you first need to know that thing. If the sales are low, it may (only may, but still) mean that the new system isn't really known well enough to be actually liked (or disliked). If I'm told that a system is bad and I shouldn't buy the rulebook, then I might become prejudiced towards the new system and not buy it; it doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked it if I actually played the game.

[Jack Zander]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/4442/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_4_last

I suggest that you start dealing with it.

That only tells me that in this exact hour, 4e books are bestsellers among roleplaying games. Not surprising considering that 3e is out of print and Wizards pretty much holds a monopoly. Now tell me how many 4e books Amazon sold last year compared to the number of 3e books they sold in 3rd edition's first year. Wait, was Amazon even a major distributor of roleplaying books at that time? I really have no idea if it was or not, but a much better source would be your local gaming (or book) store's sales.



Plus, to actually dislike something (as opposed to being prejudiced to something) you first need to know that thing. If the sales are low, it may (only may, but still) mean that the new system isn't really known well enough to be actually liked (or disliked). If I'm told that a system is bad and I shouldn't buy the rulebook, then I might become prejudiced towards the new system and not buy it; it doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked it if I actually played the game.

I said do not like. Not dislike.

[MickJay]

My bad. Though the argument itself stands. :smallwink:

[Jack Zander]

No, I do see your point, there are other factors to look at, but the issue we are debating here is that there are many people who do not like 4e, aside from those who are arguing on Internet forums.

4e sales compared to 3e sales gives you a general understanding of how many people do not like 4e enough to buy it, compared to how many people liked 3e enough to buy that edition instead.

Arguing that there are many people who dislike 4e is a bit more difficult, as you have shown, which is why my stance is simply on those who do not like 4e.

Also, when 3e came out, there were many people who did not want to switch editions for many of the reasons you stated, but most of them eventually did by the end of the first year. Not so with 3e vs. 4e.

[Panda-s1]

Noone is doing this in this thread as far as I've seen. It's a straw man.
I'm not saying that they are. I'm just flabbergasted at the outright denial of roleplaying in 4e some people give. Hell, even saying it's had is weird :smallconfused:

earlier editions did have rules that rewarded such behavior in the form of roleplaying XP; there were also XP rewards for finding treasure that were better than the rewards for killing things (including bonus treasure XP for thieves, so another bit of bonus xp for playing in character). The rules also explicitly laid out RP type rewards of gaining followers, titles, and lands as part of the leveling up processes.

I dunno, I mean finding treasure is part of the game, getting XP for it doesn't seem like roleplaying. More than that, getting stuff as you level up is hardly roleplaying. I mean if the players went out and cut out their own piece of territory, or went and gathered followers, then that's roleplaying. But getting to level 9 and suddenly the game goes "Here's some land and people, lol!"? That's not roleplaying, that's gamism.


Are they now? (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=557512)

If Wizards only publish a small number of books and then sell out, their sales aren't doing well. Their marketing department just knows how to make it look like they are.

4e isn't selling anywhere as near as well as 3.0 did when it was first released. When looking for how sales figures are doing, try using a 3rd party source, rather than asking the company in question.


Dungeons & Dragons 4e
The fourth edition is something of an odd duck for us, and it is no secret that sales thus far have been somewhat behind those for third edition. The game itself is very different from its predecessors.

[citation needed]

[Jack Zander]

[citation needed]

Citation needed? From the spokesperson of Mongoose Publishing about their DnD sales? Like... seriously?

[J.Gellert]

4th edition doesn't remove roleplaying. That's silly.

It's oversimplified, and boring, and it's NOT frickin' Dungeons & Dragons any more... but it doesn't remove roleplaying.

I haven't played it, because I hate its guts don't like how it does things. Still, I am certain that when the next D&D CRPG comes out, it'll have roleplaying alright, and I might buy it.

(Unless it's another Massively Multiplayer Out Of Character Game)

Roleplaying is about your group and your DM, regardless of system.

Heck, you can even roleplay with Risk if you want to. Just pretend you are Napoleon or something. It may sound silly but in the old ages before history, when I actually played Monopoly, I'd think of me playing the role of Scrooge McDuck every time I chose the hat piece (http://www.worldofmonopoly.co.uk/fansite/images/tokens/monopoly_token_hat.png).

Edit: Alright I'll say that it doesn't seem to encourage roleplaying but that's just "staying in line with recent trends of aiming games at younger audiences who actually have time to play them in this spinning angsty clock-ruled world we live in". Still, it doesn't remove it.

[golfmade]

I like 3.5 for it's granularity, not sure if that's the right word to use. Anyways, 4e is too simplified and I don't like it's structure. Luckily my group here feels the same way so we're sticking with 3.5 and of course we play other non D&D games as well.

[J.Gellert]

I like 3.5 for it's granularity, not sure if that's the right word to use. Anyways, 4e is too simplified and I don't like it's structure. Luckily my group here feels the same way so we're sticking with 3.5 and of course we play other non D&D games as well.

Mine too, thankfully. I'd kill myself them otherwise.

[Artanis]

4th edition CAN be played with NO roleplaying at all and only with dice. Ergo roleplaying as a requirement has ben removed form a roleplaing game. :smallconfused:
You keep saying this as though it's unique to 4e, despite how many times it's been pointed out that virtually every single RPG can be played with no RP. Even EXALTED can be played without a single word of RP.

So I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to bash something because it does what literally everything else does as well :smallannoyed:

[imp_fireball]

Okay, I've read several complaints about 4ed 'insulting their intelligence'.

Please explain. I've not read any inflammatory language in the books, so I really don't understand where this is coming from.

So, I'd like to hear from folks who feel they've been insulted by the books as to why. Not looking to argue, I just want to understand your point of view. I may not agree with you, but I am interested in understanding.

Also, not looking to turn this into edition war, so let's keep discussion to the specific question.

This is mostly the language of critics. The fact that 4e has been dumbed down, insults the intelligence of those who've played D&D before.

Also completely changing the rules around kind of forsakes those who've been loyal all these years. Why learn a new system? What purpose does it serve? Why spend all that money except to garner a new market of WoW-generation tweens?

Note that most critics ('bloggers', for the internet generation) tend to either overblow certain things, or carefully analyze them with surgical precision. 'Insulting intelligence' is not entirely deliberate or literal (obviously, WotC wouldn't of intended it to be literal, what purpose would that serve?), but is dissected and interpreted to mean that. It could even be metaphorical. Or 'just yet another reason, why...' etc.

That's all I'm going to say.

[Kemper Boyd]

Also completely changing the rules around kind of forsakes those who've been loyal all these years. Why learn a new system? What purpose does it serve? Why spend all that money except to garner a new market of WoW-generation tweens?

You know, you could be saying this about 3rd Edition as well, and actually the difference between AD&D and 3rd ed is much more greater.

[Indon]

Even EXALTED can be played without a single word of RP.

But without a way to exploit the Stunt mechanic, your character will be weaker.

Overall, though, being simple and streamlined does not mean being simplistic. If successive sourcebooks for 4th edition prove to expand the game's mechanics in the same way that 3.5's mechanics were expanded over time, then I don't see how the game could be called simplistic.

Now, if all the further 4th edition books turn out to be the same mechanics set, rehashed with different flavor text? That might qualify as simplistic.

[Artanis]

But without a way to exploit the Stunt mechanic, your character will be weaker.

That's why I mentioned it. Even if you lose a mechanical advantage for doing so, you can still play Exalted with nothing but dice if you really want to. And if Exalted can be played with nothing but dice, then frankly, it becomes a bit insulting to do what shadzar has been doing and repeatedly suggest that a game - any game - has somehow become worse than the others due to being able to do this.

[Poru93]

While I make no claims that 4e is just as complex as previous editions of D&D, I can't understand something being simpler means that it is worse than something more complex. It seems (to me at least) that the general thought is the simpler something gets, the less fun it becomes. To me, this makes no sense.

I mean, is a pick-up game of basketball with friends less fun than a game with friends where you use the exact rules of the NBA? No, I don't think so. In fact, for many people (and I think this is the reasoning of WotC) have more fun if the game is simpler to pick up.

Now, that's not to say that a game with all the rules and regulations can't be just as rewarding, and for those who stick to it rigidly, I'm sure it's a blast for them. And I completely respect people who say that they don't like 4e because it is simpler. However, as I said before, that doesn't mean it is any worse.

As to whether or not roleplaying is encouraged in 4e, I think that depends on the group. I know what is encouraged is everyone having fun. The developers and writers suggested what they think may be some similarities in what people may find fun, but that's not to say roleplaying is discouraged. Personally, I think anyone who is drawn to D&D in the first place will most likely (I'm not a mind reader after all) want to roleplay. And that is what makes D&D, 4e included, a roleplaying game.

Finally, on the topic of sales, one of the possible explanations for the decreased sales is the increase in the popularity of pdfs. This did lead to the PHB2 fiasco a few months back and I've heard people mention (in this thread I believe) it shows how much WotC has turned D&D into something to be milked for money. However, what about the artists who don't like people illegally downloading their music? The lawsuits that have been filed there? Does that mean the artist is becoming a corporate monster? No, what it does mean is that these people (WotC and artists alike) don't want people to profit for free from the hours and hours of work they have put into something, be it a CD or a book. Also, many people who like 3.5 haven't bought the new books, whereas, I would wager over half the sales (just a guess, could very well be less) were to people who 4e was their first edition of D&D.

[MickJay]

All things considered, what's wrong with trying to get younger people into D&D by means of more appealing, from certain perspective, mechanics? Once they've tried 4ed, they might as well try older versions, or other systems/settings altogether.

[ashmanonar]

[Citation Needed]

The people on Internet forums are also people in real life, and are only a fraction of everyone who is discontent with 4e.

PROVE.

IT.

[Mando Knight]

PROVE.

IT.

Prove which part?

[huttj509]

PROVE.

IT.

You're right. You got me, I'm actually a chat-bot created as a senior project trying to pass the Turing test.

[shadzar]

You keep saying this as though it's unique to 4e, despite how many times it's been pointed out that virtually every single RPG can be played with no RP. Even EXALTED can be played without a single word of RP.

So I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to bash something because it does what literally everything else does as well :smallannoyed:

Frankly I don't give a damn about other RPGs. Basically they aren't worth discussing to me, because none of them were ever worth playing. I don't know them save for some Rifts and VtM, and don't like any of them.

Coincidentally this may be why I chose D&D as my RPG to play.

So I would appreciate people to stop thinking I give a damn about every nickle and dime store RPG out there, or thinking they have any place in the discussion.

Also proving, which no one has done, that other RPGs can be played without roleplaying, does NOT disprove 4th edition needs it.

I guess the video game generation has long since taken over gaming since roleplaying is misunderstood, and has been shrunk down to the multiple choices responses available from a video game rather than infinite choices of a true RPG.

So people keep claiming I am wrong with the statement, but I have seen no proof otherwise.

Anyone want to stop beating around the bush with excuses and BS, and actually try to counter this statement: The roleplaying game D&D 4th edition, does not require any roleplaying to play.

Anyone else addressing this statement with me that does not respond directly with proof of roleplaying required in 4th will be ignored as the idle ramblings they present. It seems people have forgotten how to discus or debate things these days and just want to ramble about things that are similar. Well try to talk around it all day long and make yourself feel better thinking you have made any point, but that train stops here. You want to make a point then have one about the subject at hand, not trying to cloud the facts.

:smallfurious:

After I am either proven wrong or right on this, then we can discuss other edition of D&D and the matter of roleplaying in a thread devoted to that. Otherwise to be on topic here, the fact of the matter again is, it is insulting that 4th edition is claimed to be a roleplaying game, in which it requires no reolplaying at all.

[FoE]

Anyone want to stop beating around the bush with excuses and BS, and actually try to counter this statement: The roleplaying game D&D 4th edition, does not require any roleplaying to play.

Well, no. No edition of D&D requires roleplaying.

It's possible in 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E and 4E to conduct an whole session — hell, an entire campaign — never once saying a single line in-character. I've done that back in my 1E days.

[Mando Knight]

Anyone want to stop beating around the bush with excuses and BS, and actually try to counter this statement: The roleplaying game D&D 4th edition, does not require any roleplaying to play.

I will not counter the statement because I find it incomplete and loaded. I cannot find a reason why any edition of D&D requires actual roleplaying in order to function at the base level. Since you have professed antipathy towards all other RPGs, I cannot find any reason as to how this argument strengthens your position against Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition as opposed to any previous edition of Dungeons and Dragons. Therefore, I cannot find a reason to consider your argument as a valid discussion point, and thus will not consider it applicable to the discussion at hand.

[chiasaur11]

You're right. You got me, I'm actually a chat-bot created as a senior project trying to pass the Turing test.

And I'm an elaborate prank by a mad godlike AI from the future in between attempts to escape the universe.

Keep it on the downlow, if you would.

[shadzar]

While I make no claims that 4e is just as complex as previous editions of D&D, I can't understand something being simpler means that it is worse than something more complex. It seems (to me at least) that the general thought is the simpler something gets, the less fun it becomes. To me, this makes no sense.

Why don't we play Candyland instead of D&D? Because the simpler game no longer offers what we are looking for in a game.

I will state that 4th edition is more complex than some early versions of D&D, but it better codified for picking things. Playing by reading the books however is les inspiring and makes you have to hunt for the coded rules. Also many have stated that where 3.5 was the players game and made for the player, 4th edition is the DMs game and made for the DM.

So 4th doesn't really help getting new people because it is a more simple game, but because it is more simple to create a character. This isn't a bad thing, but becomes one when later you find the limits of that simple character choosing method limits what you may want to do as would Candyland limit what you can do at any point in the game.

So for those not looking for a new version of Candyland with real easy play, then simpler isn't fun.


All things considered, what's wrong with trying to get younger people into D&D by means of more appealing, from certain perspective, mechanics? Once they've tried 4ed, they might as well try older versions, or other systems/settings altogether.

Sometimes they just don't belong.

16 is a good average age for people to have drivers licenses. Why don't we just change cars to something else to allow for younger people to drive? Then then only car you can buy, when the industry stabalizes, will be the kind that a kid of age 6 can drive. We will remove all other forms of cars so that everyone has equal opportunity. They are in fact doing this already. Making cars for children that can drive them to school for them with a parents pre-selected route.

But should that mean everyone then must use this new type of car and doesn't have a right to use the more complex manually driven car?

That is the problem. Not letting younger people play, but making it only for the younger people. A major problem in this country at least called for many thing Americanization.

You see it with books movies, and many other things where the thing is transformed for the audience and makes it something else. Like how Japanese cartoons are treated, because all cartoons are for children, and cartoon were always for children. :smallconfused: Cartoons started as porn.

So while trying to "create" something for younger people, many times you destroy what you are creating rather than trying to realize everything is not for all ages of peoples. D&D works like that as well.

Rather than trying to make a D&D for every age, they should make an RPG for every age. I have mentioned this before on changing D&D to suite other type of people other than age, but it still begs the same question. Why make D&D for person X that doesn't like, or cannot play D&D in its current state? Why not make something specifically for them? Does everyone HAVE to play D&D, and they cannot have something for them specifically? What happens to the game when you make it so generic there is only a few things in it that everyone like, and then nobody really likes it enough to like it all and continue with it. Like for the shy people having problems opening up to play, 4th edition removes the need for roleplaying so you can just roll dice to play the game, so why couldn't that have ben its own game. Likewise why do younger players ned to play D&D? Why not make them an introductory RPG aimed at and specifically for younger players?

Then when they grow up and find this RPG for younger player not to their liking, they can then move on to the RPg of their choosing. Hopefully if you haven't drowned D&D in generic trying to please everyone wish-wash mish-mash by that time they will like your company products enough to buy D&D rather than going to Paizo, Necromancer, Green Ronin, Mongoose, White Wolf, etc company for their RPG.

Getting younger people into the hobby isn't the problem, it is turning the game into something becoming only for younger people that is the problem.

You want to get people into the game and keep them in it, not get them in for 5 years and then lose them.

That is what a smart RPG maker would do is not try to merge all ages into one audience, but provide something for each of its audiences and age ranges, that will lead to the other products and grow with them as they do. Then when they grow up and want to introduce RPG to their younger, they will have their old books or can tell them where to find them to buy to start learning tabletop RPGs and then move on to D&D.

Also the problem with them trying older version of D&D after starting with 4th is the prejudice towards older editions, as well as not being able to buy them thanks to the loss of PDF sales finally killing of avenue of them, unless you go retro clone rather than playing the real game.

Stores don't sell older editions, and don't all cater to older edition players playing in their store since they do not promote sales of products they carry. WotC pretty much killed any older edition play after breathing life back into it with PDFs.

So even getting younger people into D&D at this time only helps WotC, not the hobby, just the industry. Frankly, I don't care to help WotC. Like any other company it is their job to make money for themselves, not mine to make it for them. Just ask Chrysler or General Motors. :smallwink:

Younger players...no scratch that.

New players are good, but not necessarily need they be younger players, for the hobby. Younger doesn't have to be ages 8+, but consider it the same age it always has been because after the new edition those 8 year old will be 13 by the time it comes out anyway at the rate of things.

[shadzar]

{Scrubbed}

[oxybe]

Frankly I don't give a damn about other RPGs. Basically they aren't worth discussing to me, because none of them were ever worth playing. I don't know them save for some Rifts and VtM, and don't like any of them.

Coincidentally this may be why I chose D&D as my RPG to play.

So I would appreciate people to stop thinking I give a damn about every nickle and dime store RPG out there, or thinking they have any place in the discussion.

Also proving, which no one has done, that other RPGs can be played without roleplaying, does NOT disprove 4th edition needs it.

I guess the video game generation has long since taken over gaming since roleplaying is misunderstood, and has been shrunk down to the multiple choices responses available from a video game rather than infinite choices of a true RPG.

So people keep claiming I am wrong with the statement, but I have seen no proof otherwise.

Anyone want to stop beating around the bush with excuses and BS, and actually try to counter this statement: The roleplaying game D&D 4th edition, does not require any roleplaying to play.

Anyone else addressing this statement with me that does not respond directly with proof of roleplaying required in 4th will be ignored as the idle ramblings they present. It seems people have forgotten how to discus or debate things these days and just want to ramble about things that are similar. Well try to talk around it all day long and make yourself feel better thinking you have made any point, but that train stops here. You want to make a point then have one about the subject at hand, not trying to cloud the facts.

:smallfurious:

After I am either proven wrong or right on this, then we can discuss other edition of D&D and the matter of roleplaying in a thread devoted to that. Otherwise to be on topic here, the fact of the matter again is, it is insulting that 4th edition is claimed to be a roleplaying game, in which it requires no reolplaying at all.

what excuses or BS? practically everyone here says 4th ed can be played without RP, but then again so can any RPG that uses a task resolution system so that's point moot.

it's impossible to force someone to RP anyways. a group that does not want to RP but just play a game can do so as they have the task resolution system in front of them.

doesn't mean i find that fun.

what's a "true RPG"? it sure isn't OD&D, 1st ed or 2nd ed by your definition it seems as those games can be played without roleplaying.

[Mando Knight]

{Scrubbed}

We do read. You are unclear as to your intent, other than being the pot which calls the kettle black. You have yet not proven that your preferred edition of D&D cannot be played without roleplaying. If OD&D, AD&D, AD&D 2e, and D&D 3.x are each as equally guilty of what you accuse D&D 4e of, and you profess a singular devotion to D&D as your fantasy roleplaying game system of choice, then you have no foundation on which to base your derision of 4e as to the lack of support of roleplaying.

[Artanis]

Anyone want to stop beating around the bush with excuses and BS, and actually try to counter this statement: The roleplaying game D&D 4th edition, does not require any roleplaying to play.

Do you care about 2nd Edition? Because that also does not require any RP to play.

[FoE]

Not letting younger people play, but making it only for the younger people. A major problem in this country at least called for many thing Americanization.

So while trying to "create" something for younger people, many times you destroy what you are creating rather than trying to realize everything is not for all ages of peoples. D&D works like that as well.

Excuse me, are you trying to imply that 4E is only for kids? I'm in my mid-20s, guy. I ain't some 10-year-old gamer playin teh Haloz, and I like the system just fine.


{Scrubbed}

What didn't I read? I said 4E doesn't require roleplaying. Neither does any other edition of D&D. You can conduct an entire game in 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E or 4E completely out-of-character. There are no rules for roleplaying outside a vague suggestion of XP rewards for 'good roleplaying.'

[Jayabalard]

Excuse me, are you trying to imply that 4E is only for kids? I'm in my mid-20s, guy. I ain't some 10-year-old gamer playin teh Haloz, and I like the system just fine. it's possible that he'd still you consider you a kid, while shaking his stick at you and telling you to get off of his lawn.

incidentally... 4e doesn't require any Chalupa's to play either.

[Artanis]

I'm a dadgum whippersnapper and proud of it! :smalltongue:

[shadzar]

Do you care about 2nd Edition? Because that also does not require any RP to play.

Not primarily in this thread, because it is about 4th edition. So I am weighing 4th edition on its own merits/flaws.

[Artanis]

Not primarily in this thread, because it is about 4th edition. So I am weighing 4th edition on its own merits/flaws.

OK, now I'm really confused :smallconfused:

You're railing against 4e for one of its flaws, a flaw so huge that it doesn't even count as an RPG. But all the other editions of DnD, including the ones you play, have the exact same flaw. I must be missing something, because otherwise I would think that the other editions that you play also wouldn't count as RPGs :smallconfused:

[Ashdate]

Wow, shadzar, you're kind of a ramblely, crotchety kind of old gamer aren't you :)

The way to prove that 4e does not encourage roleplaying, is simple. You need to imagine a game where the DM allows no incentive to roleplay at all. This is not the same as discouraging roleplaying, which would invalidate such a test. You would literally need to give zero motive to the players.

If you can get through an entire session without the player's once pretending in the slightest they represent more than a stack of numbers, then you win. The following would represent roleplaying, and if happened, would cause such a test to fail:

1) A player asks why they are <anywhere>.
2) A player acts in character (even saying "my character says...")
3) A player says that his character is doing something.
4) A player asks for information that is not statistical in nature (i.e. "What does monster 1 look like?")
5) A player asks if he can get a bonus to a die roll because of a condition that has not been explicitly outlined in the rulebook.

You can describe no scenery unless asked, not involve any NPCs that are not going to be involved with combat. They may be referred to only as "monster 1, monster 2, etc. Referring to them as say, goblins, is prohibited, although you may tell the players "the monster has a +2 to dex, and a -2 to wis" (if applicable, of course). You can play on a simple white and black grid, but cannot use dungeon tiles.

I think that's a good start. Anyone else have anything to add that would create the ultimate "non-roleplaying" environment?

- Ashdate

[Poru93]

Why don't we play Candyland instead of D&D? Because the simpler game no longer offers what we are looking for in a game.


First off, why are you so up tight about this? I was merely stating my opinion in a distinctly non-hostile fashion (or at least that was my intent), then you reply in a sardonic manner? What happened to this being a friendly debate where people who have a common interest in RPGs can discuss their different opinions?

Anyways, enough of my rambling about courtesy that is supposed to be shown towards peers and onto the debate itself. To begin, you took that one snippet of my post out of context or at least how I intended it (although that may not have come across clearly, my apologies). As I clearly stated later in my post, one reason, I think, people come to play D&D is that they want to roleplay, or perhaps I should phrase it better. They want to play what D&D, IMO at least has come to symbolize: a heroic battle in a fantastic world against horrendous monsters, working together with trusted comrades to save the world from evil. It's hard for me to describe; it's the reason all of us, every single one of us started playing some edition of D&D. There is a draw there. Regardless of what the mechanics of the edition may be, the reason we all came to play D&D has remained the same. Now Candyland, while it may be a simple game, does not offer that type of draw.

My point is that 4th Edition, at least IMO, made it easier for people to become drawn into D&D to begin with, at least what I think D&D is. IIRC, WotC (regardless of how money-grubbing their intentions may have been) even created a starter kit for 4E. That alone seems to me to say how accessible D&D is to new players.

Time for my anecdote: I DM a homebrew game using 4e. Now with the exception of one player out of the five in the group, myself included, had never played any D&D before. I spent some time reading through the DMG and the PHB before the first session. In four sessions, the three new players felt comfortable with the system, and everyone was having a blast(which incidentally, having fun seems to me one of the crucial reasons we play D&D in the first place. Heck, the reason we do anything in the first place).

Slightly unrelated, but I'm curious. What exactly does everyone think D&D is? Is it the history of the game itself? Is it the simple desire to be a hero in a fantastic land? What makes D&D, D&D? And why does simplifying the mechanics insult this idea?

[Panda-s1]

Citation needed? From the spokesperson of Mongoose Publishing about their DnD sales? Like... seriously?

Their D&D sales? Oh, well that changes things. In that case, here's the problem: A) They sell 3rd party material. Not everyone is gonna buy 3rd party material. B) How does the sales of one company's supplements show the sales of the main material? For all we know their material blows, gets average to poor reviews, and nobody wants to buy it. Not to mention the economy these days means people are gonna be more picky about what books they're gonna buy, and people like to buy good books.

More than that they're only one company. As far as I've heard, they're the only major 3rd party company using the GSL that's claimed slow sales of 4e material. If say Goodman Games, who's majority of product is 4e compatible, also said it then maybe it means something, but even then point A still stands.

[shadzar]

Wow, shadzar, you're kind of a ramblely, crotchety kind of old gamer aren't you :)

The way to prove that 4e does not encourage roleplaying, is simple. You need to imagine a game where the DM allows no incentive to roleplay at all. This is not the same as discouraging roleplaying, which would invalidate such a test. You would literally need to give zero motive to the players.

:smallfurious: Get off my lawn you damn kids! Don't make me call my MU neighbor!

:biggrin:

4th edition itself and the books are all the proof I need. Show many anywhere in 4th edition that there IS incentive to roleplay. The DM is moot, when the game itself offers no incentive. What for a new player picking up 4th edition would give them incentive to roleplay if they haven't ever roleplayed before, or only roleplayed as much as a CRPG would include such as choosing yes or no to accepting some quest by an NPC. That also is more than 4th edition presents in the true core books as incentive to roleplay.

As others try to state that 4th doesn't promote roleplaying in any fashion, and that is exactly what I am saying. Therefore they have removed it as a part of the game, and in some places explicitly state don't do it (ignore the two gate guards), and others have flat out removed any need for it at all in the places where it would be most fitting to roleplay (skill challenges).

So what incentive to roleplay do you find in the books, and what in the books actually tells you to roleplay, that is not just some fluff added to a dice mechanic?

I use skill challenges again. All it states it to say what you are doing. You need X passes of this skill check to succeed. Just state what skill you are using.

I try to sway the king ~rolls diplomacy~
I further try to sway the king ~rolls diplomacy~
Wash, rinse repeat until either passed or failed the challenge.

That is ALL that is required. There is no incentive to roleplaying in that. There is nothing inspiring about the system to encourage roleplaying. Ergo, why call it a roleplaying game, when you have purposefully down played any need for roleplaying because some may not be as outgoing, or smart to talk through things with others playing? :smallconfused:

Where is the incentive form 4th to roleplay?

[FoE]

Slightly unrelated, but I'm curious. What exactly does everyone think D&D is? Is it the history of the game itself? Is it the simple desire to be a hero in a fantastic land? What makes D&D, D&D? And why does simplifying the mechanics insult this idea?

When you ask that question, you inevitably get answers like this:

You use six main stats: Strength, Intellegience, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma and Wisdom.
You have a mix of player classes, some utilizing melee attacks and some magic. The essentials are fighters, wizards, rogues, clerics, paladins, monks and bards.
You fight monsters.
You get treasure.
You gain experience and increase in levels.
It has an Alignment system.

All of which 4e does. Yeah, it's got flaws. Big ones — skill challenges, too many magic items, minions useless at higher levels, not killing off Gnomes. :smallwink:

But the idea that it's no longer D&D is shrill and bloody ridiculous.

You know what the whole "4E IS AN UNHOLY TRAVESTY THAT HAS DESTROYED THE SOUL OF D&D" argument boils down to? Daring to simplify the over-complicated, over-stuffed Alignment system and the FAR GREATER SIN of using new combat mechanics that emphasise balance between classes.

"All powers use damage!" "Everybody fights the same way!" "Oh, everybody has teh spellz now!" "Needz minis OMG WTF MONEYGRAB!"

Somehow, this has all translated into "No RP in 4E" for some of the more extreme anti-fans, like our friend Shazdar here. Even though roleplaying is mentioned in the PHB and DMG, even though cut-and-dry RP rules are often derided and even though hard-core roleplayers are looked down upon like plague victims.

Oh, and the Core books don't read like novels. Boo-hoo-hoo.

[Nightson]

I guess the big sections on roleplaying in the PHB and DMG are just pretending to encourage players to roleplay.

[Poru93]

I suppose that is one way to look at it. I know I may be an exception to the rule, but I wasn't drawn to D&D because I got to roll dice or have six different stats. I looked at other systems; I talked to other more experienced RPers; in the end, D&D, for me, had that intangible that I failed to accurately describe in my previous post. For me, that's what D&D, and I almost feel bad for anyone who has turned a blind eye to the fantasies that D&D offered and instead focused on the crunch. I'll admit, the crunch is a lot of fun to play around with, but I don't think it's enough for anyone to be drawn to the game.

As for the issue of roleplaying, I'll admit, after playing many hours of 4e, there are no incentives for roleplaying. Now that's not to say it discourages roleplaying, but it doesn't encourage it either.

However, as I said in a previous post, people come to D&D (once again IMO) to roleplay. There are plenty of games out there (I'm sure there have to be, though I couldn't name one off the top of my head) that provide the same thing D&D does mechanically that can be played without roleplaying at all. Honestly, if you play D&D, I don't think you need an incentive to roleplay. Even in my RL game that I DM, my players (who are powergamers through and through) find themselves roleplaying. They still enjoy talking with the mayor, probing his (or rather my mind:smalltongue:) for details, all in-character. Unless I specifically running a skill challenge, I rarely ask for checks and just let the players succeed or fail based on how they roleplay. And D&D 4e doesn't stop me from doing that.

[ImmortalAer]

4th edition doesn't remove roleplaying. That's silly.

It's oversimplified, and boring, and it's NOT frickin' Dungeons & Dragons any more... but it doesn't remove roleplaying.

I haven't played it, because I hate its guts don't like how it does things. Still, I am certain that when the next D&D CRPG comes out, it'll have roleplaying alright, and I might buy it.

(Unless it's another Massively Multiplayer Out Of Character Game)

Roleplaying is about your group and your DM, regardless of system.

Heck, you can even roleplay with Risk if you want to. Just pretend you are Napoleon or something. It may sound silly but in the old ages before history, when I actually played Monopoly, I'd think of me playing the role of Scrooge McDuck every time I chose the hat piece (http://www.worldofmonopoly.co.uk/fansite/images/tokens/monopoly_token_hat.png).

Edit: Alright I'll say that it doesn't seem to encourage roleplaying but that's just "staying in line with recent trends of aiming games at younger audiences who actually have time to play them in this spinning angsty clock-ruled world we live in". Still, it doesn't remove it.

Disclaimer : Please do not Roleplay Warhammer 40,000. Shooting up your local hobby shop with .75 caliber miniature rocket launchers is frowned upon in civilized society. Bashing in the front of your opponent's skull with a rusty axe is also bad.

[Sir Homeslice]

Disclaimer : ... Bashing in the front of your opponent's skull with a rusty axe is also bad.

I'll have you know, the axes are perfectly well kept, as one cannot make sacrifices to Khorne with a rusted-to-hell axe.

Why do I care, I prefer Nurgle.

[shadzar]

I'll have you know, the axes are perfectly well kept, as one cannot make sacrifices to Khorne with a rusted-to-hell axe.

Why do I care, I prefer Nurgle.

Speaking of the unwashed masses WotC wants to promote a game to. :smallbiggrin:

How did 40k turn into the subject of this thread?

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep your comments civil and within the Forum Rules. That means no insults, passive-aggressive insults, or posts that seem intended to increase or provoke hostility.

[ImmortalAer]

Speaking of the unwashed masses WotC wants to promote a game to. :smallbiggrin:

How did 40k turn into the subject of this thread?

People kept using it as a example of something without RP. I think it has a neat background, even if the Rule of Cool runs 90% of it. And therefore I have arguements about it, and the Warhammer Fantasy background fluff whenever my gaming group gets together? :smallbiggrin:

We could reinact the game, but that would lead back to the disclaimer.

[shadzar]

People kept using it as a example of something without RP. I think it has a neat background, even if the Rule of Cool runs 90% of it. And therefore I have arguements about it, and the Warhammer Fantasy background fluff whenever my gaming group gets together? :smallbiggrin:

We could reinact the game, but that would lead back to the disclaimer.

You missed it.... Nurgle (The Unclean One right?) ... unwashed masses.... :smallwink:

[Chrono22]

Why don't we play Candyland instead of D&D? Because the simpler game no longer offers what we are looking for in a game.

I will state that 4th edition is more complex than some early versions of D&D, but it better codified for picking things. Playing by reading the books however is les inspiring and makes you have to hunt for the coded rules. Also many have stated that where 3.5 was the players game and made for the player, 4th edition is the DMs game and made for the DM.

So 4th doesn't really help getting new people because it is a more simple game, but because it is more simple to create a character. This isn't a bad thing, but becomes one when later you find the limits of that simple character choosing method limits what you may want to do as would Candyland limit what you can do at any point in the game.

Rather than trying to make a D&D for every age, they should make an RPG for every age. I have mentioned this before on changing D&D to suite other type of people other than age, but it still begs the same question. Why make D&D for person X that doesn't like, or cannot play D&D in its current state? Why not make something specifically for them? Does everyone HAVE to play D&D, and they cannot have something for them specifically? What happens to the game when you make it so generic there is only a few things in it that everyone like, and then nobody really likes it enough to like it all and continue with it. Like for the shy people having problems opening up to play, 4th edition removes the need for roleplaying so you can just roll dice to play the game, so why couldn't that have ben its own game. Likewise why do younger players ned to play D&D? Why not make them an introductory RPG aimed at and specifically for younger players?

That is what a smart RPG maker would do is not try to merge all ages into one audience, but provide something for each of its audiences and age ranges, that will lead to the other products and grow with them as they do. Then when they grow up and want to introduce RPG to their younger, they will have their old books or can tell them where to find them to buy to start learning tabletop RPGs and then move on to D&D.

Also the problem with them trying older version of D&D after starting with 4th is the prejudice towards older editions, as well as not being able to buy them thanks to the loss of PDF sales finally killing of avenue of them, unless you go retro clone rather than playing the real game.

So even getting younger people into D&D at this time only helps WotC, not the hobby, just the industry. Frankly, I don't care to help WotC. Like any other company it is their job to make money for themselves, not mine to make it for them. Just ask Chrysler or General Motors. :smallwink:

I don't much care for or agree with your social non sequiturs, so I just bolded the choice bits and omitted the irrelevant portions.
You seem like you contradict yourself when you say that 4e is both a simpler and a more complex game. I'm not sure, but I think what you mean is that the rules are simpler, but the assumptions of 4e are more complex.
By assumptions, I mean what the game defines as fun, not fun, important, not important, allowed, not allowed etc. The assumptions 4e presents are in contrast to previous editions more sandbox approach to playing (4e tyranny of fun).

I disagree with you on the position that simpler mechanics make for a less robust game, on the basis that the only type of complexity players and GMs appreciate is complexity in design. Players like individual characters with unusual quirks and memorable abilities. GMs like to surprise their players. This can be accomplished with a simple, unifying mechanic (the dX roll vs. a difficulty value), if you coupled it with a system whose individual components are simple by themselves, but in combination can become complex.

Your contention that no rpg should try to lend itself to all age ranges is also something I can't agree with. I think creating a system that can lend itself to many different playstyles (and that can change depending on the criteria set forth by a group's desires) could both appeal to all age ranges and still remain robust enough to please older players.

Which would you rather have: A set of action figures, or a big collection of legos? The individual components of a lego set are simple enough for a child to comprehend. But collectively even an adult can appreciate what he can make out of them.

[shadzar]

Your contention that no rpg should try to lend itself to all age ranges is also something I can't agree with.

Not reading all the rest, but skimming it I will just do liek yourself and highlight the portion I will be addressing. :smallwink:

I didn't say NO RPG should be made for all ages, but changing an established one into something else that redefines what it is and does is the problem. Should someone want to attempt (and it will likely fail) to make an RPG for all ages, then let them. But it doesn't mean it should be done with an existing one.

What is everyone's fascination with changing something rather than creating their own? Are people really trusting a company to make D&D, that cannot come up with their own ideas, in that they cannot make a NEW RPG for all ages?

Probably the reason is that WotC understands that they cannot make an RPG that will work for all ages.

1- All ages do not like the same things
2- Even within the same given age range, not all peoples of that age will like the same things from an RPG.

Ergo: You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time; but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

Making an RPG for all ages would try to capture part 2 here, but would fail because that "some time" would not mean that length of time would be anything to return on the investment in creating it as a good percentage would use it and drop it rather quickly after they found out it only please them a little, and other things are more tailored to their tastes.

Strive for the first part, and hope to capture some people in the second part.

The time that D&D is made into something for all ages, it will either die as an RPG and have become something else, so why still call it D&D, or will just die and become nothing except a footnote in the gaming industry.

So if you want to make one for all ages, then make one with that purpose in mind, but remember you will first have to master how to make something for people of the same age that fits all genres, and they all enjoy it.

So it ain't gonna happen. Simpler reason....not all ages want to game with each other. Some younger do not want to game with "creepy old guys", and older players not all want to game with "annoying brats".

Someone can try, but I doubt it will ever work with an RPG because of the nature of RPGs.

[shadzar]

4.0 Insults intelligence...

"You imagination should not work, but does." :smallconfused:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+kluge&btnG=Google+Search

Definitions of kluge on the Web:

* Something that should not work, but does
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kluge

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/256716-d-d-4th-edition-design-based-around-suite-proposed-d-di-tools-edit-found-quote-2.html#post4828050


The simple answer is no 4e was not designed to play easier on a computer.

I think that the premise that computer play has design constraints is somewhat flawed to begin with. How has table top play handled flight, invisibility, teleport, line of sight, concealment, on-going fire, bloodied, etc in any sort of elegant fashion? It hasn't been done well with any physical product (tokens, templates, markers, etc). Imagination is the only kluge that has made any of these rules work well.

Excuse me? While I admit no token/minis etc represent flight or invisibility well, because they are not intended for use with the game in that fashion and 2D of a tabletop was never meant to include the 3rd dimension....imaginaiton is a kluge?

:smallconfused:

People's imagination to play the game without needing minis, shouldn't work but for some reason unbeknownst to WotC designers, does in fact work to allow for these games.

Well I guess that is why Gary made a game for the imagination rather than for computers and minis to have things flying around all over the place. :smallwink:

Calling someones imagination a kluge is insulting. :smallfurious:

Read the rest of that thread for yourself, as I only touched on the part that is the biggest insult from it...and once again those insults come not general forum users, but as usual come form WotC personnel.

:smallfrown:

Yet again seems a product of you never knew how to play the game, so we had to change it for the dumb people to play it better, and you were never supposed to be using your imagination for these things to work. :smallfurious:

[ImmortalAer]

"I cast Magic Missle at the darkness."
"...It's broad daylight, there is no darkness."
"I cast Darkness."
"..."
"I cast Magic Missle at the darkness."

---------

/the Irrefutable Imagination. (And internet Meme's)

[Narmoth]

Actually, I was hoping that the simplification and balancing of skills in 4th ed would make more room for roleplaying, since the fighting got more streamlined, you would have more time for roleplaying.
Well, I haven't seen it so far... :smalleek:

[shadzar]

Actually, I was hoping that the simplification and balancing of skills in 4th ed would make more room for roleplaying, since the fighting got more streamlined, you would have more time for roleplaying.
Well, I haven't seen it so far... :smalleek:

:smallconfused:

So you have more time to play due to quicker combat, but you only get more combat in that time?

[Kurald Galain]

So you have more time to play due to quicker combat, but you only get more combat in that time?

In my experience, at least, combat in 4E is not noticeably quicker than combat in 3E. However, both are noticeably slower than combat in most other RPGs I am familiar with.

[Oslecamo]

When you ask that question, you inevitably get answers like this:

You use six main stats: Strength, Intellegience, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma and Wisdom.

Except that in 4e they don't mean anything anymore. You can base your HP out of any of them. You can use any of them to grant bonuses to your attacks.



You have a mix of player classes, some utilizing melee attacks and some magic. The essentials are fighters, wizards, rogues, clerics, paladins, monks and bards.

Incorrect. Classes in 4e use neither melee or magic, but some pseudo moral powers wich make them take out the will of their oponents to fight while reinforcing their own, same for the monsters. You can never die, just enter an emo state untill someone wakes you up with a raise moral dead ritual. Wich also explains why healing a disease is harder than raising someone's moral.



You fight monsters.
You get treasure.

Wich should both be semi-random in any other edition of D&D, not perfectly streamlined for the party like in 4e.



You gain experience and increase in levels.

You even gain experience if you miss one or more session and don't play in 4e! Wait, there's something wrong there...



It has an Alignment system.


Hmm? Where? Does 4e rules ever care if my character is good or evil? Can I detect either of them? Does the god wich grants me my pseudo-moral powers abandon me if I breack his codes and defile his temple? No, 4e has no alignment system.

[Sir Homeslice]

MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL

Can you actually make a point now, or will you continue being incredibly and pointlessly melodramatic?

[shadzar]

In my experience, at least, combat in 4E is not noticeably quicker than combat in 3E. However, both are noticeably slower than combat in most other RPGs I am familiar with.

I have heard from both camp in combat speed of 4th. I myself found it to be much slower with 4 people playing 4th, than 8 people playing 3.5.

Needless to say I didn't play 4th that much because I didn't care for it, but tried it out as a combat simulator and found it to be slower and less interesting even than watching and waiting the other players in 3.5.

This is why I was asking since it hasn't been mentioned anywhere for a while after some say speed picks up in 4th, but nobody I saw mentioned how much combat speed picked up compared to just starting with it.

So the simpler ruleset doesn't really help sped things up over 3.x that much in your experience?

[Burley]

As for the issue of roleplaying, I'll admit, after playing many hours of 4e, there are no incentives for roleplaying. Now that's not to say it discourages roleplaying, but it doesn't encourage it either.


I don't understand this. What incentive do the rules in any iteration of D&D offer? I've seen some places say to offer XP, but that's fully to the DMs discretion.
Really, if RPing is lacking in your game, it isn't due to what edition of D&D you're playing.

Also (not aimed at Poru), how can can anybody use the arguement of "4e is all about roll-playing, instead of role-playing", and also say that they don't like the social skills in 4e. RPing, or rather good RPing can and will happen without rolling dice.
So, what if 4e's PHB focuses on combat rules? You can't learn social interaction from the rules section of a book, anyways. You do it by being inventive and talking. Relying on the rules, whether it's in 4e or not, is insulting your own intelligence.

[Blackfang108]

I try to sway the king ~rolls diplomacy~
I further try to sway the king ~rolls diplomacy~
Wash, rinse repeat until either passed or failed the challenge.

That is ALL that is required. There is no incentive to roleplaying in that. There is nothing inspiring about the system to encourage roleplaying. Ergo, why call it a roleplaying game, when you have purposefully down played any need for roleplaying because some may not be as outgoing, or smart to talk through things with others playing? :smallconfused:

Where is the incentive form 3.x to roleplay?

I fixed your post for you, Shadzar. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, it's the exact same thing. (I don't know 2e well enough, but I'd assume it's the same thing. Maybe a Charisma check instead? Is there a Diplomacy NWP in 2e?)

EDIT: I've never needed incentive from a game system to roleplay. I get that from my brain.

[The Rose Dragon]

Is there a Diplomacy NWP in 2e?

It's Etiquette. However, do note that NWPs are not in the default rules, and they are in PHB only as optional expansions to the ruleset.

I loved Cooking as a NWP, though. Made the best meals in the whole Tri-Town area.

[Indon]

It has an Alignment system.
I dunno about system. It has an alignment feature, which could be expanded into a system comparable to how alignment featured (more prominently) in earlier versions of D&D.


Except that in 4e they don't mean anything anymore. You can base your HP out of any of them. You can use any of them to grant bonuses to your attacks.
This is pretty much true in 3.5 as well - it just takes way more sourcebooks to do it. That doesn't mean stats in 4e don't mean anything.

I think you mean "morale" by the way, if you're referring to health-as-driving-force. (See: Lord of the Rings Online)

And frankly, Shadzar, if you want to enforce roleplaying in any system, you could just say, "Social skills do not exist. If you want your character to interact, you have to describe it. If you want your character to talk, you have to speak for him," and then just hammer out the rule kinks as you encounter them.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't understand this. What incentive do the rules in any iteration of D&D offer? I've seen some places say to offer XP, but that's fully to the DMs discretion.
The 2E DMG explicitly states that players should get XP for roleplaying their character well, and indicates how much this should be. 4E explicitly gives XP only for "defeating challenges".

Other RPGs like OTE, Exalted and the oWOD also give explicit incentives to roleplaying well. It's a matter of taste whether such incentives are necessary or useful, but the fact remains that several popular RPGs do have those incentives, and 4E does not.

[MickJay]

Gaining mechanical advantages for roleplaying (extra xp = faster leveling) seems more like forcing it on players (if they want to advance at a faster pace); I'd consider "incentive" to be something that does not grant numerical benefits (players get treated with extra respect by NPCs, gain titles etc). All in all, if players actually need extra incentives to roleplay in a roleplaying game, then something's wrong.

[Burley]

~snip~ All in all, if players actually need extra incentives to roleplay in a roleplaying game, then something's wrong.

Not true. There is nothing wrong with shy players. There is something wrong in saying that roleplaying is dead because Diplomacy and Bluff aren't uber-strong.

[Blackfang108]

It's Etiquette. However, do note that NWPs are not in the default rules, and they are in PHB only as optional expansions to the ruleset.

I loved Cooking as a NWP, though. Made the best meals in the whole Tri-Town area.

Ahh, thank you.

As I said, not that familiar. I played one (maybe two) sessions of 2e. Then that campaign kinda fell apart.

[MickJay]

Not true. There is nothing wrong with shy players. There is something wrong in saying that roleplaying is dead because Diplomacy and Bluff aren't uber-strong.

There's a world of difference between being shy, when roleplaying might (but doesn't have to) be more difficult for the player and needing concrete benefits to actually care about being in character. I've seen normally very shy people become quite bold and assertive in-character, and they really didn't care whether they'll get extra XP for that or not. As long as a player wants to roleplay, on his own, then even if he's shy, incentives are unnecessary. If numerical incentives make a significant difference in the amount of actual roleplaying, then I would say that the game, as a whole, does not encourage roleplaying, because then the roleplaying is just another way of getting mechanical advantages.

In a perfect world, Diplomacy and Bluff wouldn't even exist, as they're crutches for players who have problems with overcoming lack of confidence or who want to simulate being far more persuasive then they actually are; if anything, it's the social skills implemented in the system that are responsible for passing the opportunities for roleplaying; there are some good ways of combining them, though (like roleplaying the whole scene and adding a significant modifier to the social skill based on the player's performance, at DM's discretion).

[ImmortalAer]

There's a world of difference between being shy, when roleplaying might (but doesn't have to) be more difficult for the player and needing concrete benefits to actually care about being in character. I've seen normally very shy people become quite bold and assertive in-character, and they really didn't care whether they'll get extra XP for that or not. As long as a player wants to roleplay, on his own, then even if he's shy, incentives are unnecessary. If numerical incentives make a significant difference in the amount of actual roleplaying, then I would say that the game, as a whole, does not encourage roleplaying, because then the roleplaying is just another way of getting mechanical advantages.

In a perfect world, Diplomacy and Bluff wouldn't even exist, as they're crutches for players who have problems with overcoming lack of confidence or who want to simulate being far more persuasive then they actually are; if anything, it's the social skills implemented in the system that are responsible for passing the opportunities for roleplaying; there are some good ways of combining them, though (like roleplaying the whole scene and adding a significant modifier to the social skill based on the player's performance, at DM's discretion).

This hits on the Meta wall more than the 3.X vs 4.

Should the game be decided by Player Skill, or Character Skill?

Player Skill is on the rise in most video games right now, giving you minigames to do things, like Fallout's lock picking for example. (You do it, and success is on your shoulders.)

While Character Skill is more along the older lines, "Sure, I'm not an expert lock picker, but my Rogue character is." No minigames, and your success is based mostly on chance and unseen 'character' actions. Like Morrowind's lockpicking. (Roll a die, add RP to show/get to the result.)

[FoE]

Except that in 4e they don't mean anything anymore. You can base your HP out of any of them. You can use any of them to grant bonuses to your attacks.

Yes, each class uses certain stats to grant bonuses to their attacks. What's your point?


Incorrect. Classes in 4e use neither melee or magic, but some pseudo moral powers wich make them take out the will of their oponents to fight while reinforcing their own, same for the monsters. You can never die, just enter an emo state untill someone wakes you up with a raise moral dead ritual. Wich also explains why healing a disease is harder than raising someone's moral.

No, the Arcane keyword on my Infernal Warlock's at-will, encounter and daily powers clearly mean I'm using magic.


You can never die, just enter an emo state untill someone wakes you up with a raise moral dead ritual. Wich also explains why healing a disease is harder than raising someone's moral.

Blah blah blah over-simplified blah blah blah

Are you going to make an actual criticism here or just spout more nonsense?


Wich should both be semi-random in any other edition of D&D, not perfectly streamlined for the party like in 4e.

"Uh no, the treasure parcel system is way easier for the DM to use! Oh, what a travesty D&D has become!"


You even gain experience if you miss one or more session and don't play in 4e! Wait, there's something wrong there...

That is a suggested house rule that many DMs in previous editions used.


Hmm? Where? Does 4e rules ever care if my character is good or evil? Can I detect either of them? Does the god wich grants me my pseudo-moral powers abandon me if I breack his codes and defile his temple? No, 4e has no alignment system.

A lot of that is largely left up to the players and DM's discretion.

Quite frankly, Alignment has always been a pain in the ass. There's a reason why the Eberron setting largely dispensed with that dreck. If we've left behind the tiresome Alignment debates of the past, thank the gods.

I'm done talking to you, Oslecamo.

[Kurald Galain]

Player Skill is on the rise in most video games right now, giving you minigames to do things, like Fallout's lock picking for example. (You do it, and success is on your shoulders.)
Seriously? I was under the impression that it has gone all the way down since the days of Nintendo Hard - except for those of us who enjoy playing IWBTG and Nethack.

[shadzar]

I fixed your post for you, Shadzar. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, I am just a troll.

Two can play that game.

Fixed your for you as well. :smallsmile: Or better yet, FIXING a post is meaningles attacks, even spelling or grammar errors, and I have to stop myself from spellchecking things I quote often.

Now on to the post you actualy made which we can all follow back to the actualy thing now that the silly games are over....

I am not the only one representing 4th edition as lacking in roleplaying, especially when skill challenges are concerned.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/256716-d-d-4th-edition-design-based-around-suite-proposed-d-di-tools-edit-found-quote-3.html#post4828663


If the DM wants, he can have his players roleplay the whole situation in a full hour with in-character conversation only and interspersing skill checks when appropriate. If, on the other hand, personal preferences or your general setup run counter to that style of play, then the skill challenge system just as much allows the DM to "dice through" the conversation with a couple of quick die rolls (an Intimidate check here, a Bluff check there, and the duke gives in).

This is coming from someone that LIKES that roleplaying has been removed from the game for those who are unable to use it. (Stop!, read his post.)

I may be better versed on 3.5 because I was actually cajoled into playing it more than I was 4th, because I was able to just play a dumb fighter that bashed things, but in no way shape or form does turning something about 4th towards something about 3.5 affect me. Sorry, But I know AD&D works, and is little you can say to upset me about it unless you discus THAC0 and how flawed it is being just simple math, which would make me lose even more faith in humanity...but that is another thread.

2nd edition had Charisma. You don't need other stuff, and should only rarely need to use charisma is you are roleplaying...but again there is the catch in that 4th edition was made so that roleplaying COULD be removed from it to make it function with only dice, ergo you are then required to make a dice mechanic for it. :smallcool:

Most people get incentives from external sources. Unless you are on drugs and the nature of the drug forces you to crave something. Mine, like many, are nicotine and caffeine. Don't cross me in the morning before I have had coffee, and a smoke! :smallfurious::smallwink:

Most people can imagine and roleplay that have been doing it a while, the quesiton was what about 4th inspires you to want to roleplay? Not can you roleplay, but it is clear, that you need not do it to play.

For other things like NWPs or Secondary Skills in 2nd related to "diplomacy", google for "Olik RPG Netbooks". You might get lucky and they still exist out there somewhere.

So once again, the dispute it not IF you can roleplay in 4th edition. You can roleplay your morning sojourn to the WC if you want. The dispute is that there is no need to roleplay in "The Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Roleplaying Game".

@MickJay

Yeah, if you are not going to roleplay in a roleplaying game, then you might want to find other activities to partake in. :smallconfused:

That is why I don't buy any of that "shy player crap". If you are that shy/introverted, then how are you sitting around 4~8 other people to play in the first place, and not able to speak to any of them? :smallconfused:

This has confused me for years. I found a perfect way to fix the shy players though. :smallbiggrin:

P*** them off somehow that will make them mad enough to start yelling at you. By the time they realize what they have done, they will be opened up now and ready to play and work/joke around with everyone else.

@ImmortalAer


Should the game be decided by Player Skill, or Character Skill?

:smallsigh: Oh no! Not again!

It's the dreaded "Challenge the player or the stats" thread from ENWorld/Wotc forums reborn here! RUN AWAY! It's a TRAP! (DC 666).

[Chrono22]

Not reading all the rest, but skimming it I will just do liek yourself and highlight the portion I will be addressing. :smallwink:
At least read it.


I didn't say NO RPG should be made for all ages, but changing an established one into something else that redefines what it is and does is the problem. Should someone want to attempt (and it will likely fail) to make an RPG for all ages, then let them. But it doesn't mean it should be done with an existing one.

What is everyone's fascination with changing something rather than creating their own? Are people really trusting a company to make D&D, that cannot come up with their own ideas, in that they cannot make a NEW RPG for all ages?
I love DnD. And I'm not talking about the mechanics here. It's something about the sense of adventure, and wonder, and the fantasy that it brings to me. Being able to work with others to cooperatively create a story, or a background, or a world. The multitude of possiblities and dangers and mysteries. I want to remake the rules- but in a way that enhances the spirit of the game. Because, I only care about the rules of the game insofar that they make the "fluffy" side of the game more enticing and rewarding. That's why I like having the rulebooks read like novels; novels give you ideas and inspiration you can draw on.
I know there are other rpgs- but in a similar fashion to 4e, they pigeonhole you and your characters into specific preordained roles. They are limited in scope and potential. In my best experiences of the DnD game, options and potential are only limited by your imagination- and your luck.
I want DnD because it's the best I know.


Probably the reason is that WotC understands that they cannot make an RPG that will work for all ages.

1- All ages do not like the same things
2- Even within the same given age range, not all peoples of that age will like the same things from an RPG.

Ergo: You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time; but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

Making an RPG for all ages would try to capture part 2 here, but would fail because that "some time" would not mean that length of time would be anything to return on the investment in creating it as a good percentage would use it and drop it rather quickly after they found out it only please them a little, and other things are more tailored to their tastes.

Strive for the first part, and hope to capture some people in the second part.
I don't think WotC, as a subsidiary of the Hasbro corporation, knows anything. About roleplaying, about emotional investment, or about imagination. Individual employees of it do, but as a collective that ultimately prioritizes profit over the advancement of the gaming industry, it will do whatever it takes to collect as much money as it can, as efficiently as it can. Which means appealing to ever broader and mainstream audiences. Since most people play games for gratification and entertainment, instead of out of some hunger for adventure or awe, that's what the DnD brand and game has become centered around. And I think it's lost alot as a result. I think the designers of 4e made a false choice between balance/gamism and immersion/simulationism. I also think their precepts of good vs. bad fun have created a gulf between editions and players.


The time that D&D is made into something for all ages, it will either die as an RPG and have become something else, so why still call it D&D, or will just die and become nothing except a footnote in the gaming industry.

So if you want to make one for all ages, then make one with that purpose in mind, but remember you will first have to master how to make something for people of the same age that fits all genres, and they all enjoy it.

So it ain't gonna happen. Simpler reason....not all ages want to game with each other. Some younger do not want to game with "creepy old guys", and older players not all want to game with "annoying brats".

Someone can try, but I doubt it will ever work with an RPG because of the nature of RPGs.
That's where I think you're wrong. The nature of RPGs is that they are variable and highly individualized. How one group plays a game, could be completely different from how another group plays the same game. The trick is making a game that is used differently depending on who is playing it. A system of rules that lend themselves easily to being disregarded, changed, enhanced, or replaced according to what the players and GM want them to facilitate- but at the same time are simple enough to learn easily, but expansive enough to cover multiple genres and the infinitude of player/GM creativity.
It's a daunting idea, but I think it could be done. I'm actually laying some groundwork for such a system... nowhere close to finished, but progress is being made.
As for the age gap- I play with people more than twice my age. I also play with people my own age. At some point, I'm sure I'll play with people younger than me. For me, making compromises for the mutual enjoyment of a group has always been a part of playing. Excluding a huge number of people from your games because of opinions they might or might not have about the way DnD is played makes no sense. Painting everyone with the same brush (be it 4e designers or crotchety old timers) makes no sense.

Also- why so serious? I know you are emotionally invested in DnD, and roleplaying games might be an important part of your life, but I think you take things too far when you act insulted or incredulous that WotC has done what it has done. You don't get angry at dogs for having fur, why would you be angry at a business for taking a popular idea and turning it into cheap entertainment? I don't rail at production companies for recycling old movie plots... but maybe I'm not old enough for that:smallbiggrin:

[ImmortalAer]

Seriously? I was under the impression that it has gone all the way down since the days of Nintendo Hard - except for those of us who enjoy playing IWBTG and Nethack.

Maybe it's just my choice games? :smallbiggrin:

(...I'm obviously excuding FPSs from the PS v CS.)

[potatocubed]

It seems people have forgotten how to discus or debate things these days and just want to ramble about things that are similar.

Oh? Debating 101: Understand the logical position your opponent is taking and undermine it. Observe:

Your stated premise (call it #1):


The roleplaying game D&D 4th edition, does not require any roleplaying to play.

Your conclusion:


it is insulting that 4th edition is claimed to be a roleplaying game, in which it requires no reolplaying at all.

This conclusion does not follow from premise #1 unless you add an additional premise of the structure:

"It is insulting for any roleplaying game to be called such when it does not require roleplaying." (call this premise #2)

When people point this out to you your response is that you aren't interested in other games or editions and that they have no place in this discussion. You are replacing 'any roleplaying game' in premise #2 with '4e D&D'. Vis:

"It is insulting for D&D 4e to be called a roleplaying game when it does not require roleplaying." (premise #2a)

This turns your position into what we call 'a tautology'. This has the advantage of being completely true, all the time. It has the disadvantages that a) it is completely meaningless and b) the presence or absence of roleplaying in 4e D&D is no more relevant to the truth or falsity of your conclusion than is the fact that I like biscuits.

(Because, logic fans, you can derive the conclusion entirely from premise #2a.)

Therefore: Your position is no more than "It is insulting for 4e D&D to be called a roleplaying game because I say it is."

[Blackfang108]

Two can play that game.

Fixed your for you as well. :smallsmile: Or better yet, FIXING a post is meaningles attacks, even spelling or grammar errors, and I have to stop myself from spellchecking things I quote often.

Funny, I was making a joke. Didn't I point out that I wasn't being serious?

Pointing out that 3.x has the same resolution system, if the player wants to take advantage of it. Just because I pointed out the flaw in that particular arguement doesn't make me a troll.

Heck, I did that a few weeks ago in a 3.5 game, stopping a "boss fight" with a major-League Devil by having my ECL 22 Devil-Blooded Sorceror with Maxed Diplomacy roll a diplomacy check. (52 was my result.)

EDIT: Seriously, the smiley is one I only use when I'm not being serious.

TL:DR: L2R.

[shadzar]

That's where I think you're wrong. The nature of RPGs is that they are variable and highly individualized. How one group plays a game, could be completely different from how another group plays the same game. The trick is making a game that is used differently depending on who is playing it. A system of rules that lend themselves easily to being disregarded, changed, enhanced, or replaced according to what the players and GM want them to facilitate- but at the same time are simple enough to learn easily, but expansive enough to cover multiple genres and the infinitude of player/GM creativity.

1- Duh. no two people every do something the same way.

2- No. The trick is making something work. If you want to use it differently like prying open paint with a screwdriver, then that is your choice an option of how to make it work properly for you.

4th edition, as I have said before about 3rd as well; is just an attempt to please people that didn't like D&D to begin with. When this was done to try to make the game something for everyone, the focus of what the game did was lost. By turning D&D into just a brand name that makes big $$$$$ they lost all sight of the true goal of good game making.

Right now in various places the game design is coming into question on many levels. One case on ENWorld, is something I brought up on WotC forums when first 4th and DDI was announced. How much of the game was designed because of/for DDI? There are conflicting answers in that thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/256716-d-d-4th-edition-design-based-around-suite-proposed-d-di-tools-edit-found-quote.html).

There is also damning statements made to Scott Rouse's answer in that thread as Sr Brand Manager in regards to what drove rules design when you view the G4 video I have linked to several times wherein Bill S. states that same thing spoken about the "4 parts of D&D 4th edition" from the original announcement, in that the game itself would be built because of the function of these 4 interactive systems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slLNNbcgiSs&feature=channel_page

Physcial product: tangible products.
Organized Play: RPGA ("redefined you rewards for playing D&D wherever you play, and WHENever you play.")
Community:

How many of you have heard about Gleemax? GLEEMAX.com
Digital Offerings: D&D Insider


Well if 4th was designed around these 4 parts initially, then you people only got 25% of what 4th edition is. They tried to offer what you want, by making something that can be changed and all this, but cannot do it. GLEEMAX failed, DDI is failing, Organized Play does not reward you for anything unless you are playing D&D. It does not reward people for playing D&D, only for playing 4th. :smallconfused:

The "4 parts of 4th edition" Shows precisely where this trying to make something for everyone will not work.

Nobody wanted WotCSpace or FaceWotC.

Since they are unable to currently answer what the new DDI will include....Yes the Game Table, and other tools have been thrown away for something they don't even know what they are trying to make...they are unable to understand what people like when playing D&D, so there is no way they can please all ages with something, if they cannot even guess what the core audience form the previous edition would want.

WotC will not be able to produce some RPG for all ages, because it doesn't know how. At my age I also don't want to play with Lincoln Logs just because it makes it better for younger players. I don't need younger players to enjoy the game. I just need good players.

Ergo, why I states that WotC cannot even make a game for a tight age group range, because it doesn't understand them. "Serious players", or those I would like to call people getting together to play D&D to play D&D; and "casual players", or those wanting some beer and pretzel activity and use D&D as an excuse or pretense to get together...These two groups won't agree on how the game should work and what it should offer.

Want to make a beer & pretzels game for teens to play? :smallconfused:

That ain't gonna work to well round these parts!

So again it boils down to the vast differences of people that you say I disagree with but have been talking about this whole sub-thread, is the exact reason WHY the target audience needs to be tightened and not expanded. It would be great for more people to play D&D so that people can more easily find games to play and groups to play with so you didn't have to go through only having on group and they don't play a ay compatible to what you are looking for. (Anyone want to drop playing 4th edition and play AD&D 2nd?)

The problem is that will not happen. When you try to mesh all the playstyles together to make them work together you will find it wont' work for everyone, and will likely barely work for anyone.

You cannot/should not be marketing a game based on "imagination about slaughtering things" to younger people.

They remove sexually explicit graphics from 4th because of younger audiences. Changed some cleavage.

They removed religious references. Got rid of a devil/demon pic on the cover.

Yet open one of the core books a few pages in and see a dragonborn decapitating in vivid detail and full color, another creature.

So there isn't any chance they will be able to broaden the focus, after they have already lost any focus they had. They should strive to go back to making something some people like, and expand on getting other people in afterward as you understand what they like and would be acceptable to add in that the first group agrees with.

Basically broadening the games audience even including younger ages is politics akin to running for president. You got to shake them babies and kiss those hands.

[shadzar]

"It is insulting for any roleplaying game to be called such when it does not require roleplaying." (call this premise #2)

Again I don't frankly get an ats rass about other RPGs, so nothing done to White Wolf games, Rifts, or other systems can insult me, because I just don't care about them, so the only way that statement works is the way I said it.

Since I have no knowledge, or concern about those other games, they play no part in discussion.


EDIT: Seriously, the smiley is one I only use when I'm not being serious.

Ah. Now I understand YOUR use of that smilie, so know for future reference since I know little of you outside of this thread and that post, but will do my best to recall for the future. :smallsmile:

[Sebastian]

It's Etiquette. However, do note that NWPs are not in the default rules, and they are in PHB only as optional expansions to the ruleset.

I loved Cooking as a NWP, though. Made the best meals in the whole Tri-Town area.

AD&D have reaction rolls. IIRC you rolled 2d6 and add your charisma modifier and other situational bonus/malus and the result say what is other people/creature first reaction to you. Actually I kinda liked it.

[Blackfang108]

AD&D have reaction rolls. IIRC you rolled 2d6 and add your charisma modifier and other situational bonus/malus and the result say what is other people/creature first reaction to you. Actually I kinda liked it.

Note to self: use this if I ever get around to running my campaign.

[The Rose Dragon]

AD&D have reaction rolls. IIRC you rolled 2d6 and add your charisma modifier and other situational bonus/malus and the result say what is other people/creature first reaction to you. Actually I kinda liked it.

It also has morale rolls in combat, which gives you modifiers in combat.

However, past the first reaction, you usually used attacks and Charisma rolls (or Etiquette if you used NWP).

Also, you rolled low rather than high for NWPs.

[shadzar]

Note to self: use this if I ever get around to running my campaign.

Since it will be on your sheet anyway, might be a good thing to use it. :smallbiggrin:


Reaction Adjustment indicates the penalty or bonus due to the character because of Charisma when dealing with nonplayer characters and intelligent creatures. For example, Rath encounters a centaur, an intelligent creature. Rath's Charisma is only 6, so he is starting off with one strike against him. He probably should try to overcome this slight handicap by making generous offers of gifts or information.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

:smallconfused: Can't figure out why Diplomacy was ever needed with that right there, except causing people to not take it and lose their native reaction adjustment via ability score.

[/derail]

[Winterwind]

Again I don't frankly get an ats rass about other RPGs, so nothing done to White Wolf games, Rifts, or other systems can insult me, because I just don't care about them, so the only way that statement works is the way I said it.

Since I have no knowledge, or concern about those other games, they play no part in discussion.But, shadzar, the people you are discussing with are also including other D&D editions in "other RPGs", in particular also the 2nd edition you seem to enjoy.

The last six pages of this thread have pretty much consisted of them pointing out how the older D&D editions do not promote roleplaying in any way more than the 4th one, so if you claim this lack of promotion is a reason to condemn the 4th edition, then it is just as condemning towards other D&D editions. The 3rd one, which you said you aren't particularly interested in either. But also the 1st and 2nd one, which I believe you said you are.

Now, you can repeat that this thread is about 4th edition and these former editions have no place in here. However, if you use a supposed flaw in the 4th edition as argument against it, and it is a flaw that is shared with all other D&D editions, including ones you like and where you do not mind this particular flaw, then your argument becomes fairly meaningless.

That's pretty much what your discussion partners have been trying to point out to you for the last six pages minimum, and I have yet to see you address it.

[Sebastian]

Also- why so serious? I know you are emotionally invested in DnD, and roleplaying games might be an important part of your life, but I think you take things too far when you act insulted or incredulous that WotC has done what it has done. You don't get angry at dogs for having fur, why would you be angry at a business for taking a popular idea and turning it into cheap entertainment?

I get angry at a dog that piss on my shoes, why I shouldn't get angry at a business that piss on my game? ;)

[Sebastian]

It also has morale rolls in combat, which gives you modifiers in combat.


Are you sure? AFAIR morale check caused NPCs (monsters included, but henchmen, too) to run away/surrender if they failed them, I don't remember modifiers.

[shadzar]

But, shadzar, the people you are discussing with are also including other D&D editions in "other RPGs", in particular also the 2nd edition you seem to enjoy.

The last six pages of this thread have pretty much consisted of them pointing out how the older D&D editions do not promote roleplaying in any way more than the 4th one

I have told people to start a thread based on such a topic and I will take part, and as yet no one has, and would rather further derail this one.

The smoke and mirror game and other stupid games of lets answer a question with a question do NOT fly with me.

If you cannot use 4th edition to prove my statement wrong, then just say my statement if correct rather than try to cloud the facts.

The problem is those people don't want to admit my statement is correct, and just say the statement made is verifiable, they would rather throw other crap into it like a politician trying to add riders onto a bill for something unrelated, just to be the bill thrown out. There was/is a term for that, but for the life of me it is escaping me for these past 6 pages.

So, do you see what I mean about EVEN including other editions of D&D in the arguement about a statement about 4th edition? All it is doing is trying to cloud the facts.

Can I be proven wrong with my statement by using just the facts about 4th edition? If not the the hypothesis is proven, and the statement is true.

We can discuss other editions in another thread(s) made for them, but THIS THREAD is for 4th edition. When people stop trying to constantly derail it, then maybe the discussion at hand can be had.

@Sebastian


Loyalty Base shows the subtraction from or addition to the henchmen's and other servitors' loyalty scores (in the DMG). This is crucial during battles, when morale becomes important.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

:smallwink:

[Winterwind]

I have told people to start a thread based on such a topic and I will take part, and as yet no one has, and would rather further derail this one.

The smoke and mirror game and other stupid games of lets answer a question with a question do NOT fly with me.

If you cannot use 4th edition to prove my statement wrong, then just say my statement if correct rather than try to cloud the facts.

The problem is those people don't want to admit my statement is correct, and just say the statement made is verifiable, they would rather throw other crap into it like a politician trying to add riders onto a bill for something unrelated, just to be the bill thrown out. There was/is a term for that, but for the life of me it is escaping me for these past 6 pages.

So, do you see what I mean about EVEN including other editions of D&D in the arguement about a statement about 4th edition? All it is doing is trying to cloud the facts.

Can I be proven wrong with my statement by using just the facts about 4th edition? If not the the hypothesis is proven, and the statement is true.

We can discuss other editions in another thread(s) made for them, but THIS THREAD is for 4th edition. When people stop trying to constantly derail it, then maybe the discussion at hand can be had.It is not a derailing when bringing up said other editions is relevant to the matter at hand.

Your statement that 4th edition does not promote roleplaying in spite of being (or being called, depending on your point of view) a roleplaying game is, by my understanding of this thread, correct1.

However, you don't leave it at that; you proceed to pass a judgement that this is a bad trait in a roleplaying game; that, in fact, 4th edition does not deserve to be called a roleplaying game for not promoting roleplaying. And, while your initial statement might be correct, this conclusion is disproved by the previous D&D editions (in particular including the 2nd one, which you seem to consider a roleplaying game just fine) not promoting roleplaying either (unless one wouldn't consider these editions roleplaying games either. Since you seem to do, however, your argument falls apart.).

I don't see how bringing up other editions is derailing the matter or clouding facts when it is done specifically for the purpose of disproving your conclusions with regards to the 4th edition.


1 Disclaimer: The above post is not meant to indicate in any manner my opinion or judgement to which degree any given edition of D&D promotes roleplaying or fails to do so, or whether any given edition of D&D is to be considered a roleplaying game or not. My personal familiarity with D&D in all of its incarnations is passing at best. The above post relies on the statements made by other people in this thread repeatedly instead.


EDIT: If you want, I can put this in another way: You make a (seemingly correct) statement that the 4th edition does not promote roleplaying, and then conclude that this implies the 4th edition is inferior to other roleplaying games/D&D editions (if it insults intelligence, it must fail in comparison to some baseline, and only other RPGs/D&D editions can serve as that). However, how can this conclusion be correct, if these other D&D editions share this fault?

[shadzar]

I don't see how bringing up other editions is derailing the matter or clouding facts when it is done specifically for the purpose of disproving your conclusions with regards to the 4th edition.

Because I have made no claim about any other editions. The only claim that I made is about 4th edition, so what point is there to bring up others as if I was speaking of them, other than to try to put words into my mouth, or to derail the discussion itself?

Man in emergency room: Doctor my foot hurts I think something is wrong with it!
Doctor: Well your other extremities seem fine.
Man: :smallconfused:

[MickJay]

The smoke and mirror game and other stupid games of lets answer a question with a question do NOT fly with me.

If you cannot use 4th edition to prove my statement wrong, then just say my statement if correct rather than try to cloud the facts.

Not to nitpick, but you've already got the answer that, yes, it's possible to play 4e (as well as 2nd, 3.x and any other in existence) entirely without roleplaying. What is it that you wanted to gain by getting this answer?

edit: your example is not very good, a better one would be if the patient came to the doctor complaining that his foot hurts (because of a wound, for example), and the doctor pointed out that he's all covered in cuts. Would a sensible patient accept that his whole body has the same problem or would he insist that no, his FOOT is hurt?

[Blackfang108]

Since it will be on your sheet anyway, might be a good thing to use it. :smallbiggrin:

Actually, the campaign I'm planning on is 3.5, which I don't believe had that.

Thanks for posting that, however. It'll help.

[Winterwind]

Because I have made no claim about any other editions. The only claim that I made is about 4th edition, so what point is there to bring up others as if I was speaking of them, other than to try to put words into my mouth, or to derail the discussion itself?

Man in emergency room: Doctor my foot hurts I think something is wrong with it!
Doctor: Well your other extremities seem fine.
Man: :smallconfused:But your conclusion is that the 4th edition is not a roleplaying game at all, or that it is insulting to one's intelligence. You can only make such a conclusion from 4th edition not promoting roleplaying if the 4th edition is worse (because of not promoting roleplaying) than some baseline, which you have to derive from something - and this something can only be another roleplaying game, in your case apparently an older D&D edition, as you don't care about other roleplaying games.

Since those share this fault, the statement you were so eager to point out the correctness of successfully proves that either
a) 4th edition does not insult one's intelligence or is in any way less a roleplaying game than all of its predecessors (I guess the 4th edition supporters will be glad to hear that; so far, I bet, they had the impression you were actually arguing against 4th edition! :smallamused:), or
b) no D&D edition ever (and also most other roleplaying games) was a roleplaying game to begin with, at which point it becomes a matter of semantics, or that they all are insulting to intelligence, at which point I'm starting to wonder what you are doing in an RPG forum, if they are all insulting without exception?

Obviously, neither of these could have been the point you were going for, so... what was your intent with this line of argument?

If the 4th edition not being inferior to its predecessors is not your conclusion (and you speaking scornfully about a "roleplaying game that doesn't require roleplaying", complete with a furious :smallfurious: smiley speaks otherwise), then what was your point to begin with? I mean, this is a thread concerned with establishing or disproving how the 4th edition is supposedly bad...



Essentially, what you are doing here would be akin to me complaining that my new car sucks because I can't use lollipops to fuel it, and then, when people pointed out to me that this, while technically correct, is no valid complaint since my previous car and every other car in the world cannot do that either, me exclaiming that this discussion is only about my current car and other cars have no place in it!
Do you see just how nonsensical this is?

[WalkingTarget]

Yeah, if you are not going to roleplay in a roleplaying game, then you might want to find other activities to partake in. :smallconfused:

That is why I don't buy any of that "shy player crap". If you are that shy/introverted, then how are you sitting around 4~8 other people to play in the first place, and not able to speak to any of them? :smallconfused:

This has confused me for years.

Well, for me it isn't really a matter of "shyness". My primary roleplaying group was a bunch of my college buddies and we were all pretty comfortable with each other. My specific problem was that I, personally, am not good at fast talking, negotiating, lying, or other social interactions that require quick thinking/responses. If it was a play by email or play by post game where I have time to think about what to say, I can roleplay a high-charisma-type character. Otherwise, I generally would have to rely on die rolls and general descriptions of what I'm trying to do rather than actually playing out a conversation if the GM requires anything like real-time reactions. I think I've tried being the face of a group three times with varying results depending on the type of game we were playing and how much talking was required before a roll.

Most of the time I wind up playing characters who are rather taciturn or at least gruff (and in one fairly long-running campaign, somebody who was pretty likable but was all but mute). They're all memorable characters, they just let other people handle the negotiations.

Of course, none of this is very telling either way about D&D. I've only played in one 3.0 game just after it came out, one 3.5 game just as Eberron was released, and am 2 sessions into a 4th ed. game and the GM for 2 of them (3.5 and 4) was/is running them to do the generic dungeon crawl type games as a change of pace and isn't doing much in the way of intrigue.

[Kemper Boyd]

By turning D&D into just a brand name that makes big $$$$$ they lost all sight of the true goal of good game making.

You do realize that the company that actually turned D&D into a brand name that makes big money was in fact TSR? I haven't yet seen WotC license the D&D name for a cartoon like TSR did.

And gaming companies are businesses, not charities. They're supposed to make money.

[FoE]

Essentially, what you are doing here would be akin to me complaining that my new car sucks because I can't use lollipops to fuel it, and then, when people pointed out to me that this, while technically correct, is no valid complaint since my previous car and every other car in the world cannot do that either, me exclaiming that this discussion is only about my current car and other cars have no place in it!
Do you see just how nonsensical this is?

No, he doesn't, or he simply refuses to acknowledge the point.

Very well, Shadzar, let's play it your way. I actually have my PHB in front of me.

Page 6 starts off with the header "A Roleplaying Game" and calls D&D a co-operative storytelling game.

Page 18 has a section called Roleplaying that states D&D is first and foremost a roleplaying game and goes into using alignment to build a character, the various gods you can worship, tips on crafting a personality and carrying out social interactions, mannerisms and appearance.

The Player Races section has suggestions on roleplaying different members of different races.

The rest of the book references role-playing to an extent, though never in great detail. Just small suggestions like "pick your feats in accordance with your character."

Do I need to go get my DMG?

[shadzar]

Not to nitpick, but you've already got the answer that, yes, it's possible to play 4e (as well as 2nd, 3.x and any other in existence) entirely without roleplaying. What is it that you wanted to gain by getting this answer?

edit: your example is not very good, a better one would be if the patient came to the doctor complaining that his foot hurts (because of a wound, for example), and the doctor pointed out that he's all covered in cuts. Would a sensible patient accept that his whole body has the same problem or would he insist that no, his FOOT is hurt?

That removing roleplaying from a roleplaying game is insulting to some when you try to sell that game a a roleplaying game in general. Also if people want to persist to drone on about other editions, then they should take it to other threads.

...as per the example, it was the same thing, wherein no visible evidence was provided to the reader as opposed to other evidence being provided. In either case the other extremities have little to do with how your foot feels.


You do realize that the company that actually turned D&D into a brand name that makes big money was in fact TSR? I haven't yet seen WotC license the D&D name for a cartoon like TSR did.

Hey looky more off-topic crap.....

TSR turned it into a franchise, not a brand. They are different.

Oh the cartoon. Let me slap you in the face with this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0825245/) first. The I will explain that TSR didn't license any such cartoon, but partnered with a company to make one. That is how they got rid of Gary by sending him to California so they could run the company into the ground while he was trying to make a decent show that got even more people into D&D, while WotC's attempt at commercializing a video product (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190374/) on D&D just made more people disinterested in it with some sort of campy cliche flik that lampoons wouldn't even make fun of, because it was just to bad to waste jokes on.

And people wonder where edition wars come from? Someone tries to make a claim about something, and here comes in someone trying to defeat that claim with attacking something else, rather than defending the actual thing the initial claim was made against.

:sigh:

[MickJay]

That removing roleplaying from a roleplaying game is insulting to some when you try to sell that game a a roleplaying game in general. Also if people want to persist to drone on about other editions, then they should take it to other threads.

...as per the example, it was the same thing, wherein no visible evidence was provided to the reader as opposed to other evidence being provided. In either case the other extremities have little to do with how your foot feels.

You have yet failed to provide any arguments that 4e removes roleplaying from D&D. 4e handbooks actively encourage it, and in that respect 4e isn't any different from other editions; it can be played without roleplaying, and, again, in that respect isn't any different from earlier editions. On what are you basing your claims that it "removes" roleplaying from the game? "Removing" implies that there is something in previous editions that 4e lacks, and I have yet to see that this is the case with roleplaying.

edit: why do you insist on rejecting the idea that 4e isn't in any way different from previous editions when it comes to roleplaying? It's hardly derailing a thread when someone points out that the thing you're criticising in a particular edition is a trait shared by every single edition of said game; they're just pointing out that your criticism is valid for the whole game in its totality, not only for a particular edition.

[shadzar]

You have yet failed to provide any arguments that 4e removes roleplaying from D&D.

:smallconfused:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/256716-d-d-4th-edition-design-based-around-suite-proposed-d-di-tools-edit-found-quote-3.html#post4828663


PS. Further evidence of this tendency to reduce the amount of off-gametable situations strictly required in a session of D&D are skill challenges. Skill challenges are the DMs best friend when adjudicating how much roleplay is good for his game. Suppose the players have to convince a duke of something (to use an example in the DMG). If the DM wants, he can have his players roleplay the whole situation in a full hour with in-character conversation only and interspersing skill checks when appropriate. If, on the other hand, personal preferences or your general setup run counter to that style of play, then the skill challenge system just as much allows the DM to "dice through" the conversation with a couple of quick die rolls (an Intimidate check here, a Bluff check there, and the duke gives in).

The NEED for roleplaying in the "RPG" has been removed.

Maybe at this size people will quit leaving that word out and actually see it? :smallconfused:

[FoE]

The NEED for roleplaying in the "RPG" has been removed.

Maybe at this size people will quit leaving that word out and actually see it? :smallconfused:

No, it hasn't! It never was there in the first place! Not since the olden days of yore when AD&D came out, not ever! You do not have to RP if you don't want to in D&D.

Shadzar, seriously, the Skill Challenge system does not reduce roleplaying. They're merely a series of skill checks that add up to an encounter and result in some XP so those skill checks MEAN SOMETHING. But you don't have to use skill challenges EVER if you choose; it's merely a tool for the DM. (A weak tool, since the rules are a bit borked.) And even then, the examples in the DMG all encourage the skill challenge TO BE ROLE-PLAYED.

Look, would you read my previous post?

[shadzar]

^^^Then start a thread about other editions to discuss them, and you might learn something you never before knew. :smallwink:

Too many people seem to jump into roleplay games like D&D and know nothing of the past and make false claims about the past, or suffered under some bad DM.


Look, would you read my previous post?

No, if I could find this illusionary ignore feature people talk about on this busted up forum, then I wouldn't be reading any of your posts more than likely. :smallwink:

[Winterwind]

The NEED for roleplaying in the "RPG" has been removed.

Maybe at this size people will quit leaving that word out and actually see it? :smallconfused:To reiterate once more, you can't remove that which is not there in the first place. If you disagree about this, then how about you prove this, as people have been asking you to for the last six pages, to give your argument some actual weight?


No, if I could find this illusionary ignore feature people talk about on this busted up forum, then I wouldn't be reading any of your posts more than likely. :smallwink:Why am I not surprised by this? First ignoring inconvenient arguments, next ignoring inconvenient posters. :smallsigh:

Also, the feature you seek would be in the upper left corner in the darker-brown bar, User CP, the lowermost entry in the Control Panel ("Buddy/Ignore List").