PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Game design conceits and conjecture



RukiTanuki
2008-05-27, 07:52 PM
id Software programmer John Carmack has mentioned more than once (or I've heard him say more than once, anyway) that he didn't feel comfortable writing a video game engine without having a specific game in mind for it (in his case, the next game his company was making). His thinking (to the best of my paraphrasing) was that it was important to identify core things you wanted the engine to do, and focus on those. In the process, the engine would find itself less suited for other tasks. He warned that if you attempted to make a generic, every-man game engine, that it would end up with no real strengths.

I've taken this approach when designing games myself. The design frequently starts with a set of core conceits: things you're assuming from the get-go that set the stage for fundamental aspects of design. I've seen a lot of discussion regarding aspects of D&D, or ways to play D&D, that I identify as design conceits. In other words, the DM identifies that conceit as a primary goal while playing, often in higher priority to the rules as written. The frustration seems to set in when people discuss which conceits are better.

There's been many a comment to the effect of "That doesn't work well under D&D, try Game X." If a game achieves its design conceits, then by design it doesn't achieve other good design ideas that directly conflict with those core conceits. A computer game that is playable online via modem will not feature twitch combat (requiring rapid back-and-forth communication) and split-second reflexes the way a latency-dependent action title will. A roleplaying game that allows players to take their turns quickly will not embark in simulation to the extent of a game that uses three dice rolls, four tables, and a fistful of modifiers to account for as many variables as possible.

Fourth Edition's core conceits seem to be pretty publicly laid out at this point (between Wizards Presents books and the previews). The mechanics for Player Characters reflect the varied things the players will want to have their characters do that require mechanical resolution. The other characters in the world are designed specifically with mechanics they need to do everything that isn't simply up to DM choice. NPCs are generated with the conceits "be easy to generate and use" and "power does not need to be balanced versus other characters, but does need to be easily quantified." The conceit "generate with the same method as the PCs" is thrown out, because the PCs use the conceit "power needs to be balanced" and the NPCs do not. (Again, these are the 4e conceits as I've identified them. I stress that they are neither better nor worse than your own preferred design conceits.)

There are conceits that are endlessly debated here: The game world should(n't) be a simulation; the PCs should(n't) expect to succeed; the PCs should(n't) be "better" than NPCs (whatever that means), mechanics should(n't) include everything you need to determine whether the NPC succeeds at any task, etc. The problem is that we don't agree on those conceits. D&D does draw some lines in the sand, just in order to make assumptions on those conceits, and be able to do some of them better (at the expense of others). Those lines in the sand can be rewritten, but it seems like all the discussion is about which conceits are better, and frankly, that's causing most of the trouble.

Whenever people get down to the core of what's being discussed (once every logical fallacy pothole is filled and every memetic response is ignored or dodged) it seems like all involved agree to disagree. Why? Because it's frequently a difference in design conceits; people want different things from the game. It's great that the game is so flexible, but watching the language used, you'd swear that one way or the other was the only clear way to run things.

What I've taken away from all of the 4e the discussions, then, is that the new edition presents mechanics in a way that makes them easy to use; however, the actual mechanic does not spend much time discussing any non-mechanical effects. My solution, then, is that I'm divorcing my description of the world from the mechanics. They share joint custody of Success and Failure, but they live their own lives from now on. I am playing a storytelling game, in cooperation with my players, where the dice and rules no longer show me the picture; instead, they lay down the canvas, and I must paint. I'm free to use any description that fits the world and doesn't directly violate the mechanics. I guess the game will display exactly as much "realism" or "verisimilitude" as I can create, and frankly, with the level of control a DM has over the world (read: everything but the PCs), I'm the bottleneck anyway.

I'm kinda excited. (My players are too, after trying things out.) I can see how other players, who prefer a more simulation-oriented game, where the rules are how the game world works, would be disappointed. That's fine. Nobody's wrong here. That's my point, really.

Thoughts?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-27, 08:01 PM
That's pretty much the 4th design philosophy, with one thing you missed.

4th has actually taken a massive fluff and crunch jump, and is not the old D&D. Possibly, it's a new thing masquerading as D&D.

I mean it. Look at Tieflings and Dragonborns, or the equilibrium between Wizard and Fighter. While the previous editions had very clear bases, for example LoTR, 4th is trying to carve a new niche for itself, taking a tack at High Fantasy new to the mass market.

Personally, I like that. However, I get why many people fear the new edition: It has many new, scarily different concepts, which can shatter and rebuild perceptions, and many of the defenders are traditionalists, very comfortable and happy with the worlds and fantasies they have and know. To quote Max Payne 2, referring to bullets and now to 4th ed.:

"Firing a bullet is like picking up the pieces of a broken mirror. You cut yourself, and as you piece it back together, the reflection changes.

It changes not only the one who takes it, but the one who fires it. It could destroy you. It could drive you mad. It oculd set you free."

All in all, however, I'm very interested in 4th. If it accomplishes half of what it has promised, it'll be the dawn of a new D&D era. I'm very hopeful about this new beginning.

RukiTanuki
2008-05-27, 08:33 PM
I do feel that whether or not one believes the phrase "it's no longer D&D" depends very much on the level of attachment one had to very specific elements of the game.

Fourth Edition seems to encompass a level of change that previous edition changes were unwilling to set in motion. For me, that's great; I no longer have to put up with things that frustrated me to no end, but were in place because "that's the way it's been." I don't mind that, so long as it doesn't prop up a game design choice that I'd otherwise cut, modify, or replace.

The game is different, there's no argument there. From the people I've talked to about 4th Edition (and believe me, it's been hard to shut me up), there's an exponential falloff for "it's no longer D&D" the less the individual took a rabid, frothing interest in the hobby. For my players (who do not read books outside of game sessions), we're all still meeting up, they're working together, they're throwing dice, the fighters are slicing and the wizards are throwing spells and the rogues are hiding and poking things in the back and the dragons are scaring the snot out of everyone (and that one player continues to think that "tanking" is a tactic in D&D, but I digress), so it's still D&D to them... only now they aren't confused and spending half the session with their heads in a book.

It's hard to say who's right. One side's probably got the most people, but darn it, the other side cares the most. I'm just glad my players appreciated the same things (and made the same choice) as I did. :)

Grug
2008-05-27, 08:34 PM
I'm all for forging ahead, even though I've been playing D&D (inneffectively) for years now. I remember getting a 2nd edition box set and wondering what the heck I was supposed to do, and why it seemed like an old fairytale.

4ed reminds me of the Wii. The Japanese head of Nintendo called it the "Blue Ocean" strategy. Countless systems have already done the classic fantasy setting, a la Beowulf and LotR. The constant bloody battles between the systems causes a "Red Ocean". 4ed is forging into almost fresh territory with a High Fantasy setting that's easy to use and not to insane (A slightly more moderate neighbor of Exalted).

AZERIAN! I need to talk to you! Send me a PM! If anyone else can see this, send him a PM for me. I think he accidentally but me on his ban list instead of his buddies.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-27, 08:37 PM
I do feel that whether or not one believes the phrase "it's no longer D&D" depends very much on the level of attachment one had to very specific elements of the game.

Fourth Edition seems to encompass a level of change that previous edition changes were unwilling to set in motion. For me, that's great; I no longer have to put up with things that frustrated me to no end, but were in place because "that's the way it's been." I don't mind that, so long as it doesn't prop up a game design choice that I'd otherwise cut, modify, or replace.

The game is different, there's no argument there. From the people I've talked to about 4th Edition (and believe me, it's been hard to shut me up), there's an exponential falloff for "it's no longer D&D" the less the individual took a rabid, frothing interest in the hobby. For my players (who do not read books outside of game sessions), we're all still meeting up, they're working together, they're throwing dice, the fighters are slicing and the wizards are throwing spells and the rogues are hiding and poking things in the back and the dragons are scaring the snot out of everyone (and that one player continues to think that "tanking" is a tactic in D&D, but I digress), so it's still D&D to them... only now they aren't confused and spending half the session with their heads in a book.

It's hard to say who's right. One side's probably got the most people, but darn it, the other side cares the most. I'm just glad my players appreciated the same things (and made the same choice) as I did. :)

Agreed there. In my opinion, 4th is not D&D, but it IS a new system, which is 20 different kinds of awesome. It even has Planescape, for crying out loud! It's going to take massive mistakes to kill 4th.

EvilElitest
2008-05-27, 08:40 PM
While i will go into more detail later, i think the main reasoning for why 4E is considered to be not D&D is

1) It takes one style of play, and devotes the game around it, making it the "One true way", which is sadly an endless hack and slash
2) It utterly diverts old concepts, accepted fluff, and things that were generally considered cool. Where 3E was kinda a revised 2E (through i think they should have kept a lot more than they did) the premise was pretty much the same, while in 4E the game has differed into something different. It is more like a specific setting or an offshot game rather than a new edition
3) 4E has this really weird mix of Storytelling style game focus (IE, drama before consistency and mechanicals) along with a war game focus, (with some pretty bad world design and fluff thrown in as well, but hey). Problem is that D&D as a general game wasn't designed to fit only one mold, it was more general, where as a game like say, Exatled is a very specific game style focus
from
EE

Innis Cabal
2008-05-27, 08:41 PM
D&D for a long time has been high fantasy, not high magic maybe but high fantasy from top to bottom. That may not be how you all play but its no where near as gritty or low magic as LoTR. With spells like cure disease and powerful spells like fireball or meteor swarm, it is pushing high fantasy right there. 4th ed from what ive seen has polished it up, answered all the whiney complaining from 3.5 and added some things from the new age of gaming. Boo hoo they took out gnomes and added a few new races or changed their flavor. This isnt 3.5, this is 4th ed. Its different, accept it or play 3.5 and enjoy yourselves. I for one will play both and enjoy my time doing that, thats my last 2cp on it. Have fun complaining about a whole new setting just to raise hell and havoc on the one that follows.

Prophaniti
2008-05-27, 08:42 PM
A very interesting read. I think you explain very well what's going on with 4E. I do hope that they remember to leave the system at least as open as 3.x is as far as different methods of play are concerned. If that is the case, I have very little that truly bothers me, because I'll undoubtedly approach it with the same house-ruleing, 'like this, keep it. don't like that, rework it. like this...' attitude that I use for every tabletop rpg I play.

Again, very well written.

Yahzi
2008-05-27, 08:49 PM
I guess the game will display exactly as much "realism" or "verisimilitude" as I can create, and frankly, with the level of control a DM has over the world (read: everything but the PCs), I'm the bottleneck anyway.
Until you get a player like me, who sits down with a spreadsheet and explains how 5 3rd level priests can prevent the Black Death.

Or how a wizard summoning Walls of Iron can alter the fundamental price of every manufactured good in the kingdom.

I just wish the mechanics of D&D either didn't allow that, or the fluff of D&D already accounted for it.

Innis Cabal
2008-05-27, 08:53 PM
Until you get a player like me, who sits down with a spreadsheet and explains how 5 3rd level priests can prevent the Black Death.

Or how a wizard summoning Walls of Iron can alter the fundamental price of every manufactured good in the kingdom.

I just wish the mechanics of D&D either didn't allow that, or the fluff of D&D already accounted for it.

Play a fantasy world of GURPS. As it stands, its magic, your wearing more gold on you at 15th level then most small nations can account for. Another point as to how this isnt gritty fantasy. When a sword costs 10,000 gold, take into account the price for an ounce of gold, how much a coin acutally weighs......its just insane. Most people want to play the hero, or at the very least want to play a guy who isnt going to be #$%$ over by economics and cost equvilences. We dont play Accountant-The Anurism

JaxGaret
2008-05-27, 09:03 PM
We dont play Accountant-The Anurism

Hey! I love that game. Don't knock it till you try it :smallwink:

EvilElitest
2008-05-27, 09:04 PM
D&D for a long time has been high fantasy, not high magic maybe but high fantasy from top to bottom. That may not be how you all play but its no where near as gritty or low magic as LoTR. With spells like cure disease and powerful spells like fireball or meteor swarm, it is pushing high fantasy right there. 4th ed from what ive seen has polished it up, answered all the whiney complaining from 3.5 and added some things from the new age of gaming. Boo hoo they took out gnomes and added a few new races or changed their flavor. This isnt 3.5, this is 4th ed. Its different, accept it or play 3.5 and enjoy yourselves. I for one will play both and enjoy my time doing that, thats my last 2cp on it. Have fun complaining about a whole new setting just to raise hell and havoc on the one that follows.

no the changes are more drastic than that, the game is being rail roaded into one style of play
from
EE

KillianHawkeye
2008-05-27, 09:06 PM
Very well put RukiTanuki. I agree completely, having just been embroiled in one of those "conceited" discussions all weekend. I am very excited about 4e's imminent arrival, but since I am not married to any of the existing settings I have little difficulty adapting to all the changes made for 4e's default setting. Thus, I am in favor of anything that makes the game more balanced and easy to play.

I know I did not have access to the greater internet D&D community back in 2000 when 3e came out, but it amazes me how much debate and argument is being caused by the release of 4e. People are essentially arguing their personal preferences and "common sense" as if they were some kind of immutable laws of nature, which I find highly ridiculous. Some of the things that have been argued about in just the last week on these boards seem totally pointless once I take a minute to think about them rationally, since there is almost no possibility of reaching an agreement.

EDIT: EE, I disagree that there is now only one style of play. Streamlining the rules doesn't make it hack'n'slash. Noncombat is still a big factor, just look at Rituals taking over all the noncombat spells.

EvilElitest
2008-05-27, 09:15 PM
EDIT: EE, I disagree that there is now only one style of play. Streamlining the rules doesn't make it hack'n'slash. Noncombat is still a big factor, just look at Rituals taking over all the noncombat spells.

My general argument the whole time is that 4E does more than jsut streamline, which i woudln't mind, but actually aims for one play style
from
EE

Chronicled
2008-05-27, 09:19 PM
RukiTanuki, you've hit the nail on the head. I really don't have much to add except my agreement with your well-worded statement.

xirr2000
2008-05-27, 09:30 PM
That's pretty much the 4th design philosophy, with one thing you missed.

4th has actually taken a massive fluff and crunch jump, and is not the old D&D. Possibly, it's a new thing masquerading as D&D.

I mean it. Look at Tieflings and Dragonborns, or the equilibrium between Wizard and Fighter. While the previous editions had very clear bases, for example LoTR, 4th is trying to carve a new niche for itself, taking a tack at High Fantasy new to the mass market.


4e, taking a tack at high fantasy new to the mass market? You speak as if Wizards has never tried a High Fantasy setting before. What was Eberron?

EvilElitest
2008-05-27, 09:37 PM
4e, taking a tack at high fantasy new to the mass market? You speak as if Wizards has never tried a High Fantasy setting before. What was Eberron?

Oh poor 4E FR
from
EE

averagejoe
2008-05-27, 09:42 PM
@EE: What exactly about 4e is railroading everyone into one style of play?


D&D for a long time has been high fantasy, not high magic maybe but high fantasy from top to bottom. That may not be how you all play but its no where near as gritty or low magic as LoTR. With spells like cure disease and powerful spells like fireball or meteor swarm, it is pushing high fantasy right there. 4th ed from what ive seen has polished it up, answered all the whiney complaining from 3.5 and added some things from the new age of gaming. Boo hoo they took out gnomes and added a few new races or changed their flavor. This isnt 3.5, this is 4th ed. Its different, accept it or play 3.5 and enjoy yourselves. I for one will play both and enjoy my time doing that, thats my last 2cp on it. Have fun complaining about a whole new setting just to raise hell and havoc on the one that follows.

Small nitpick. Tolkien is the emminent author of the modern high fantasy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy)

hewhosaysfish
2008-05-28, 11:23 AM
My general argument the whole time is that 4E does more than jsut streamline, which i woudln't mind, but actually aims for one play style
from
EE

I fail to see how aiming for a particular style is a bad thing. Every game will have some sort of play style which fits it really well, while trying to play in other styles will require adding, removing, ignoring, ammending or otherwise editting certain rules. Even GURPS, which is generic and universal in terms of setting tends to favour detail over pacing when it comes to style.
Every game has a style.
The only question is whether the rules were deliberately written with that style in mind or whether the writers just threw in whatever seemed good to them and the resulting style emerged as a result of averaging together each contributors preferences and biases.

Indon
2008-05-28, 11:28 AM
My solution, then, is that I'm divorcing my description of the world from the mechanics. They share joint custody of Success and Failure, but they live their own lives from now on. I am playing a storytelling game, in cooperation with my players, where the dice and rules no longer show me the picture; instead, they lay down the canvas, and I must paint. I'm free to use any description that fits the world and doesn't directly violate the mechanics. I guess the game will display exactly as much "realism" or "verisimilitude" as I can create, and frankly, with the level of control a DM has over the world (read: everything but the PCs), I'm the bottleneck anyway.

Once you have done this, now you must ask yourself, "Why am I using this system, instead of another one?"

Because once you have divorced crunch and fluff, you are unbound by crunch - your only obligation is to select the best mechanics for any given world that you are DM'ing.

So, now the question becomes, what world (or worlds) is 4'th edition more suited for running than any other system?

Then, play 4'th edition if you want to run a game in that world (or worlds).

Innis Cabal
2008-05-28, 12:34 PM
@EE: What exactly about 4e is railroading everyone into one style of play?



Small nitpick. Tolkien is the emminent author of the modern high fantasy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy)



You missed my point. It wasnt that it wasnt based off LoTR, the point was that it wasnt based off the power scale of LoTR, and its not.

RukiTanuki
2008-05-28, 03:25 PM
@EE: Please, explain and demonstrate your viewpoint. Sometimes I feel like you just repeat it, as if saying it again will cause others to see the folly of their ways.


1) It takes one style of play, and devotes the game around it, making it the "One true way", which is sadly an endless hack and slash

I'm not clear on how it is doing so more than prior versions. I, personally, am inclined to say that most versions all kinda put the same focus on it, for any given DM. I think there's a strong case to suggest that 4e will leave you just as capable of focusing your campaign on other aspects as previous versions did. If anything, you may have to spend less time setting things up for (and running) combat, which will leave you with more prep time (and game time) to make the rest of the world come alive.

Flatly, I'm really not buying your suggestion that a tight, cohesive combat system leads to dull, lifeless NPCs. I think that is absolutely in the hands of how the DM presents these characters. As DM, you hold an enormous responsibility and influence regarding how the players perceive the world. A good DM could make the characters in the board game CLUE interesting. As such, I feel that the ease-of-use of the 4e ruleset does not, in fact, imply anything about how a DM can present characters as lifelike as possible.


2) It utterly diverts old concepts, accepted fluff, and things that were generally considered cool. Where 3E was kinda a revised 2E (through i think they should have kept a lot more than they did) the premise was pretty much the same, while in 4E the game has differed into something different. It is more like a specific setting or an offshot game rather than a new edition

If a designer sets out for a revision, like 3.5, (s)he generally tries to keep as much unchanged as possible, while changing the things that just simply aren't working. This is true in software as well; like software, the more you poke at existing systems, and the more you add to them, the more little nuances of the system become big glaring problems.

Given the time and resources, it's often a good idea to start over. When recreating an existing product from the ground up, you can try to identify what worked best or was most liked about the original (often, this is not what you identified as best/most liked when you created it!), and try to bring that same identify while setting new core conceits (the math needs to work!) that you didn't build around the first time. In the process, you find yourself making tough decisions about useful things that don't fit in the new core conceits.

An example from my job: our software every so often features bugs that customers identify and actually take advantage of, to do things the software does not normally permit them to do. This leads to difficult decisions on our part about whether to support the end-product (given that the bug may be hampering further development), or to fix the bug (which results in the customer starting over and obviously frustrates them.)

Everyone identifies with certain elements of D&D. Wizards tried writing those elements down, and reduced them to core conceits: things about D&D they were insistent that they would not change. Everything else became up for grabs. However, you try to change things only if you believe the end result will be better. For some, the things that were changed were personally irreplacable. However, as a designer, you have to try to make things as good as possible for as many people as possible. If a mechanic results in large swaths of the D&D worldspace and bookspace that no one would ever, ever use, I do think it's time to rethink the mechanic.

So, to summarize, Wizards wrote down in the Wizards Presents books what they felt D&D really means. I agree with them, and I'm glad they stayed even closer than that whenever possible, while being unafraid to fix what was broken. (If you feel many of the "missing" elements you've brought up in the past didn't create problems on par with the fun they introduced, I'll have to respectfully disagree and move on.)


3) 4E has this really weird mix of Storytelling style game focus (IE, drama before consistency and mechanicals) along with a war game focus, (with some pretty bad world design and fluff thrown in as well, but hey). Problem is that D&D as a general game wasn't designed to fit only one mold, it was more general, where as a game like say, Exatled is a very specific game style focus

As I've said a few times now, I could see a big conflict if your DM style has a really strong preference for the conceit "characters gain power through an organic progression that is reflected in the creation and generation of their game mechanics and stats." If this is your design conceit, admit it (and be proud, if need be), but it's disingenuous to claim that 4e's design is flawed or "one-molded" because your conceit wasn't taken into consideration.


Once you have done this, now you must ask yourself, "Why am I using this system, instead of another one?"

Because once you have divorced crunch and fluff, you are unbound by crunch - your only obligation is to select the best mechanics for any given world that you are DM'ing.

So, now the question becomes, what world (or worlds) is 4'th edition more suited for running than any other system?

Then, play 4'th edition if you want to run a game in that world (or worlds).

Agreed. I'm in the nice position of starting up a new campaign world at the same time. I can select 4th Edition for several factors, not least of which is the ease of use it brings to the table, then craft my campaign world to fit. I can easily see why the decision is much more difficult for existing campaigns whose sense of immersion is heavily tied to a long-trailing backstory of lore that heavily features some of those sacred cows left by the roadside. I just would like to see the discussion take into account my theory in the OP: that most of these differences are based on different important conceits; that no one campaign (nor one game) can encompass them all; and that 4e deliberately switched design conceits in an attempt to pick the best ones, even if it meant rejecting poor conceits that had been used in the past.

Indon
2008-05-28, 03:31 PM
...If this is your design conceit, admit it (and be proud, if need be), but it's disingenuous to claim that 4e's design is flawed or "one-molded" because your conceit wasn't taken into consideration...

...I just would like to see the discussion take into account my theory in the OP: that most of these differences are based on different important conceits; that no one campaign (nor one game) can encompass them all; and that 4e deliberately switched design conceits in an attempt to pick the best ones, even if it meant rejecting poor conceits that had been used in the past.

I think you answer your own question.

RukiTanuki
2008-05-28, 04:17 PM
I'm honestly confused. Which question?

I stand by both bolded statements (in case you're implying a contradiction). Wizards appears to have tried to make 4th Edition fun by selecting a group of design conceits with that in mind. This, in turn, meant that conceits used by D&D for years were deliberately rejected if they conflicted. This does not inherently result in a flawed design; merely a product intended for a use which may differ slightly from one's own. Given the many ways in which D&D is played, I find this inescapable in any case; someone will be unhappy. In 4e's case in particular, I'm pleased with the result, and I hope people find ways to keep playing whatever works best for them.

Skyserpent
2008-05-28, 04:46 PM
My general argument the whole time is that 4E does more than jsut streamline, which i woudln't mind, but actually aims for one play style
from
EE

From what they've advertised about 4e, Yeah, it does sound a lot like they're really driving home a particular aspect of the system: combat combat and more combat, with one or two posts about some odd fluff and the Skill Challenge system (Which I love.)

Of course, while they are heavily advertising the built-in system and world, I don't imagine it would be too difficult to realign the information to different settings. Yes it's a little tedious but overall I think it's worth it considering how we have enemies that have unique abilities to suit their natures. Like Kobolds who work better in large groups or Hobgoblins who fight like Legionnaires. If I want my orcs to fight like Legionnaires, I'll just swap out some Hobgoblin abilities. It looks EASIER to homebrew and design now, and I really like what they've done to the, frankly byzantine CR system.

However, I will refrain from worship and will remain hopeful until the game actually comes out and enters my hands.

as another gripe I really REALLY hate what they did to Wizard Spell Schools, but we'll see how they look when the book is out...

KillianHawkeye
2008-05-28, 05:32 PM
@EE: Please, explain and demonstrate your viewpoint. Sometimes I feel like you just repeat it, as if saying it again will cause others to see the folly of their ways.

I agree, but I've come to suspect that EE is like the Stephen Colbert of 3.5, except that I can't tell if he's being sarcastic or not.

On a related note, there's a new thread about bears.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-28, 07:46 PM
as another gripe I really REALLY hate what they did to Wizard Spell Schools, but we'll see how they look when the book is out...

Is that a funny way of saying: no more mechanical effect from spell schools? You can still have them. But they have no mechanical effect is all.

Skyserpent
2008-05-28, 09:16 PM
Is that a funny way of saying: no more mechanical effect from spell schools? You can still have them. But they have no mechanical effect is all.

And to me: This feels like a step backwards: 4e seems to be really enjoying the idea of integrating fluff and crunch, and here is an example of where they're already integrated so they decided to break it up. It just felt odd to me.

I enjoyed the idea that each school of magic had a different and unique method of tapping into arcane power with Specialist Wizards like an Illusionist or an Abjurer being practically a class in their own right. These new spell schools... Silver Chickenhawk Ring and Academy of the spiral squirrel seem a bit... hokey, I guess... I know I can reorganize them or whatever will be necessary but having to go into my PHB and see Wizards of "Golden Wyvern" over and over again with their new apparently hodge-podge spell lists...

of course this is all in a worst-case scenario speculation thing... I'm still patiently awaiting my books as MY carrier decided not to deliver 'em early...

NoDot
2008-05-29, 08:17 AM
While the previous editions had very clear bases, for example LoTR, 4th is trying to carve a new niche for itself, taking a tack at High Fantasy new to the mass market.High Fantasy!? The game takes the LotR power level and spreads it across 30 levels, with a dose of Final Fantasy combat-lengthening.

I'm referring to the massive HP totals which prevent assassination attempts.


Until you get a player like me, who sits down with a spreadsheet and explains how 5 3rd level priests can prevent the Black Death.

Or how a wizard summoning Walls of Iron can alter the fundamental price of every manufactured good in the kingdom.

I just wish the mechanics of D&D either didn't allow that, or the fluff of D&D already accounted for it.The depressing part is how many nice stories can be told in those settings, but people are idiots and demand their quasi-Medieval-Europe-with-Wizards setting which is so breakable. (Hint: That can work in stories, where everything is under the author's perview. In tabletop RPGs, you not just shouldn't, but can't, leave holes for the players to exploit.)

Indon
2008-05-29, 08:22 AM
In 4e's case in particular, I'm pleased with the result, and I hope people find ways to keep playing whatever works best for them.

Yes, but what makes you think the design principles used in 4'th edition are in any way better?

Inyssius Tor
2008-05-29, 08:33 AM
I enjoyed the idea that each school of magic had a different and unique method of tapping into arcane power with Specialist Wizards like an Illusionist or an Abjurer being practically a class in their own right. These new spell schools... Silver Chickenhawk Ring and Academy of the spiral squirrel seem a bit... hokey, I guess... I know I can reorganize them or whatever will be necessary but having to go into my PHB and see Wizards of "Golden Wyvern" over and over again with their new apparently hodge-podge spell lists...

The "golden wyvern" nonsense is completely gone. There isn't the slightest trace of anything like it anywhere in the core books--at least, according to every single person who's gotten his or her hands on a leaked copy.

Happy now? :smallwink:

Oslecamo
2008-05-29, 08:38 AM
High Fantasy!? The game takes the LotR power level and spreads it across 30 levels, with a dose of Final Fantasy combat-lengthening.

I'm referring to the massive HP totals which prevent assassination attempts.


Tell that to the Witch king who gets killed in two hits(and his uber mount in just one) when he was suposed to be a super solo boss.

However, I must say that people always find something about wich endless discussing. It hapened in all the other editions. It happens with all other games out there. It will happen in 4e. I just can't wait for all the endless discussions these boards will have when somebody pops out claiming that build X is 13% stronger than all other builds and how 4e is sudenly completely baroken because of that.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-29, 08:41 AM
A two weapon fighting ranger with rogue multiclass feats leading into the dagger master prestige path is 14% better. Therefore 4e is broken.

:smallwink:

Jorkens
2008-05-29, 08:46 AM
no the changes are more drastic than that, the game is being rail roaded into one style of play
from
EE
PLEASE give a list of specific crunch changes that you think force the players into a given style of play. You keep saying this and never back it up. I've not read the full rules or even all the prereleased material so I have no view either way, but so far I haven't actually seen you make any attempt to back up this assertion beyond restating it in different words.

I can see that a lot of the descriptions given have assumed that you're using the system to run a hack and slash dungeon crawling kill things and take their stuff type game, but nothing in the rules has stuck out as being only applicable to that approach, so I'd assume that that's just WotC tailoring their introductory material to the large number of beer and pretzels gamers who want just that. Maybe it'd be nice if they made more effort to point out the alternatives, maybe in the full version of the rules they actually do. In any case, the question is more whether a DM with a clue can ignore the fluff and run the campaign style that they and their players want based more or less on the rules. You've asserted that they can't. Demonstrate this!

Oslecamo
2008-05-29, 09:12 AM
A two weapon fighting ranger with rogue multiclass feats leading into the dagger master prestige path is 14% better. Therefore 4e is broken.

:smallwink:

Nah, they already foresaw that, and sneack attack can be applied only one per round no matter how many attacks or weapons you're actually using.

I preview that the new "broken" combinations will be original. For example, in 3e, haste was all the rage, granting extra actions, but in 3.5 haste was nerfed while polymorph was boosted out of the gates by granting the extraordinary abilities of the chosen form.

In 3.0 whirlwind attack+ greater cleave easily allowed for a sick thousands of damage combo, in 3.5 whirlwind attack and great cleave became pretty much useless, but power attack was buffed, allowing melees to still deal hundreds or even thousands of damage, but this time with other feats.

The editions are all broken. But 4e is shinier than the others, just like 3.5 was shinier than 3.0 wich was shinier than 2e. C'mon, dragonborns have boobs. That alone must have won half of the 4e fanboys(and lesbian fangirls, what can I say?).:smalltongue:

Scintillatus
2008-05-29, 09:15 AM
One more comment like that and I'm going to make myself a collage of Dragonborn boobies and make it my sig. :smallamused:

SamTheCleric
2008-05-29, 09:16 AM
I know, I'm just trying to be lighthearted and funny.

Nothing has changed... D&D is cyclical.. the circle of geek, I like to say.

Indon
2008-05-29, 09:17 AM
I preview that the new "broken" combinations will be original.

So what you're saying is, 4'th edition will be broken by a Monkey Grip-using Samurai/Monk.

Oslecamo
2008-05-29, 09:48 AM
So what you're saying is, 4'th edition will be broken by a Monkey Grip-using Samurai/Monk.

Exactly. Altough since there are no monks/samurais so far, my bet's on fighterzilla and/or batman paladin.:smallbiggrin:

When the uber monkarai finally rears his ugly face and DMs ban the combination, we will then have discussions on how the fighterzilla and batman paladin had already broken the game, so only a bad DM would forbid his players from playing the monkarai and his oversized plutonium katana.

NoDot
2008-05-29, 04:13 PM
Tell that to the Witch king who gets killed in two hits(and his uber mount in just one) when he was suposed to be a super solo boss.That sounds like an exception to the rule.

bosssmiley
2008-05-29, 04:37 PM
Agreed there. In my opinion, 4th is not D&D, but it IS a new system, which is 20 different kinds of awesome. It even has Planescape, for crying out loud! It's going to take massive mistakes to kill 4th.

Planescape? Where? I see no Blood War. I see no Great Wheel cosmology. Or is that because I'm doing a Horatio Nelson and wilfully not seeing what's plainly there? Halp plox? :smallconfused:

Draz74
2008-05-29, 04:40 PM
What I've taken away from all of the 4e the discussions, then, is that the new edition presents mechanics in a way that makes them easy to use; however, the actual mechanic does not spend much time discussing any non-mechanical effects. My solution, then, is that I'm divorcing my description of the world from the mechanics. They share joint custody of Success and Failure, but they live their own lives from now on. I am playing a storytelling game, in cooperation with my players, where the dice and rules no longer show me the picture; instead, they lay down the canvas, and I must paint. I'm free to use any description that fits the world and doesn't directly violate the mechanics. I guess the game will display exactly as much "realism" or "verisimilitude" as I can create, and frankly, with the level of control a DM has over the world (read: everything but the PCs), I'm the bottleneck anyway.

I'm kinda excited. (My players are too, after trying things out.) I can see how other players, who prefer a more simulation-oriented game, where the rules are how the game world works, would be disappointed. That's fine. Nobody's wrong here. That's my point, really.

All well-put. All of this goes to strengthen my position on 4e, which is now nearly finalized:

4e is a great system for casual, goofing-off-and-having-fun gaming. It is greatly inferior to 3e for a serious, paying-deep-attention-to-the-game gaming (which, IMHO, needs to involve some simulationism).

Great new avatar, btw, Ruki. :smallamused:

rollfrenzy
2008-05-29, 04:53 PM
I was originally very excited and optimistic about the release of 4ed. I felt that 3.5 had gotten bloated with too many rules, too many combinations and too much power overall. I thought to myself, hey, a fresh slate, maybe they will get back to FANTASY roleplaying. Elves, wizards and fighters, not half fiendish/half celestial/two thirds halfing/undead Eladrin Warblades, and fighter/rogue/warblade/psion/defenderofmybutt. but everything that I have read about 4ed has completly turned me off to the point I am going to regress to 2ed.

The focus I have noticed on 4ed is everyhting is a power. You don't swing your sword you use some sort of mystical martial power that lets you hit even if you miss. It seems to me that they focused on making the game more Anime or (gonna get beat up for this) like a video game, and I don't care for either. I want to tell a story. I also want the crunch to be secondary to the world.

I don't mind there being powers and what not, but they tied all the fluff into the mechanics so you have the choice of living with fighters essentially casting spells and all the other rules, or ignoring them which is nearly impossible since its worked in to the game itself.


Just my thoughts. I found 2ed online so I will be going in that direction, trying to find some non-anime fantasy roleplaying. (Not that I don't like anime, it's just a different style than what I prefer when I play DnD.)

Rutee
2008-05-29, 05:04 PM
The focus I have noticed on 4ed is everyhting is a power. You don't swing your sword you use some sort of mystical martial power that lets you hit even if you miss. It seems to me that they focused on making the game more Anime or (gonna get beat up for this) like a video game, and I don't care for either. I want to tell a story. I also want the crunch to be secondary to the world.
I bolded the part that's flatly wrong part. None of the Martial powers have a hint of mysticism. They're not even flavored as esoteric sword skills. They're just highlighted as powerful weapon tricks.


4e is a great system for casual, goofing-off-and-having-fun gaming. It is greatly inferior to 3e for a serious, paying-deep-attention-to-the-game gaming (which, IMHO, needs to involve some simulationism).

Housecats. Commoners. You were saying something?

rollfrenzy
2008-05-29, 05:13 PM
I bolded the part that's flatly wrong part. None of the Martial powers have a hint of mysticism. They're not even flavored as esoteric sword skills. They're just highlighted as powerful weapon tricks.




I understand that they are supposed to be cool sword tricks, but they have the feel and texture of magic to me. How else do you explain causing damage when you miss. I have been missed by a punch before and didn't feel a thing. I guess I don't want a whole bunch of sword "tricks", I want a fighter.

I haven't read over every little detail of whats out, just a brief overview of whats been put on these boards. It seems to me ( I readily admit I could be way off base) that everything is a power. You don't try to stab the orc, You have to use your "crescent of wounding" daily power or whatever they are called. It just doesn't seem "real" to me. It seems more like My fighter is becoming a super saiyen.

Another gripe is there is no logical way to explain IC how and when you use these powers. I have no idea how a novelist would explain a per encounter power.

(edit: slightly dyslexic, so forgive spelling, I try to correct errors as I see them)

RukiTanuki
2008-05-29, 05:14 PM
Yes, but what makes you think the design principles used in 4'th edition are in any way better?

Ah, but I said I liked them, not that they were better. I approve of them, because when I attempted to quantify the problems I had with 3.X and how I might fix them, I came to many similar conclusions: I wanted to bring classes' relative power levels closer together, give melee classes interesting choices during combat, rein in magic-users' ability to do everything and anything, and so on. I wanted to "run the numbers" from the ground up so that the expected results (attack bonuses, damage, etc.) were in a much smaller range, and thus could be anticipated better. Notably, I also wanted a lot less paperwork.

When I started reading 4e previews, it seemed like they had a lot of the same ideas. They also identified a lot of things in 3.x that were frustrating for me in play. They were either difficult to use (Negative Energy Plane, build-a-dragons, etc.) or just didn't work (CRs and LAs). I'm not saying they were bad ideas, but that they didn't fit my goals. Over time, regardless of the tone of the articles and their focus on "teh kewl," 4th Edition looked like it suited my style of game better than 3.x did.

At this point I don't have cover-to-cover knowledge of the core books. However, after playtesting and a run through KotS, there's not much in the core books that can overwhelm my satisfaction with the ruleset itself. It works for me, and my players, and I'm glad I have something I can use the way I want.

Rutee
2008-05-29, 05:25 PM
I understand that they are supposed to be cool sword tricks, but they have the feel and texture of magic to me. How else do you explain causing damage when you miss. I have been missed by a punch before and didn't feel a thing. I guess I don't want a whole bunch of sword "tricks", I want a fighter.
You didn't miss in the sense that you hit nothing. You just don't land a solid hit. And why do you not want any form of trick? Do you seriously describe your fighter as standing there, swinging his sword the exact same way every single time?


I haven't read over every little detail of whats out, just a brief overview of whats been put on these boards. It seems to me ( I readily admit I could be way off base) that everything is a power. You don't try to stab the orc, You have to use your "crescent of wounding" daily power or whatever they are called. It just doesn't seem "real" to me. It seems more like My fighter is becoming a super saiyen.
Okay, I'll try and put this in a simple to grok way.

Martial Powers are no more a 'special Power' then Sneak Attack. You use a technique mechanically called, let's say, picking something rat random out of the PHB...

Beat Them into the Ground Warlord Attack 13
You sweep the legs out from under your adversary and knock him
to the ground with a mighty overhead swing. Your allies, inspired
by the sight, follow suit.
Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. Fortitude
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target is
knocked prone. Every ally within 5 squares of you makes
a basic attack on one target of his or her choice as a free
action. These attacks deal no damage but knock a target
prone on a hit.
Tactical Presence: Your allies gain a bonus to the attack rolls
granted by this power equal to your Intelligence modifier.
I'm not seeing anything terribly 'anime' about that. Fluff wise, it's a trip, done in such a way as to show your allies how its done and they mimic it. If you call that 'anime', then I suppose fist fighting in Firefly is 'anime' to you as well.


Another gripe is there is no logical way to explain IC how and when you use these powers. I have no idea how a novelist would explain a per encounter power.
There's dozens of ways. Maybe an Encounter power requires that little bit of luck to do right. Maybe once you've done it once, you can't catch your enemy off guard with the same trick. Maybe you can't recover that critical position you needed to repeat it. Maybe you just can't inspire your friends with it again just yet. Maybe you need a little time to recover the arcane energies used to cast that spell. Maybe your God is saying "Physician, Heal Thyself".

rollfrenzy
2008-05-29, 05:37 PM
No I don't just stand there and say I swing. I use my imagination and with the help of my DM Or Player if I am DM, describe the action as it unfolds, rather than have the system tell me EXACTLY what I can and can't do and what happens and what those effects are in every single round.

I find no problem with "I attack for X damage" because I like to think that combat is a Small part of the game, not the reason for playing, and unless something unusual happens, swinging a sword is pretty much what combat for a melee-er is about.

As for it feeling "anime" It may be a holdover of my bias against everyones favorite supplement ToB. Like I said I could be totally off base, It's just my reaction to the things I saw. the powers, especially the higher level ones seem unrealistic at best. I know, it's a fantasy game, what's realistic mean? I guess I prefer less rules, not more and they seem to have gone in totally the opposite direction

I just got that feel from the things I have read. It just doens't fit with MY style of play, I am sure thousands of people, including yourself, will love it.

Moff Chumley
2008-05-29, 05:40 PM
I agree, but I've come to suspect that EE is like the Stephen Colbert of 3.5, except that I can't tell if he's being sarcastic or not.

On a related note, there's a new thread about bears.

Awesome. So sigged.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-29, 06:02 PM
I'm not seeing anything terribly 'anime' about that. Fluff wise, it's a trip, done in such a way as to show your allies how its done and they mimic it. If you call that 'anime', then I suppose fist fighting in Firefly is 'anime' to you as well.


To be fair, River was rather wuxia/anime in that movie.

I still like that Clerics can hurt people to promote peace. :smallcool:

Zocelot
2008-05-29, 06:11 PM
I find no problem with "I attack for X damage" because I like to think that combat is a Small part of the game, not the reason for playing, and unless something unusual happens, swinging a sword is pretty much what combat for a melee-er is about.



Combat in a tabletop game depends highly on imagination. In a game, the fighter isn't standing still in his 5 foot box. Rather, he is moving around.

Attacks aren't "I swing my sword. Damn I missed. Ok, I swing my sword again. Good, I hit". Instead, each attack roll is to try to find an opening. If your first attack is a hit, that is because you surprised your opponent with a quick offensive. If you miss, then hit the next round, your first attack was a diversion, so that you could score an easy hit.

Fights would be much better if they were finished, and then the DM narrated how the fight went. Unfortunately, people are very impatient. As such, a player must think out how the fight goes for their character, instead of letting someone else narrate it for you. You might have to change your mind about what happened a few rounds ago, but anyone with a decent imagination can do it.

rollfrenzy
2008-05-29, 06:21 PM
Zocelot, I agree with you completely. The way combat usually runs in our games is like this


Dm sets seen:
DM: Roll for initiative.
(int rolls made and anounced)
Player Ok I step up to the orc and I swing at him twice with my mace (rolls) Hit, 14 dmg. miss.
DM Ok you step forward and fient left the orc falls for it and you strike firmly on his left flank. However your sword sticks in his armour and you are forced to take a second to recover, missing out on furhter capitilising on the off balance orc.

Etc.

It seems to me that if you quantify every little manuever and "power", you lose some descriptive power. If theres a rule for feint, you can't have done that if you didn't use that power. If everything is explained, then there is not room for creative interpretation. I know you can still SAY you feinted without using the power, but that sucks if Player A uses that description and Player B actually has the power.

Rutee
2008-05-29, 06:27 PM
To be fair, River was rather wuxia/anime in that movie.

I still like that Clerics can hurt people to promote peace. :smallcool:

Granted, but I was thinking the series.

Also, PACIFIST CRUSH is probably not an appropriate response given my attitude.


No I don't just stand there and say I swing. I use my imagination and with the help of my DM Or Player if I am DM, describe the action as it unfolds, rather than have the system tell me EXACTLY what I can and can't do and what happens and what those effects are in every single round.

WEll, according to the system before, you were pretty much standing there and repeating the exact same action. I totally support describing your attacks as you wish. What's stopping you?

NoDot
2008-05-29, 06:36 PM
but everything that I have read about 4ed has completly turned me off to the point I am going to regress to 2ed. You should trudge over to The Gaming Den and help out with the design of The New Edition.

KillianHawkeye
2008-05-29, 06:38 PM
I agree, but I've come to suspect that EE is like the Stephen Colbert of 3.5, except that I can't tell if he's being sarcastic or not.

On a related note, there's a new thread about bears.
Awesome. So sigged.

Sweet. I've never been sigged b4. :smallbiggrin:

rollfrenzy
2008-05-29, 06:41 PM
The fact that it seems in 4ed, all my attacks are already described for me. If I want to feint, I play the feint card, If I want to cause burst damage using my sword I play the crescent-whatever card.


I use the word card here to describe pwers because in my group that is exactly how ToB was used, with manuevers on 3x5's.

Honestly, We are getting too deeply into an argument about a single complaint for a system I have never read first hand. There are many other reasons I have lost interest in 4ed beside the fighters power and combat in general.

I just dont' like the "feel" that I get from all the stuff I have read.

Edit:: ninja'ed, but heading over to gamers den to check it out.

Oslecamo
2008-05-29, 06:43 PM
Housecats. Commoners. You were saying something?

You've never been attacked by an angry housecat have you?

tyckspoon
2008-05-29, 06:50 PM
You've never been attacked by an angry housecat have you?

I have. I'm pretty certain it was not capable of killing me. I'm also quite certain that if I really wanted to kill it in return I could hit it and do so quite easily, despite inflicting only 1d3 nonlethal damage and attacking against a respectable 14 AC. Although I'd probably be doing that in what the rules would consider a Grapple, where the cat's -12 check gives me a major advantage.

Rutee
2008-05-29, 07:04 PM
The fact that it seems in 4ed, all my attacks are already described for me.
Well. They're anti-described in 3rd ed, and don't technically let you add onto it. But you know, it doesn't matter, because you can describe your attack anyway, and should.



If I want to feint, I play the feint card
No, you feint, with the bluff skill. Just like in 3rd ed.


If I want to cause burst damage using my sword I play the crescent-whatever card.
Right, and then you choose to describe it. And 3rd ed doesn't /give/ you the option to to AoE hit randomly; You have to take Whirlwind Attack.


I just dont' like the "feel" that I get from all the stuff I have read.
Perhaps you should check out the thread where we're actually discussing the game, using the PHB.


You've never been attacked by an angry housecat have you?
I have. I'm pretty sure it was never going to drop me unconscious. At worst, there'd have been severe blood loss. And that's being very generous to the cat.

rollfrenzy
2008-05-29, 07:16 PM
No, you feint, with the bluff skill. Just like in 3rd ed.
Never said I liked 3rd ed. this was, one of the reasons I was so looking forward to fourth ed.


Right, and then you choose to describe it. And 3rd ed doesn't /give/ you the option to to AoE hit randomly; You have to take Whirlwind Attack.

Don't want to have a burst attack with MY SWORD. Last I checked, swords don't burst forth and damage everything around you. At least in 3rd ed and before, this type of stuff was explained using multiple attacks. I like the Idea of whirlwind attack better than the crescent-thing.



Perhaps you should check out the thread where we're actually discussing the game, using the PHB.


What do you think I have been reading to form my opinions?

That stuff, plus everything that wizards themselves have been putting out (for free, still not paying $30 bucks to see thier promo stuff).

Once again, the combat is NOT the only the one thing that I dislike, there are many others. You seem to love the new system. That's great (no sarcasm) I hope you and your group have a great time playing. I am just not interested.

I honestly shouldn't have posted at all, cuz reading back it just seems like i am trolling for 4th ed supporters. I really am not, just wanted to pass time while at work, and also kinda want someone to tell me something about 4th ed that I would like, but that still hasn't happened.

I really wnated this edition to be awesome, and I guess it is to some, just not my cup of tea. If someone I know buys it I will give it an honest chance but, given that I can buy or download everything from editions past, editions I know I liked, for MUCH cheaper, 4th ed will jus have to wait for me.

Rutee
2008-05-29, 07:20 PM
Never said I liked 3rd ed. this was, one of the reasons I was so looking forward to fourth ed.
I still don't get the irritation. I don't like 3rd ed either, but Feint was, at worst, ineffective, not poorly implemented.


Don't want to have a burst attack with MY SWORD. Last I checked, swords don't burst forth and damage everything around you. At least in 3rd ed and before, this type of stuff was explained using multiple attacks. I like the Idea of whirlwind attack better than the crescent-thing.
You like Whirlwind attack, which attacks everything adjacent
But you don't like an attack that htis everything adjacent to you because of the term used to describe the Area of Effect? Wat? They're the same thing. Burst means the AoE originates from you. Nothing more, nothing less. Please don't overread these.

rollfrenzy
2008-05-29, 07:33 PM
I am unfortunately leaving now, so no time to rebutt and re-state.

But bear this in mind. My major complaint Isn't this feat versus that power or in the old versions it was "done like this" or even that the fighter abilites seem semi-magical to me.

My main problem is Much harder to express, and I find that my words are truly failing me and we got caught up in a this verse that debate about the specifics of combat.

My overall concern and the reason that I prolly won't buy 4th ed, is that everything I have read, seen and heard about, including the reasoning behind the chagnes that were made just don't (for some unknown deep down reason that I am finding very hard to concretely express) feel like DnD. Or maybe I should say Ad&D since 3.x never really felt right to me either.

Maybe it's because I grew up with thac0, or maybe I have outgrown the game some. Or maybe popular consensus is passing me by. Maybe I am right and there is a TRUE DND waiting to be made. Maybe I am totally off my rocker and 4th ed is the Ultimate In Gaming Experience.

Whatever it is, hte giddy feeling I had when I first learned about 4th ed's iminent release has steadily and surely been eroded by all the things I have learned about the new system in ways that I can't even express. Until now I feel little connection between what my ideal of DnD is and what 4th ed is.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 07:34 PM
Planescape? Where? I see no Blood War. I see no Great Wheel cosmology. Or is that because I'm doing a Horatio Nelson and wilfully not seeing what's plainly there? Halp plox? :smallconfused:

WoTC confirmed that planescape is coming back as an official setting, along with Spelljammer, and it's going to have three books a year.

So yes, this edition is going to be WAY more awesome than 3.X.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-05-29, 08:35 PM
I really don't agree with this idea that 4e somehow forces you into hack n' slash.

The rules you have encourage it, but frankly you can roleplay as much as you want regardless of what your characters abilities are. More importantly, the entire point of roleplaying is that you're playing the role, you don't need a ruleset to do that. What you need a ruleset for is combat, spellcasting, and other such items.

Moreover, a good point was made regarding the addition of Eberron. When Wizards embraced the setting, it finally accepted that D&D did not have to be the sloppy, vaguely fantasy novel grab bags that were Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. Frankly, I'm fine with the new setting, and moreover, as far as I'm concerned the most 'D&D' unique aspect of the game's fluff has been the DM's own imagination. And that is separate from any new edition.

The only thing that makes D&D D&D is its inherent position as the first true Pencil/Paper RPG, and the new editions are still D&D because their ultimate purpose is to facilitate player storytelling, not to bring you into their preexisting flavor.

Edea
2008-05-29, 09:20 PM
Burst means the AoE originates from you.

I think the Close descriptor is what actually makes it originate from your square (and makes you immune to your own power, otherwise the fighter'd stab himself XD).

OT, but some of the Wizard bursts are kinda scary.

Jorkens
2008-05-29, 09:59 PM
I really don't agree with this idea that 4e somehow forces you into hack n' slash.

The rules you have encourage it, but frankly you can roleplay as much as you want regardless of what your characters abilities are. More importantly, the entire point of roleplaying is that you're playing the role, you don't need a ruleset to do that. What you need a ruleset for is combat, spellcasting, and other such items.

Actually, it's kind of interesting that people are talking about it as a hack and slashy game that somehow rules out depth of character and complexity of plot, given that the rules - for combat in particular - have been streamlined and made quicker. Essentially you've got more time to get inside your character's head if you're spending less time worrying about how many dice to roll. So if anything it would seem to encourage roleplaying and character development.

The really noticeable difference in what I've seen is that the mechanics are much more character-centred. They seem to be aiming to simulate things in detail if it's interesting to the characters to see a detailed simulation, and abstract them away to remove unneccessary bookkeeping and dice rolling if it's not. It also seems more story-oriented and less world-oriented, with concepts like encounters being hard-coded into the rules. This latter concept bothers me a bit on a philosophical level. On the other hand, it doesn't mean that you have to think about it as a world that exists purely as something for the characters to do awesome stuff in, just that you don't have to bother doing sums and rolling dice for things that aren't relevant to the characters doing awesome (or as good as they can manage, or grim and nasty or whatever) stuff. The rest of it runs as the DM wants or believes it to run.

Wizzardman
2008-05-29, 10:12 PM
Righto, time to try this now that I have the 4e books.

My statement in support of RollFrenzy, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Play the HacknSlash:

1. 4th Edition's Push Towards Hack and Slash combat

First off, let's try avoid the new combat system. While yes, the fighters of old mostly swung the sword over and over again, their exact action was not actually defined, so it was possible to imagine them performing any number of stunts. 4th Edition, on the other hand, provides a host of new, well described abilities. I would argue that this causes PCs to be pidgeonholed into specific actions [as they will naturally prefer certain abilities over others, and thus use them as often as possible], and thus be just as repetitive and boring as others have accused 3.x combat of being. But others would disagree.

Instead, let's take a look at monsters and alignment. Having now looked upon the 4th Edition MM, I find that a number of monsters [such as gnolls, kobolds, or goblins] are marked as "evil and sinister," while PCs are strongly encouraged to play "good" or at least "unaligned." This encouragement is to the point where there are no separate, evil powers, and instead PCs who wish to play evil characters are encouraged to slightly alter existing powers in order to fit their darker theme.

Naturally, this makes roleplaying with the various evil denizens of the MM (who, by the way, outnumber good and unaligned denizens by approx 28 to 1) significantly more difficult, especially since they are often listed as "attacking on sight" or, in the case of gnolls, literally "cannot be bargained or reasoned with." As such, most of those who would follow the rules as ordained in the book would have extreme difficulty communicating with anyone who is not of a PC race.

I will admit that 3.x was not significantly better at this. Goblins were greedy, slimy creatures known for taking slaves and holding fruit for ransom. However, in 3.x's defense, 3.x had a built-in ecology section. DM's were not forced to make up their own stats on what the hell is going on; most sentient races had organization descriptions, descriptions of noncombatants and young (and what they do), and etc. While DMs are certainly able to make that stuff up on their own, leaving it out is discouraging it, as suddenly it requires yet more work.

Next, let's take a look at the new conversational skill systems for 4th edition. Like 3.x, 4th edition translates a conversation as an "encounter" of some form or another. Unlike 3.x, however, 4th edition conversations take place in initiative order. While this is overtly to encourage roleplaying on all sides, it makes every conversation stilted and strange, as players are forced to talk in a line, and hold their comments until even the least interested player has spoken.

Furthermore, 4th edition's roleplaying is much more strongly reliant on the skill system. No one here is denying that 3.x's conversational skills made any sense; intimidate was based on level and diplomacy was borked. However, bluff at least required the PC to explain what he/she/it was saying, and skills like sense motive were reliant on the DM explaining what the NPC is saying.

Not so for 4th, however. 4th edition simplifies diplomacy and intimidate still further [to the point of "bloodied target must make this save or run"], and encourages reliance on rolling a set number of successes in order to complete the task. Moreover, conversations and social situations aren't a specific type of encounter (as they were in 3.5), they're merely a type of skill encounter, roped in with disarming traps and opening locked doors. And each time the DMG describes this type of encounter, it provides a list of skills you can roll that will make this conversation happen for you. Instead of saying "think of a good lie, and try to bluff the target" it says "use bluff to convince the target to aid you under false pretenses."

While, again, no one is saying that 3.x did a good job of preventing "screw conversation, I'll roll my way out of this" playing, I feel that 4th Edition practically demands it. 3.x held very few rules on social encounters, and usually encouraged DMs and PCs to handle it on their own. By carefully defining social encounters as an encounter type, running them on the init system, and basing them on "this number of successful rolls before this number of failures" rather than DM decision, 4th is telling players that social encounters should be handled by rolls, not roleplay.

...As a side note, epic characters can get access to an ability that ostensibly allows them to force the DM to declare one roll a natural 1. Is it just me, or does it sound like that rule will fly when Asmodeus becomes President, and Succubi become devils? (Oh wait...)

ArmorArmadillo
2008-05-30, 01:38 AM
3.5 did a good job of making you talk your way out of things...if your opponent didn't let you use diplomacy as written.

Frankly, I hate all social-based skills. It hurts roleplaying to have the value of what your character says limited by a skill check. (Under 3.5 bluff rules, a awful roleplayer playing a bard with maxed Bluff skill can say stupid stuff and be always believed, while a better social roleplayer could speak eloquently and be ignored. Having skills to allow a player to do what he can't in real life is important, but the mixing of roleplaying and crunch leads to a very awkward situation.)

As for monster flavor, I think here is a flawed reasoning in trying to base the 4e crunch off of the 4e fluff. Frankly, if people really played 3.5 fluff strictly, there wouldn't be Drow heroes.

What's important in 4e is the rules it uses, not the fluff it encourages.


As for the increase in options increasing repetitiveness, I don't see how having multiple options is worse than 1 option because you'll only use the best option.

In the nearest example, ToB classes, ideally a warblade should just use his best maneuver over and over, and he will, but by no means does a well played warblade ignore his other options, especially those with situational utility.

Similarly, a Sorcerer in 3.5 might use his best offensive spell most often, but if well played at all he will vary his spells as situations call.

Frankly, as long as people are trying to optimize their actions, they'll use the best option they have. Any ruleset that forces them to do otherwise just to create variety does a disservice to the play experience.

EvilElitest
2008-06-11, 09:57 PM
The reason why 4E only appeals to one specific style of gaming is because of the way it is designed to function. It has the design philosophy of a video game, where teh world is PC centric and the game's focus is not about consistency so much as making the PCs feel great

Allow me to expand.


Now let me make it clear taht 3.5 is not a perfect game. not by far. i don't think i need to go into detail, we all know its massive balence flaws, but its main problem came from lack of organization. WotC seems unable to keep everything together and to even understand the function of balence. However a lot of good stuff came out of 3E. However enough was corrupted that in order to make it a good game you would need to revise a lot.

And so when back when 4E was first announced (and i notice a lot of 4E supporters who accuse me of being conservative seem to forget) i liked the idea of 4E. i felt that a new edition was a great idea, gods knows that 3.5 needed one. But i wanted the game to remain the same. 3.5 had a lot of good aspects, and i still feel that 4E shouldn't have become something totally different but instead another update.

4E losses complexity. It plays like a video game. Now because people keep saying this, no i don't mean an MMO or WoW in particular, through it borrows elements, it isn't MMO's i'm arguing about). I mean a video game in the sense of design

Many of 4e's descions, PC centrist, minions, NPC/PC, monsters, classes, religions, alignment, good creatures, seeing in the dark, the cosmology, monsters, the world, races ect go for a video game styled world.

A shallow one

Now in a video game, the world is designed to focus on the players. But the world doesn't normally make sense on its own. I mean Zelda's world is insane and doesn't make sense. But in the context of a video game, meh who cares. Baldur's gate, NWN and Morrowind are better at creating consistent logical worlds, but even they suffer flaws

Now i don't object to the game being focused upon the PCs, but the world? That is silly. And the game's rules are focused on an action movie style of game play, with the consistency of a video game. THis makes the game simplistic, shallow, and basic.

It reduces the level of complexity, and while totally useless rules are bad, simplified rules to the point where i feel like the game is saying that i need to have my hand held and walked through the game to become awesome instead of doing it myself is really only good if you like the video game/action movie style of combat, where you are awesome from the get go. and teh world exists to cuddle to you.

The very world itself is focused on the PCs, and this only works as a game considering the massive simplification (i mean look at the economy). If you want taht kinda of simplified action hero style where everything including the game revovles around you


Let me say that in a less nasty way, because truth be told, if you like that sort of video game style where consistency and logic be hanged and you start out uber and special, then 4E is good for you. If you want every player to be Ender adn everybody else in the world to be a not wiggin then it is a good design. If you don't............yeah

Damn i wish i wasn't sick, i'd be a lot more cohesive
from
EE

RukiTanuki
2008-06-11, 11:23 PM
I never knew you were into necromancy, EE.

This thread probably isn't going to tread new ground anytime soon. Let's not resurrect two-week-old threads in order to post the same "4e=videogame" cliche one more time. I'd much rather break new ground in a current thread.

Forgotton
2008-09-30, 07:07 PM
Yo, i'm an old gamer. been GMing my group for going on 20 years now. and i've gone back and read all the posts of everyone in this thread.
there are some points i agree on and some i dont of course but i wont get into that.
My little addition to your squables about the fighting styles and such of 3.0-4.0 are basicaly the same thing. as happened when 2ed was bought by Wizards of the coast.
Personaly i feel "EvilElitest" has hit the heart of the subject.
it has turned into a videogame. which is what a lot of us old 2nd edition gamers used to shout and scream about D20 systems.
all of your arguments at this point are basicaly semantics.
oh its called this and it hits everyone one when this one named diffrent does the same thing but still hits everyone..
The big draw for my long time players has allways been the realism and the physics and actual real world logic.
No system will ever be perfect. hell even my bastardised system loosly still baised on 2ed has holes and flaws. no system other then a Video game will ever make those go away.
only when people and players have no control over what can happen or what the effect my turn out as will ever remove the holes.

so take it the way i did.
Just pick the system that is easiest for you to make suit your group, your play style & your sence of gaming.
and then fix the holes. your going to end up doing it anyways when someone says hey that doesnt work like that! when the Red worm great dragon shoots fireballs out his ass and smokes a charicter behind them.
its a system of modifcation that the younger generations can pick up on and folow. as they reconise how things work from thier video games.
personaly i dont think any system sence 2ed has come as close to fixing the holes. unless you switch to another game.
so either stick to what you know.
build on what you know
read and learn whats new and popular

or find your self a lifetime group of players and design your own.
and just be done with it lol

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-30, 07:20 PM
Ah, the sickly scent of Threat Necromancy once again wafts over the Playground.

Roll the picture, Frank:
http://www.game-warden.com/starfox/Non_SF_related_stuff/JS47/Thread_Necromancy.jpg

erikun
2008-09-30, 08:38 PM
Well, an interesting thread at least, although I think it's too late today for me to process it fully.

I'd make comments, but I agree that we don't need another "4e is a videogame" derailing in this thread.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-30, 09:09 PM
Well, an interesting thread at least, although I think it's too late today for me to process it fully.

I'd make comments, but I agree that we don't need another "4e is a videogame" derailing in this thread.

If you think it's an interesting topic, make a new thread! :smallsmile:

Charity
2008-10-01, 04:57 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/183621285_e8fb37aec9.jpg

Braaiiiinsss ...

Roland St. Jude
2008-10-01, 02:37 PM
Sheriff of Gumdrop Land: This thread is too old y'all! Thread locked. Please see the Forum Rules on Thread Necromancy for a more cogent explanation.