PDA

View Full Version : D&D 4e - Skirmish Plus?



Kompera
2008-05-13, 01:51 AM
I've had this idea tickling at me ever since I first saw some 4e character sheets and followed a few discussions of 4e play. And after following the "I played 4th Edition Tonight! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80286) thread the idea was reinforced strongly.

A lot of people have compared 4e to WoW or general MMORPG games as far as the play style or feel goes. I don't see it like that.

4e looks to me as though it'll play a lot like many of the skirmish level games on the market. GW's Necromunda is one example of this type of game, SuperSystem is another, and I've played at least one other such skirmish level game in other genre.

All of these games have in common a set of fairly simple stats for the units, with enough variation to allow them each to have a different touch and feel in the game, such as one having a heavy weapon, while another has a stealth ability, and a third has a light ranged weapon but a potent HTH capability, as examples.

The 4e characters seem to play like this, but with a few more abilities and more survivability since this is supposed to be an ongoing campaign and since each player is only running a single character rather than a team of 4 to 8 or so.

In the skirmish games you try to keep your side alive, both because that's how you win but also because they can typically gain experience in some fashion and improve if they live. Again, it's very much like a dumbed down D&D EXP system, reduced to the simplest of record keeping. i.e. Super hero A lived, and now has 1 point to spend on expanding his super powers, or Gang Member B lived, and can now buy a gun with a longer range or another hex of movement speed. But instead of an ongoing campaign you usually just play a round robin tournament against the other players, and each player has an entire team (some games even give you a reserve roster), so losing a "character" isn't as telling as when you're running just your own sole character. And after the round robin that's it, you discard the character sheets since it wouldn't be fair to play them against another person with a starting level squad hero team, gang, or whatever.

If anyone else has played in a few of these skirmish level games and sees these similarities I'm seeing, or doesn't see them even, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

horseboy
2008-05-13, 02:54 AM
I've been referring to 4th as Earthdawn with Mordheim's rule set for a while. Yeah, I never played Talisman, but 4th is a lot like what I would expect it to be like.

Justin_Bacon
2008-05-13, 03:48 AM
I think you can probably end up over-analyzing the similarities between any two particular games, but there's little doubt that the design goal of 4th Edition was to create a really excellent tactical miniatures game.

But this is, frankly, a direction the WotC design team has been moving for several years now. Here's David Noonan talking about one of the later Monster Manuals: "Our underlying reason was pretty simple: We wanted our presentation of monsters to reflect how they’re actually used in D&D gameplay. A typical monster has a lifespan of five rounds. That means it basically does five things, ever, period, the end. (Forgive me if that seems like a totally obvious insight.) Too often, we designers want to give our intelligent, high-level monsters a bunch of spell-like abilities—if not a bunch of actual spellcaster levels. Giving a monster detect thoughts or telekinesis, for example, makes us feel like those monsters are magically in the minds of their minions and are making objects float across the room all the time. But they aren’t! Until the moment they interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done."

When you've got a major WotC designer saying that the only thing that matters in a roleplaying game is what happens in combat, the writing is on the wall: Somebody saw that the D&D miniatures were the cash cow of the D&D IP.

Here's another quote from David Noonan: "Unless the shaedling queen is sitting on a pile of eggs, it doesn’t matter how the shaedlings reproduce. The players will never ask, and the characters will never need to know." What Noonan is ignoring there is that the reason the PCs might be encountering the shaedling queen in the first place is the pile of eggs.

If D&D were simply a skirmish game, Noonan would be right: You'd set up your miniatures and fight. And the reasons behind the fight would never become important. But D&D isn't a skirmish game -- it's a roleplaying game. And it's often the abilities that a creature has outside of combat which create the scenario. And not just the scenario which leads to combat with that particular creature, but scenarios which can lead to many different and interesting combats. Noonan, for example, dismisses the importance of detect thoughts allowing a demon to magically penetrate the minds of its minions. But it's that very ability which may explain why the demon has all of these minions for the PCs to fight; which explains why the demon is able to blackmail the city councillor that the PCs are trying to help; and which allows the demon to turn the PCs' closest friend into a traitor.

And, even more broadly, the assumption that detect thoughts will never be used when the PCs are around assumes that the PCs will never do anything with an NPC except try to hack their heads off.

Of course, having a tactically interesting combat system is just fine. In fact, I laud the effort. But the things that they're decided to ignore or to sacrifice in order to achieve that tactical combat system are going to make it difficult or impossible for me to embrace 4th Edition.

One of the biggest problems I have are the dissociated mechanics -- the mechanics that have no explanation in the game world. The mechanics where, if you asked the character what they were doing, they'd have no way of explaining it.

Charity
2008-05-13, 06:58 AM
The 1st ed AD&D DM's guide had a huge section in the back for a random rolled dungeon, so you could play without a DM. Imagine how much role playing went on in those if you will, then explain to me how it is WotC that has changed the direction of D&D.

D&D was never big on encouraging interaction between the players and the antagonists; to suggest it was in the past and WotC have steered it awry is disingenuous.

There are roleplay heavy games out there, or you can choose to roleplay heavily in D&D, but to suggest it was ever designed with that in mind in just not true.

Jarlax
2008-05-13, 07:36 AM
your not wrong in your statement, thats how D&D got its beginnings. as a system for creating small scale combat inspired from traditional miniature wargaming. where the individual minis mattered more than an army. however it is still a roleplaying game, its simply that wizards have prioritized a mechanically sound combat system above all else in this edition. its effectively a skirmish system which goes further, de-emphasizing groups of individuals and focusing on controlling a single character as it has always been since 1st ed.

@justin: i totally understand how you have interpreted those quotes from noonan but he is speaking for the average group, not the true roleplayer. the entire quote begins:

(for those unfamiliar we are referring to this article here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070803a))

A similar principle applies to the world-building details attached to monsters. It’s tempting to come up with detailed ecologies, coherent cultures, and fascinating details of biology—to deeply root every single monster in the game world. Most game designers love to engage in this sort of design. It’s interesting, speculative, and a good chance to really show off some creativity.

But here comes the cold water: It’s often useless at the game table. Unless the shaedling queen is sitting on a pile of eggs, it doesn’t matter how the shaedlings reproduce

because noonan's correct, the average group really doesn't care how a shadeling queen reproduces. and if you asked 5 players if they would prefer a paragraph in the monster manual dedicated to explaining their reproduction cycle or the stat block for an extra kind of shadeling, 4/5 would vote for the stat block and the fifth person could make the reproduction cycle up himself if he wants it in the game.

in his other quote he was discussing the concept of MM5 representing single, memorable encounters.

For Monster Manual V, we wanted to create really focused monsters. We told our designers: “Make us monsters that deliver on the promise of one really memorable encounter.” Then we handed the developers some pruning shears, and said: “Trim anything that doesn’t deliver a really memorable encounter.”

Our underlying reason was pretty simple: We wanted our presentation of monsters to reflect how they’re actually used in D&D gameplay. A typical monster has a lifespan of five rounds. That means it basically does five things, ever, period, the end. (Forgive me if that seems like a totally obvious insight.)

Too often, we designers want to give our intelligent, high-level monsters a bunch of spell-like abilities—if not a bunch of actual spellcaster levels. Giving a monster detect thoughts or telekinesis, for example, makes us feel like those monsters are magically in the minds of their minions and are making objects float across the room all the time. But they aren’t! Until the moment they interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done.

Spells and spell-like abilities might be the worst offenders, but that sort of ability overload runs throughout the system. Loading a whole bunch of abilities onto a monster isn’t just useless—those abilities act as weeds that camouflage the few interesting, relevant abilities a monster has. If a DM can’t quickly find and easily adjudicate the five interesting things that monster is going to do, then the whole at-the-table experience suffers.

backed up here


Tangent: Since 2000, the design directive for monsters has shifted more toward “one memorable encounter.” When all we had was the Monster Manual, every monster had to carry a lot of weight. Especially if the monster was intelligent and social, there was a lot of pressure for that monster to have the details you’d need to build an extensive adventure site around.

But after seven years of monster books, the DM of today has plenty of monsters to choose from. It’s OK to design a monster to be used once, memorably. Not every monster has to shoulder the weight of being an important, repeatable antagonist.

hes talking about how the MM5 monsters specifically didn't need the fluff off a core monster manual, because from a design standpoint they wanted these monsters to be used once and tossed away, not used as main villains or protagonists. and therefore powers like read mind or charm person that weren't going to be used in combat were not only unwanted but a hindrance to the design purpose of the monsters in MM5

bosssmiley
2008-05-13, 07:46 AM
I've been referring to 4th as Earthdawn with Mordheim's rule set for a while. Yeah, I never played Talisman, but 4th is a lot like what I would expect it to be like.

I wonder if putting "Earthdawn + Mordheim = D&D4" in a sig would constitute trolling. Best not risk it, eh? :smallamused:

I think the movement towards minis and maps makes part of this "Zomg! It's Warhammer with magic tea-party!" mindset inevitable. Heck, to my embarrassment I sometimes catch myself thinking in game-level tactical terms more worthy of "Mordheim"/"Necromunda" than in the character-driven mindset more suitable to a properly immersive RPG when playing D&D3 w. minis. (Of course, our using a lot of GW models and scenery doesn't help there... :smallredface: )

The move away from fluff-heavy background detail towards "monsters = combat stats (and, of course, something from our new minis line)" was already quite openly there in 3rd Ed Monster Manual. IMO it was a small but definite symbol of the backwards step for the game in terms of 'assumed immersive depth' the new edition expected of players.

Those who remember the 2nd Ed. Monstrous Compendium will recall the much more substantial Habitat/Society and Ecology sections that most monster descriptions had back then. There was enough meat in some of these that they could be source material for entire story arcs in and of themselves (quite apart from additional fluff like Dragon's "Ecology of the ..." series or the entire splatbooks that were published for some of the iconics - Beholders, Illithids and Sahuagin IIRC).

Monsters need their background fluff to turn them from being Noonan-esque '5 round combat fodder' into legendary threats worthy of the attentions of heroes. It's difficult to presage something if you have only a vague idea of how it lives. A manticore that exists as a statline + picture (pace 3rd Ed. MM) is much less interesting an opponent than one that has a meaningful context in the gameworld.

WFRP's monster book is a good example of how to do it *right* (again, IMO). First you have in-character taglines and rumours about the beast. Then you have a bunch of could-be-right, could-be-wrong discussion of origins, diet and habits by in-setting ecologists, sages and witch-hunters (like Elminster, only less intrusively annoying). Then you get your stat line. Net result: the story comes first, the system crunch comes after, and the rules end up serving the game.

(This post will probably be edited for clarity of expression later)


D&D was never big on encouraging interaction between the players and the antagonists; to suggest it was in the past and WotC have steered it awry is disingenuous.

Birthright? Planescape? Were these not role-play heavy in tone and intent? I know D&D started out as a sewer crawl skirmish wargame, and that the 'explore-kill-loot' cycle is still an important part of its' heritage. But the view that it didn't grow beyond those humble origins as role-playing grew and matured as a hobby... To me that just sounds odd. :smallconfused:

vv--- @Charity: fair points all mate. I totally concede that a year hence I might have tried and liked D&D4 enough to make it my preferred system. Still awaiting even a hint of the Road to Damascus conversion from the preview materials though... :smallwink:
(answered here to avoid cluttering the threat with tangential ephemera)

Kompera
2008-05-13, 08:10 AM
I want to be clear that I understand that 4e D&D is still a role playing game.

It just seems to me as though combat has moved a huge distance towards the look and feel of any of the skirmish level table top games out there (at least the few I have played), with two large exceptions:

1 - Each player is running one character, rather than a squad. That forces an investment by the player, as if your character dies you'll be sitting out the rest of the combat, at least.
2 - The characters have a bit more detail to them than any skirmish game I've played. Not by a huge amount, looking at the 4e character sheets for 1st level characters, but I'm sure that will expand to a much greater difference after a few levels.

My gaming group has made the decision to stay with 3.5. It's not so much any "Bah, 4e will blow" sentiment, as it is a "Um, I already own $200+ in 3.5 books. And that's not counting the 3.0 books I bought which became obsolete" sentiment. (and all of us own AD&D books and prior as well)

I'll probably pick up 4e, or will wait for the first re-print with the errata and corrections made from the play time and experience gained from the initial release. Then I'll see if I can interest some people in a one-off adventure, and then another. And maybe a 5 part scenario. The character sheets seem to support not needing to have everyone own the rules books to be able to play. And before you know it everyone will know how to play 4e. :)

Charity
2008-05-13, 08:40 AM
Birthright? Planescape? Were these not role-play heavy in tone and intent? I know D&D started out as a sewer crawl skirmish wargame, and that the 'explore-kill-loot' cycle is still an important part of its' heritage. But the view that it didn't grow beyond those humble origins as role-playing grew and matured as a hobby... To me that just sounds odd. :smallconfused:

I am not saying D&D cannot and has not been played roleplay heavy, and I would not suggest that it hasn't been suppoerted with supplimentary material.
That material could be reproduced for 4e, and possibly will they are talking about all sorts of different realms style suppliments.

My point is more that it is unfair to suggest that 4e is worse than previous editions in this respect. None of the editions really had this sort of material in the three core books. 4e is not even out yet and all I hear is OMG they have ruined this and that, Oh no it's turned into WoW, they've turned it into a board game ad nausium, with no rational justification of how this transformation has occured.

There will be RP intensive suppliments I imagine. In fact why the hell can't we use our RP heavy settings fluff from previous editions? Where and how do the mechanics preclude this?

Sorry Bossman this rant is not really directed towards you, I just tire of the endless cycle. I should just throw up my hands and leave the naysayers to it but I would hate to see folk put off trying 4e (which I genuinely expect to be rather good) because of the trite repitition of the above memes by people who will all no doubt be playing the damn game in 3 months time despite the bile they are spilling at the moment.

Hairb
2008-05-13, 09:36 AM
4e looks to me as though it'll play a lot like many of the skirmish level games on the market. GW's Necromunda is one example of this type of game...


Except, of course that WotC aren't trying to strangle D&D to death. Two words: Gorka. Morka. :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, yes 4th ed. might put the onus on DM's to provide setting/background/fluff that is in the least bit meaningful, and yes I'm against that on principle, but realistically, I've never truly been 100% satified with any of the D&D fluff that comes "out of the box" anyway. In fact, cutting the pieces to make them fit is part of the fun for me.

I'm looking forward to 4ed because of Living Realms and that's pretty much it. But to me it doesn't spell the end of the hobby; my home games can stay 3.5 and if push comes to shove I'm sure I can pummel into shape these new rules just as well as I did the ones they are replacing. I just hope enough folks in my gaming catchment see things the same way.

Justin_Bacon
2008-05-13, 12:20 PM
@justin: i totally understand how you have interpreted those quotes from noonan but he is speaking for the average group, not the true roleplayer.

Sure. I agree that Noonan argued that the average D&D player wants interesting tactical encounters and nothing else, and therefore that's what they'll be designing -- but that doesn't appreciably change the conclusion he's endorsing.


hes talking about how the MM5 monsters specifically didn't need the fluff off a core monster manual, because from a design standpoint they wanted these monsters to be used once and tossed away, not used as main villains or protagonists. and therefore powers like read mind or charm person that weren't going to be used in combat were not only unwanted but a hindrance to the design purpose of the monsters in MM5

I can understand the argument you're trying to make, but the proof is in the pudding: We're now seeing this same design philosophy applied to the core Monster Manual samples we've seen from 4th Edition.


There will be RP intensive suppliments I imagine. In fact why the hell can't we use our RP heavy settings fluff from previous editions? Where and how do the mechanics preclude this?

For me, the heavily dissociated nature of the mechanics we've seen precludes it. Others will be able to gloss over these shortcomings but, for me, the fact that the mechanics of Trick Strike mean that a rogue has some daily limit on the number of times he can feint his opponent is a huge design flaw that actively interferes with roleplaying.

Kompera
2008-05-13, 12:23 PM
4e is not even out yet and all I hear is OMG they have ruined this and that, Oh no it's turned into WoW, they've turned it into a board game ad nausium, with no rational justification of how this transformation has occured.
Did you miss my posts above where I describe in some detail exactly why 4e is reminding me of skirmish level board games I have played? Saying that you've seen "no rational justification" is a little like saying that you've failed to read the thread.

Although I am amused by the "Oh no it's turned into WoW, they've turned it into a board game" part of your post. I've seen plenty of posts saying "4e is WoW", but prior to my post I've seen zero posts calling attention to the similarity to skirmish level combat board games. Kinda interesting to see how something I've just posted so suddenly becomes "all I hear." :smallbiggrin:

MartinHarper
2008-05-13, 12:46 PM
The fact that the mechanics of Trick Strike mean that a rogue has some daily limit on the number of times he can feint his opponent is a huge design flaw that actively interferes with roleplaying.

As the saying goes: "Feint me once, shame on you. Feint me twice, shame on me."

Trog
2008-05-13, 01:00 PM
Prior to 3.0 my group never used miniatures or a tactical map or anything like that. Once 3.0 came out it became harder to avoid so we began to use the map. Some players hated it as it somehow sucked the imagination out of the combat, they felt. I grew to like it simply because of the ease of DMing and adjudicating distances from so-and-so, clearly showing where you cannot move safely, etc. But really the rules seemed clunky. There certainly were things that slowed combat down (10,11,12... oh no wait. That square is difficult terrain. Um... ... ..uh, okay I'll move... um this way instead. 1,2,3,4... oh wait did I count that diagonal? 1,2,3-4... 5...) and I am glad to see much of that being pared away as "needless realism".

The healing surge thing is a great way to finally free up clerics to be able to do even more than 3.0 allowed them to do. Plus it makes the healing afterwards go much faster (I would imagine) since the entire table doesn't have to call out where they are at and what healing they need, etc. Or at least they should be doing it less.

I'm looking forward to combat movement being a lot more fluid and dynamic because of all the new maneuvers, spells, etc. Anything that makes the game less about standing in a line and beating on one another and that gets the game more streamlined and easy to play on the table is a good thing IMO.

RukiTanuki
2008-05-13, 01:23 PM
I've always read those comments as this:

"We have a lot of limited space in the books and a lot of stuff we want to get in there. We want to provide the greatest amount of content that is used frequently by the greatest number of people. We believe more people will get more use from a core rulebook page if we put (e.g.) stats and tactics for a 15 Elite demon there, instead of a writeup providing yet more details on the life demons lead when not on the Material Plane. We extended this kind of decision-making process to everything we're putting in the books, to provide the greatest value to everyone. We hope people who like content provided in previous books find ways to incorporate it with the new rules we've provided."

Not once have I gotten this "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG" vibe that others seem to read into these articles. I don't suppose I'm giving them too much benefit of the doubt here? :)

Sebastian
2008-05-13, 04:22 PM
I don't understand some of the reactions, honestly. That 4e combat is a skirmish game it is a fact, actually from what we know it can be easily separated from the rest of the game and played as a skirmsh game, simply

- set a level,
- create a party of that level,
- take an appropriate XP budget and
- use it to "buy" monsters/traps/other for the encounter
- fight

Actually I bet a lot of people will play it like that when they will have no time to play a full campaign. You *can* add plot, background, roleplay etc, to it but it is not necessary to enjoy it as a game.

horseboy
2008-05-13, 04:41 PM
I think the movement towards minis and maps makes part of this "Zomg! It's Warhammer with magic tea-party!" mindset inevitable. Heck, to my embarrassment I sometimes catch myself thinking in game-level tactical terms more worthy of "Mordheim"/"Necromunda" than in the character-driven mindset more suitable to a properly immersive RPG when playing D&D3 w. minis. (Of course, our using a lot of GW models and scenery doesn't help there... :smallredface: )I wonder if rangers will get over watch. :smallamused:

I'm agreeing with Bacon! It's the aporkalclypse!

Charity
2008-05-13, 06:07 PM
Did you miss my posts above where I describe in some detail exactly why 4e is reminding me of skirmish level board games I have played? Saying that you've seen "no rational justification" is a little like saying that you've failed to read the thread.

OK. You posted saying that 4e a game that is like a board game you play. You make an incredably tenuous link, boiling down to 'it's simple and you try to keep your character/squad alive'... this is universally applicable to just about any game I can think of. No I did no miss your post though I did manage to not agree with you, incredible though that might seem.



Although I am amused by the "Oh no it's turned into WoW, they've turned it into a board game" part of your post. I've seen plenty of posts saying "4e is WoW", but prior to my post I've seen zero posts calling attention to the similarity to skirmish level combat board games. Kinda interesting to see how something I've just posted so suddenly becomes "all I hear." :smallbiggrin:

What you've seen and what I've seen on this forum, RPGnet and Enworld are clearly somewhat different, just because you have not seen something doesn't mean it does not exist.
I have seen plenty of posts and not a few threads likening 4e to a boardgame, especially Descent, (which frankly is a bit disingenious as Descent is basically designed to be D&D without the roleplay as far as i can discern)
I think the boardgame meme was popular before the WoW meme took over 5 mins should turn one up
Ah herer you go
I move to bring the proposal to a vote. Aye!

About 4'th edition, I feel very strong... ambivalence.

On the one hand, I'm looking forward to the way traps will work, the reduction in reliance on magic items, the introduction of racial level progressions to replace the awkward RHD/LA system, and other aspects of the system.

On the other hand, I'm dreading the ability (power) system and its' implications, I dislike some of the measures that were implemented to decrease the impact of the dice in combat, and I'm pretty leery about the skill system, among other things.

Time will tell, but for now, I'm going to agree with Kurald Galain and say that I think 4'th edition D&D is going to turn out to be a very good tactical boardgame.


In that post Indon is agreeing with Kurald Galain about 4e's new boardgame status.

WarlockBeast
2008-05-13, 06:46 PM
I don't actually play with miniatures, so if 4th ed is almost solely based on this, will i be better off with 3rd ed?:smallfrown:

Charity
2008-05-13, 06:57 PM
^ Anecdotal evidence from enworld suggests it is no harder to play 4e without mini's than it was for 3e.
3e without mini's is not something I would attempt however, but each to their own.


For me, the heavily dissociated nature of the mechanics we've seen precludes it. Others will be able to gloss over these shortcomings but, for me, the fact that the mechanics of Trick Strike mean that a rogue has some daily limit on the number of times he can feint his opponent is a huge design flaw that actively interferes with roleplaying.

I must ask do you think 3e is better?
Try this scenario out if you will, a group of PCs in combat want to move within a silence 15' radius, they can each move 30'.
with the current initiative system it is not possible to move more than abou 10' as everyone has to delay then move after the person with it centred on them. I am not saying this is going to change in 4e, just that it was always there. The rules are an abstraction, it is up to us to use our imaginations to trancend the clunky though nessisary mechanics... it's easy if you try

Yahzi
2008-05-13, 08:35 PM
On a more serious note, yes 4th ed. might put the onus on DM's to provide setting/background/fluff that is in the least bit meaningful,
But isn't that the chief complaint against GURPS - that it lacks "flavor?"

What does it profit a game company to perfect combat mechanics and lose its flavor? Well, if you look at Steve Jackson Games... not a whole lot.

:smallbiggrin:

Kompera
2008-05-13, 09:17 PM
"I think 4'th edition D&D is going to turn out to be a very good tactical boardgame."

In that post Indon is agreeing with Kurald Galain about 4e's new boardgame status.
Meh. All D&D versions have combat which plays like a tactical boardgame. All of the elements are there: A handfull of units on each side, scaled to the man level or small unit level, go.

But no version of D&D prior to what I've seen of 4e have played like SuperSystem or Necromunda. There's a big difference between how SuperSystem plays and how a small scenario of Squad Leader plays, after all. What I'm calling attention to is the very specific (in utter opposition to "incredably (sic) tenuous") resemblance to this genre of tactical boardgame.

Jarlax
2008-05-13, 09:28 PM
truth is were not getting any less fluff than 3.5, yes its less than 2.0 but were now 3 editions past that format (3.0, 3.5 and now 4e)

the examples so far show no more depth than that of the 3.5 edition core book.

3.5 entry for angels:

Angels are a race of celestials, beings who live on the good-aligned outer planes. celestials positively drip with the goodness - every fiber of their bodies and souls suffused with it. they are the natural enemies of deamons and devils(creatures of the infernal realms)

angels can be of any good alignment, lawful good angels hail from the plain of celestia, neutral good angels from the plane of elysium or the beastlands, and chaotic good angels from the plane of aborea. regardless of their alignment angels never lie, cheat or steal. they are impeccably honorable in all their dealings and often prove the most trustworthy and diplomatic of all celestials. all angels are blessed with comely looks, through their actual appearances vary widely

4e entry for angels:

Most deities have angel servants. Although their appearances can vary, all angels are vaguely humanoid in form, with masculine or feminine features and lower bodies that trail off into flowing energy.

Angels exist as expressions of the Astral Sea, sentient energy in humanoid form. They most often serve the gods, so some believe that the gods created them. In reality, angels are powerful astral beings who appeared during the first moments of the creation of the Astral Sea. Different types of angels have different callings; they are literally manifestations of celestial vocations. Perhaps it was the needs of the gods that caused the astral stuff to spew them forth, but it was not a conscious act of creation. During the great war between the gods and the primordials, angels offered themselves as warriors to the gods that best encompassed their callings, and today they continue to act as mercenary forces for anyone willing to meet their price—be it wealth, or power, or a cause worthy of their attention.

Angels are more involved in the world and other planes than deities and exarchs. They act both openly and secretly, often acting as emissaries, generals, and even assassins.

this is no evil conspiracy to strip the detail from monster entries. your getting more or less the same amount of detail from your monsters that you have in 3rd edition. and while you can complain about it, you cannot reasonably argue that the quantity of detail in the 4e MM will be any less than that of 3.5.

xirr2000
2008-05-13, 10:55 PM
I'm surprised that people are referring to this as a boardgame in ways that imply negative connotations (sp?) When has D&D ever been anything other than a system to fight your little guy against other little guys on a table top? If you want to roleplay in between you certainly can, now the same as in 1976. The rules have changed, but they make sense.

Gone are the days when a wizard bides his time to cast his one magic missile spell, using his 20 daggers until that magical (pun intended) moment when he can unleash his arcane fury before having to sleep for 8 hours. I mean seriously, did all wizards get a discount on daggers and other ranged weapons with their diplomas from mage school? More than 8 (or less) hp at starting level? Amazing, i can survive more than one attack? Spending all of 1st and 2nd level hoping you never ever get hit because if you do you will be either dead or removed form the adventure kinda sucks. It's kinda nice that you have some tactical options at first level rather than looking to the horizon when you will have a toon with some options. The old editions certainly will always have a place on my bookshelf and memories, but I for one am glad to see some changes.

clericwithnogod
2008-05-14, 02:27 AM
The 1st ed AD&D DM's guide had a huge section in the back for a random rolled dungeon, so you could play without a DM. Imagine how much role playing went on in those if you will, then explain to me how it is WotC that has changed the direction of D&D.

D&D was never big on encouraging interaction between the players and the antagonists; to suggest it was in the past and WotC have steered it awry is disingenuous.

There are roleplay heavy games out there, or you can choose to roleplay heavily in D&D, but to suggest it was ever designed with that in mind in just not true.

Speaking of disingenuous, the "huge section in the back for a random rolled dungeon, so you could play without a DM" is actually three pages of tables and one image of 5 "Starter Rooms" intended to be an aid to DMs in prepping a dungeon or rolling one up on the fly.

"APPENDIX A: RANDOM DUNGEON GENERATION
When you need help in designing a dungeon - whether it is a level in your main dungeon or a labyrinth discovered elsewhere - the following random generation system has proved to be useful..." p.169 AD&D DMG

There is a short section after the three pages of tables with four, two-sentence paragraphs regarding solo play:

"RANDOM DUNGEON GENERATION FOR SOLO PLAY
The random generation system is easily adaptable to solitary play..." p. 173 AD&D DMG

Kompera
2008-05-14, 06:07 AM
Edited our for duplication. Server downtime makes for odd posting behavior...

Hairb
2008-05-14, 07:58 AM
But isn't that the chief complaint against GURPS - that it lacks "flavor?"

What does it profit a game company to perfect combat mechanics and lose its flavor? Well, if you look at Steve Jackson Games... not a whole lot.

:smallbiggrin:

Never played GURPS, so I'm afraid I can't comment there. What I WILL say is that I hope that I get a game in using that Hellboy sourcebook before GURPS passes into the shadows for good. My inner Hellboy geek will kill me if I don't.

horseboy
2008-05-14, 08:39 AM
I'm surprised that people are referring to this as a boardgame in ways that imply negative connotations (sp?) I wouldn't say it's negative, so much as Mordheim does a better job at being mordheim than 4th does. Earthdawn does a better job at being Earthdawn than 4th does. 4th has shown nothing unique and good (Hell, after that economics article I'm about to bring Inquisitor back into it)-

Hang on a sec. Kompera, is it just me or every time you read one of these, do you swear that Jervis or Gav wrote the thing? The things read JUST LIKE the articles in WD right before a codex drop or a new game comes out. It's just so wargamie.

Yes I'm sure 4th will be better than 3.x. Hell Synnibarr, for it's time, is better than 3.x.

Kompera
2008-05-14, 08:47 AM
I'm surprised that people are referring to this as a boardgame in ways that imply negative connotations (sp?) When has D&D ever been anything other than a system to fight your little guy against other little guys on a table top?
If I've come across that way, it was not my intent. I was pointing out what seemed to me to be a marked similarity between the 'look and feel' and combat play characteristics of D&D 4e and a few skirmish level tactical games I have played. Making a character able to cast MM as a spell per round really looks like the skirmish games, where the rules may be complex but the characters and their options are typically very simple, with little record keeping required. You look at the 'character' choose one of its abilities, and see how much impact it has on the opponent. There's no "I use this thug's Magic Missile spell, let me mark it off of my list of spells chosen for the day" in a skirmish game, play can be fast because the options are few and there is usually just one or two actions which make the most sense in any given situation. There is also little or no record keeping necessary to play. The description of the Keep on the Shadowfell module and the character sheets which go with it remind me very strongly of that style of game. The Wizard character will cast one spell on almost every round, because it is the best one. Occasionally a situation will present itself (lots of enemies in a close area, for example) where a different spell will be the smart move. But it both cases it'll be pretty clear to everyone at the table that this is the best option. The Fighter will use Cleave anytime there are two or more opponents next to him, otherwise he'll use Reaping Strike. &cet. Very few and easy to select and adjudicate options, with the addition of a few other options which are limited per encounter or per day.

I was not passing judgment on 4e, either for or against, for this similarity. In fact I posted my evil plan for introducing my gaming group to the rules. :smallbiggrin:

bosssmiley
2008-05-14, 09:26 AM
I don't understand some of the reactions, honestly. That 4e combat is a skirmish game it is a fact, actually from what we know it can be easily separated from the rest of the game and played as a skirmsh game, simply

- set a level,
- create a party of that level,
- take an appropriate XP budget and
- use it to "buy" monsters/traps/other for the encounter
- fight

Actually I bet a lot of people will play it like that when they will have no time to play a full campaign. You *can* add plot, background, roleplay etc, to it but it is not necessary to enjoy it as a game.

Sound a lot like the old "Rune" RPG (http://www.runegame.com/runerpg.php) (a port of the 'first-person berserkergang' PC game). The 'budgeting' for traps and monsters was an interesting way to build encounters, but seemed a little...inorganic for my taste.

Charity
2008-05-14, 09:33 AM
Speaking of disingenuous, the "huge section in the back for a random rolled dungeon, so you could play without a DM" is actually three pages of tables and one image of 5 "Starter Rooms" intended to be an aid to DMs in prepping a dungeon or rolling one up on the fly.

"APPENDIX A: RANDOM DUNGEON GENERATION
When you need help in designing a dungeon - whether it is a level in your main dungeon or a labyrinth discovered elsewhere - the following random generation system has proved to be useful..." p.169 AD&D DMG

There is a short section after the three pages of tables with four, two-sentence paragraphs regarding solo play:

"RANDOM DUNGEON GENERATION FOR SOLO PLAY
The random generation system is easily adaptable to solitary play..." p. 173 AD&D DMG

OK it appears that my recollection was somewhat wayward here, did it not include several dozen tables? Well I haven't picked one up in quite a few years so I'll forgive me even if you don't. The appendixes were vast moderately big (in the grand scheme of things) in their entirety.

However there was sod all role-play support in core D&D, it was and will likely remain largely a kick down the door style of game in the very core.

Kompera you may well feel this marked similarity, your expression of it in the original post did not convey much of that to me. However I am guilty of seeing what I expected to see in your words rather than taking them in isolation so for that I should apologize.

The options you state for each class should be compared to the options available to a 1st level party in 3e

The Wizard character will cast one spell on almost every round, because it is the best one. Occasionally a situation will present itself (lots of enemies in a close area, for example) where a different spell will be the smart move. But it both cases it'll be pretty clear to everyone at the table that this is the best option.
In 3e he'd have on of the three spell he learned today, which are all per day as opposed to 4-5 options, only one of which is limited to once a day.
The Fighter will use Cleave anytime there are two or more opponents next to him, otherwise he'll use Reaping Strike. &cet. Very few and easy to select and adjudicate options, with the addition of a few other options which are limited per encounter or per day.

As opposed in 3e to... err the one trick his build might be able to pull of at this level but more likely he will charge in and hit his opponent.

In 4e I agree that full casters will end up with less options, that is necessary IMO to balance them against other classes. Every other class win big style on the number of options as far as I can see.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-05-14, 10:25 AM
And, even more broadly, the assumption that detect thoughts will never be used when the PCs are around assumes that the PCs will never do anything with an NPC except try to hack their heads off.


You've hit the nail on the head! Abilities like Detect thoughts are some of the most important things about monsters, at least the way that I DM. NPCs are in the game to move along the plot. Yes, they do have a tendency of having their heads hacked off by PCs, but that isn't their primary purpose. I always get annoyed when WoTC sets up NPCs as punching bags for PCs and nothing else.:smallannoyed:

Kompera
2008-05-14, 11:23 AM
Kompera you may well feel this marked similarity, your expression of it in the original post did not convey much of that to me. However I am guilty of seeing what I expected to see in your words rather than taking them in isolation so for that I should apologize.No offense taken, and none intended.


The options you state for each class should be compared to the options available to a 1st level party in 3e

In 3e he'd have on of the three spell he learned today, which are all per day as opposed to 4-5 options, only one of which is limited to once a day.
As opposed in 3e to... err the one trick his build might be able to pull of at this level but more likely he will charge in and hit his opponent.Kind of. Spells usable every round make for almost zero record keeping. And make a 4e character, at 1st level through 3rd (as far as the character record sheets show development) look an awful lot like a skirmish game unit. In 3.5 with each spell there is both record keeping required for every spell cast and the sense of approaching uselessness for the caster. "Damn," says the Cleric, "I'm down to one spell. What happens when the Fighter gets injured in the next combat? " or "Damn," says the Wizard, "I've only got Shield and Shield left as spells for today. I guess I'm down to shielding myself and throwing darts."
In 4e, as the Keep on the Shadowfell character sheets show and which you so kindly linked, there is no record keeping needed if you don't use a per encounter or a daily ability, and you never run into the situation where you're down to your less useful spells. The Wizard can cast MM every round of every encounter if he likes, or he can throw in a different 'per round' spell where that makes sense, or expend a 'per encounter' or a 'daily' spell if those make sense.


In 4e I agree that full casters will end up with less options, that is necessary IMO to balance them against other classes. Every other class win big style on the number of options as far as I can see.I'm hoping that this is the case. In3.5 full casters needed to be savagely curtailed for the sake of balance, and providing them with a limited amount of 'per round' spells is a lot better than the 3.5 and prior method of providing them with a list of 500+ spells from core and splat with which they can select the optimal spell for every occasion. Wizard appear to me to have been put back into the 'blaster' category, with mostly direct damage spells and only a few 'save or X' effects in their first 3 levels. Ray of Frost has a slow effect, whatever that might do. Sleep seems to be a daily power (at least the header is the same color as the daily power Acid Arrow, and the description of the class feature 'spellbook' seems to support that), and all other spells are either direct damage blasting spells with some slightly different mechanics which might make one a better pick over another in any given situation, or they are a utility spell such as Expeditious Retreat.

clericwithnogod
2008-05-14, 10:22 PM
OK it appears that my recollection was somewhat wayward here, did it not include several dozen tables?
Appendix A: Random Dungeon Generation contains 23 tables over three pages (if you include subtables). You reference other tables and text in the rules if you try to play a solo game, but those other tables and text, like these tables exist for other purposes. There are four, two sentence paragraphs regarding using the tables in conjunction with the rest of the game in an alternate fashion for solo play.


Well I haven't picked one up in quite a few years so I'll forgive me even if you don't.
You're forgiven, but less credible on this topic.



The appendixes were vast moderately big (in the grand scheme of things) in their entirety.

However there was sod all role-play support in core D&D, it was and will likely remain largely a kick down the door style of game in the very core.


Ignoring the muddy the waters/yeah whatever aspect of this, and your appendixophobia, the AD&D DMG contains support for roleplaying.

Even the appendices of the 1e DMG contain information that is "role-play support" in addition to or alongside game mechanics located outside of written text and utilities to lighten the workload or provide inspiration. Let's break down the appendices:

Appendix A: Random Dungeon Generation (~3.5 pages, three of which are tables). Previously described.
Appendix B: Random Wilderness Terrain (~.5 page). For when players wandered off the edge of the overland map.
Appendix C: Random Monster Encounters (18 pages). Located in the appendix rather than in the center of the Encounters text unlike the 3.5 DMG. Includes encounters by location and terrain type, with varying levels of interaction and detail - not all encounters are expected to result in combat.
Appendix D: Random Generation of Creatures from the Lower Planes (2 pages): For when you want to spring something new and different on your players in a hurry.
Appendix E: Alphabetical Monster Listing (19 Pages) A list of all the monsters in the Monster Manual and basic stats/XP values for easy reference.
Appendix F: Gambling (~1 Page) A description of some dice and card games for use in play.
Appendix G: Traps (~1/4 page) A table with a variety of traps.
Appendix H: Tricks (1 page) A list of Features (Objects) and Attributes which can be combined to provide ideas for unusual encounters such as magic fountains, shifting passages, teleportation arches, and other "clever devices to bring consternation to overbold and incautious characters."
Appendix I: Dungeon Dressing (3 pages) Lists of things to add more ambiance to your locations.
Appendix J: Herbs, Spices and Medicinal Vegetables (1 page) Lists of plants and their (real or purported) uses. For describing and creating things for your players to interact with in your world.
Appendix K: Describing Magical Substances (.5 pages) Lists to help you describe magical substances in a more interesting manner.
Appendix L: Conjured Animals (1 page) Tables for the results of conjuration spells.
Appendix M: Summoned Monsters (1 page) Tables for the results of summoning spells.
Appendix N: Inspirational and Educational Reading (~.5 page) Books to read for ideas on creating your world and campaign and adventures.
Appendix O: Encumbrance of Standard Items(1 page) An encumbrance list and advice regarding adjudication of what players can carry around.
Appendix P: Creating a Party on the Spur of the Moment (2 pages) Rules for creating quickstart parties for cons and demos and such.

There is stuff in the above which is very supportive of roleplaying.

The other 168 pages in the DMG have more. Some of the advice is tips and tricks such as, "To play such roles to the hilt, it is certainly helpful to the DM if he or she has player characters of his or her own in some other campaigns." rather than step-by-step instruction, because this is the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons DMG.

It provides information on many aspects of creating and maintaining a rich campaign world and running adventures and campaigns in which the players can do much more than kick down doors.