PDA

View Full Version : 4e: PC-centric?



JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 09:23 PM
I've seen this "4e is PC-centric" meme bandied about quite a bit, so let's think about it for a moment.

The usual concern mentioned with such a claim is that the PCs run on a different system than the NPCs. This is not true. PCs run on a different system than Monsters. You can easily create an NPC with the PC creation rules, and throw them at the party.

You could most certainly do that - but why would you want to? For certain foes, sure, go right ahead, make them full-fledged PC-type character sheets. No one is stopping you. But for the average fight, where the NPCs exist for 5-10 rounds and either surrender, run away, or perish, that's a lot of paperwork for little payoff.

So, thoughts?

Scintillatus
2008-06-02, 09:24 PM
I don't see what the problem with "PC-centrism" is in the first place. Enemies get a similar treatment in the World of Darkness games; you can use the templates for supernaturals laid out for PCs, or just use the premade monsters in the back of the book.

I seriously do not get the issue here at all.

Bleen
2008-06-02, 09:30 PM
See, I actually feel it's more believable that PC's and monsters(MONSTERS! Not antagonists!) use different "rules". Why is a beast without enough intelligence to speak, with several tentacles, and four legs, and no arms using the exact same mechanics as a person who speaks, is smart enough to wield weapons and wear armor, and has a completely different anatomy, anyway?

And almost all antagonistic races that fit the latter description are using the same rules. They even have race stats in the back!

Jorkens
2008-06-02, 09:32 PM
One important distinction seems to be whether the rules are a PC-centric description of the world or whether the rules describe a PC-centric world. And whether this matters.

Is the apparent PC-centricism in the rules[1] there because the PCs are special in their world - so things happen differently around them - or just because they're special in our world - so we don't want to spend a lot of time and effort simulating stuff that doesn't affect them?

[1] which has always been there unless you've always roleplayed through the life story of every peasant in every village up to the point where they meet the heroes

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 09:33 PM
It's a load of wash, really.

Name one (ONE) game, story, happy meal, that isn't centered around the protagonists. It's literally impossible.

Now, if they said it focuses too much on the creation of PC's or something like that, it'd be more valid.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-06-02, 09:37 PM
One important distinction seems to be whether the rules are a PC-centric description of the world or whether the rules describe a PC-centric world. And whether this matters.

That is quite well worded. I see things as the rules being a PC-centric desription of the world.


Anyway every RPG is PC centric. 4E, no more so then other ones.

Scintillatus
2008-06-02, 09:38 PM
My belief goes beyond verismillitude, thoughts of shoe-throwing, stuff like stats applying to out of combat attempts -

The simple fact is, combat stats, hit points, powers, et al - they're for combat and combat alone. My world is not made better or worse by monster creation being different to PC creation, but my combat is made much much easier.

Sir_Elderberry
2008-06-02, 09:39 PM
4e may be PC-centric, but I don't think the PCs will mind.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 09:39 PM
Heh, Scint just spent -two- hours RPing in a 4e game I'm running. We rolled dice -maybe- 5 times for skill checks that I threw at them... nothing else needed. :smalleek:

Scintillatus
2008-06-02, 09:53 PM
Skills aren't combat stats! XD

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 09:53 PM
There is a difference between having the game revolve around the PCs and having the world revolve around them. With the former, you DM is just focusing his efforts on making sure the PCs are having an enjoyable game and aren't bored

The latter however is extremly metagaming. the latter assume that from an in game perspective, the world centers on the PCs. IE, the creatures, the world, everything exist to aid the PCs, in the same they do in a video game, its a mater of convenience for them. This is a very inconsistent idea and leads to a rather absurd idea when you think about it. For example, why do only half a dozen dudes get these class powers? Why do these monsters powers only exist for combat with the PC. FOr a good, logical, consistent world you must imagine it for a second how it would look without the PC showing up. You put the PCs in and see how things work out. However in the current state, the world doesn't abide by the rules, the rules themselves focus on the PCs. And i don't mean that in teh "PC should know hte rules" sort of way, i mean taht in that the rules literally exist only for the PCs.

Logically the world should follow the same rules, regardless on weather or not the PCs are there. With the current rules it is like a video game, with Random Encounters existing soley to die at the PCs hands, with the Rules and the game play having a separate but equal ideal, with the NPCs existing to as guys who wander around simply giving them quests or exist only in terms of how they interact with the PC from an in game perspective (not an out of game perspective), creatures who's stats change at the DM's whim. My PC don't like it, because they are unable to rely on the world, they like to be able to use logic withing the game world boundaries to figure out plans and show and understanding for how the game works. Rules shown how you reflect the reality, as D&d isn't a story telling game
from
EE

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 09:55 PM
Rules shown how you reflect the reality, as D&d isn't a story telling game
from
EE

To quote page 18 of Keep On Shadowfell


A D&D game is more than endless fighting - it is also cooperative storytelling

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 10:04 PM
To quote page 18 of Keep On Shadowfell

no i mean that in the story telling style, IE there are no mechanics, just story telling. You know, if me you, and half a dozen other guys get around a table and simply tell stories, rules out the window, that would be a story telling game
from
EE

Jorkens
2008-06-02, 10:09 PM
Logically the world should follow the same rules, regardless on weather or not the PCs are there. With the current rules it is like a video game, with Random Encounters existing soley to die at the PCs hands, with the Rules and the game play having a separate but equal ideal, with the NPCs existing to as guys who wander around simply giving them quests or exist only in terms of how they interact with the PC from an in game perspective (not an out of game perspective), creatures who's stats change at the DM's whim.
A lot of this sounds like the rules saying "the game revolves around the PCs" and the DM interpreting that to mean "the world revolves around the PCs" to be honest. Could you give some more concrete examples?

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 10:16 PM
A lot of this sounds like the rules saying "the game revolves around the PCs" and the DM interpreting that to mean "the world revolves around the PCs" to be honest. Could you give some more concrete examples?

sure

If the game revolves around the Pcs, that means taht while the PC aren't in game (IE, withing the context of the game's storyline) the center of the world yet, they are the center of the game, and the Dm is doing the best he can to provide an enjoyable game. As he should. The world itself is still going on logically with the Pcs, it is affected by them, and eventually they could drastically change it, but its existence from an in game view isn't hinged upon half a dozen people


However if the world revolves around the PCs, that means the world exist in a meta gaming perspective, where it exist solely to entertain the PCs both in game and out. For example, FR is a good example of the former, the world is logical according to the rules, Elmininster Aside, FR is actually a great setting, a lot of people just tend to like to jump on its hatred bandwagon

However a world where a creatures' stats exist only when it is encounters by the Pcs is PC centric. Now you might say "EE, why do we need the creatures stats if we aren't going to use them" Well consider this, for example. Wizards have certain spells right? Now wizard is a class, so other monsters can take it. So while some Drow wizards might fight the PCs, the question arises, couldn't the enemy wizards use their spells to change their society. Logically, any society that has a good deal of wizards should have some certain changes taht will affect teh entire world. Stats matter outside combat in a consistent world
from
EE

averagejoe
2008-06-02, 10:21 PM
However a world where a creatures' stats exist only when it is encounters by the Pcs is PC centric. Now you might say "EE, why do we need the creatures stats if we aren't going to use them" Well consider this, for example. Wizards have certain spells right? Now wizard is a class, so other monsters can take it. So while some Drow wizards might fight the PCs, the question arises, couldn't the enemy wizards use their spells to change their society. Logically, any society that has a good deal of wizards should have some certain changes taht will affect teh entire world. Stats matter outside combat in a consistent world
from
EE

I don't get it? What would stop you from changing drow society in 4e? There were never mechanics for societies and such, except for that stupid roll-to-see-what-of-each-class-is-in-each-town thing that no one ever used.

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 10:23 PM
I don't get it? What would stop you from changing drow society in 4e? There were never mechanics for societies and such, except for that stupid roll-to-see-what-of-each-class-is-in-each-town thing that no one ever used.

1) Because, if we take 4E without any tinkering involved, drow wizards are in fact a separate category from PC wizards.
2) They did more tahn that, isn't there a complete drow

Forgive me if i'm a little rambly, i'm sick, i'll be better tomorrow
from
EE

holywhippet
2008-06-02, 10:35 PM
It's a load of wash, really.

Name one (ONE) game, story, happy meal, that isn't centered around the protagonists. It's literally impossible.

Now, if they said it focuses too much on the creation of PC's or something like that, it'd be more valid.

Mechwarrior 2. It was kind of annoying, grand battles were occuring according to the plot briefing you got between briefings. You, however, were sent to do raids on minor depots and stuff.

averagejoe
2008-06-02, 10:37 PM
1) Because, if we take 4E without any tinkering involved, drow wizards are in fact a separate category from PC wizards.
2) They did more tahn that, isn't there a complete drow

Forgive me if i'm a little rambly, i'm sick, i'll be better tomorrow
from
EE

I hope so because, sorry, but I didn't really understand what you just said.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 10:44 PM
Mechwarrior 2. It was kind of annoying, grand battles were occuring according to the plot briefing you got between briefings. You, however, were sent to do raids on minor depots and stuff.

And yet, such an awesome game. I can still feel the thrill of loosing a barrage of LRMs at range, or one-shotting people in the cockpit with dual gauss cannon, or just ripping them apart with medium pulse lasers or ultra autocannons or Streak SRMs....

Trizap
2008-06-02, 11:10 PM
oh come on, complaining about DnD being PC-Centric, is like complaining about pizza cause it has cheese.

Ozymandias
2008-06-03, 12:19 AM
Why would having a logically consistent world be placed above the entertainment of the players? In a game, tabletop, video, or otherwise, it's pretty much less important by definition. I mean, it's neat to have, but if it doesn't enhance the players' experiences at all I don't see the point.

Kizara
2008-06-03, 12:56 AM
Now, for the record, I hate a great deal of 4e.

However, this particular complaint strikes me as pretty stupid. I mean, I'm all for a unified ruleset. I really like the HD-system 3.X uses, I like it a very great deal. Everything makes sense and is derived from understood sources, not simply arbitarily pulled out of the air.

That being said, how the heck is the game not about the PCs? How on Earth is having a rule system designed around them and for them a bad thing? It certinally isn't in my book. Now, I want said system to be consistant when applied to anything else, beholder or otherwise.

I'm having trouble explaining my PoV here, so let's do an example:

You could certinally give a Beholder levels in rogue (or fighter, or cleric), you generally wouldn't (as its not a humanoid monster), but you certinally could. In the same way you can give a unicorn paladin levels (and IIRC there is an example of that in the MM). Now, would you expect a beholder's abilities to be derived from the PC creation rules? Heavens no, that would be awful. I would hate a game where something as potent as a beholder played like a wizard or something of its level.

In 4ed, they did alot of things I vhemenantly hate, but having the PCs at the center of their design philosophy (as much legitimancy as there even is in that claim) wasn't one of them.

JaxGaret
2008-06-03, 01:00 AM
You could certinally give a Beholder levels in rogue (or fighter, or cleric), you generally wouldn't (as its not a humanoid monster), but you certinally could. In the same way you can give a unicorn paladin levels (and IIRC there is an example of that in the MM). Now, would you expect a beholder's abilities to be derived from the PC creation rules? Heavens no, that would be awful. I would hate a game where something as potent as a beholder played like a wizard or something of its level.

In 4ed, they did alot of things I vhemenantly hate, but having the PCs at the center of their design philosophy (as much legitimancy is there even is in that claim) wasn't one of them.

There's nothing stopping you in 4e from taking an NPC Beholder and giving it Wizard powers and/or class features, or taking a Unicorn and giving it Paladin powers and/or class features.

Muyten
2008-06-03, 03:56 AM
1) Because, if we take 4E without any tinkering involved, drow wizards are in fact a separate category from PC wizards.
2) They did more tahn that, isn't there a complete drow

Forgive me if i'm a little rambly, i'm sick, i'll be better tomorrow
from
EE

Your first point is not true unless you want it to be. Every Drow Wizard can follow the PC-creation rules if you want them to. Only difference is that now they don't have to so if I want to play differently than you I can.

Your second point I'm not sure I get at all.

Jerthanis
2008-06-03, 05:39 AM
However a world where a creatures' stats exist only when it is encounters by the Pcs is PC centric. Now you might say "EE, why do we need the creatures stats if we aren't going to use them" Well consider this, for example. Wizards have certain spells right? Now wizard is a class, so other monsters can take it. So while some Drow wizards might fight the PCs, the question arises, couldn't the enemy wizards use their spells to change their society. Logically, any society that has a good deal of wizards should have some certain changes taht will affect teh entire world. Stats matter outside combat in a consistent world
from
EE

I think the sticking point here is that you're not successfully establishing that 4th edition D&D really does restrict you from applying the rules of the PCs to the rest of the world any more than 3rd or any other edition does. In fact, I think you're falsely assuming that the idea of applying PC rules to Monsters actually makes any sense. Give a Beholder Fighter levels and it can wear Plate armor and wield Military weapons... despite not having a torso or limbs, it knows how it would move in them if it had those limbs. If a Devil became an Infernal-pact Warlock, it'd be making a pact with... its own kind. It'd be like if I were to loan myself money, and then try to make purchases with it.

I think the thing you would be referencing if you weren't sick or distracted would be that preview of the example starting town, where the mayor was listed as an "8th level Rogue", but was presented without any daily powers, and significantly fewer encounter/utility powers than an 8th level PC rogue would have. Now, I really have no valid argument as to why this should be the case, except that a class' daily powers are balanced for a party to be using them sparingly, here and there among multiple encounters, and having drastic effects on those encounters. If a group of villains with straight up PC class rules attacked, there'd be no meta-incentive for the DM to keep them from using daily powers every round, since the DM knows they're going to probably lose the fight anyway, and won't need to roll out another encounter against more enemies later, which would be a concern for PCs. This provides an in-game explanation in a roundabout way for why NPCs with PC classes aren't listed as having Daily powers... they're worried that if they use them now, they won't have them later, and by the time they realize they're losing and need to pull out all the stops, it's too late anyway (they're too wounded to preform the maneuver, since they're not as hardcore as PCs are, or something like that.)

I'd also submit that the town mayor was not intended to be presented as a human with 8 levels in rogue, but as something worth the experience and notice of an 8th level party, due partly to abilities and powers, but mainly due to attack bonus, defenses, influence in the town and so on.

Basically, I think your problem with the game is one of perception. The game of 4th edition is one shaded with heavier abstraction than you might be used to or want, but that doesn't mean the world automatically stops working because a tool provided by the ruleset for use with PCs of a certain level is inconsistent when not applied to the PCs of that appropriate level.

It's kind of like the problem you've mentioned in the past of Dretches and Lemures being unable to hurt each other mechanically, despite the fluff saying they engage each other in the Blood War and successfully kill each other. The whole Blood War doesn't stop from a fluff standpoint because they realize they're never getting anywhere with it... Lemures and Dretches successfully tear each other apart fluff-wise, in the same way level 22 Veteran Legion Devils most likely mow through legions of Level 4 soldier orcs fluffwise, while crunch-wise it'd last roughly long enough for one of his opponents to roll a 20.

Just because it's a system designed to primarily model events which directly influence and are influenced by the PCs, that doesn't mean common sense rather than the rules can dictate events which happen outside their sphere of knowledge or influence. A system which can simultaneously model all actions both in and out of the PC's sphere of knowledge and influence would not be an easy system to design, and in my opinion, would not be a desirable system to play in or run. This opinion of mine is certainly not universal. I simply disagree with the sentiment that 3rd edition was meaningfully more attentive to the idea of modeling systems for use by the entire imaginary world than 4th edition is.

Xuincherguixe
2008-06-03, 06:09 AM
What makes me sad about 4th edition is that I can't give a Beholder Monk levels, since there's no Monk class. I know there's the nonsense of a Beholder Fighter, but it's just not the same.

That being said, it sounds like they hacking apart all kinds of plot, because it's "stuff that doesn't affect the players." Which is dumb, because that can be used to help form ideas.

As I understand it, that was the reason why they removed the bloodwar. Player's couldn't fight in it.

Yeah, it gets pretty dumb when the game isn't about the players. But the world shouldn't revolve around them.

Fortunately, if there's some incoherent module where the possibility of the players not bringing that loaf of bread to the Beholder Knight isn't even considered, adapatable DMs can say that he was able to find some other food, rather than starve to death as later, it teaches them the secret in Beholder's using armor, so that they can defeat the Black Beholder Knight.

... I think I need to design modules.

Sebastian
2008-06-03, 07:50 AM
A point where the pc-centricness of 4e really shine is IMHO magic items.

By the reward rules (a little too rigid to call them guidelines imho) PC only find items of level above their, so I wonder, does any NPC ever have items of their level, does that tribe of hobgoblin don't have a shaman to create them some magic weapon/armor/trinket for them? Even if monsters don't need magic weapons/armor for that (IMHO stupid) thresold rule what about the other abilities, like gain damage resistance for 1 round and similiar? Or the other kind of magic items like boot of jumping? to say that those items are useless for the pcs and so they just ignore them is patentely false, with the disenchant magic item ritual with i.e. 20 level 5 items (edit: not sure about that, replace "20" with "enough") you have enough residuum to create a level 10 item, or to use in some other ritual, and if NPC can't use magic items (apparently the extra die on a critical works only for PCs, maybe that is true even on the other powers, I don't remember that) then who is creatign all those that the pcs use? And why? Who spend 2.000.000 millions gold pieces for a sword that nobody, but half a dozen people in the world can use?
Of course if nobody can use magic item would explain the crappy selling price

P.S. as a unrelated note, it seems that with every edition magic item get lamer and lamer, just look at example to the gauntlet of ogre power, in AD&D they give 18/00 strenght-to appropriate checks only, (cool!) In 3e +2 strength. (well, that is nice, I think), in 4e +1 to athletics checks (this gloves make you jump higher) and once a day a +5 to damage. (WTF!?)

p.p.s. And the rules to limit uses of magic item daily powers are just dumb. There is no way around it.

Roderick_BR
2008-06-03, 08:13 AM
PC-centric? Like in the past 3 versions?
Different rules for PCs, NPCs, and monsters? Like in the past 3 versions?
A world that revolve around the PCs? Like in the past 3 versions? (this one is just a matter of bad DMing)
:smalltongue:

AKA_Bait
2008-06-03, 08:47 AM
The usual concern mentioned with such a claim is that the PCs run on a different system than the NPCs. This is not true. PCs run on a different system than Monsters. You can easily create an NPC with the PC creation rules, and throw them at the party.


This is not exactly true. Although you could create an NPC with the PC class creation rules the game does not seem to be balanced for it. If you look at the back of the DMG (p. 182) there are specific rules for giving class levels to 'monsters' (note that all of the PC races are also 'monsters'). Or, more accuratley, applying the class level template to monsters.

I don't actually know how the balance would work if you created NPCs using the PC creation rules. They might or might not be overpowered for the level expectations but I suspect they would be.


PC-centric? Like in the past 3 versions?
Different rules for PCs, NPCs, and monsters? Like in the past 3 versions?
A world that revolve around the PCs? Like in the past 3 versions? (this one is just a matter of bad DMing)
:smalltongue:

This is not exactly true. 3.x functioned under a unified system. I'll admit that LA and racial HD didn't work all that well in practice, but let's not pretend there wasn't the attempt at a unified mechanic.

EvilElitest
2008-06-03, 10:08 AM
I hope so because, sorry, but I didn't really understand what you just said.
fair enough, i'm really not feeling well
basically, in 3E, a drow, or a better example would be a goblin, wizard would simply be a goblin with a few levels in wizard, and in theory could work exactly the same as the PC wizards, race aside. In 4E, the Pc wizard and the NPC wizards are entirely different. While the PC gets a niffty powers and abilities to help them customize and become a high powered version of awesome. However, Monsters abilities are based around how they are going to affect the PCs directly. Now i'm not saying NPCs shouldn't interact and work with (or against) the PCs. However i don't think their mechanical build, the thing that decides their powers should be focused upon simply how they are going to interact with the PC is very inconsistent, they should have their own powers and abilities that they should logically have. This doesn't inhibited the PCs and allows them to seem like realistic characters. From a rule standpoint it allows the creatures to exist other than fodder. It is unrealistic that most monsters will have abilities only related to fighting hte PCs, i mean would any PC design their character like that?




That being said, how the heck is the game not about the PCs? How on Earth is having a rule system designed around them and for them a bad thing? It certinally isn't in my book. Now, I want said system to be consistant when applied to anything else, beholder or otherwise.
your confusing two ideas. The game should be focused on the PC, as a DM should try to keep them entertained and happy. However the world, the in game location shouldn't be PC centric. A game being focus on the PC is expected, however the world within game shouldn't. It is like FR being disgned from an in game perspective to please half a dozen guys



You could certinally give a Beholder levels in rogue (or fighter, or cleric), you generally wouldn't (as its not a humanoid monster), but you certinally could. In the same way you can give a unicorn paladin levels (and IIRC there is an example of that in the MM). Now, would you expect a beholder's abilities to be derived from the PC creation rules? Heavens no, that would be awful. I would hate a game where something as potent as a beholder played like a wizard or something of its level.
1) Actually i think Beholders have some special unique relationship to class, or is that just mages?
2) The thing is, you should at least have the option to give any monster able to take classes (not things like oozes) classes, just expect them to suffer the consiquences. I suppose the Beholder could levitate his axe, but really it would be a bad idea
3) Wait a second, a beholder wizard would be a challenge. However the point remains, the beholder wizard might bother you, excite me, but hte point remains the option of creating one should exist. If you think your DM is being a total sadist, then that is between you and him, not the rules themselves


In 4ed, they did alot of things I vhemenantly hate, but having the PCs at the center of their design philosophy (as much legitimancy as there even is in that claim) wasn't one of them.
I think it is, because it makes the game like i video game in terms of world consistency. You know how if you look at Zelda, and it occurs to you "how on earth would this society function logically? It couldn't the world is designed to please the player. The world lacks logical depth. Now this is fine in Zelda, which is an amazing series, because well......its a single player video game. But in a table top RPG?




Your first point is not true unless you want it to be. Every Drow Wizard can follow the PC-creation rules if you want them to. Only difference is that now they don't have to so if I want to play differently than you I can.


1) True, but form all accounts i'd have to remake the MM and the powers/abilities
2) More importantly, i could do this, that doesn't change the design focus




I think the sticking point here is that you're not successfully establishing that 4th edition D&D really does restrict you from applying the rules of the PCs to the rest of the world any more than 3rd or any other edition does. In fact, I think you're falsely assuming that the idea of applying PC rules to Monsters actually makes any sense. Give a Beholder Fighter levels and it can wear Plate armor and wield Military weapons... despite not having a torso or limbs, it knows how it would move in them if it had those limbs. If a Devil became an Infernal-pact Warlock, it'd be making a pact with... its own kind. It'd be like if I were to loan myself money, and then try to make purchases with it.

1) See above
2) actually for most monsters it makes perfect sense. A beholder fighter would have the attacks of a fighter, he just couldn't actually attack. IE it would be unspeakable stupid for him to be a fighter. I don't think they actually can take fighter even. However a goblins, hobgoblins, gnome ect
3) A devil would make a pact with another devil, but i think that class would simply be off limits to them due to special circumstances (IE, there is a logical reason)
4) I know that some monsters, like Oozes and animals shouldn't have classes of course. but those are for different reasons then the ones i'm complaining about





I think the thing you would be referencing if you weren't sick or distracted would be that preview of the example starting town, where the mayor was listed as an "8th level Rogue", but was presented without any daily powers, and significantly fewer encounter/utility powers than an 8th level PC rogue would have.
actually i was referring to hte previews but that works i suppose

rest later
from
EE

Indon
2008-06-03, 10:19 AM
PC-centric? Like in the past 3 versions?
Different rules for PCs, NPCs, and monsters? Like in the past 3 versions?
A world that revolve around the PCs? Like in the past 3 versions? (this one is just a matter of bad DMing)
:smalltongue:

So, where in the MM is it listed which mob classes get Endurance as a class ability? I probably just missed it, but that might be important if my PC's ever use poison.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-03, 10:52 AM
So, where in the MM is it listed which mob classes get Endurance as a class ability? I probably just missed it, but that might be important if my PC's ever use poison.

Monster creation rules, DMG. You pick some skills, so, if the mob you made has endurance, he uses it trained, if he doesn't, he rolls untrained. Simple as that.

Jorkens
2008-06-03, 10:58 AM
Now i'm not saying NPCs shouldn't interact and work with (or against) the PCs. However i don't think their mechanical build, the thing that decides their powers should be focused upon simply how they are going to interact with the PC is very inconsistent, they should have their own powers and abilities that they should logically have. This doesn't inhibited the PCs and allows them to seem like realistic characters. From a rule standpoint it allows the creatures to exist other than fodder. It is unrealistic that most monsters will have abilities only related to fighting hte PCs, i mean would any PC design their character like that?
I'd say that this is an example of a PC-centric rule that could be used to describe a non-PC centric universe except that it's badly designed. (And again I can't say how bad it is because I haven't read the MM).

If you're creating 500 soldiers to take part in a battle, you don't give them each individual stats, take note of which ones have higher or lower cha, which ones are actually farmers in peacetime, which are blacksmiths and which are hunters. You haven't individually given them ranks in knowledge or languages spoken to reflect their backgrounds. Essentially what you'll know about most of them is what's relevant to the situation you're trying to describe. They'll be 500 little hitting things with swords machines that have appeared from nowhere. They've appeared out of thin air with no skills or characteristics that aren't relevant to their current role in the story.

That's from a mechanical point of view.

From an in-world point of view, you may know that these are mostly agricultural labourers who've been conscripted by their local lords. You may know that a lot of villagers might go hungry if the war continues through the harvest and they aren't around to bring the crops in. You know there will be a lot of social problems if something isn't done to help the families of the dead and wounded. You know that all these people have some social role. You just aren't bothering to represent that mechanically.

Likewise, if it bothers you that orcs are appearing to attack your party in places where they have no reason to be, that isn't a mechanical problem, it's a DM problem. Nothing in the rules tells you that they shouldn't have a reason to be there, it's just that they don't tell you precisely why they would be anywhere. And explaining why they are there is IMO a job for the DM, not the rules.

If the rules don't describe out-of-combat skills that monsters have that are liable to be relevant to the PC (so if they don't mention the stealth abilities of monsters who are likely to be spying on them, for instance, or the social organization of the tribe they might be dealing with) then that's bad design, but it's not PC-centric design.

two_fishes
2008-06-03, 11:13 AM
no i mean that in the story telling style, IE there are no mechanics, just story telling. You know, if me you, and half a dozen other guys get around a table and simply tell stories, rules out the window, that would be a story telling game
from
EE

You're wrong. This is an idea I see a lot, and it bugs me.

If a few people sit around and simply tell stories, rules out the window, then that is not a story-telling game. That is just story-telling.

A good story-telling game should have rules that actually direct/affect/guide the telling of a story. Interaction of rules with the creation of a narrative is what makes it a game. If you remove the rules from the equation, you remove the game.

Whenever I hear something like we played the whole session without touching the dice, I wonder, why'd you bother shelling out all those dollars for those pretty books?

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 03:31 PM
4e's an abstract system. Trying to run it as anything else will cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, and possible "leakage."

When I run 4e, the game mechanics exist for me to be able to resolve actions at the table quickly, easily, and reasonably, so I can focus on the world, my NPCs, the players, and the fun (most of all). They do NOT exist to simulate the world. That's my job. Fourth Edition steps the hell back and lets me do my thing.

It doesn't present stats for an NPC I don't expect to get into combat (or whom I don't expect to contribute meaningfully to combat) because I don't need those stats. It doesn't present every conceivable ability a monster has access to, because the time I'll be in a pinch is when I need to know what it does in combat. The rest of the time I'll select something reasonable; if my ability to select something reasonable is called into question, then I'm hardly better equipped to select appropriate Hit Dice, classes, feats, spells, prestige classes, templates, etc., than I am to select the final results.

Will it seem reasonable that a succubus will seduce people? Then I'll have her seduce people. Do I need her to seduce a PC? Then I'll target his defense, and oh, look! Here's a handy table on page 42, with the DC, based on her level and whether I want it to be easy/normal/hard to resist. I skipped calculating her Hit Dice and adding her Charisma modifier, and got the exact same thing at the end: a DC that's reasonable.

I'm not here to run a simulation. It very much does interest me to know how an NPC was trained, or where he got his unique possessions, and so on. However, I don't need the rules to provide a simulation for me to determine these answers. I'll decide what I need for the campaign, just like you did while you chose classes and feats and prestige classes and spells. I'll end up with the same result.

If you and I sat down and ran a joint DM session, and I ran combat with NPCs generated with 4e's fast-and-loose methods, and you ran NPCs created lovingly by hand using the same rules the PCs use, my players wouldn't really know the difference. Furthermore, it's absurd to insinuate that your characters would be roleplayed better. (Or, to put the argument in the proper light, if you handed your characters to me, it's absurd to insinuate that I'd run your characters better than I ran my own just because they were created with more rules.)

We get it: some people like their rules to have a simulation focus, and 4e is very much not that kind of system. We get it. Please don't shoehorn in additional premises based on that. Roleplay is in the hands of the players; the mechanics can do naught but get in/out of the way, their complexity or simplicity nonwithstanding. Monopoly is not better suited for roleplay than chess merely because it has more rules. Third does not foster roleplay better than Fourth, any more than FATAL fosters roleplay better than Third by virtue of being more complex. Reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum).

(sits back and waits for his point to be completely disregarded in favor of arguing the appropriateness of his link)

kc0bbq
2008-06-03, 03:59 PM
Whenever I hear something like we played the whole session without touching the dice, I wonder, why'd you bother shelling out all those dollars for those pretty books?Why, in a situation where the character is skilled enough to know if he's losing or winning are die rolls necessary? Skill minimizes the effects of randomness.

Amber DRPG distilled to it's most basic: "You're less skilled than your opponent. He's starting to break down your defenses. You need to get out of this situation before he kills you."

Even high level D&D can be represented in the gestalt. Sometimes you don't need to slow things down to roll a lot of dice.

Deepblue706
2008-06-03, 04:43 PM
I sympathize with EE's concerns, although I have no 4E books and know little about the rules, so I can't quite determine whether or not the idea has any merit.

I don't have any concerns about 4E overtly attempting to encourage DMs to make huge logical inconsistencies in the campaign setting in order to give PCs just a bit of extra attention (or whatever), although I do believe there is a possibility the very composition of the rulebooks and the details provided on game-building could result in some DMs developing an unsavory style. How possible that is could be very difficult to determine, and to make a fair judgment, you also need to take into account what the rulebooks of earlier editions happen to encourage to an average reader, as well (ie DMs starting with 4E may care too little about the world around the PCs, while those that began with 3E could seem too fixated on insignificant details in the eyes of 2E players, etc).

Whatever the case may be, it might be a while before I take any real stance on this, if ever (I'm not sure I want to purchase 4E books). Honestly, I don't think many people who expressed concern about 4E being too PC-centric really thought it to be absolutely certain, but rather, saw a few details and had a hunch that things could go bad. Personally, I think there are going to plenty of details I will think totally suck upon reading them. Do I have proof that they will, here and now? Hell no! But, I will say that while I can't rightly judge a person by their taste of music alone, I can't say I like anybody who enjoys listening to Britney Spears. It just never works out. Sometimes, people will notice things that make them leery or suspicious about stuff, and I don't think it's really all-that-wrong to occassionally say, "Hey, this might really suck." However, I'm not going to say I really support much more than that.

Roderick_BR
2008-06-03, 05:13 PM
So, where in the MM is it listed which mob classes get Endurance as a class ability? I probably just missed it, but that might be important if my PC's ever use poison.
Your PCs check the MM?
Just give it as a bonus feat.

@ AKA_Bait: True, but it didn't keep my DMs from making silly encounters, like an adult green dragon against a group of 1st level characters, or the one time I almost TPKed a 10th level party with four CL 5 ogres.

Istari
2008-06-03, 05:57 PM
It doesn't present stats for an NPC I don't expect to get into combat

But what if your pc's decide that this guy isnt paying them enough or is annoying them and they attack them?

tyckspoon
2008-06-03, 06:05 PM
But what if your pc's decide that this guy isnt paying them enough or is annoying them and they attack them?

Is there any reason he should be able to resist them? No? Then they kill him (subdue him, knock out his teeth and take his money, whatever it is they wanted to do.) If he should be strong enough to fight them, then maybe you want to have his stats ready beforehand (because he's strong enough to be significant to the players as possibly more than social interaction) and there is nothing in 4E stopping you from doing that.

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 07:14 PM
Is there any reason he should be able to resist them? No? Then they kill him (subdue him, knock out his teeth and take his money, whatever it is they wanted to do.) If he should be strong enough to fight them, then maybe you want to have his stats ready beforehand (because he's strong enough to be significant to the players as possibly more than social interaction) and there is nothing in 4E stopping you from doing that.

Couldn't say it better myself. The first question covers most cases I was initially referring to anyway. An NPC can be a normal person who happens to craft amazing items, and I can assume that if a legendary swordsman stabs him, he's dead, and no one calls me out for the modifier to Craft(stuff) he'd need to produce the item in question. Life's great when the players don't treat the rules as a simulation. :D

EvilElitest
2008-06-03, 10:14 PM
ok, feeling better now, new point


I think the thing you would be referencing if you weren't sick or distracted would be that preview of the example starting town, where the mayor was listed as an "8th level Rogue", but was presented without any daily powers, and significantly fewer encounter/utility powers than an 8th level PC rogue would have. Now, I really have no valid argument as to why this should be the case, except that a class' daily powers are balanced for a party to be using them sparingly, here and there among multiple encounters, and having drastic effects on those encounters. If a group of villains with straight up PC class rules attacked, there'd be no meta-incentive for the DM to keep them from using daily powers every round, since the DM knows they're going to probably lose the fight anyway, and won't need to roll out another encounter against more enemies later, which would be a concern for PCs. This provides an in-game explanation in a roundabout way for why NPCs with PC classes aren't listed as having Daily powers... they're worried that if they use them now, they won't have them later, and by the time they realize they're losing and need to pull out all the stops, it's too late anyway (they're too wounded to preform the maneuver, since they're not as hardcore as PCs are, or something like that.)
That is the very reason why i think a PC centric world is a bad idea, because the daily powers are created only to serve them. The idea of using meta incentive to determine how the villains fight is extremly bad form. It relies on meta game logic, rather than in world logic or sense. The idea of making the world revolve around the PCs, instead of simply a PC centered game, because the world itself is centered via rules upon the PC. THis is a very shallow view sadly, because it makes the world like one in a video game, where everything is focused simply upon how they convenience the PCs. NPC shouldn't exist within game mechanically simply as foils for the PCs.

1) The villains have a good reason to not use their powers. LIke the PCs they need to preserve their abilities in case of another fight. But your right, if desperate, they would use their abilities.
2) no offense intended, your reasoning only sounds like an excuse, trying to make up with bad game play decisions. And while the reason my content you, it can't act as a shield for bad game descions



I'd also submit that the town mayor was not intended to be presented as a human with 8 levels in rogue, but as something worth the experience and notice of an 8th level party, due partly to abilities and powers, but mainly due to attack bonus, defenses, influence in the town and so on.
Not offense, but that seems like an excuse for WotC's incompetence. What WotC should have done is make NPC classes, or stuff that doesn't directly revolve around the PCs. I mean the extend of PC centric attitude is almost absurd, such as the removal of the gods the designers didn't think were important for the PCs.



Basically, I think your problem with the game is one of perception. The game of 4th edition is one shaded with heavier abstraction than you might be used to or want, but that doesn't mean the world automatically stops working because a tool provided by the ruleset for use with PCs of a certain level is inconsistent when not applied to the PCs of that appropriate level.
You can't make a world' consistency rely on Abstraction, at least not a mechinically focused one like D&D. A game like WoD maybe, or soemthing like that, but D&D isn't suited to the idea of abstractions, and only gives us an inconsistent world



It's kind of like the problem you've mentioned in the past of Dretches and Lemures being unable to hurt each other mechanically, despite the fluff saying they engage each other in the Blood War and successfully kill each other. The whole Blood War doesn't stop from a fluff standpoint because they realize they're never getting anywhere with it... Lemures and Dretches successfully tear each other apart fluff-wise, in the same way level 22 Veteran Legion Devils most likely mow through legions of Level 4 soldier orcs fluffwise, while crunch-wise it'd last roughly long enough for one of his opponents to roll a 20.

Except that doesn't make sense. Because of WotC' sloppy rule mechanics, the mechanics of both creatures, the things that define their abilities make it so they literally can't hurt each other. While a Devil might destroy some low level soilders, they literally can do that mechanic wise, but Lemures and Dretches literally can't hurt each other


Just because it's a system designed to primarily model events which directly influence and are influenced by the PCs, that doesn't mean common sense rather than the rules can dictate events which happen outside their sphere of knowledge or influence. A system which can simultaneously model all actions both in and out of the PC's sphere of knowledge and influence would not be an easy system to design, and in my opinion, would not be a desirable system to play in or run. This opinion of mine is certainly not universal. I simply disagree with the sentiment that 3rd edition was meaningfully more attentive to the idea of modeling systems for use by the entire imaginary world than 4th
D&D is a game desnged around rules and how rules effect the world around the PCs. The rule designes are the very thing that effects teh world, not story telling, because then we are leaving the fundamentals of the system. Consistent rules and consistent powers make a far more logical world than rules that only focus upon half a dozen guys in game and out


P.S. as a unrelated note, it seems that with every edition magic item get lamer and lamer, just look at example to the gauntlet of ogre power, in AD&D they give 18/00 strenght-to appropriate checks only, (cool!) In 3e +2 strength. (well, that is nice, I think), in 4e +1 to athletics checks (this gloves make you jump higher) and once a day a +5 to damage. (WTF!?


I've been saying this for ages, it seems like the problem comes because the items simply become things of convence, like FF items , instead of things of wonder. 2E magic items were awesome, i like the way they actually screwed people over a lot



If you're creating 500 soldiers to take part in a battle, you don't give them each individual stats, take note of which ones have higher or lower cha, which ones are actually farmers in peacetime, which are blacksmiths and which are hunters. You haven't individually given them ranks in knowledge or languages spoken to reflect their backgrounds. Essentially what you'll know about most of them is what's relevant to the situation you're trying to describe. They'll be 500 little hitting things with swords machines that have appeared from nowhere. They've appeared out of thin air with no skills or characteristics that aren't relevant to their current role in the story.

1) Well generally this is one of the things to be expected from mass battles, which is why they aren't advisable
2) But more to the point, just make a generic solider and copy and paste his stats for teh adverate troop. You the Dm can choose to save time by not including information, but if it ever comes up, you must assume it is still there



From an in-world point of view, you may know that these are mostly agricultural labourers who've been conscripted by their local lords. You may know that a lot of villagers might go hungry if the war continues through the harvest and they aren't around to bring the crops in. You know there will be a lot of social problems if something isn't done to help the families of the dead and wounded. You know that all these people have some social role. You just aren't bothering to represent that mechanically.
However i also know that both them and the PCs follow uniform rules I'm not using there rules because i'm not involving them yet, but the rules still exist


Likewise, if it bothers you that orcs are appearing to attack your party in places where they have no reason to be, that isn't a mechanical problem, it's a DM problem. Nothing in the rules tells you that they shouldn't have a reason to be there, it's just that they don't tell you precisely why they would be anywhere. And explaining why they are there is IMO a job for the DM, not the rules.

Except that the rules make the orcs existent soly to exist mechanically to be tied to the PCs


If the rules don't describe out-of-combat skills that monsters have that are liable to be relevant to the PC (so if they don't mention the stealth abilities of monsters who are likely to be spying on them, for instance, or the social organization of the tribe they might be dealing with) then that's bad design, but it's not PC-centric design.

actually it is PC centric, because the Rules are existing only in how the relate to the PCs, not in how they relate to the world


You're wrong. This is an idea I see a lot, and it bugs me.

If a few people sit around and simply tell stories, rules out the window, then that is not a story-telling game. That is just story-telling.

A good story-telling game should have rules that actually direct/affect/guide the telling of a story. Interaction of rules with the creation of a narrative is what makes it a game. If you remove the rules from the equation, you remove the game.

Whenever I hear something like we played the whole session without touching the dice, I wonder, why'd you bother shelling out all those dollars for those pretty books?
No, telling a story is if Me and half a dozen guys get around and tell different story one at a time, however should I tell an interactive story, there are no rules but drama, but in D&D that isn't how the game is generally designed

Ruki, I refuse to respond to you until you take back the FATAl comment, because that is simply offensive. FATAL is crap because of terrible understanding of games and more importantly, bigotry, immaturity, and bad design, not a sign of stimulation
from
EE

Jack Mann
2008-06-03, 10:46 PM
FATAL is bad for many reasons. Its attempts at simulation are among them, even if they aren't as egregious as the misogyny, racism, juvenile humor and poor grasp of mechanics. Much of the character creation system (let alone things like combat) took up a great deal of time to model things that were better left out. When the simulationist aspect of the game gets in the way of enjoying the game, that's bad. Some games are even worse in that respect, requiring one to look at several different tables and make a dice roll simply to move forward. Combat in such systems often takes hours for one round (or nearest equivalent in the game system).

This isn't to say that simulationist games are bad, per se. Some manage to be quite playable. But when a game tries too hard to model reality, it inevitably becomes unplayable, as reality is too complex a system for the rules to handle. They have to be abstract to some extent.

The only real question is how much abstraction and how much simulation you want.

Kabump
2008-06-03, 10:47 PM
actually it is PC centric, because the Rules are existing only in how the relate to the PCs, not in how they relate to the world


You make this argument over and over, yet I have yet to see you give ANY concrete examples of how this is true. Could you please post an example or two so I can see what you mean? And something that can be covered in 3.5 that it cant in 4? I just want to try and understand your argument is all, and as it stands now you just keep repeating how its pc-centric and video game like, and i just dont see that from what I have read in the rules. Now I'll be the first to admit that dont own a DM guide, as I have not DMed, so I am HARDLY an expert on monsters, npcs and the differences between the editions, as such it probably explains my confusion. If I have missed your examples in error I apologize, im not trying to call you out, just merely wish to understand your view because my (admittedly limited) understanding just cannot agree with what you are saying.

Jack Zander
2008-06-03, 10:50 PM
The only real question is how much abstraction and how much simulation you want.

Good question. For me it would be as much simulation as possible before the rules get bogged down. I personally thought 3e did an excellent job at this.

Theres no reason 4e couldn't have stremlined the rules of 3e while keeping it a simulationist feel.

Sebastian
2008-06-04, 01:44 AM
You make this argument over and over, yet I have yet to see you give ANY concrete examples of how this is true.

Well, the first example that come to me is the vampire lord "blood sucking" attack. The way it si wrote it works against skeleton, ozees, stone golems, etc, etc, i.e. any creature, either they have blood or they haven't.
I don't have the books with me right now but I'm sure that looking at mosnters you would see examples that would make monster vs monster combat a little weird, but maybe it is not a fair comparison becasue even pcs vs monsters fight come out a little weird I must still understand how do you exactly "knock down" a gelatinous cube or a swarm (spinning sweep(?)) or "slow" a ghost with a hit to the legs (steel serpent strike).
Many of the powers in many situations don't make sense, you can try to rationalize them but you must strecht believability to the breaking point, at least for me.

Jerthanis
2008-06-04, 03:25 AM
1) See above
2) actually for most monsters it makes perfect sense. A beholder fighter would have the attacks of a fighter, he just couldn't actually attack. IE it would be unspeakable stupid for him to be a fighter. I don't think they actually can take fighter even. However a goblins, hobgoblins, gnome ect
3) A devil would make a pact with another devil, but i think that class would simply be off limits to them due to special circumstances (IE, there is a logical reason)
4) I know that some monsters, like Oozes and animals shouldn't have classes of course. but those are for different reasons then the ones i'm complaining about

As far as your first point goes, I disagree, and believe you're making an incorrect or at least incomplete assumption. So far as I can tell, monsters have listed in their stat blocks which trained skills they have, means of communication (languages, telepathy, ect), interaction with others of their kind... and so on. There are creatures who have abilities obviously not intended to focus/effect the PCs (Aboleths creating mental slaves, Vampires creating spawn, Mindflayers and their thralls, rituals to become a Deathknight) are as included as they ever were. They CAN apply these to PCs obviously, but that's kind of the end for that PC in most cases anyway.

I'm afraid I also disagree about the idea of a Beholder Fighter making sense. The Fighter class confers extremely specific abilities which represent a type of training that is specific to a humanoid form... wearing armor, wielding weapons, in 4th edition it also conveys special abilities to stop those who try to move past you, a special talent with a specific type of weapon, and abilities related to interrupting attacks on allies. More than that, the Fighter class a human takes is an extensive training period, most likely beginning in the character's youth and consisting of footwork, stances, and muscle memory of fighting techniques. Without having done the drills, it's impossible for someone to know how to perform these techniques. Wouldn't it make more sense for a creature to progress in its own fashion, gaining, say, extra powers unique to its body type and special abilities?

Really, applying PC rules to anything that isn't a humanoid with humanlike intelligence makes no sense to me at all, and breaks (wait for it...) verisimilitude.



That is the very reason why i think a PC centric world is a bad idea, because the daily powers are created only to serve them. The idea of using meta incentive to determine how the villains fight is extremly bad form. It relies on meta game logic, rather than in world logic or sense. The idea of making the world revolve around the PCs, instead of simply a PC centered game, because the world itself is centered via rules upon the PC. THis is a very shallow view sadly, because it makes the world like one in a video game, where everything is focused simply upon how they convenience the PCs. NPC shouldn't exist within game mechanically simply as foils for the PCs.

1) The villains have a good reason to not use their powers. LIke the PCs they need to preserve their abilities in case of another fight. But your right, if desperate, they would use their abilities.
2) no offense intended, your reasoning only sounds like an excuse, trying to make up with bad game play decisions. And while the reason my content you, it can't act as a shield for bad game descions

Well, it's not exactly that NPCs all having Daily powers is unbalanced, Wizards in 3rd edition had daily powers they didn't need to conserve... and trust me, compared with the stuff I'm getting hit with in KotS, I wouldn't mind having the occasional tougher enemy use Brute Strike... I just don't mind that instead he's an undead guy that adds 5 ongoing Necrotic Damage because that's how he rolls.

So if you want, give them all the daily powers they'd normally have... it's just that it makes them way more dangerous, and increases the level they're worth challenging the party with. If you don't want a fight to wipe the party out, you'll probably, at this point, lower the NPC party's level and you've got basically the same thing anyway.

Two exactly equal enemies will obliterate each other, so if you put the party of a Fighter, a Wizard, a Cleric, and a Rogue against a duplicate party of the same level, with the same abilities, odds are about 50/50 they're gonna get wiped. Reducing dailies means the PCs can have the edge they need without needing to reduce level, which would affect defenses, HP totals and so on.

The game designers basically approached the game saying, "We want PCs to all have powerful, interesting abilities which can change the tides of battle if needed." and to create an interesting and fun game, they had to limit those abilities against the PCs in some way, or scrap the system in its entirety. If you've got the ability to create a system that can do this while pleasing everyone... well, let me suggest a career in the gaming industry might be a suitable one for you to pursue. I'd warn you, RPG fans are a critical bunch of people.



Not offense, but that seems like an excuse for WotC's incompetence. What WotC should have done is make NPC classes, or stuff that doesn't directly revolve around the PCs. I mean the extend of PC centric attitude is almost absurd, such as the removal of the gods the designers didn't think were important for the PCs.

Okay, this just isn't true. There are still evil gods, it's just they don't get their long descriptions in the PHB. They still are named and have short descriptions. Considering the fact that which god you worship doesn't affect your mechanics anymore, you could easily create a Cleric of Orcus using only the PHB (assuming your DM let you change instances of Radiant damage to Necrotic, or some such) Gods are part of a Setting, the PHB isn't a setting book. It is a book used to help players create PCs. The DMG is probably a setting book to some extent, yet to be seen.



You can't make a world' consistency rely on Abstraction, at least not a mechinically focused one like D&D. A game like WoD maybe, or soemthing like that, but D&D isn't suited to the idea of abstractions, and only gives us an inconsistent world

*beats head against wall* Why is it that you assume that D&D is is a mechanically focused simulation styled game? It was never good at doing that, and has had countless abstracted mechanics and concepts throughout its entire lifespan. In fact, a tendency toward abstraction (I feel) enhances the feeling of realism capable in a ruleset. If you define every aspect of actions, and set every limit in scientifically worded terms, you get phenomenon like the "Ball of Commoners" rolling across the terrain at supersonic speeds by trading the control of their massive grapple to each other, or the decimation of a forest in six seconds by crafting every tree into an absurd number of quarterstaves. You claim heavy levels of abstraction make sense in a game like WoD, and I say, "Yes! WoD has some of the more realistic mechanics I know of, because it doesn't try to define every aspect of reality in terms of its own mechanics" Do you really want verisimilitude, realism and logic, or do you just want the illogic you're used to?



Except that doesn't make sense. Because of WotC' sloppy rule mechanics, the mechanics of both creatures, the things that define their abilities make it so they literally can't hurt each other. While a Devil might destroy some low level soilders, they literally can do that mechanic wise, but Lemures and Dretches literally can't hurt each other

YES! And the Blood War (in 3rd edition) still goes on despite this mechanical oversight. If, as you're suggesting, actions which occur in the game world occur following every rule as written in the books with no abstraction or variation... every instance of the Blood War would be a bunch of dudes sitting around playing cards to pass the time, instead of the brutal struggle of murder and pain that it is. The thing that makes this possible? Abstraction, beautiful abstraction.



D&D is a game desnged around rules and how rules effect the world around the PCs. The rule designes are the very thing that effects teh world, not story telling, because then we are leaving the fundamentals of the system. Consistent rules and consistent powers make a far more logical world than rules that only focus upon half a dozen guys in game and out

No, attempting to define rules to govern the interactions of everything in the world is too large a goal for a game to accomplish. The greatest minds of the entire history of human culture has not yet succeeded at defining consistent rules for every aspect of our own universe, and we certainly don't have magic or dragons mucking things up for us. The fact is, and you refuse to acknowledge this, is that D&D is meant to be, and is, a game system meant to tell stories. This makes it a storytelling game. In 2nd edition, we had a name for people who would insist on applying the rules to every situation as they were written in the book. It was "Rules Lawyer" and it was one of the more severe insults you could level at a person back in those days.



I've been saying this for ages, it seems like the problem comes because the items simply become things of convence, like FF items , instead of things of wonder. 2E magic items were awesome, i like the way they actually screwed people over a lot

Awesome, Magic items are too powerful for the DM to give out in significant quantities, so he puts only a couple in and they're special, and the Cleric who puts on the Gauntlets of Ogre Power is suddenly better than the Fighter who only has an 18/60 strength (but it'd be a waste for the Fighter to use them... that's only, like +1 to hit and +2 damage for HIM, but is probably +3 to hit and +6 damage for the cleric, so it's way more helpful for the Cleric, so would be selfish of the Fighter to equip them). Then they make Magic items benefit everyone equally, but forget to make them less powerful, so now everyone is decked out in a plethora of magic junk which are half the character's power. People complain and so they scale back magic items so they represent just one aspect of a character's plethora of options (while still being interesting options!), and people complain that magic items aren't "special" like they were when they were absurdly powerful, dwarfed the natural skills of the user, and were completely unbalanced in terms of who got what out of them.

Unappeasable fanbase sounds more true every day...



2) But more to the point, just make a generic solider and copy and paste his stats for teh adverate troop. You the Dm can choose to save time by not including information, but if it ever comes up, you must assume it is still there


That's... exactly what you're complaining about them doing with 4th edition monsters! Making stats for the average troop and assuming that if additional information is needed about specific individuals based on their background or role in their culture, the DM will come up with it himself!



No, telling a story is if Me and half a dozen guys get around and tell different story one at a time, however should I tell an interactive story, there are no rules but drama, but in D&D that isn't how the game is generally designed


Yes, and playing a storytelling game is where you do the same thing, but when Bob, who describes the actions of Joe the Thief says that Joe pries the gem out of the eye of the stone idol, he must allow the system and the main storyteller to arbitrate whether the Kobold Cultists guarding the door hear him and investigate. Still, despite the DM's duty to arbitrate reality and how it interacts, his first responsibility is to always give the players a good story. It has said this plain as day in every DMG I've ever read, except 4th edition, which I haven't read, since it's not out yet. (I suspect it will still be in there, BTW) I don't know why you insist D&D isn't a game about crafting stories, and wonder what you use it for if not that.

This isn't really a response to anything in particular, but I just want to say that I don't mind aspects of the game being taken out which don't generally affect PCs. Then again, I thought the Blood Wars were stupid, so maybe that's just me.

RukiTanuki
2008-06-04, 04:45 PM
Ruki, I refuse to respond to you until you take back the FATAl comment, because that is simply offensive. FATAL is crap because of terrible understanding of games and more importantly, bigotry, immaturity, and bad design, not a sign of stimulation

This may be the single happiest day of my life.

lrellok
2008-06-04, 05:08 PM
I do not feel the game is PC centric, so much as it is MinMaxer centric. I have been a GM for 17 years, and have never seen a less versatile system then this one.

A GM combat NPC (ie a boss) is required to be able to handle 4-6 different ppl using 4-6 completely different attack and defense strategies, all while presenting some chance of defeating said opponents (the PC's). This means they need to have a wide range of offensive, defensive, ranged and melee abilities to choose from at whim, and thus be able to deal with and respond to whatever the party trows at them. This was what made dragons so disgusting, the sheer range of what they could do with no templates or buffs at all.

The number of class abilities allowed alone makes this nearly impossible in 4e. The DM simply does not have enough ability slots to do everything a memorable Boss should be capable of.

Even as a PC, i would feel hamstrung. As i said, i have been a DM for a very long time, and the attitude of taking care of the party carries with me even when i am at the other end of the table. I tend to play things like druids, bards and clerics, and play them as versatile as possible, using as wide a range of abilities as i can to compensate for the Min in my fellow party members MinMaxed builds. Again, this is now almost impossible. There are simply to few options for characters to choose from.

While it is true that from a GM perspective, the game is now player centric, i feel that this is merely a reflection of what type of character a good DM builds vs what type of character many players build.

Project_Mayhem
2008-06-04, 05:14 PM
This may be the single happiest day of my life.

I'm sure theres a Scrubs moment like that. Made me lol anyway.

Edit: And I just leveled up to orc. yay.

I'm gonna contribute too now.

EE, I think you're wrong. This has been explained elsewhere, but I feel you're falling into the trap of assuming that a creatures stats are immutable and define everything about it. That it uses them for everything. This is not the case in 4ed, and in many cases not the case in 3.5ed either. And it certainly wasn't the case in ADnd and ODnD.

At their base, the rules of the game exist to allow adventurers to fight monsters. Remember, the original rules came from a wargame. Over the years, they've expanded to include social encounters and the like - however, at their core they simply exist to allow interaction in a combat situation between players and the DM. I notice you complained about minions, saying that they would die everytime they cut themselves. This falls into the same category - in relation to a combat situation with players these rules apply. Otherwise whatever the hell the DM wants happens.

Jerthanis
2008-06-04, 11:23 PM
I do not feel the game is PC centric, so much as it is MinMaxer centric. I have been a GM for 17 years, and have never seen a less versatile system then this one.

A GM combat NPC (ie a boss) is required to be able to handle 4-6 different ppl using 4-6 completely different attack and defense strategies, all while presenting some chance of defeating said opponents (the PC's). This means they need to have a wide range of offensive, defensive, ranged and melee abilities to choose from at whim, and thus be able to deal with and respond to whatever the party trows at them. This was what made dragons so disgusting, the sheer range of what they could do with no templates or buffs at all.

The number of class abilities allowed alone makes this nearly impossible in 4e. The DM simply does not have enough ability slots to do everything a memorable Boss should be capable of.


...

...

You haven't read Dragon stats yet, have you?

Solo opponents will mess your party up. I don't know where you've been getting your information about this edition in terms of the difficulty, but let me suggest that if you think it's anything but harder than 3rd was, you've probably been misguided.

Rutee
2008-06-04, 11:32 PM
The number of class abilities allowed alone makes this nearly impossible in 4e. The DM simply does not have enough ability slots to do everything a memorable Boss should be capable of.

Dude, Solo monsters break the action economy. As a /design feature/.

Hell, tell me how you make a boss in 3rd ed. One single monster that the party fights, that either a TPK or a walkover, and do so /consistently/.

JaxGaret
2008-06-04, 11:40 PM
Agree with Jerthanis and Rutee.

Have you read the 4e MM/DMG, lrellok?

BardicDuelist
2008-06-04, 11:48 PM
oh come on, complaining about DnD being PC-Centric, is like complaining about pizza cause it has cheese.

I eat pizza without cheese.

JaxGaret
2008-06-04, 11:57 PM
I eat pizza without cheese.

To the pyre! Burn the witch!

SamTheCleric
2008-06-05, 08:11 AM
To the pyre! Burn the witch!

We have found a witch, may we burn her?

...

Also. Solo monsters = win. :)

EvilElitest
2008-06-05, 12:37 PM
You make this argument over and over, yet I have yet to see you give ANY concrete examples of how this is true. Could you please post an example or two so I can see what you mean? And something that can be covered in 3.5 that it cant in 4? I just want to try and understand your argument is all, and as it stands now you just keep repeating how its pc-centric and video game like, and i just dont see that from what I have read in the rules. Now I'll be the first to admit that dont own a DM guide, as I have not DMed, so I am HARDLY an expert on monsters, npcs and the differences between the editions, as such it probably explains my confusion. If I have missed your examples in error I apologize, im not trying to call you out, just merely wish to understand your view because my (admittedly limited) understanding just cannot agree with what you are saying.

Sure, thanks for being polite (through so fair this thread seems surprisingly civil)


You see, in D&D, people's powers are represented by their class or race. For example, if you see a human shoot fire out of his hands, then it is reasonable to guess that he is ether using a magic item, he is some sort of caster, or has some special feat/subrace/ ect that lets him do that. Classes are like ways of getting power. The PCs aren't "Chosen ones" or "one of a kind" from the get go. They might eventually become incredible super powered entities of heroic awesomeness, but when they start out they are still above average but generally normal guys. Now i want to make this clear, they aren't run of the mill. They aren't like the basic commoner and they are better than local militia, but they aren't like Super Heros. Now the adverage human in the world might be a commoner, and the random troops might be warriors or guards, but anyone with real talent will have PC classes (in 3E), like Fighter, Wizards, Cleric ect. In theory each of these classes with have a unique roll but will be still equal in strength (This isn't true do to crappy balance but that is a problem in theory)
Now when the PCs fight other people who have class levels, their foes are still following the same rules, and their abilities aren't custom made for fighting the PCs. Let me expand

If the PCs run across some enemies, it stands to reason that while the enemies are threatening and dangerous, they aren't going to have custom made abilities for fighting the PCs. There mechanical powers will descend from what they would logically have, not for challenging the PCs
Other NPCs should be like the PCs (the more elite ones at least) in terms of abilities. However in 4E, enemies are designed not with the thought of how they would logically act, but how they can interact with hte PCs. Which is inconsistent and generally bad form.





As far as your first point goes, I disagree, and believe you're making an incorrect or at least incomplete assumption. So far as I can tell, monsters have listed in their stat blocks which trained skills they have, means of communication (languages, telepathy, ect), interaction with others of their kind... and so on. There are creatures who have abilities obviously not intended to focus/effect the PCs (Aboleths creating mental slaves, Vampires creating spawn, Mindflayers and their thralls, rituals to become a Deathknight) are as included as they ever were. They CAN apply these to PCs obviously, but that's kind of the end for that PC in most cases anyway.

however their powers and abilities are logical ones, they don't stem from how they would suit hte PCS, but from how they suit the monster in question. The monster's powers are logically produced ones, instead of them being created soley for hte PCs


I'm afraid I also disagree about the idea of a Beholder Fighter making sense. The Fighter class confers extremely specific abilities which represent a type of training that is specific to a humanoid form... wearing armor, wielding weapons, in 4th edition it also conveys special abilities to stop those who try to move past you, a special talent with a specific type of weapon, and abilities related to interrupting attacks on allies. More than that, the Fighter class a human takes is an extensive training period, most likely beginning in the character's youth and consisting of footwork, stances, and muscle memory of fighting techniques. Without having done the drills, it's impossible for someone to know how to perform these techniques. Wouldn't it make more sense for a creature to progress in its own fashion, gaining, say, extra powers unique to its body type and special abilities?

see my other point on Beholder. I understand where your coming from, i could see a beholder fighter using levatation on his axe, or um, biting people, but yeah it is a silly idea. However there is a reason why the Beholder can't take that class, a specific logical reason. He doesn't have any, um, arms. So he ether could take the the class and have a crappy life with it, or not take it at all, but there is a reason however. That isn't what i'm complaining about, i can see where your coming from. But creatures like oozes and rats that can't take classes is at least logically based, but goblins or Bugbears, or even the run of the mill NPC. It is silly
two nit picks

1) Beholders actually can't take the fighter class i think, i think they can only become a few things, mages has some sort of special deal
2) While i see your point about how absurd it is that somebody cna learn abilities in a little time, taht is the principle of D&D's multi classing. Silly i know

Really, applying PC rules to anything that isn't a humanoid with humanlike intelligence makes no sense to me at all, and breaks (wait for it...) verisimilitude.

No i can understand where you coming from in taht angle, through i think your missing a point. Certain creatures shouldn't be able to take certain classes, that i totally understand. A demon can't be a paladin of course. I don't think the limitation for PC classes should be humoinoid but i get your idea. However everything should still be following the same rules



Well, it's not exactly that NPCs all having Daily powers is unbalanced, Wizards in 3rd edition had daily powers they didn't need to conserve... and trust me, compared with the stuff I'm getting hit with in KotS, I wouldn't mind having the occasional tougher enemy use Brute Strike... I just don't mind that instead he's an undead guy that adds 5 ongoing Necrotic Damage because that's how he rolls.

So if you want, give them all the daily powers they'd normally have... it's just that it makes them way more dangerous, and increases the level they're worth challenging the party with. If you don't want a fight to wipe the party out, you'll probably, at this point, lower the NPC party's level and you've got basically the same thing anyway.

That is meta gaming logic and i don't think that should be the design function of a world. It is inconsistent, breaks vermilsitude , ect ect ect.
The NPCs are being designed in comparison to the PCs in terms of usefulness and powers, which is PC centric. If you think that would make them too powerful, they you can fix that without making the world PC centric.

1) Give them NPC classes like in 3E, which are like the lesser trained version of the PC classes. Have dudes with PCs classes still exist, just like the PCs, but be less common
2) Lower their level
3) give some logical explanation taht works in game




Two exactly equal enemies will obliterate each other, so if you put the party of a Fighter, a Wizard, a Cleric, and a Rogue against a duplicate party of the same level, with the same abilities, odds are about 50/50 they're gonna get wiped. Reducing dailies means the PCs can have the edge they need without needing to reduce level, which would affect defenses, HP totals and so on.
No offense, but that isn't true. Two enemies of the same levels and same power level doesn't mean it is a clear cut fight. Ignoring other secrets like magic items and the like, Plans, intelligence, use of movies, compitence makes a big deal




Okay, this just isn't true. There are still evil gods, it's just they don't get their long descriptions in the PHB. They still are named and have short descriptions. Considering the fact that which god you worship doesn't affect your mechanics anymore, you could easily create a Cleric of Orcus using only the PHB (assuming your DM let you change instances of Radiant damage to Necrotic, or some such) Gods are part of a Setting, the PHB isn't a setting book. It is a book used to help players create PCs. The DMG is probably a setting book to some extent, yet to be seen.

1) Actually i was referring to gods that aren't considered "Adventure style" like maybe the gods of building, or agriculture, or fertility. Which makes the world seem like one that only focuses upon the PCs. World design isn't a focus anymore
2) That being said, i think evil gods deserve as much, if not more description than good ones, because their ideals are the ones that hte PCs will be fighting (through good gods need descriptions as well) and their motives need to be clear
3) This isn't about me being able to homebrew (I am the DM) this is about 4E's own design




*beats head against wall* Why is it that you assume that D&D is is a mechanically focused simulation styled game? It was never good at doing that, and has had countless abstracted mechanics and concepts throughout its entire lifespan. In fact, a tendency toward abstraction (I feel) enhances the feeling of realism capable in a ruleset. If you define every aspect of actions, and set every limit in scientifically worded terms, you get phenomenon like the "Ball of Commoners" rolling across the terrain at supersonic speeds by trading the control of their massive grapple to each other, or the decimation of a forest in six seconds by crafting every tree into an absurd number of quarterstaves. You claim heavy levels of abstraction make sense in a game like WoD, and I say, "Yes! WoD has some of the more realistic mechanics I know of, because it doesn't try to define every aspect of reality in terms of its own mechanics" Do you really want verisimilitude, realism and logic, or do you just want the illogic you're used to?
1) Because that is what the game focuses for. Mechanics defining hte reality. Now it isn't perfect, as the examples you've noted, but that doesn't make the system bad, just their way of doing it bad.
2) I don't want a system that is designed towards illogic. I don't mind hte laws of phyics being broken in game, or magic, or magical creatures, but i want them used in a logical and understandable manner
3) Also WoD is a niffty system on its own, but even 4E doesn't imitate that.. 4E has war game elements mix in with a PC centric system


YES! And the Blood War (in 3rd edition) still goes on despite this mechanical oversight. If, as you're suggesting, actions which occur in the game world occur following every rule as written in the books with no abstraction or variation... every instance of the Blood War would be a bunch of dudes sitting around playing cards to pass the time, instead of the brutal struggle of murder and pain that it is. The thing that makes this possible? Abstraction, beautiful abstraction.
The blood war goes on, but if it does it must not involve Dretches or Lemures, because other wise they can't hurt each other. if hte designers made these monsters with the thought of how their abilities would logically be designed (IE, Devils should be able to over come the powers of Demons and Visa versa) then everybody would be happy. Its bad game design. Abstraction can only work as a fix if you want to ignore holes in a game, not as a way the game is to be designed

No, attempting to define rules to govern the interactions of everything in the world is too large a goal for a game to accomplish. The greatest minds of the entire history of human culture has not yet succeeded at defining consistent rules for every aspect of our own universe, and we certainly don't have magic or dragons mucking things up for us. The fact is, and you refuse to acknowledge this, is that D&D is meant to be, and is, a game system meant to tell stories. This makes it a storytelling game. In 2nd edition, we had a name for people who would insist on applying the rules to every situation as they were written in the book. It was "Rules Lawyer" and it was one of the more severe insults you could level at a person back in those days.
1) Yet you can still make a rule standard that is consistent, rather than one that relies on people's relations to the PCs
2) And yet in 2E DMG the basis for world design was based upon logic and the world was made to avoid PC centric ideas (in fact it screwed the over a lot)

3) A rule lawyer is somebody who takes advantage of loopholes in the game. The loopholes are the problem, not the game itself. Designing a game without mechnics at all is worst than one with holes in it


Awesome, Magic items are too powerful for the DM to give out in significant quantities, so he puts only a couple in and they're special, and the Cleric who puts on the Gauntlets of Ogre Power is suddenly better than the Fighter who only has an 18/60 strength (but it'd be a waste for the Fighter to use them... that's only, like +1 to hit and +2 damage for HIM, but is probably +3 to hit and +6 damage for the cleric, so it's way more helpful for the Cleric, so would be selfish of the Fighter to equip them). Then they make Magic items benefit everyone equally, but forget to make them less powerful, so now everyone is decked out in a plethora of magic junk which are half the character's power. People complain and so they scale back magic items so they represent just one aspect of a character's plethora of options (while still being interesting options!), and people complain that magic items aren't "special" like they were when they were absurdly powerful, dwarfed the natural skills of the user, and were completely unbalanced in terms of who got what out of them.

Unappeasable fanbase sounds more true every day...
I'd rather have a few more epic magic items then ones that remind me of final fantasy's magic items, uninteresting, mass numbers and boring. Magic item amounts vary on the magic level of your game, but they should be unique, interesting cool, and not designed for the PCs (IE, cursed stuff is awseome)



That's... exactly what you're complaining about them doing with 4th edition monsters! Making stats for the average troop and assuming that if additional information is needed about specific individuals based on their background or role in their culture, the DM will come up with it himself!
1) no i'm complaining about hte monsters not following the same rules and being mechinically created for the purpose of fighting hte PCs
2) You will note that even in my example that i didn't make their non combat states uniform ether

Ruki, really that is out right offensive and shows only an example of ignorence

SamTheCleric
2008-06-05, 12:53 PM
1) Give them NPC classes like in 3E, which are like the lesser trained version of the PC classes. Have dudes with PCs classes still exist, just like the PCs, but be less common

There are class templates which grant ANY npc/monster an at will, encounter and daily power from any class.


Actually i was referring to gods that aren't considered "Adventure style" like maybe the gods of building, or agriculture, or fertility. Which makes the world seem like one that only focuses upon the PCs. World design isn't a focus anymore

Have you read the DMG? There are more gods than just "adventure" gods. Avandra is the goddess of travel, luck and commerce, for instance. There is also an entire chapter titled "World Building"... which even goes into things like Climate.


That being said, i think evil gods deserve as much, if not more description than good ones, because their ideals are the ones that hte PCs will be fighting (through good gods need descriptions as well) and their motives need to be clear


You're right... and that chapter is again in the DMG. Even a little sidebar on how to reflavor cleric/paladin powers to evil.


This isn't about me being able to homebrew (I am the DM) this is about 4E's own design

To which you admit you have not yet read.


A rule lawyer is somebody who takes advantage of loopholes in the game. The loopholes are the problem, not the game itself. Designing a game without mechnics at all is worst than one with holes in it

Desiging a game in which a rule lawyer cannot exploit is impossible.


1) no i'm complaining about hte monsters not following the same rules and being mechinically created for the purpose of fighting hte PCs

If it wasnt meant to fight, it wouldnt need a stat block. And of course you'll come back with "summons" "allies" or "on the side of the pc" ... nothing says that ANY of the unaligned creatures could be fighting for the side of good. In fact, it specifically says there are good angels... and guess what, they use the same stat block as the unaligned and evil ones.


1) Yet you can still make a rule standard that is consistent, rather than one that relies on people's relations to the PCs


Maybe your games are different, but in my games... the PCs are the focus. Everything is in relation to the PCs. If it wasn't, I may as well stay at home and play with myself.

:smalleek:
... not like that!

Rutee
2008-06-05, 01:01 PM
Desiging a game in which a rule lawyer cannot exploit is impossible.

To expand on this, it's theoretically possible to design an expansive game in which a rules lawyer can not take advantage of the rules. This is the theory behind a legal code, ti's just not a game. It just wouldn't be readable to 90% of the populace, because it would be dense legalese. Dense legalese is not good to include in a game. It becomes /practically/ impossible to remove common sense in favor of strict wording.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-05, 01:04 PM
What Rutee said, or it'd have to be a mirror match. Like chess.

Jerthanis
2008-06-05, 08:35 PM
If the PCs run across some enemies, it stands to reason that while the enemies are threatening and dangerous, they aren't going to have custom made abilities for fighting the PCs. There mechanical powers will descend from what they would logically have, not for challenging the PCs
Other NPCs should be like the PCs (the more elite ones at least) in terms of abilities. However in 4E, enemies are designed not with the thought of how they would logically act, but how they can interact with hte PCs. Which is inconsistent and generally bad form.

I'm really not sure if it's as bad as all that. I mean... what abilities would you ascribe to the monsters in the 4th edition MM that they SHOULD have by your logic that they don't have? Conversely, what is it about the abilities of monsters in any previous generation that makes the abilities they have "logical" above and beyond the abilities they have in 4th? Give concrete examples, please don't just repeat that "it's inconsistent" again without evidence. I can wait for you to get your books if you need to. I think you mentioned on another thread you had preordered them. They're out in like, a day or two anyway.




however their powers and abilities are logical ones, they don't stem from how they would suit hte PCS, but from how they suit the monster in question. The monster's powers are logically produced ones, instead of them being created soley for hte PCs

I'd just like to point out that this is something you said in response to me mentioning that monsters had abilities natural to themselves which were clearly never intended for use against PCs, and were simply there because they were iconic for their race. It sounds a LOT like you're agreeing with me here, that you're wrong in assuming that monsters have no abilities not meant to be used in physical confrontations with the PCs specifically.



see my other point on Beholder. I understand where your coming from, i could see a beholder fighter using levatation on his axe, or um, biting people, but yeah it is a silly idea. However there is a reason why the Beholder can't take that class, a specific logical reason. He doesn't have any, um, arms. So he ether could take the the class and have a crappy life with it, or not take it at all, but there is a reason however. That isn't what i'm complaining about, i can see where your coming from. But creatures like oozes and rats that can't take classes is at least logically based, but goblins or Bugbears, or even the run of the mill NPC. It is silly
two nit picks

Okay, so now we've established that it doesn't make sense to represent a beholder who is extraordinarily good at fighting as a Beholder Fighter... so why do you assume that Orcs ALSO would create fighting styles exactly represented by the PC fighting styles? Where Humans form shield-walls and protect the archers and perform cavalry charges, Orcs would probably form fighting styles based on infantry charges and overwhelming numbers. I think it's silly to try to represent all forms of combat with a single class, and that creating each monster race's combat abilities based on its own abilities and thematic ties is MUCH more awesome and consistent than trying to say that every monster who knows how to fight fights the same way.



No i can understand where you coming from in taht angle, through i think your missing a point. Certain creatures shouldn't be able to take certain classes, that i totally understand. A demon can't be a paladin of course. I don't think the limitation for PC classes should be humoinoid but i get your idea. However everything should still be following the same rules

I just disagree. It just doesn't seem logical to me to represent distinct ideas in the same way. This could just be an "agree to disagree" point between us.



That is meta gaming logic and i don't think that should be the design function of a world. It is inconsistent, breaks vermilsitude , ect ect ect.
The NPCs are being designed in comparison to the PCs in terms of usefulness and powers, which is PC centric. If you think that would make them too powerful, they you can fix that without making the world PC centric.

1) Give them NPC classes like in 3E, which are like the lesser trained version of the PC classes. Have dudes with PCs classes still exist, just like the PCs, but be less common
2) Lower their level
3) give some logical explanation taht works in game

If you're going to give them NPC classes like in 3E, isn't it pretty much the same thing as having them be PC classes without as many Daily powers? I mean, scaled back versions of the same thing would make the most sense to simply take away their most potent abilities which require the most skill, training and precision?

I feel like you're simply saying the same thing I am, but in a different way. Nothing stops you from including a human NPC (or Bugbear, or Orc or...) as a fully generated PC with all their abilities, it's just that it'll be tougher than most of the humans (or bugbears or orcs) in the world, because the rules for generating PCs are the rules for generating people who are extremely talented, powerful and capable individuals. It will also be about twice as much bookkeeping which the players will never see, and which will never come up. That's all. If they're fighting more average soldiers, using PC generation rules would be inconsistent with what the PC generation rules represent.



No offense, but that isn't true. Two enemies of the same levels and same power level doesn't mean it is a clear cut fight. Ignoring other secrets like magic items and the like, Plans, intelligence, use of movies, compitence makes a big deal

Yes it is. Between two mechanically identical foes, including magic items, it comes down almost entirely to luck. D&D isn't tactical to the point where it outweighs the natural d20 rolls or the stats on the paper. Now, one side can purposefully play into the others' hands, but if the two sides are at all intelligent, it's a complete craps shoot.



1) Actually i was referring to gods that aren't considered "Adventure style" like maybe the gods of building, or agriculture, or fertility. Which makes the world seem like one that only focuses upon the PCs. World design isn't a focus anymore
2) That being said, i think evil gods deserve as much, if not more description than good ones, because their ideals are the ones that hte PCs will be fighting (through good gods need descriptions as well) and their motives need to be clear
3) This isn't about me being able to homebrew (I am the DM) this is about 4E's own design

This has already been addressed, so I'll keep it short: You're wrong. There are gods who are not focused on adventurers. There are gods of seasons, travel, commerce, agriculture, death... you name it. Second. Why is this a new source of complaint? The 4th edition PHB has about the same number of gods described as the 3rd edition one did, give or take.



1) Because that is what the game focuses for. Mechanics defining hte reality. Now it isn't perfect, as the examples you've noted, but that doesn't make the system bad, just their way of doing it bad.
2) I don't want a system that is designed towards illogic. I don't mind hte laws of phyics being broken in game, or magic, or magical creatures, but i want them used in a logical and understandable manner
3) Also WoD is a niffty system on its own, but even 4E doesn't imitate that.. 4E has war game elements mix in with a PC centric system


I think we may be at an impasse. I say D&D is a game used as a means of telling a story, and always has been, and has always had abstracted mechanics to facilitate mostly the interaction of PCs with the world, and not to model an entire reality accurately... and you say it doesn't, and it does. If you can create the type of system you apparently want, where you can model all aspects of reality under a unified ruleset, but which the average person can understand, and which appeals to RPG fans... well, you're possibly the greatest game designer the world has ever known. If only you could master spelling and grammar...

Of course 4e isn't like World of Darkness, they're designed to tell completely different kinds of stories.



The blood war goes on, but if it does it must not involve Dretches or Lemures, because other wise they can't hurt each other. if hte designers made these monsters with the thought of how their abilities would logically be designed (IE, Devils should be able to over come the powers of Demons and Visa versa) then everybody would be happy. Its bad game design. Abstraction can only work as a fix if you want to ignore holes in a game, not as a way the game is to be designed

But... Dretches and Lemures are described as the rank-and-file of the armies in the blood war in the fluff. Mechanics shouldn't override fluff, because the story is the important part so they can hurt each other abstractly. If they had realized this while designing 3rd edition, they might have made a different choice when it came to their DR systems, but the mistake has been made, and you can either treat the rules as a straightjacket, which the rules ALSO tell you specifically NOT to do, or you can interpret the outcome yourself.



3) A rule lawyer is somebody who takes advantage of loopholes in the game. The loopholes are the problem, not the game itself. Designing a game without mechnics at all is worst than one with holes in it

Not true, this was, and still is, a munchkin. A Rules Lawyer was the kind who knew every rule and applied it to every situation, and would insist the DM did the same. This was (and to me, still is) a bad thing, as it broke down the session, and kept the story confined to what could be represented with rules, rather than the imaginations of the players.



I'd rather have a few more epic magic items then ones that remind me of final fantasy's magic items, uninteresting, mass numbers and boring. Magic item amounts vary on the magic level of your game, but they should be unique, interesting cool, and not designed for the PCs (IE, cursed stuff is awseome)


I'd rather have a balanced magic item system than an epic one. I don't want my abilities dwarfed by my magic gear, and I certainly don't want my abilities to be dwarfed by another person's magic gear.



1) no i'm complaining about hte monsters not following the same rules and being mechinically created for the purpose of fighting hte PCs
2) You will note that even in my example that i didn't make their non combat states uniform ether

The monsters are created from a story point of view primarily to serve as antagonists to the PCs, so why doesn't it make sense to create them mechanically to serve as things for the PCs to fight against? Would you prefer the Monster Manual to serve as a bestiary to a certain campaign world, detailing all the flora and fauna of a world? It sounds like a great setting book, but what if I want to adapt these monsters to my home campaign world, where I already thought of their societies, personalities and biological natures, and simply need a quick guide to their combat statistics for planning conflicts with my players? Suddenly that campaign sourcebook that you've made is almost entirely useless to me, since I'm not interested in that product. I like the Monster Manual not as an aide for world design (I can do that myself, perhaps with the help of the DMG, if THAT book isn't worthless), but as a quick reference tool for planning and for surprises during play.

In any case, my position is essentially that 4th edition is no more PC-centric than it has always been, and also no more PC-centric than it should be.

Kabump
2008-06-05, 09:07 PM
Sure, thanks for being polite (through so fair this thread seems surprisingly civil)

Im not here to argue, but to learn :)



They aren't like the basic commoner and they are better than local militia, but they aren't like Super Heros. Now the adverage human in the world might be a commoner, and the random troops might be warriors or guards, but anyone with real talent will have PC classes (in 3E), like Fighter, Wizards, Cleric ect. In theory each of these classes with have a unique roll but will be still equal in strength (This isn't true do to crappy balance but that is a problem in theory)
Now when the PCs fight other people who have class levels, their foes are still following the same rules, and their abilities aren't custom made for fighting the PCs.

So if my understanding is correct, you are saying that NPCs dont have classes then, and in 3e they did? There is no way of adding the class levels as a template or whatever the proper term is? (4 months played for me, so forgive me if i use improper terms) Not having seen the 4e DMG or MM, or even ever looking at one from 3.5 for that matter, this probably hurts in my understanding of your argument :smallbiggrin:



however their powers and abilities are logical ones, they don't stem from how they would suit hte PCS, but from how they suit the monster in question. The monster's powers are logically produced ones, instead of them being created soley for hte PCs


Ok I see where your thinking is now. I still dont think its automatically a BAD thing, it just seems that it doesnt appeal to your personal play style and what you want to get out of your D&D experience. It seems my confusion comes from just not being familiar with the MM/NPC rules of 4e compared to 3.5 I did pick up a DMG and MM for 4e, so once I read up on at least 4e monsters and npcs, I can ask my DM buddies about how its done in 3.5 and see if thats the case, and see who might be misinterpreting things. I say that because I ahve seen others argue that NPCs/monsters can STILL exist for reasons other than PCs and have mechanics to do that. Hell, maybe EVERYONE is misinterpreting? :) Regardless, thanks for clarifying your position :) I still feel that 4e will be a lot of fun to play, and am excited to give it a try.