PDA

View Full Version : Another [4e] thread... The topic? Playing *outside* of combat.



Paragon Badger
2008-06-10, 11:08 PM
Yes, the skill system has been revamped and diplomacy and such have been changed to work much better than 3e's.

However, I am under the impression that the developers took one step forward and sixty steps sideways (perhaps a few backwards as well).

The reason is, from what I've heard (still haven't gotten the chance to see 4e firsthand, my friends are also hesitant- and I'm not forking over any cash to buy it just to let the books collect dust); pretty much everything you get from leveling helps you in battles.

Now don't get me wrong- I very much enjoy heavily tactical wargames, I've toyed with ideas of using Power Attack to destroy enemy shields and thus permanently lower their AC and other such things, but not all D&D games are constant battling.

I am ignorant of 4e's true nature, but if someone would enlighten me; what is possible outside of combat?

The 4e wizard's spell list is much less versatile than his 3e counterpart I hear, but did they just shave off unbalanced spells.... or did they also shave off the more passive spells? (Unseen Servant, Disguise Self, Nystul's magic aura, Silent Image, Erase, Arcane Lock, Misdirection, ect. ect. ect.)

Sure, you may say "You can roleplay ANY game."

But there are some that are more difficult to roleplay with than others, and I would like to have the power to be as creative as possible in the way I solve challenges. Moreover, I'd like to have creative challenges put forth to me as well. Having sixty different ways to kill a goblin doesn't change the fact that you're killing a goblin. I would not blame, but sympathize with the DM who cannot come up with creative challenges because the player's main way of overcoming challenges more-or-less involves killing it dead or using the handful of skills available to them.

But I did not create this topic to rant. :smalltongue: I did so to ask those familiar with 4E; If you were playing or DMing a game, would you find it easier or more difficult to solve/create without resorting to combat?

And not something like a diplomacy check challenge but one that actually requires more than a dice roll; creative thinking.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-10, 11:14 PM
It is EASIER to create in 4e

In 3.5, creating was happered by a crap tone of cinderblock rules. 4e isn't designed like that. The Core books focus mainly on the streamlined versions of combat and left the roleplaying stuff out.

This means that Combat no longer takes forever and we can get it over with and back to focusing on the story interaction. It almost means that all the fluff and other roleplaying stuff has been completely given over to the DM who is free to do whatever he wants with it.

And yet people still seem to think this is restricting. I mean I really just don't get it.

Skyserpent
2008-06-10, 11:14 PM
The skill system does involve a bit of levelling up since you add half your levels to skill checks.

A lot of people don't like Rituals which take up the mantle of several utility spells along with the standard Wizard Utilities, but I think they aren't so bad... this is a matter of taste though...

So far though, I've had players perform very creative maneuvres in and out of combat to solve problems. No less than any we did in 3.5... I can't say we solved MORE problems out of Combat than in 3.5 mostly because combat is a lot more fun now and Players seem just a bit more battle-prone in 4e... give it a few months and we'll see how many skills see use... I'll get back to you when I have my data

Xefas
2008-06-10, 11:28 PM
The 4e wizard's spell list is much less versatile than his 3e counterpart I hear, but did they just shave off unbalanced spells.... or did they also shave off the more passive spells? (Unseen Servant, Disguise Self, Nystul's magic aura, Silent Image, Erase, Arcane Lock, Misdirection, ect. ect. ect.)

Sure, you may say "You can roleplay ANY game."

But there are some that are more difficult to roleplay with than others, and I would like to have the power to be as creative as possible in the way I solve challenges. Moreover, I'd like to have creative challenges put forth to me as well. Having sixty different ways to kill a goblin doesn't change the fact that you're killing a goblin. I would not blame, but sympathize with the DM who cannot come up with creative challenges because the player's main way of overcoming challenges more-or-less involves killing it dead or using the handful of skills available to them.

The problem with the Wizard having all of those out of combat utility spells was that no non-caster class had any sort of analogue to them.

Sure, if you played a Wizard you could try to solve some problems in wacky ways that the DM probably didn't plan for, and now the NPCs that he spent 8 hours statting up are never going to be used, but no one else could.

I witnessed it a lot. The Cleric and Wizard stick their heads together and spend 2 hours figuring out how to combine their spell lists to circumvent a challenge that would have taken all of 10 minutes to go through otherwise, and everyone else pulls out their Gameboy/DS/rubix cube and sits there bored.

With Rituals, anyone can become trained in their use, so the entire party can participate in the out of combat crazy magical junk that happens if they want to. This will only increase as more supplements comes out and the list of Rituals balloons to gargantuan proportions.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-10, 11:30 PM
The problem with the Wizard having all of those out of combat utility spells was that no non-caster class had any sort of analogue to them.

Sure, if you played a Wizard you could try to solve some problems in wacky ways that the DM probably didn't plan for, and now the NPCs that he spent 8 hours statting up are never going to be used, but no one else could.

I witnessed it a lot. The Cleric and Wizard stick their heads together and spend 2 hours figuring out how to combine their spell lists to circumvent a challenge that would have taken all of 10 minutes to go through otherwise, and everyone else pulls out their Gameboy/DS/rubix cube and sits there bored.


Wow, that sounds EXACTLY like the games I used to run. It got to the point that I stopped planning games anymore and my players knew it. I was intentionally trying to kill them just so it presented them with a challenge.

Paragon Badger
2008-06-10, 11:36 PM
It is EASIER to create in 4e

In 3.5, creating was happered by a crap tone of cinderblock rules. 4e isn't designed like that. The Core books focus mainly on the streamlined versions of combat and left the roleplaying stuff out.

This means that Combat no longer takes forever and we can get it over with and back to focusing on the story interaction. It almost means that all the fluff and other roleplaying stuff has been completely given over to the DM who is free to do whatever he wants with it.

And yet people still seem to think this is restricting. I mean I really just don't get it.

I believe it is restricting because it's more vague. In my last game, I had an ally using Summon Rat Swarm to eat a dead body. (Unsuccesfully, since the rats didn't eat bones :smalltongue:) Another used Ray of Frost to put out fires.

Afterall, there are no rules in D&D- only guidelines.

And some of us would like to have guidelines about what we can do outside of combat so we don't get into arguements with one another about proper application of a spell. :smalltongue:

One of my favorites roles to play when I am a wizard is that of the trickster. He did not kill many things or contribute heavily to battle, but he had many tools with which to maneuver himself in an advantageous position outside of battle..

With the game's focus on battle, it just seems that they created half a game. There are guidelines for fighting, but no guidelines on what you can do outside. Some call this more freedom to roleplay... I consider it less- since you're given less material to work with.

Edit: To reply to the posters above on the topic of wizards... well, I never said 3.5 was perfect. Fighters can do practically nothing outside of combat. Even Barbarians get an easier time with their slightly more forgiving skill list.

Goober4473
2008-06-10, 11:44 PM
I actually really like the lack of powers outside of combat. They're there, but mostly like, rituals.

The reason is, I like to keep characters kind of down-to-earth. Sure, they battle crazy monsters and fight armies and save the world, but in the end, they're people. They can't force everyone to think like them and get the hot princess (or prince) to fall in love with them just by rolling a +900 Diplomacy check or casting one spell. They still have to work at social situations, and still act like people, no matter how many dragons they slay or dark god they prevent from rising.

Xefas
2008-06-10, 11:48 PM
Edit: To reply to the posters above on the topic of wizards... well, I never said 3.5 was perfect. Fighters can do practically nothing outside of combat. Even Barbarians get an easier time with their slightly more forgiving skill list.

Well, 4th edition's answer was to take all the out of combat utility spells and give them to everyone in the form of rituals. Now everyone gets to solve their problems creatively.

They don't have *all* the out of combat spells that Wizards did in 3.5, true. They still have stuff like Knock, Silence, Secret Page, Magic Mouth, Discern Lies, Speak with Dead, Sending, Arcane Lock, etc.

It's less robust, with the upside of being easier to homebrew (in my opinion), and that there's less of "If you aren't a Wizard, sit in the corner and be quiet."

Oh, and Disguise Self is a full-blown Wizard Power (I noticed it was on your list).

wodan46
2008-06-10, 11:54 PM
As said before, 4e core books focus on getting combat nice and neatly sorted out without complaints about slowness or balance, so that the DM has more time to manage the roleplaying/noncombat parts instead. If anything, 4e is better for stuff outside combat than 3.5e is where everyone is still trying to sort out thaco or waiting for the wizard to do everything for them and the like (intentional overstatement).

As for what you get rules wise outside of combat, the DMG gives plenty of tips and advice, but as for concrete stuff, there is the following:

1. Skills, main way of doing encounters that don't involve combat.
2. Rituals, this covers all the nifty non-combat tricks wizards get, except that they've had the broken parts nerfed out, and are theoretically available to anyone if they want to junk a feat for ritual casting and another for the skill training to be good at it.
3. Wizard Cantrips and some Utilities for Rogue/Ranger/Wizards are explicitly non-combat or multipurpose.
4. Wizard and Warlock combat powers in particular can be used creatively outside of combat, where you recharge your encounters every 5 minutes. Clerics and Paladins might be able to use defensive stuff to block hazards here and there. The other class's combat powers are limited to hit thing, disable thing, possibly at a distance.

JMobius
2008-06-10, 11:56 PM
4E fixed diplomacy? I must have missed that. It was one of the first things that I looked for in the PHB, and IIRC all it said was something to the effect of "the GM assigns the DC". I didn't even see a table or some other indication of what approximate DCs might be.

I'll check the DMG.

Xefas
2008-06-11, 12:09 AM
4E fixed diplomacy? I must have missed that. It was one of the first things that I looked for in the PHB, and IIRC all it said was something to the effect of "the GM assigns the DC". I didn't even see a table or some other indication of what approximate DCs might be.

I'll check the DMG.

Should be page 42 of the DMG. Difficulty Class by level.

Those are the numbers you need for a Skill Challenge. As it says at the bottom, you should raise the DCs by 5 if they're attempting a single Skill Check to overcome something.

ashmanonar
2008-06-11, 12:24 AM
I believe it is restricting because it's more vague. In my last game, I had an ally using Summon Rat Swarm to eat a dead body. (Unsuccesfully, since the rats didn't eat bones :smalltongue:) Another used Ray of Frost to put out fires.


And yet, you forgot the best, most conventional way to hide a dead body: everybody pick up a shovel. Or, hire a mobster to do it.

Justin_Bacon
2008-06-11, 12:41 AM
In 3.5, creating was happered by a crap tone of cinderblock rules. 4e isn't designed like that. The Core books focus mainly on the streamlined versions of combat and left the roleplaying stuff out.

This means that Combat no longer takes forever and we can get it over with and back to focusing on the story interaction.

Except every playtest report I've read (and my own playtest experiences) indicate that combat takes up as much or more table time in 4th Edition.

So far, I've found the dissociated mechanics to be exactly the sort of serious problem. I've been consciously trying to avoid house ruling, but the result is that the system feels like a straitjacket. Because they've abandoned the "cinderblocks", as you call them, there's no support. So I can either throw consistency out the window and just dictate on a whim, or I can start layering on countless house rules.

For example, in my first session the PCs tied up a kobold prisoner. There are no rules for determining how good the knots the PCs tie are. The guidelines for Acrobatics recommends that I make up a target number out of thin air to determine how difficult it is to escape from restraints. This is almost useless to me if the players are the ones trying to escape and completely useless when its the NPC trying to escape.

And I ran into similar problems multiple times. In the first session.

So, compared to 3rd Edition, I have an immediate degradation of basic utility. And it's not only that he target number guidelines are gone, the comprehensive skill system is gone.

And it's easy to say, "Jesus Christ, Justin. It's tying up a friggin' kobold. Make a judgment call and do it."

Which is, of course, what I did. But the problem is that, at some point, they're going to want to tie up another prisoner... and they're going to expect the same mechanics to be used. That makes it a house rule. And tracking that one house rule isn't a big deal... but these problems are scattered all over the new edition. So now I've got dozens or hundreds of these house rules to track.


Should be page 42 of the DMG. Difficulty Class by level.

Those are the numbers you need for a Skill Challenge. As it says at the bottom, you should raise the DCs by 5 if they're attempting a single Skill Check to overcome something.

Which, of course, leads to the absurdity of DC 29 Perception checks to spot fist-sized gems lying on pedestals in the middle of the room. (An example right out of the DMG.) Why is it so difficult to spot that fist-sized gem? Because it's supposed to be a challenge for Tier 2 characters.

IOW, the gem isn't hard to spot and therefore it's a challenge for Tier 2 characters. It's a Tier 2 challenge and therefore the gem (no matter it's size or shape or location) is hard to spot.

Dissociated mechanics pretty much shatter my willing suspension of disbelief. The inconsistencies and absurdities make me disconnect from the game world -- and once that happens, roleplaying is impossible.

Levyathyn
2008-06-11, 12:44 AM
I used to play the wizard often, and I never found a problem. Before you say that that was because I was the wizard, other people played wiz too. I didn't, you could say, get uppity. I've DM'd plenty, and I understand that things that go smooth go easier and faster, so I never made trouble as a wizard. I mean, sure it can be fun to spend hours, as you say, ruining a good planned encounter, but I always enjoyed playing what the DM layed out. Now, however, without Crafting, without Summoning, without free teleporting...I feel less like a wizard and more like a sorceror. I don't want all the power in the world, I just liked being able to cast magic; Not use the same class features that everyone gets.

Admittedly, I like the new system. I can't bend the world to my will, but I can do it more than 12 times a day. My only complaint is the limited nature of rituals. I would prefer more rituals, in line with the old spells of 3.5 Some to summon creatures would be nice, and could round out a group of three PC's into a fighting force worthy of a solo creature. Being able to raise undead falls into the same category. Overall, a smallish book of rituals, including some unique rituals for the skills (arcana, nature, religion, etc.) would be perfect.

For future reference, a few pigs'll clear up a dead body in an hour or so, bones and all.

EDIT: Although, /\ That guy's right. I forgot about the rope thing. =)

Chronos
2008-06-11, 12:51 AM
In 3.5, creating was happered by a crap tone of cinderblock rules. 4e isn't designed like that. The Core books focus mainly on the streamlined versions of combat and left the roleplaying stuff out.In that case, you'll love my new RPG that I just invented. You're not hampered by rules in or out of combat! You can make up any rules you want!


The problem with the Wizard having all of those out of combat utility spells was that no non-caster class had any sort of analogue to them.Has nobody else ever played a rogue? They're all about the out-of-combat utility.

One thing I wonder about 4e... I hear this talk about how there are combat challenges, and skill challenges. How supportive is the system of challenges where the players decide what kind it is? Suppose there's a bugbear guard with a key to a locked door. I could kill him and take the key, or I could sneak up to him and pick his pocket, or I could create a distraction to lure him away and then bash down the door. If I choose option 2 or 3, and the DM or module expected me to choose option 1, does the DM then have to set up a set of numbers for a skill challenge on the fly?

Rockphed
2008-06-11, 01:15 AM
One thing I wonder about 4e... I hear this talk about how there are combat challenges, and skill challenges. How supportive is the system of challenges where the players decide what kind it is? Suppose there's a bugbear guard with a key to a locked door. I could kill him and take the key, or I could sneak up to him and pick his pocket, or I could create a distraction to lure him away and then bash down the door. If I choose option 2 or 3, and the DM or module expected me to choose option 1, does the DM then have to set up a set of numbers for a skill challenge on the fly?

I think the answer is yes. However, there is hope. Look what I found 5 posts up!


Should be page 42 of the DMG. Difficulty Class by level.

Those are the numbers you need for a Skill Challenge. As it says at the bottom, you should raise the DCs by 5 if they're attempting a single Skill Check to overcome something.

Does that answer your question, or should I shut up until my books arrive on Friday? (Why does the mail have to be so slow? They are in my state already! I think they started in my state! Woe is me.)

edit: Out of curiosity, how would you go about making a distraction? Would you try to purposefully roll low on a move silently check? Or would it be some sort of bluff check? How about a fireball? Is that a good distraction?

THAC0
2008-06-11, 01:31 AM
And it's easy to say, "Jesus Christ, Justin. It's tying up a friggin' kobold. Make a judgment call and do it."

Which is, of course, what I did. But the problem is that, at some point, they're going to want to tie up another prisoner... and they're going to expect the same mechanics to be used. That makes it a house rule. And tracking that one house rule isn't a big deal... but these problems are scattered all over the new edition. So now I've got dozens or hundreds of these house rules to track.


Welcome back to the good ol' ways of AD&D.

Honestly, it's just a shift in perception. It might bug your players now because they're used to having all rules spelled out, but it wouldn't bug our groups, because we're used to the DM making rulings on the fly from years of 1e, and we trust them to have a vague (who needs perfect?) consistency.

It ain't the end of the world if you work tying people up differently every time.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-11, 01:32 AM
For example, in my first session the PCs tied up a kobold prisoner. There are no rules for determining how good the knots the PCs tie are. The guidelines for Acrobatics recommends that I make up a target number out of thin air to determine how difficult it is to escape from restraints. This is almost useless to me if the players are the ones trying to escape and completely useless when its the NPC trying to escape.

Acrobatics says specifically "Escape from Restraints: 5 minutes. Base DC 20. The DC is determined by the type of restraint and its quality, assessed by the DM"

So... I would have said DC 20, if I didn't want to crack open the DMG. If the restraints were particularly secure (like chains and manacles) I'd make that a DC 24, if it was knotted bedsheets, I'd make it DC 16.

I got those numbers from the DMG, page 42 (it's under the section entitled "Actions the Rules Don't Cover"). For every random challenge past level 3, the "hard" and the "easy" numbers are exactly 8 apart. It's a nice easy table to memorize - easier than THAC0, that's for sure!

By the way, this is unlike all previous editions in that there aren't a billion arcane tables to memorize. Furthermore, since they actually included an easy way to figure out DCs for random actions, I would argue it is even easier to use than 3rd, where you had no such system and actually did have to make everything up.

Moving on...


Which, of course, leads to the absurdity of DC 29 Perception checks to spot fist-sized gems lying on pedestals in the middle of the room. (An example right out of the DMG.) Why is it so difficult to spot that fist-sized gem? Because it's supposed to be a challenge for Tier 2 characters.

IOW, the gem isn't hard to spot and therefore it's a challenge for Tier 2 characters. It's a Tier 2 challenge and therefore the gem (no matter it's size or shape or location) is hard to spot.

DMG page 93: the Soul Gem Trap, a level 26 Solo Blaster.

DC 29: "The character spots the gem"
This is a passive perception test, meaning "did the PC notice the trap before they walked into the room." If we assume Level 24 PCs, they have a base +13 bonus to spot this sucker - so untrained and with WIS +0, they're not seeing it. Train it (+5) and they will see the Gem is they have WIS +1. Random schmoes who wander into this room won't notice the gem until it zaps them dead, but your Rogue or Ranger who trained Spot? Probably going to notice it.

Now, if you're a smart DM, you didn't put this trap in the middle of an empty 10 x 10 room. Perhaps there are columns, or it's in the middle of a treasure vault, or maybe it's sitting in the middle of the wizard's study.

Or, you know what, you can say "well, the rules say this gem is (kind of) hard to see. Perhaps when I describe what the trap looks like, I'll describe it so that it is hard to see." The rules describe what goes on in the game, and if you are designing a game based on those rules, perhaps you should follow them?

This is the third strawman I've seen you set up. Why?

EDIT: Ah, a real question

One thing I wonder about 4e... I hear this talk about how there are combat challenges, and skill challenges. How supportive is the system of challenges where the players decide what kind it is? Suppose there's a bugbear guard with a key to a locked door. I could kill him and take the key, or I could sneak up to him and pick his pocket, or I could create a distraction to lure him away and then bash down the door. If I choose option 2 or 3, and the DM or module expected me to choose option 1, does the DM then have to set up a set of numbers for a skill challenge on the fly?

Well, I've read a module that has a skill challenge. It was really poorly written, but it basically covered all the bases. You were supposed to run when the police are trying to catch you and lock you in jail. If you decided to stand and fight... then I would have you stand and fight the entire city police force until you decided to flee.

Yeah, it was a pretty crappy skill challenge. This is why I hate modules :smalltongue:

Now, it turns out it's pretty easy to set up skill challenges on the fly:
1) Determine how complex the action is
- that is, how many successes before how many failures. Don't worry, there's a table with complexities ranging from 1 (4 up before 2 down) to 5 (12 up before 6 down).
2) Look at the DC table on DMG page 42 and note the "Easy," "Medium," and "Hard" DCs for your party level.
3) Figure out what the PCs are trying to do (the success condition) and what is likely to happen if they fail (the failure condition). If I'm feeling witty, I'll alter the failure condition depending on what the last failure rolled was.
4) Ask the PC who started this what they want to do.
- If it seems reasonable, have them roll a "Medium" DC.
- If it is unlikely to work, but you want them to have a shot at it, choose the "Hard" DC.
- If their action wouldn't necessarily move them towards their objective, but might open another avenue of attack (like using Insight in a social situation) give them a "Moderate" DC (if they put some effort into it) or a "Hard" DC if they shrug and say "I dunno, I'll roll Insight." If they pass that check, reveal to them either an avenue that doesn't work (don't intimidate the Duke) or a new avenue that may work (the Duke is a blowhard who is really proud of his military campaigns 50 years ago. Roll History to see if you can remember enough to make him think you're his #1 fan).
- If they win the encounter, give them their prize and calculate XP. XP is equal to N times an Encounter equal to their current level, where N is the complexity value of the challenge. So if they were 5th level and they solved a complexity 3 challenge, they would get 3 x 800 = 2400 XP.

Honestly, Building your own adventurers is cake in 4e, mechanically. And adjusting on the fly is even easier! No more asspulls that force you to invent 5 different DCs and adjudicate crazy actions - there's a Catch-All section right in the book.

Chronos
2008-06-11, 01:42 AM
edit: Out of curiosity, how would you go about making a distraction? Would you try to purposefully roll low on a move silently check? Or would it be some sort of bluff check? How about a fireball? Is that a good distraction?Yes.

In situations like that, it would usually end up being a particular friend of mine who was tasked with the "create a distraction" part of the plan. You could never tell just what he was going to do, but it did always end up being distracting.

As to turning that into a skill challenge, I would presume that it would depend in some way on the Perception skill of the guard? How is the skill challenge different from two separate checks, Stealth vs. Perception to see if you can sneak up to the guard, and then Thievery vs. Perception to see if you can get the key away from him? Would I use the same check for the Stealth part of the challenge if my objective were just to sneak past him without stealing the key?


By the way, I like to think that if there were a fist-sized gem in a room, I'd have at least a chance to notice it before I walked in. And if I were an avaricious thief, I like to think that I'd definitely notice something like that.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-11, 01:56 AM
In situations like that, it would usually end up being a particular friend of mine who was tasked with the "create a distraction" part of the plan. You could never tell just what he was going to do, but it did always end up being distracting.

It so happens that you can create your own diversions by using the Bluff skill according to RAW. Alternatively, you can just say "yes, that was sufficiently distracting" if someone else is doing the distraction rather than you pulling the ol' "throw a rock" trick.


As to turning that into a skill challenge, I would presume that it would depend in some way on the Perception skill of the guard? How is the skill challenge different from two separate checks, Stealth vs. Perception to see if you can sneak up to the guard, and then Thievery vs. Perception to see if you can get the key away from him? Would I use the same check for the Stealth part of the challenge if my objective were just to sneak past him without stealing the key?

I wouldn't have done that as a skill challenge, unless the guard was asleep. With an awake guard, just make each check in succession - skill challenges are for time-consuming tasks in which a variety of skills can be used to overcome the challenge. Convincing the Duke to lend you his army, evading pursuing guards, seducing the baron's daughter... :smallamused:


By the way, I like to think that if there were a fist-sized gem in a room, I'd have at least a chance to notice it before I walked in. And if I were an avaricious thief, I like to think that I'd definitely notice something like that.

Not to beat a dead horse, but at Level 24 (which is pretty low for a LV 26 Solo encounter) your Rogue would need to be trained in Perception and have a WIS of +1 at least. If your Rogue is sharp eyed and has practiced his alertness, then yes, he can notice the gem. That's the beauty of the +1/2LV bonus.

Also, Passive checks work like you're taking 10, and you can always declare an Active Perception before stepping into the room if you're paranoid like that.

Justin_Bacon
2008-06-11, 02:29 AM
Acrobatics says specifically "Escape from Restraints: 5 minutes. Base DC 20. The DC is determined by the type of restraint and its quality, assessed by the DM"

Which is what I said: There are no rules for tying ropes. Thanks for agreeing with me.


Or, you know what, you can say "well, the rules say this gem is (kind of) hard to see. Perhaps when I describe what the trap looks like, I'll describe it so that it is hard to see." The rules describe what goes on in the game, and if you are designing a game based on those rules, perhaps you should follow them?

The rulebook says it's a fist-sized gem sitting on a pedestal in the middle of the room. If you want to house rule it, go right ahead. But the Rule 0 Fallacy is a pretty poor defense of any game. And since my complaint is specifically that these types of dissociated mechanics require a plethora of house ruling, you seem to be -- once again -- agreeing with my position while pretending that you don't.


This is the third strawman I've seen you set up. Why?

Yes, of course. That must be it. I carefully set up this "strawman", then hopped into my time machine, infiltrated WotC's offices in Washington, and then rewrote the rulebook before it was sent to the printer.

And why did I do this? So that I could criticize the game's shortcomings -- the very shortcomings I myself wrote and put into the rulebooks! -- on an Internet messageboard!

:xykon: Mwahahahahahaha!

How did you ever discover my diabolical plan?

:tongue:

Vikazc
2008-06-11, 02:47 AM
So what you're telling us, is that the rules don't make it clear to you that the gem is clear, shrouded in shadows, or otherwise difficult to see when it explicitly gave you a high spot DC to detect it? Argue that they don't give you a precise description of how its hidden sure. But they most certainly told you it is in some way difficult to see. I apologize that they set it up in such a way that individual GMs are required to think and apply their own circumstances to it, but some of us like vague traps that can be used multiple times with fluff changes.

As for the rope. Do you know how to tie knots? Beyond basic knots that it. There are a fairly large amount of knots in existence. Most people don't know amny of them, let alone all of them, because they are not commonly used outside of sailing vessels or the boy scouts. I can tell you however, that past a certain point, there is no *skill* to tieing a knot. You know how to tie it properly, or you don't. So a set DC for tieing someone up is a fairly good idea. As he said, adjust it up for manacles, down for shoe laces. Your character is a sailor or professional dominatrix? Have a +4 circumstance bonus.

This is a lot more beleivable then a good roll inexplicably allowing someone to tie a DC 60 knot that double jointed contortionists can't begin to slip out of.

Moak
2008-06-11, 04:05 AM
Which is what I said: There are no rules for tying ropes. Thanks for agreeing with me.



The rulebook says it's a fist-sized gem sitting on a pedestal in the middle of the room. If you want to house rule it, go right ahead. But the Rule 0 Fallacy is a pretty poor defense of any game. And since my complaint is specifically that these types of dissociated mechanics require a plethora of house ruling, you seem to be -- once again -- agreeing with my position while pretending that you don't.



I am the only one who think that the Perception roll isn't to see the gem but to identify it like a dangerous one? Not a simple gem,but a ZAPLAZ0RKILLER gem?


Other than that,I like 4e because is nearer to OD&D. Yes,I know,it's strange to say something like this,but create a lot of space for immagination,because if there are bland rules,more space for improvvisation.

nagora
2008-06-11, 05:31 AM
For example, in my first session the PCs tied up a kobold prisoner. There are no rules for determining how good the knots the PCs tie are. The guidelines for Acrobatics recommends that I make up a target number out of thin air to determine how difficult it is to escape from restraints. This is almost useless to me if the players are the ones trying to escape and completely useless when its the NPC trying to escape.

{Scrubbed}

"No rules for knot tying" has got to be the least convincing criticism of a role-playing game I've ever heard.

Xefas
2008-06-11, 05:39 AM
Has nobody else ever played a rogue? They're all about the out-of-combat utility.


I would not count "I can open locks" as similar to "I can summon eight elementals to tunnel beneath the volcano and divert the flow of the magma into this lake, carve out the cooled rock into blocks, and then shape them all into siege equipment in the span of about 2 minutes (not counting the time it takes for the magma to get here)."


I am the only one who think that the Perception roll isn't to see the gem but to identify it like a dangerous one? Not a simple gem,but a ZAPLAZ0RKILLER gem?

While I wasn't awake for the above discussion, I agree with this opinion. Anyone can *see* the gem, but it takes a little perception to know that an otherwise harmless object is about to bring down Ancient Egyptian Laserbeams on your ass, before it actually does so, and respond to it in time.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-11, 06:33 AM
I am the only one who think that the Perception roll isn't to see the gem but to identify it like a dangerous one? Not a simple gem,but a ZAPLAZ0RKILLER gem?

Yes, that would be reasonable.

The problem is that WOTC explicitly spelled out that it required this perception roll to see the gem. But then, perhaps the gem has enough class levels for the Hide In Plain Sight ability :smallsmile:

Then again, every edition has its silly quirks that are ignored in actual gameplay. 3E had its healing-by-drowning-yourself, and 4E has the ninja gem (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html).

Antacid
2008-06-11, 06:47 AM
This thread = the madness. :smallfurious:


Yes, that would be reasonable.

The problem is that WOTC explicitly spelled out that it required this perception roll to see the gem. But then, perhaps the gem has enough class levels for the Hide In Plain Sight ability :smallsmile:

The DMG actually says "spot" the gem, as in "DC 29: The character spots the strange gem." DC 29 in epic tier = DC~17 at first level. Spot means, "note as a special feature distinct from whatever other weird stuff there is in the room", not see. Which when you consider that epic-tier adventures take place in extradimenional realms crafted out of human souls, palaces of pure gold and cities made from diamonds, actually makes sense.

The description also says "This fist-sized cut crystal is often embedded in a statue or placed on a pedestal in the center of a room." It's not always the centrepiece of the room and the first thing you see when you walk through the door, that's an option.



I've found the dissociated mechanics to be exactly the sort of serious problem. I've been consciously trying to avoid house ruling, but the result is that the system feels like a straitjacket. Because they've abandoned the "cinderblocks", as you call them, there's no support. So I can either throw consistency out the window and just dictate on a whim, or I can start layering on countless house rules.

For example, in my first session the PCs tied up a kobold prisoner. There are no rules for determining how good the knots the PCs tie are. The guidelines for Acrobatics recommends that I make up a target number out of thin air to determine how difficult it is to escape from restraints.

Everyone get that? The option to make up a DC on the spot = straitjacketing. Precisely laid-out, exploitable rules for every conceivable scenario = freedom.

BTW, what's with this concept of telling the players what mechanic you're using? Have you ever heard of rolling dice behind a screen and saying "the kobold escapes"? What does the M in "DM" stand for?



IOW, the gem isn't hard to spot and therefore it's a challenge for Tier 2 characters. It's a Tier 2 challenge and therefore the gem (no matter it's size or shape or location) is hard to spot.

It's almost as if players of higher level got some kind of 1/2-level-based bonus that happens to exactly cancel out the difference between Tier 1 DCs and Tier 3 DCs.


Dissociated mechanics pretty much shatter my willing suspension of disbelief. The inconsistencies and absurdities make me disconnect from the game world -- and once that happens, roleplaying is impossible.

Because fixed DCs that result in challenges being solved with absurd ease by players with maxed skill ranks is realistic. :smalltongue:

Players always meet monsters of a level-appropriate-encounter level, and that's accepted without question. But graded DCs which ensure meaningful skill challenges at high levels is assumed to break suspension of disbelief. WTF??

Xefas
2008-06-11, 06:56 AM
This thread = the madness. :smallfurious:

Nooooo, wait! The thread was staying relatively civil!

Your sarcasm has doomed us all.


Yes, that would be reasonable.

Look, this guy even said "reasonable". Someone, on the internet, was agreeing with someone with an opposing view, on the internet. Do you have any idea how often that happens? I also happen to agree. Some of WotC flavor text is plain dumb.

But now...

Solo
2008-06-11, 06:59 AM
This thread = the madness. :smallfurious:


Madness?

THIS IS INTERNETS!

nagora
2008-06-11, 07:00 AM
Players always meet monsters of a level-appropriate-encounter level, and that's accepted without question.
I question it; it's moronic as an ideal and impossible as a matter of fact.

Antacid
2008-06-11, 07:02 AM
Nooooo, wait! The thread was staying relatively civil!
Your sarcasm has doomed us all.

Everyone take what I say with a pinch of salt. It's just that when people post complaints like "There aren't enough rules! There's not enough freedom!" I am put in imminent danger of face-palming myself to death. Nothing personal.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-11, 07:02 AM
It's almost as if players of higher level got some kind of 1/2-level-based bonus that happens to exactly cancel out the difference between Tier 1 DCs and Tier 3 DCs.

Does that not strike you as weird? Regardless of level, players always have the exact same chance of passing a skill check. This means that their characters cannot train or improve their skilledness, other than by taking Skill Training and Skill Focus (which they can do at level 1).

Learnedguy
2008-06-11, 07:16 AM
There's always creative ways to ruin a DM's plans. 4ed just require you to think smarter in stead of handing you the spells to do it:smallyuk:

cybosage
2008-06-11, 07:54 AM
Does that not strike you as weird? Regardless of level, players always have the exact same chance of passing a skill check. This means that their characters cannot train or improve their skilledness, other than by taking Skill Training and Skill Focus (which they can do at level 1).


I take that as meaning that a higher level character has the same difficulty with more complex challenges as he had when he was lower level and not as skilled with easier challenges.

Basically, as he leveled up, and obviously got better at whatever he is trained in, the old problems he faced are now too easy, but he is still challenged by more complex matters.

Indon
2008-06-11, 08:14 AM
Well, by the RAW in regards to skill challenges, levels have next to no effect on level-appropriate skill challenges - the only things that can affect them are additional Skill Training feats, Skill Focus, and Jack of All Trades (and if you're talking about a long-term change, stats have a bit of an impact).


Basically, as he leveled up, and obviously got better at whatever he is trained in, the old problems he faced are now too easy, but he is still challenged by more complex matters.

Like noticing a fist-sized crystal, possibly one that's embedded in a statue, from more than 25 feet off.

Recognizing the crystal is a trap is an additional roll, Arcana, DC 33 (and makes sense).

Honestly, I don't care all that much. It's a good opportunity for a joke - "Yes, the party of adventurers apparently fail to see the fist-sized gem undoubtedly worth thousands of gold. But hey, you miss thousands of gold worth of lower-level +1 items on a regular basis at this level!" :P

tumble check
2008-06-11, 08:52 AM
Everyone take what I say with a pinch of salt. It's just that when people post complaints like "There aren't enough rules! There's not enough freedom!" I am put in imminent danger of face-palming myself to death. Nothing personal.



I'm just reminding everybody that concerns like these are not the nitpicky ramblings of one poster, they are legitimate issues with what many DnD fans see as a gravely important part of the game.

I'm quite irritated by the seeming dismissal of many that anything outside of combat can be created by "roleplaying". "Making believe" is not the solution to every out-of-rounds problem in DnD, and especially not the solution of any non-combat criticism that we may have of 4e. Roleplaying isn't fun without rules, because then it becomes an awesome-fest of who can do cooler sh!t while not having to roll a die.

There need to rules to provide support so that DnD doesn't become "storytime" until you roll the next initiative.

Speaking more to Bacon's point, by trying to avoid house-ruling and making things up on the fly("freedom", to some), it is almost impossible to escape the inevitable lack of consistency (in, for example, making up DCs for rope-tying) that can later bite the DM in the @$$ and greaty anger the players.

And it's hard to anger the players without the DM appearing to be on a power-trip. And if anyone is not having fun, then why are you playing?

Dyrvom
2008-06-11, 09:17 AM
So was I a crazy person to assume that rope-escaping was going to be opposed Thievery vs. Acrobatics rolls?

marjan
2008-06-11, 09:34 AM
Yes, the skill system has been revamped and diplomacy and such have been changed to work much better than 3e's.


Now, I cannot comment on weather other skills work better or not, but diplomacy isn't made better than in 3e. Now DM sets DCs for diplomacy, which is the only reference this skill gives for DCs. This, IMO, sucks more than 3e diplomacy. Yes, 3e was broken, but at least you could use those DCs as guidelines.

JMobius
2008-06-11, 10:18 AM
Now, I cannot comment on weather other skills work better or not, but diplomacy isn't made better than in 3e. Now DM sets DCs for diplomacy, which is the only reference this skill gives for DCs. This, IMO, sucks more than 3e diplomacy. Yes, 3e was broken, but at least you could use those DCs as guidelines.

That was what I thought at first as well, and it seemed like a total cop out. I was corrected (in this thread) that they have the DCs in the DMG. I don't particularly like the current implementation any more than I did the previous one, though.

wodan46
2008-06-11, 10:33 AM
Lets review some things that 4e does:

1. Combat is quicker and easier to run. This means that combat is not full of calculation constantly, while there is more time for roleplaying and skill encounters.
2. Classes are more balanced, and it is difficult to make an underpowered or overpowered character. Thus, players are more amenable to making a character they'd like to roleplay than making an optimized character meant for powergaming.
3. Skills have been reduced in number but increased in relevance. Skill based encounters work very well if done in a proper and creative manner. The DM shouldn't say make nature checks until you have 4 successes or 2 failures. He should say "you enter the forest, seeking the location of the ancient temple of Yeenoghu. what do you do?" and ask you to describe what you do rather than just say you are making a skill check.
4. Rituals mean that non-combat spells are balanced, and aren't monopolized by spellcasters, though non-casters are far worse at it (need feat for ritual casting, feat for skill training, and will still have a worse score than the wizard, who also doesn't have to buy scrolls over and over)

In short, while some may complain that 4e cut too much stuff out, it removed things that slowed down the game, inbalanced it, or put to much emphasis on any given component (it removed some good stuff as well, but it was a worthy sacrifice). Players will ideally be spending just as much time making skill checks and roleplaying than fighting, and they will be powergaming far less.

If anything 4e is less of a hackfest than 3.5e, as you don't spend the whole time bogged down calculating hacking modifiers, and noncombat encounters are more developed in both PHB skill listing and DMG instructions.

Scintillatus
2008-06-11, 10:37 AM
With skills now simplified to combat and challenge based, there's an enormous amount of room for backstory without a DM telling you off for not putting five ranks in Profession: Blacksmith. Almost all of my characters have some kind of interest in crafting - as an aide to roleplaying, rather than just a note on my character sheet to make my creation seem more three-dimensional.

Dragonmuncher
2008-06-11, 10:37 AM
Sounds reasonable to me.

With number 4, though, a slight quibble: Any ritual caster can buy either a "ritual scroll," allowing one casting, or a "ritual book," allowing repeated castings. I think.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-11, 10:38 AM
So far, in the games that I've run... combat has only been 1/3 of the total time spent playing. The rest has been good ole fashioned RP.

Solo
2008-06-11, 10:38 AM
Lets review some things that 4e does:

1. Combat is quicker and easier to run. This means that combat is not full of calculation constantly, while there is more time for roleplaying and skill encounters.
I have herd that some people's combat is about as long as in 3.5 edition.



2. Classes are more balanced, and it is difficult to make an underpowered or overpowered character. Thus, players are more amenable to making a character they'd like to roleplay than making an optimized character meant for powergaming.
What if they like to roleplay optimized characters? And why do you seem to think that roleplaying and having optimized characters are at odds with one another? For I make heavily optimized characters, and have yet to hear someone complain about my roleplaying.


3. Skills have been reduced in number but increased in relevance. Skill based encounters work very well if done in a proper and creative manner. The DM shouldn't say make nature checks until you have 4 successes or 2 failures. He should say "you enter the forest, seeking the location of the ancient temple of Yeenoghu. what do you do?" and ask you to describe what you do rather than just say you are making a skill check.
"What do you do?"

"I look for the temple."

That sort of thing? Or do you have to dexcribe searching for trails, climbing onto a tree to see the surroundings, etc?



In short, while some may complain that 4e cut too much stuff out, it removed things that slowed down the game, inbalanced it, or put to much emphasis on any given component. Players will ideally be spending just as much time making skill checks and roleplaying than fighting, and they will be powergaming far less.
Again, what is your problem with powergaming?

marjan
2008-06-11, 10:42 AM
That was what I thought at first as well, and it seemed like a total cop out. I was corrected (in this thread) that they have the DCs in the DMG. I don't particularly like the current implementation any more than I did the previous one, though.

Yes, I feel ashamed being ninja'd a page ago. :smallredface:
But that implementation in DMG is general DCs and it sucks. It depends on your level, so you don't get better chance of success as you go in level.

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-11, 10:43 AM
Wait, solo is pro 3.5!?

Or is he just neutral?

AKA_Bait
2008-06-11, 10:43 AM
I have herd that some people's combat is about as long as in 3.5 edition.

This has been the case for me. Combat takes just about as much time overall, but each individual round resolves more quickly. I view that as a plus, since it keeps everyone involved in combat more often, but I don't see it having an effect on RP time.



What if they like to roleplay optimized characters? And why do you seem to think that roleplaying and having optimized characters are at odds with one another? For I make heavily optimized characters, and have yet to hear someone complain about my roleplaying.

Your roleplaying sucks. :smallwink:


"What do you do?"

"I look for the temple."

That sort of thing? Or do you have to dexcribe searching for trails, climbing onto a tree to see the surroundings, etc?

I would make them describe it and then call for the check as part of the challenge.


Again, what is your problem with powergaming?

Some people think there is a causal link bettween powergaming and RPing badly. There isn't. Although, there is sometimes a correlation...

Solo
2008-06-11, 10:44 AM
Your roleplaying sucks. :smallwink:


Then you shall die!

Indon
2008-06-11, 10:44 AM
1. Combat is quicker and easier to run. This means that combat is not full of calculation constantly, while there is more time for roleplaying and skill encounters.

Correction: Combat is faster paced. Because each combat is longer (no more save-or-sucks or really high damage) in-game, time spent in combat has not significantly changed.

So this scenario is inaccurate - there's actually no change to RP (though combat has most definitely been improved from the streamlining).


2. Classes are more balanced, and it is difficult to make an underpowered or overpowered character. Thus, players are more amenable to making a character they'd like to roleplay than making an optimized character meant for powergaming.

The reverse side to that is that players have less choices for making characters they'd like to roleplay, optimized or otherwise. While the prior system certainly had all sorts of breakability, things were at least possible. At best, no net change from 3'rd edition. At worst, significant loss.


3. Skills have been reduced in number but increased in relevance. Skill based encounters work very well if done in a proper and creative manner. The DM shouldn't say make nature checks until you have 4 successes or 2 failures. He should say "you enter the forest, seeking the location of the ancient temple of Yeenoghu. what do you do?" and ask you to describe what you do rather than just say you are making a skill check.

Skill consolidation was great for streamlining, but ultimately aside from that streamlining, not much has changed. "what do you do?" is the same thing as what happened in 3'rd edition.

And the flip side is that in addition to the consolidation, customizability of skills were reduced. This further decreases options to make distinct characters (and by all means, go into how the 3.5 system was broken and it was better to make a working system that was worse rather than fix the existing system - I'll be happy to copy-paste an earlier post I made about how easy it would have been to make a good skill system in the framework of 4'th edition).


4. Rituals mean that non-combat spells are balanced, and aren't monopolized by spellcasters, though non-casters are far worse at it (need feat for ritual casting, feat for skill training, and will still have a worse score than the wizard, who also doesn't have to buy scrolls over and over)
I agree!


If anything 4e is less of a hackfest than 3.5e, as you don't spend the whole time bogged down calculating hacking modifiers, and noncombat encounters are more developed in both PHB skill listing and DMG instructions.

I disagree. It's more of a hackfest - it's just lighter on the math.

wodan46
2008-06-11, 10:47 AM
The way I picture it, people act as if 4e is appealing to the masses with quick and easy hack and slashes. However, due to the things I mentioned before, once that efficient combat is wrapped up, people will start roleplaying and doing noncombat encounters smoothly, and become true roleplayers rather than just munchkins.

Yes combat takes longer, but it is more immersive, which means it will feel shorter, so long as you don't spend decades haggling over square movement (WHY COULDNT THEY JUST DO FREAKIN HEXES?).

In this edition, you can play an optimized character, but you don't have to, and you won't be overshadowed by someone who does.

And yes, I would describe the situation around them after they make a skill check (you see worn path), and would reward them for creativity (using their religion skill to recall where temples would likely be placed, using a power to cut a tree to cross a crevice rather than using athletics to jump over, and other things). Of course, you don't have to, but 4e keeps the options handy.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 10:49 AM
What if they like to roleplay optimized characters? And why do you seem to think that roleplaying and having optimized characters are at odds with one another? For I make heavily optimized characters, and have yet to hear someone complain about my roleplaying.


The point is that you no longer have to sacrifices roleplay choices for optimization choices. So it's actually easier to roleplay optimized characters in 4e.

Citizen Joe
2008-06-11, 10:51 AM
That would seem to encourage combat. If the combat is fast, easy and has little risk to the PC's but all the rewards, then players are going to opt for the combat route every time.

If instead, combat were a hassle, a long drawn out process that you need to plan out ahead of time with great danger and little rewards (like in reality) then players would look for an alternative.

Saph
2008-06-11, 10:52 AM
All the 4e games I've played in so far have been definite hackfests. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think you're really going overboard in claiming that 4e's going to somehow promote better RPing. (When nearly everything on your character sheet is geared towards killing things in combat, that does kinda tend to be the focus of the game.)

Sure, you can talk to NPCs and have your GM improvise rules for things the rules don't cover and roleplay abilities that aren't covered by the rules. But name me a single RPG where you can't do that!

- Saph

wodan46
2008-06-11, 10:54 AM
"no longer have to sacrifices roleplay choices for optimization choices"

That's exactly what I'm getting at. It means that roleplay and optimization are more cooperative and less opposed than they were before, and encourage interest in both regardless of what a player came in to play at first.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-11, 10:59 AM
That would seem to encourage combat. If the combat is fast, easy and has little risk to the PC's but all the rewards, then players are going to opt for the combat route every time.

If instead, combat were a hassle, a long drawn out process that you need to plan out ahead of time with great danger and little rewards (like in reality) then players would look for an alternative.

Well lets not get the two things confused. Combat in 3.x was a hassle (for the player), but not all that dangerous (for the PC) if the appropriate CR and rewards were explicitally tied to each monster type. From the PC perspective that made combat a good and easy option, from the player prespective not so much.

4e combat is less of a hassle for the player and ime equally if not more dangerous to the PC than in 3.x. Treasure is not specifically linked to monsters and engaging them in combat doesn't guarantee you will get their stuff. Reward seems similar to in 3.x, if a little less.


Sure, you can talk to NPCs and have your GM improvise rules for things the rules don't cover and roleplay abilities that aren't covered by the rules. But name me a single RPG where you can't do that!

- Saph

WoW? At least for the improvising by the GM bit...

Scintillatus
2008-06-11, 11:00 AM
Saph, I think the argument can be made quite easily that 4e favours roleplaying and non-combat encounters much more than 3e ever did. 3e did not have the skill challenge system, or the social encounter system, or rules for co-operation on skill checks.

3e also reduced backstory to a set of skill ranks and feats, removing it from the player's hands - it really was a choice between justifying your baker background with some ranks in Profession: Baker, or being able to see three feet in front of your face.

I don't understand how one could argue that roleplaying is supported more in 3e, it seems absurd to me.

marjan
2008-06-11, 11:06 AM
once that efficient combat is wrapped up, people will start roleplaying and doing noncombat encounters smoothly


Or start another efficient combat. If you prefer combat over RP, there is nothing in 4e that will make you want to do the other, and other way around.


and become true roleplayers rather than just munchkins.


Might be so. I just don't think it is. There can still be number crunching.

Solo
2008-06-11, 11:11 AM
The point is that you no longer have to sacrifices roleplay choices for optimization choices. So it's actually easier to roleplay optimized characters in 4e.

What optimzied characters?

wodan46
2008-06-11, 11:12 AM
I'm only claiming that its better than 3.5e at roleplaying, not World of Darkness. Actually, its better at that as well unless you like to roleplay angsty things with fangs.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 11:16 AM
What optimzied characters?

Ok, I'll bite - what do you consider an optimized character to be?

Bloodraven
2008-06-11, 11:17 AM
Yes, I feel ashamed being ninja'd a page ago. :smallredface:
But that implementation in DMG is general DCs and it sucks. It depends on your level, so you don't get better chance of success as you go in level.

Yes you do, actually. That DC is set up for specific level of challenge, not your own level. The fact that most of the encounters you're going to have will be aproximately your own level is irrelevant.

It also reqires some amount of comon sense from the GM. Not every encounter you stumble on is going to be of your own level. So, while DC 27 might make sense for... say... demonic shopkeeper, it doesn't for plain old inkeeper in some by powers forsaken hamlet. The fact that you're level 20+ does not turn everyone into master negotiators, awareness ninjas or Olympic athletes.

Scintillatus
2008-06-11, 11:19 AM
I'm only claiming that its better than 3.5e at roleplaying, not World of Darkness. Actually, its better at that as well unless you like to roleplay angsty things with fangs.

BLASPHEMY

Also I'd say that WoD supports roleplaying much more than D&D, but that's mainly because it's a social system where combat is usually a result of you majorly, majorly screwing up.

Solo
2008-06-11, 11:26 AM
Ok, I'll bite - what do you consider an optimized character to be?


I submit to this level 12 build, the Battledancer (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheets/view.php?id=57936).
Explaination of abilities:

After buffing his companions for 2-4 rounds, he can let loose with Snowflake Wardance and power attack for his entire BAB, while having a AB higher than unbuffed.

Iaijutsu Focus is a skill that, depending on the value of the check made, allows him to add xd6 damage on one attack, made directly after drawing a weapon, against a flatfooted opponent. It is cross class, but his next feature fixes that.

Bardic Knowledge means that he has a bonus of half his character level a subsitute for ranks in skills that can be used untrained, and in skills tha trequrie training as long as he has at least 1 rank in those.

The spell improvisation gives him an additional half his cater level on skill checks, so in a skill he has no ranks in whatsoever, he can still get ability mod+character level on them - handy if you need someone to forge a document in a pinch, or use whatever obscure skill that needs using.

Haunting Melody allows him to make his enemies shaken, and the Sound of Silence can deafen an enemy caster, causing a 20% spell faliure chance for all spells requiiring verbal components. The save DC for this is equal to his perform check. His perform dancing check has a modifier of +25, +27 if I sing and dance, due to the feat Versatile Performer. This means, on average, the will save will have a DC of 37, minimum 28.

He also gets to use this perform check in place of concentration, and can cast spells while singing due to the feat Melodic Casting.

His bluff skill, after Glibness, is 52. This allows him to use the Epic usage of Bluff to instil a suggestion in someone for 10 minutes, among other things.

All in all, a rather well rounded, powerful melee build that also doubles as aa face and effective skillmonkey.

Tengu
2008-06-11, 11:29 AM
BLASPHEMY

Also I'd say that WoD supports roleplaying much more than D&D, but that's mainly because it's a social system where combat is usually a result of you majorly, majorly screwing up.

I know at least one guy who plays WoD in the "blam blam, kick the door and shoot the werewolf with a silver rocket" way.

I'd say that Exalted supports roleplaying most, as you get bonus dice and recover Essence if you perform your actions in a cool way.

wodan46
2008-06-11, 11:31 AM
I'm just mean. I acknowledge that WoD is better at roleplaying than D&D in any of its editions, but that 4e is better at roleplaying than earlier editions, though I'm familiar only with 3.5e so I don't comment much on earlier ones.

Exalted revolves around roleplaying because your characters are not so much optimized power gamers so much as they have gone past powergaming and come out the other side.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 11:35 AM
I submit to this level 12 build, the Battledancer (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheets/view.php?id=57936).


See, here is where we differ. While that is certainly an optimized build for 3.5, 4e has different standards. The downside? Maybe your character can't do everything. The benefit? The party doesn't get screwed by having a player that 1. doesn't understand the rules and endless options as well as everyone else or 2. sacrifices usefulness in battle for role-playing decisions.

So yes, I do think that 4e characters can be optimized without sacrificing role-play choices. But you can't expect the same things from an optimized 4e character as a 3.5 character. They'd intended to be different.

Not to mention that we only have core books out for 4e anyway, so for it to be a true comparison, you'd have to use a 3.5 character optimized using only core books.

Tengu
2008-06-11, 11:36 AM
And there's also Legend of the Five Rings, where if you have to gain a rank, you must personally write a permission to your lord. It beats even Exalted.

Solo
2008-06-11, 11:39 AM
See, here is where we differ. While that is certainly an optimized build for 3.5, 4e has different standards. The downside? Maybe your character can't do everything.
he's not good at everything, but more of a "jack of all trades", which is what a bard is dexribed as bieng. I just chose to focus on a few specific areas of the jack-ness

And as powerful as it is, he benifits the party by

1. Debuffing the enemy
2. Buffing the party
and
3. Providing skills inorder ot assist the promary skillmonkey and/or take over the job if the primary is absent, as well as being able to use obscure situational skills that people usually odn't invest in.



Not to mention that we only have core books out for 4e anyway, so for it to be a true comparison, you'd have to use a 3.5 character optimized using only core books.
You mean like Ozymandias?

Xefas
2008-06-11, 11:41 AM
And there's also Legend of the Five Rings, where if you have to gain a rank, you must personally write a permission to your lord. It beats even Exalted.

That reminds me of the 2nd edition rule for Druid advancement. Past a certain point, your Druid couldn't gain levels unless you sought out, challenged, and then defeated/killed a Druid of the next highest level.

So, a 15th level Druid gains enough XP to become 16th level. Well, he has to stay 15th level, go and find a 16th level Druid in the world, beat their ass, and then he gets to become 16th level.

At least, I think that's how it worked. It has been a really long time...

marjan
2008-06-11, 11:48 AM
It also reqires some amount of comon sense from the GM. Not every encounter you stumble on is going to be of your own level.

That was my original concern. There are not any guidelines for what a DC for that challenge should be, unless you know how to determine level of the challenge. Which rules don't cover, AFAIK.


The fact that you're level 20+ does not turn everyone into master negotiators, awareness ninjas or Olympic athletes.

If DC depends on the level of challenge and not your level, how are you not much better with a skill at lvl20 than you are at lvl1?

Saph
2008-06-11, 11:49 AM
Saph, I think the argument can be made quite easily that 4e favours roleplaying and non-combat encounters much more than 3e ever did. 3e did not have the skill challenge system, or the social encounter system, or rules for co-operation on skill checks.

I've found 4e skill challenges very dull so far. Virtually all the interesting abilities a 4e character has are geared towards combat, so every 4e game I've been in so far, I've tried to fast-forward the talking and get to the fighting, as that's what the system is good at. Combat gives tactical options and has the entertainment value of possible PC death. Skill challenges come down to "roll high X times before you roll low Y times".

I'm quite happy playing a 4e game that's all combat, but I'd rather not play at all than play a session of 4e skill challenges.

- Saph

Scintillatus
2008-06-11, 11:52 AM
I don't think that's a failing of the system, just your personal preference. It's pretty obvious that 4e encourages RP more than 3e; there's an entire section in the PHB for personality inspiration, and a sixth of the character sheet (discounting additional notes) is dedicated to these character traits and relationships.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-11, 11:52 AM
That reminds me of the 2nd edition rule for Druid advancement. Past a certain point, your Druid couldn't gain levels unless you sought out, challenged, and then defeated/killed a Druid of the next highest level.

So, a 15th level Druid gains enough XP to become 16th level. Well, he has to stay 15th level, go and find a 16th level Druid in the world, beat their ass, and then he gets to become 16th level.

At least, I think that's how it worked. It has been a really long time...

It was a rule begun in 1st Edition. Monks and Assassins had similar advancement restrictions on them in 1e. 2e kept the Druid class, and kept the 'challenge and defeat the leader of one level higher than you' rule. The druid could gain levels afterwards, but would be a retired leader after that. Odd stuff, but a little different from the basic numbers.

wodan46
2008-06-11, 11:54 AM
Saph, the quality of non-combat encounters is more dependent on the DM's effort. I specifically stated how a good DM shouldn't say that you make a series of checks, but tell you to actually do and describe your actions.

The Skills are just basic measures of your ability, but a DM should get plenty of instructions from the DMG of how to make Skills fun.

If done right, you could have Skill encounters just as fun and as long a combat encounter.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-11, 11:55 AM
Saph, the quality of non-combat encounters is more dependent on the DM's effort.

...

I would contend that first sentence could be applied to most any edition of any game.

Tengu
2008-06-11, 11:56 AM
That reminds me of the 2nd edition rule for Druid advancement. Past a certain point, your Druid couldn't gain levels unless you sought out, challenged, and then defeated/killed a Druid of the next highest level.

So, a 15th level Druid gains enough XP to become 16th level. Well, he has to stay 15th level, go and find a 16th level Druid in the world, beat their ass, and then he gets to become 16th level.

At least, I think that's how it worked. It has been a really long time...

One begins to wonder where did first high-level druids come from in the first place.

Saph
2008-06-11, 11:57 AM
I don't think that's a failing of the system, just your personal preference. It's pretty obvious that 4e encourages RP more than 3e; there's an entire section in the PHB for personality inspiration, and a sixth of the character sheet (discounting additional notes) is dedicated to these character traits and relationships.

If you found the personality section inspiring, I think the problem here is that we're using very different definitions of 'encourage roleplaying'. :P


I would contend that first sentence could be applied to most any edition of any game.

I'd agree with that.

- Saph

Scintillatus
2008-06-11, 11:59 AM
I didn't find it inspiring, because I've been roleplaying for many years. I found it to be a step up from having two ranks in Profession: Sailor, and a massive step up from nothing at all. I find that little things like this will provide DMs with story hooks, make players think beyond statistics, and encourage new players and people who rarely roleplay.

its_all_ogre
2008-06-11, 11:59 AM
Saph, I think the argument can be made quite easily that 4e favours roleplaying and non-combat encounters much more than 3e ever did. 3e did not have the skill challenge system, or the social encounter system, or rules for co-operation on skill checks.

3e also reduced backstory to a set of skill ranks and feats, removing it from the player's hands - it really was a choice between justifying your baker background with some ranks in Profession: Baker, or being able to see three feet in front of your face.

I don't understand how one could argue that roleplaying is supported more in 3e, it seems absurd to me.

i'm pro 4e from what i've seen personally, but i have to object to these claims totally.
3e did have a skill check system which could be used to build challenges, how else did you climb over that wall without a climb check? sneak past guards (hide/move silently) open locks, disarm traps etc etc. the 4e skill challenge is merely laid out for you, you've always been able to do it.
co-operation on skill checks? aid another actions. i've always used this, so players are trying to encourage an npc to be helpful, make them all make diplomacy checks, adding modifiers for ideas. pick highest and add +2 per other check that scores 10 or more.
how did you have to choose between skills you actually use and back story?
phb2 brought in retraining
'i used to be a baker, but i've not done it for so long now that chances are i wouldn't be able to make anything noteworthy'(in other words since becoming a ranger he's retrained his ranks into spot/listen/hide/move silently but if pushed he can take 10 and make a worthwhile loaf. just like anyone else.

some systems do help roleplay, dnd has never NEVER had that kind of system imo. i like that 4th ed will speed up combat as this means my sessions will not be one fight a night.
but making false claims like this is annoying.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 12:02 PM
he's not good at everything, but more of a "jack of all trades", which is what a bard is dexribed as bieng. I just chose to focus on a few specific areas of the jack-ness

And as powerful as it is, he benifits the party by

1. Debuffing the enemy
2. Buffing the party
and
3. Providing skills inorder ot assist the promary skillmonkey and/or take over the job if the primary is absent, as well as being able to use obscure situational skills that people usually odn't invest in.


You mean like Ozymandias?

You ignored my main point, which was that optimizing in 3.5 means something completely different than optimizing in 4e. I personally enjoy the 4e method more because it is far more difficult to create an utterly useless character (in comparison to the rest of the party). Which is for most groups (NOT all) a better thing. It is also a better way to attract new players.

its_all_ogre
2008-06-11, 12:04 PM
I didn't find it inspiring, because I've been roleplaying for many years. I found it to be a step up from having two ranks in Profession: Sailor, and a massive step up from nothing at all. I find that little things like this will provide DMs with story hooks, make players think beyond statistics, and encourage new players and people who rarely roleplay.

how does that section make non-roleplayers roleplay though?
i mean if they don't roleplay now how will that section help?
did a wizard do it?!!

seriously people who don't rp often have reasons which are generally nothing to do with the system they're playing. self consciousness in one form or other generally.

its_all_ogre
2008-06-11, 12:06 PM
You ignored my main point, which was that optimizing in 3.5 means something completely different than optimizing in 4e. I personally enjoy the 4e method more because it is far more difficult to create an utterly useless character (in comparison to the rest of the party). Which is for most groups (NOT all) a better thing. It is also a better way to attract new players.

now this i agree with.
my group are horribly outmatched by npcs of equal level and no matter what i do they just don't *get it*
the attracting new players is true likely too.

wodan46
2008-06-11, 12:08 PM
At Saph again: You misread my statement. I was stating that the DM has access to a ton of information and tools to encourage skills and roleplaying in the DMG and PHB, and that a poor DM is one who fails to utilize the tools given.

While it is true that a poor DM won't be able to encourage roleplaying and non-combat stuff in any system with a emphasis on combat, 4e DOES provide far better tools for facilitating non-combat/roleplaying than 3.5e does.

Scintillatus
2008-06-11, 12:09 PM
Do you think a system which has ZERO space for roleplaying is going to inspire more people to try roleplaying than a system which has a significant portion of the character sheet, the DMG, the PHB entirely before splatbooks? Do you think that 3e is less mechanically oriented than a game which goes back to the 1e/2e setup of "if you want it as your backstory, go ahead and say it", do you think that your roleplaying is limited by being able to play the lute even as a Wizard or Fighter, without having to drop double ranks in it just to earn a few coppers?

Do you? Do you really?

My point still stands, and has yet to be acknowledged, I suppose because it's difficult to argue against. 4e supports roleplaying better than 3e, simple as that.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-11, 12:12 PM
DnD remains one of my favorite games in its varied iterations, but I'd freely admit that it's rarely been the system that facilitates roleplay. A lot usually depends on three things: 1) The work the DM puts into roleplay, 2) whether the campaign world facilitates RP, and 3) how well-written the adventure is in regards to RP. The rules are also a factor, but overall as a ruleset, DnD has been less Roleplay ready than other systems.

I wouldn't say you can't, and I haven't done enough of 4e to be certain. I'm just saying that it's not geared for it.

wodan46
2008-06-11, 12:32 PM
Its more geared for it than 3.5e. Its still going to be outdone by any roleplaying centric systems, but its probably as good roleplaying/noncombat as you can get in a combat centric system, which has been true for all edition of D&D.

Matthew
2008-06-11, 12:41 PM
DnD remains one of my favorite games in its varied iterations, but I'd freely admit that it's rarely been the system that facilitates roleplay. A lot usually depends on three things: 1) The work the DM puts into roleplay, 2) whether the campaign world facilitates RP, and 3) how well-written the adventure is in regards to RP. The rules are also a factor, but overall as a ruleset, DnD has been less Roleplay ready than other systems.

I wouldn't say you can't, and I haven't done enough of 4e to be certain. I'm just saying that it's not geared for it.

To tell the truth, I am not sure how much dice should be involved with 'playing a role'. It seems to me that mechanics designed to 'facilitate roleplaying' actually only facilitate the character to interact with the world via skills or other mathematically derived concepts, not the player to 'play the role'. I guess one person's 'role-play' may not fit the definition of anothers.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-11, 12:42 PM
This is funny.

If anybody had dared to say anything negative regarding "3rd edition D&D" and how it "doesn't facilitate roleplaying enough" all of two weeks ago, he would have been flamed to death.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 12:45 PM
This is funny.

If anybody had dared to say anything negative regarding "3rd edition D&D" and how it "doesn't facilitate roleplaying enough" all of two weeks ago, he would have been flamed to death.

It's been a longstanding criticism of mine.

But I'm definitely no 3.5 fan, never have been, never will be.

Xefas
2008-06-11, 12:51 PM
This is funny.

If anybody had dared to say anything negative regarding "3rd edition D&D" and how it "doesn't facilitate roleplaying enough" all of two weeks ago, he would have been flamed to death.

3rd edition is like an ex girlfriend. You don't realize just how unnecessarily difficult and psychopathic she was until you've ended the relationship.

Then you find out that 4th edition has bigger, perkier Halflings and a clean shaven Dwarf, and the deal is sealed.

(But, no, really, I like that Halflings are a foot taller and get +2 CHA now)

Matthew
2008-06-11, 12:53 PM
This is funny.

If anybody had dared to say anything negative regarding "3rd edition D&D" and how it "doesn't facilitate roleplaying enough" all of two weeks ago, he would have been flamed to death.

I don't know about that. I am pretty sure I have criticised D20 on that score here without evoking many flames, as have other people. The question is what you compare it to. Now that 4e is available, there is a perception that the former champions of D20 have jumped ship to 4e (bigger, better, brighter) and now bad mouth the very thing they previously lauded.

How true that perception is, I don't really know. There are a lot of posters here and we cycle through a lot of new ones from month to month, so it's hard to single anyone out on that count (and probably inappropriate anyway). Certainly, a lot of the arguments once deployed for AD&D in opposition to D20 are now being used by entrenched supporters of D20 in opposition to avid evangelists of 4e.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-11, 12:56 PM
To tell the truth, I am not sure how much dice should be involved with 'playing a role'. It seems to me that mechanics designed to 'facilitate roleplaying' actually only facilitate the character to interact with the world via skills or other mathematically derived concepts, not the player to 'play the role'. I guess one person's 'role-play' may not fit the definition of anothers.

I'm not sure what your definition is, then. Roleplaying games of all ilk use mechanics of some sort. Even Amber Diceless had a mechanic to help determine things in its way. It's pretty much why we purchase rulebooks, so everyone in the group will use similar adjudication on how things in a given game are done.

Matthew
2008-06-11, 01:10 PM
I'm not sure what your definition is, then. Roleplaying games of all ilk use mechanics of some sort. Even Amber Diceless had a mechanic to help determine things in its way. It's pretty much why we purchase rulebooks, so everyone in the group will use similar adjudication on how things in a given game are done.

Is it? Most of the rulebooks for D&D I have ever seen contain a lot of rules pertinent to combat and magic, but precious little about actually 'playing a role'. Those that do, don't discuss mechanics, but provide advice and guidelines about how to have a character behave.

Task resolution rules don't really facilitate role-playing, they just resolve tasks according to a mechanical formula (and maybe a die roll). That's actually not role-playing to my mind, that's an abstract mechanism for resolving events by reference to the character's numbers.

In fact, I might go so far as to say the numbers are a crutch for people who cannot role-play their character, but that might be deemed a little insulting (yet it is exactly the argument deployed when someone insists that skills are necessary, i.e. "What if I want to play a silver tongued Rogue, but am no good at speaking?")

wodan46
2008-06-11, 01:15 PM
You should read the 4e DMG guide. Now.

It tells you everything you need to know about this kind of stuff.

If you base your opinions of 4e off the PHB, of course you are going to view it as hack and slash with little roleplay. The Skills and Character descriptions are substantive, but still afterthoughts compared to the combat it focuses on.

The DMG, on the other hand, is a different story.

Matthew
2008-06-11, 01:17 PM
I have read it. It says pretty much exactly what every roleplaying book in creation on the subject has ever said.

turkishproverb
2008-06-11, 01:26 PM
This is funny.

If anybody had dared to say anything negative regarding "3rd edition D&D" and how it "doesn't facilitate roleplaying enough" all of two weeks ago, he would have been flamed to death.

Welcome to the wonderful world of changing Editions. Much like after 3rd edition replaced second, we are now seeing people exaggerate or downright fabricate problems with 3rd edition. This will invariably lead to the day when one cannot find people willing to play the system, because all the myths about how bad it is have gotten to them.

Bloodraven
2008-06-11, 01:36 PM
The fact that you're level 20+ does not turn everyone into master negotiators, awareness ninjas or Olympic athletes.
If DC depends on the level of challenge and not your level, how are you not much better with a skill at lvl20 than you are at lvl1?

I was refering to the NPC's here.

Kami2awa
2008-06-11, 01:37 PM
It ain't the end of the world if you work tying people up differently every time.

Yes, there's a whole (Japanese) art to it...

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-11, 01:39 PM
That was my original concern. There are not any guidelines for what a DC for that challenge should be, unless you know how to determine level of the challenge. Which rules don't cover, AFAIK.

If DC depends on the level of challenge and not your level, how are you not much better with a skill at lvl20 than you are at lvl1?

Okay, here's how the DCs work.

Every 3 levels, the "recommended" DCs for arbitrary checks advance. This is to keep the game challenging for the PCs - and we keep the game challenging so that it doesn't become boring. 10th level fighters don't want to waste time killing dire rats, 10th level rogues don't want to be able to automatically pick a lock by breathing on it, or to sneak past kobolds without trying. Alternatively, we don't want to make challenges so difficult that a level-appropriate lock has to assume the PC will take 20, or that while the trap has a high enough Reflex DC to maybe catch the rogue, there's no way the cleric could dodge it.

To make life easier for everyone, 4e says "if you're writing an adventure that's supposed to challenge your PCs, then these DCs will provide either an easy (but still capable of being failed) check, a normal check, or a hard check" and not be gainsayed by the Bard with Diplomancy or the Rogue with a +20 Pick Locks due to Dex Boosters and MW Lockpicks.

Between the Tiers, this is makes life even easier. Now, rather than figuring out what a Jump check of 60 means, you can just frame situations where it would be too dangerous for any given lower tier party to attempt it. No 1st level thief is going to be able to disarm the traps in the Temple of Fiends, but for a Tier II party, that's just the sort of challenge they were looking for.

Hope that explains the DCs a bit.

Now, keeping that in mind, think on this: the higher level challenges are more difficult to do, and lesser characters could not even attempt most of them. However, as an appropriate level character, you have a chance to do it - therefore, you are better, in an absolute sense, at using your skills.

Now, how does this play out with social encounters?
Firstly, unlike in 3rd, you don't have an even chance of convincing a peasant to be your friend as you do a king. You can define these as different "levels" of social encounters if you like.

The rationalization here (if you need it) is that as lowly 1st level characters, you're not going to be able to sway the attitude of the king - he's got better things to do. But after you're 10th level, perhaps you've earned enough renown in the land, or at least are confident enough in your own powers, that you can make a convincing claim that the king had better be your friend, or at least take you seriously.

Still bothered with the idea that you'll be no better at convincing peasants at 10th level than at 1st? Don't be. Individual peasants don't present a challenge for you once you get to Level 5 (based off of their MM entry), and so your DM shouldn't give you situations where a part of the challenge is to getting the peasant to fetch you some water. No, you're level 5 now! Why, a better challenge may be to convince a mob of peasants (lead by a LV 7 Rabble Rouser) to join you in a battle against the orcish warband! You probably had little chance of doing that at first level, but now, it might be hard, but you can do it!

Finally, I know that a lot of these arguments sound circular. The reason why is that I am trying to justify the internal logic of a rules system designed to create its own internal logic. Speaking abstractly, D&D is a game where the DM designs challenges for your PCs to overcome and have a good time doing so. It's no fun if your "challenges" aren't in fact challenging for your characters (and if you're not using your characters, then perhaps a Storytelling system is a better fit), and it's even less fun if the challenges are so hard that you have no chance of winning.

The trick is for the DM to use the rules to create a story which reflects the level of difficulty that the rules assume. If the rules tell you this is a Level 26 Solo Trap, then that means you should design it, fluff wise, to seem like a hard challenge for a Tier II party. Additionally, if you think it's silly to require LV 24 characters to be trained in Perception (and with just a little wisdom) to be able to notice the gem, then say "you notice that the gem sitting on the pedestal shines with a soft, inner light" or something.

This is not a Rule 0 Fallacy, this is altering the fluff until you are more comfortable with it.

Antacid
2008-06-11, 01:41 PM
What optimized characters?
There's definitely room for optimization. Nowhere is it more obvious than for the KotSF pre-generated characters, which are suckily optimized. There's the Dwarf fighter with a Strength of just 16, who has Dex 13 despite wearing scale armour that prevents the Dex bonus from adding to his AC; or the Cleric with only the LAZER at-will powers; the Wizard with an unmaxed Intelligence, etc.

The difference is that (so far) optimization is just a matter of common sense rather than splatbook research, and doesn't give advantages that overwhelm normal builds.


I'm not sure what your definition is, then. Roleplaying games of all ilk use mechanics of some sort. Even Amber Diceless had a mechanic to help determine things in its way. It's pretty much why we purchase rulebooks, so everyone in the group will use similar adjudication on how things in a given game are done.

There was a pro-3.5 poster on another thread who claimed different RPGs could be defined by how well they did roleplaying, simulation and gaming metrics. He was arguing that 4e had sacrificed roleplay and become more "gamist". I think the real problem some people are having is that it's sacrificed simulation.

Rather than have a bunch of different mechanics for determining outcomes of roleplay situations, WotC have focused on simple, flexible mechanics that generate a result quickly so the story can move on. So if you enjoyed the mechanics from 3.5, that means part of the game you enjoyed has been removed, and it's easy to assume it's because the focus has been taken off the roleplaying rather than because the mechanics have been simplified.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-11, 01:43 PM
Welcome to the wonderful world of changing Editions. Much like after 3rd edition replaced second, we are now seeing people exaggerate or downright fabricate problems with 3rd edition. This will invariably lead to the day when one cannot find people willing to play the system, because all the myths about how bad it is have gotten to them.

I don't know about you, but to me, 3.5 has always been a pretty bad system. I played, I had fun, I enjoyed making characters, but it had a lot of problems

Oh and DMing was in no way enjoyable and it felt like work more than anything.

That's not fun at all.

marjan
2008-06-11, 01:44 PM
*Explanation*

Thanks for that. That explains most of things I wanted to know.

Diamondeye
2008-06-11, 01:45 PM
Task resolution rules don't really facilitate role-playing, they just resolve tasks according to a mechanical formula (and maybe a die roll). That's actually not role-playing to my mind, that's an abstract mechanism for resolving events by reference to the character's numbers.

You're correct; task resolution rules are not roleplaying. You're supposed to do the roleplaying before the task resolution roll is made. The DM is then supposed to apply appropriate situational modifiers based on how the roleplaying works out.

Matthew
2008-06-11, 01:46 PM
I don't know about you, but to me, 3.5 has always been a pretty bad system. I played, I had fun, I enjoyed making characters, but it had a lot of problems

Oh and DMing was in no way enjoyable and it felt like work more than anything.

That's not fun at all.

I don't know, it had its moments. Creating stuff was a chore (for me, I understand other people loved it), but there were plenty of one off adventures to be had. I wouldn't have liked to have run a long term campaign, but I had fun running The Burning Plague, What's Cooking?, and a bunch of other prefabricated pick up and play adventures.



You're correct; task resolution rules are not roleplaying. You're supposed to do the roleplaying before the task resolution roll is made. The DM is then supposed to apply appropriate situational modifiers based on how the roleplaying works out.

That's certainly one way of doing it, and task resolution should indeed complement role-playing.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-11, 01:48 PM
Thanks for that. That explains most of things I wanted to know.

Thank goodness! I was beginning to worry that I wasn't actually helping anyone when I explained things :smalltongue:

(Side Note)
Seriously though, if you DM, there has not been a D&D product that makes putting your own stuff together easier than this. It's only really weakness is that, in comparison to 3rd, it's harder to build your own Divine Feats (and thus, pantheons). I've basically stuck to making small tweaks to the Feats there, to better fit my own divinities (I have a Dwarven God of eternal defense, whose priests can use the "Raven Queen's Blessing" when either himself or his allies drop to 0 HP, rather than when the priest or his allies drop someone else to 0 HP. I'm rather proud of that one :smallbiggrin:

TRM
2008-06-11, 01:53 PM
I was going to start a new 4th edition thread with this question but... :smallsigh:

How exactly does a game system "facilitate role-playing?" Do the 4e rules give you active bonuses for playing in character? Do they in any way make role playing a more attractive option than in 3.5e?

wodan46
2008-06-11, 01:58 PM
yes, indeed.

Lets review DMG's chapters.

1. How to Be a DM: 4-15
2. Running a Game: 16-33
3. Combat Encounters: 34-50
4. Building Encounters: 52-69
5. Noncombat Encounters: 70-87
6. Adventures: 94-116
7. Rewards: 118-129
8. Campaigns: 130-147
9. The World: 148-171
10. The DM's Toolbook: 172-195
11. Fallcrest: 196-211

1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 relate to advice to the DM on non-combat and roleplaying stuff, about half the book. 3, 4, 7, and 10 are concerned combat encounter building, running, and ending, while 9 and 11 are setting material.

Seems pretty solid to me.

Matthew
2008-06-11, 02:11 PM
How exactly does a game system "facilitate role-playing?"

Good questions. If you give mechanical bonuses it is supposed to encourage role-playing, but if you make the system reliant on role-playing, players feel like they are being forced to role-play against their will. As far as I can see, the situation is almost identical to that in 3e, which is to say it is more dependent on your DM and your group than on the system. The system, however, does not forbid either approach.



Do the 4e rules give you active bonuses for playing in character? Do they in any way make role playing a more attractive option than in 3.5e?

Well, since in 3e, the DM was free to apply circumstance bonuses for good role-playing, I would say the 4e system doesn't do much more to make it attractive. It depends on what your definition of 'attractive' is. Do 'more powers' and 'increased chance of success' make role-playing your character a more attractive option?

turkishproverb
2008-06-11, 02:15 PM
yes, indeed.

Lets review DMG's chapters.

1. How to Be a DM: 4-15
2. Running a Game: 16-33
3. Combat Encounters: 34-50
4. Building Encounters: 52-69
5. Noncombat Encounters: 70-87
6. Adventures: 94-116
7. Rewards: 118-129
8. Campaigns: 130-147
9. The World: 148-171
10. The DM's Toolbook: 172-195
11. Fallcrest: 196-211

1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 relate to advice to the DM on non-combat and roleplaying stuff, about half the book. 3, 4, 7, and 10 are concerned combat encounter building, running, and ending, while 9 and 11 are setting material.

Seems pretty solid to me.

1 Not combat or noncombat. Nice try
2 Not Combat or noncombat. Nice Try
6 Not combat or noncombat. NIce try
8.Not combat or noncombat. Nice try.

Heck, the first two are REQIURED even if your just running combats.

TRM
2008-06-11, 02:18 PM
yes, indeed.

Lets review DMG's chapters.

1. How to Be a DM: 4-15
2. Running a Game: 16-33
3. Combat Encounters: 34-50
4. Building Encounters: 52-69
5. Noncombat Encounters: 70-87
6. Adventures: 94-116
7. Rewards: 118-129
8. Campaigns: 130-147
9. The World: 148-171
10. The DM's Toolbook: 172-195
11. Fallcrest: 196-211

1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 relate to advice to the DM on non-combat and roleplaying stuff, about half the book. 3, 4, 7, and 10 are concerned combat encounter building, running, and ending, while 9 and 11 are setting material.

Seems pretty solid to me.
((First off, apologies if this has already been argued.))

Does this DMG facilitate role-playing because better role-playing is inherent in the system, or because they wrote their DMG as a collection of advice on facilitating role-playing; while the 3.5e DMG had a different focus?

You can find similar information intended for 3.5 on the internet, on this site even (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76474). Maybe the 4e book is better written for role-playing, but that doesn't mean the system is "designed to facilitate role-playing."

Also:


2. Classes are more balanced, and it is difficult to make an underpowered or overpowered character. Thus, players are more amenable to making a character they'd like to roleplay than making an optimized character meant for powergaming.


4. Rituals mean that non-combat spells are balanced, and aren't monopolized by spellcasters, though non-casters are far worse at it (need feat for ritual casting, feat for skill training, and will still have a worse score than the wizard, who also doesn't have to buy scrolls over and over)

I would also like an explanation of how imbalance harms role-playing. I understand your point in the first quote, but I contend that game balance affects, well, game balance far more than it affects role-playing. Balance is an admirable goal, but you can role-play both a helpless babe and an un-killable demigod—having one party member outshine the rest doesn't mess with the players' ability to RP.


Players will ideally be spending just as much time making skill checks and roleplaying than fighting, and they will be powergaming far less.

I know I should be thinking for myself, but: STORMWIND FALLACY!!

tumble check
2008-06-11, 02:20 PM
Seriously though, if you DM, there has not been a D&D product that makes putting your own stuff together easier than this.

Yes, 4e is definitely the DM's edition of choice, in terms of simplicity.

marjan
2008-06-11, 02:28 PM
You're correct; task resolution rules are not roleplaying. You're supposed to do the roleplaying before the task resolution roll is made. The DM is then supposed to apply appropriate situational modifiers based on how the roleplaying works out.

That was also encouraged in 3e. Bluff for example gave a bonus to target's sense motive check if you don't have something convincing to say. On the other hand how do you roleplay picking lock?

Justin_Bacon
2008-06-11, 02:29 PM
I am the only one who think that the Perception roll isn't to see the gem but to identify it like a dangerous one? Not a simple gem,but a ZAPLAZ0RKILLER gem?

Doesn't work, because (a) the Perception check is specifically described as "spotting the gem", not "spotting that the gem is dangerous"; and (b) there's a separate Arcana check (made after the Perception check) which is used to determine whether or not the character recognizes it as dangerous.

I'm not sure why you guys are trying to defend the indefensible here.



So I can either throw consistency out the window and just dictate on a whim, or I can start layering on countless house rules.
BTW, what's with this concept of telling the players what mechanic you're using? Have you ever heard of rolling dice behind a screen and saying "the kobold escapes"?

Nothing annoys me more than blatant strawmanning. I specifically said that dictating things on a whim was an option and you quoted me saying it. Why are you pretending that I didn't say it?


Because fixed DCs that result in challenges being solved with absurd ease by players with maxed skill ranks is realistic. :smalltongue:

Err... Yes, that's exactly right. A physics problem that's challenging for 1st graders is not going to be challenging to Einstein. A system that says, "When Einstein walks into a 1st grade classroom, all the problems on the board change to advanced quantum mechanics." Is a dissociated system that shatters my willing suspension of disbelief.

Like I said.


Players always meet monsters of a level-appropriate-encounter level, and that's accepted without question.

Actually, I find that equally objectionable. When 15th level characters pick a fight in the village tavern, the local villagers don't morph into a 15th level challenge -- they're still just common villagers. When 20th level characters go back to visit the goblin tribe they first encountered at 3rd level, I don't have all the goblins level up to 20th level.

I find game worlds like that not only unbelievable, but pretty boring. It's far more interesting for powerful characters to actually be powerful compared to the world around them.

Here's the bottom line: There's nothing wrong with having a Level 26 trap that requires a DC 29 Perception check. But the trap should be designed so that it actually requires a DC 29 Perception check. The local gutter goblin tribe shouldn't become harder to fight just because the PCs are better at fighting things, and fist-sized gems sitting on pedestals in the middle of a room shouldn't become harder to spot just because the PCs are better at spotting things.



And it's easy to say, "Jesus Christ, Justin. It's tying up a friggin' kobold. Make a judgment call and do it."

Which is, of course, what I did. But the problem is that, at some point, they're going to want to tie up another prisoner... and they're going to expect the same mechanics to be used. That makes it a house rule. And tracking that one house rule isn't a big deal... but these problems are scattered all over the new edition. So now I've got dozens or hundreds of these house rules to track.

That's just sad. Talk about "learnt helplessness".

"No rules for knot tying" has got to be the least convincing criticism of a role-playing game I've ever heard.

At least you were smart enough to deliberately not to quote the section of my message that makes it clear you're posting a blatant and insulting strawman. Not that it makes what you did any more sensible, of course.


Everyone take what I say with a pinch of salt. It's just that when people post complaints like "There aren't enough rules! There's not enough freedom!" I am put in imminent danger of face-palming myself to death. Nothing personal.

Properly designed rules are tools. Tools are good. Tools let you do things that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to accomplish. So when I look in the 4th Edition toolbox and see that they've needlessly removed some of my tools, that's a negative.

So, yeah, when they take away my tools they're taking away my freedom. Take away my hammer and I won't be able to pound any nails until I make a new hammer for myself (or go back to the toolbox that includes the hammer).

SamTheCleric
2008-06-11, 02:35 PM
That was also encouraged in 3e. Bluff for example gave a bonus to target's sense motive check if you don't have something convincing to say. On the other hand how do you roleplay picking lock?

Lockpicking is not one of those skills that you do fancy things for. You simply state "I pick the lock with my thieves tools"

And roll the dice.

Or, if you're one of those types that likes to be longwinded about things.

"I slowly approach the lock, keeping an eye out for any signs of danger, traps or enemies. Once reaching the door, I careful slide my file into the lock, hoping to hear that triumphant click."

wodan46
2008-06-11, 02:40 PM
Turkish, I have the following to say:

1 begins with a discussion of player attitudes and how to handle them, and continues to clearly discuss how to handle roleplaying on a broader level, just as it discusses how to handle combat on a broader level.
2 talks about realism, pacing, and cinematic style, and in general how the DM should roleplay the environment and setting while providing ample opportunity for players to roleplay as well.
6 talks in depth about how to provide a functional setting. once again, this is providing tools for the DM to roleplay the environment and provide opportunities for players to interact with it and roleplay themselves.
8 does the same as 6.

I specified that 4e facilitates roleplaying. All of the above chapters are tools for the DM to facilitate roleplaying, both by themselves and by players.

Matthew
2008-06-11, 02:45 PM
Lockpicking is not one of those skills that you do fancy things for. You simply state "I pick the lock with my thieves tools"

Indeed; task resolution and role-playing are distinct, albeit potentially complementary aspects of the game, but they are easily conflated in the mind (possibly as a direct result of AD&D having complex rules to manage combat and very few rules for managing task resolution). It should be clear that combat and non combat are not equivalent to role-playing and not role-playing.

turkishproverb
2008-06-11, 02:51 PM
Turkish, I have the following to say:

1 begins with a discussion of player attitudes and how to handle them, and continues to clearly discuss how to handle roleplaying on a broader level, just as it discusses how to handle combat on a broader level.
2 talks about realism, pacing, and cinematic style, and in general how the DM should roleplay the environment and setting while providing ample opportunity for players to roleplay as well.
6 talks in depth about how to provide a functional setting. once again, this is providing tools for the DM to roleplay the environment and provide opportunities for players to interact with it and roleplay themselves.
8 does the same as 6.

I specified that 4e facilitates roleplaying. All of the above chapters are tools for the DM to facilitate roleplaying, both by themselves and by players.

So you admit those chapters don't focus on noncombat then?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-11, 03:09 PM
Justin... what are you getting at here? Do you really want rules that cover every little detail, or general guidelines that help you deal with variable circumstances.

(Extended Discussion)
Was "Use Rope" such an important skill that you wanted a table of modifiers to say how tight the binding were? Was it a travesty that 3rd Edition didn't describe in core how hard it was to purify chemicals using Alchemy? Are those the sort of rules you want to have highly particularized so that the DM and the PCs will be able to refer to a specific table to figure out how to do it?

Or would you be OK with a system that gives you general guidelines for broad actions? Is it OK for the DM to say "okay, you want to tie up the kobold? Got rope? Okay, that's a regular restraint, so he needs a DC 20 to escape?" Is that somehow wrong, for the DM to use his judgment?

If you can agree that it is OK for the DM to make snap judgments sometime in a pen-and-paper RPG, then can you also agree that a system that gives general rules to resolve this situations is better than one that doesn't?

2nd Edition, for example, didn't have any sort of system for figuring how well you tied a rope... or, for that matter, how easy it was to escape. At best, your DM might say "Roll a Dex check" or make something up on the spot. This is a completely arbitrary system, and one that did little to take into account the relative abilities and powers of the characters - the system just didn't take these sorts of things into account.

4th Edition, now, has a section for dealing with situations the rules don't cover - it's even called that in the Table of Contents. Now, if a character wants to do something unplanned, you have a very simple procedure you can follow:
1) Decide whether its important that the PC roll for this.
- The PC doesn't have to roll to open the sticky door in the Inn if he's just going out to get some fresh air, but he might have to make a check if he needs to get inside quickly while the Inn is on fire.

2) If the PC should roll for this, pick a relevant skill. If you can't figure out a relevant skill, have them roll an ability check + 1/2LV.

3) Determine whether the test is Opposed, or should just have a standard DC.
- If it has a standard DC, then look at the appropriate section of the DC Chart, and figure out if the task is going to be Easy, Normal, or Hard for the PC to do. If you can't decide, just go with "Normal"

This is superior to 2nd Edition's way of doing things because you can make a challenge that tracks the PC's power-level (Ability Checks in 2e did not) and may give bonuses for relevant skills (the 4e skills are pretty broad). I think this is superior to 3rd Edition as well, as the PC isn't going to be penalized for not wasting skill points he could have put in something generally useful (like "Spot" or "Jump") by putting them in rarely used skills (like "Appraise," "Use Ropes," or "Swim").

Can you really argue that 2nd Edition is better than 4th here? Or are you so wedded to the ideas of "separate tables for every occurrence" that you don't feel comfortable letting the DM slap together something for the rare times that these situations come up?

Now, with all that said, there is one area that the skills in 4e don't cover: building mundane stuff. The knowledges cover all the identifications you'll need, but "Craft" just isn't there anymore. (Neither is Profession, but I don't think that many people are sad to hear it go, as a skill.)

(More Explanation)
This was a choice made by WotC because we're talking about Dungeons and Dragons, not This Old House. The standard adventurer isn't going to be spending tons of time at the forge, and if he is, it probably isn't something that he's excited about rolling for. There is no reason to include rules for making clubs or leather armor in a game designed to let Players run about doing great deeds.

If you really, really want the players to be able to forge their own swords or whatnot, then I ask you: is it important enough to make them roll dice for? If no, then why not just say "Your background says you're a blacksmith. Given a smithy and raw materials, you forge a greataxe. It takes all day to make."

If yes, then why? Why are you in an adventure where forging Greataxes is a challenge as great as killing monsters or convincing the Duke to send aid to Gondor? Maybe you like those adventures. If so, then the DMG has a nice, simple system to help the DM devise an ad hoc system for it.

I really would like to hear your response here. So far, I've been unable to figure out what it is about the 4e skill rules that you dislike.

If it is that you prefer in-depth rules about rope tying rather than using ad hoc rules for rare situations, then you probably should be playing GURPS Fantasy. D&D has Hit Points, for goodness sake - a limb/organ damage table system sounds like it'd suit you better.

If it is, instead, that you prefer ad hoc rulemaking that follows some kind of system to pure ad hoc rules, then you should love 4th Edition. The system presented in the DMG for dealing with situations not explicitly covered by the rule is simple in presentation and elegant in practice. It even covers improvised attacks, which no previous D&D system has adequately systematized!

SCPRedMage
2008-06-11, 03:10 PM
First, Solo, Iaijustsu Focus is:
1. Campaign Specific.
2. From 3.0.
3. Possibly the most broken use for skill points, EVER.

Any DM that let you use that skill outside of OA would be a complete IDIOT; not only does it have a tendency to upset game balance, but it's part of what makes that campaign unique, like Artificer helps make Eberron unique. And considering that Bard is one of the BANNED classes in OA, it's pretty obvious that that character is NOT in an OA game.

And second, on the topic of rituals. ANYONE can use a ritual scroll, without the Ritual Caster feat, and regardless of level. Once they get the Ritual Caster feat, they can use a ritual book to master the ritual, and then cast it as often as they wish, so long as they have a copy of the ritual handy.

In other words, once a Fighter has spent the two feats necessary to cast rituals, he can cast 'em just as effectively as a Wizard, excepting, of course, that his Arcana skill checks will likely be a few points lower, due to him likely having a lower Int score.

The only reason the Wizard is the undisputed ritual MASTER is because unlike every other class, he learns new rituals for FREE as part of his leveling.

Just to sum this up nicely, the best classes for rituals, from best to worst:
Wizard
Cleric
Warlock & Paladin
Everyone else.

Trog
2008-06-11, 03:47 PM
Okay. About the fist sized gem. The DC to see it. It's listed under the trap description. Therefore it is the difficulty to notice IT'S A TRAP. There is no Find Traps skill in 4e and perception checks replace these. Can you see the gem? Yup. No roll necessary. Can you figure out which one of the dozen gems in the room is the trap... if any? For that you need to hit the DC listed in the trap description. Duh.

About tying someone up. There ARE DCs for escaping rope, manacles, and adamantine manacles in the DMG or PHB. Tying someone up = those listed DCs. I suppose if someone wanted to tie them up "real good" the DM could require the escapee to make multiple checks. Or set it up as a skill challenge with failure = getting caught or snagged or hurt or something.

Diamondeye
2008-06-11, 03:50 PM
That was also encouraged in 3e. Bluff for example gave a bonus to target's sense motive check if you don't have something convincing to say. On the other hand how do you roleplay picking lock?

I was talking about 3E. As for roleplaying pick lock you wouldn't roleplay out the exact mechanical motions involved, but you could probably describe the precautions you are taking against traps, the degree of attention you are putting on the lock versus protecting yourself against unexpected attack, and other factors that might be important.

It's pretty hard to roleplay out complex mechanical tasks like lockpicking, regardless of the system you're using since most of us don't actually know anything about lockpicking.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-11, 03:57 PM
First, Solo, Iaijustsu Focus is:
1. Campaign Specific.
2. From 3.0.
3. Possibly the most broken use for skill points, EVER.

Any DM that let you use that skill outside of OA would be a complete IDIOT; not only does it have a tendency to upset game balance, but it's part of what makes that campaign unique, like Artificer helps make Eberron unique. And considering that Bard is one of the BANNED classes in OA, it's pretty obvious that that character is NOT in an OA game.


Actually, in the section on INTEGRATING Oriental Adventures into other campaign settings, IT specifically suggests the possibility OF putting classes from outside IN. Furthermore, OA is now 3.5, having BEEN updated in A Dragon Magazine.

marjan
2008-06-11, 03:57 PM
I was talking about 3E.

Apologies. I misunderstood you.



It's pretty hard to roleplay out complex mechanical tasks like lockpicking, regardless of the system you're using since most of us don't actually know anything about lockpicking.

That was my point exactly, though you said it better.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-11, 04:08 PM
Okay. About the fist sized gem. The DC to see it. It's listed under the trap description. Therefore it is the difficulty to notice IT'S A TRAP.

As has been pointed out before, yes, that is a nice house rule, but it is explicitly not what WOTC's text says.

Tehnar
2008-06-11, 04:19 PM
Actually the 4e DMG is the best part of the released trio. Well except for the part where they state that DCs for a skill or ability check should rise as a character gets more powerful. But adding a word "recommended" fixes that right up.

But actually, in my experience the 4e DMG is just (except for a few parts that deal with the new mechanics) a literal copy pasting of the 3.5 DMG I & II, and some stuff from the net.

Actually what they should have done, is just gave a link to a certain website (written for 2nd edition), where a DM talks about worldbuilding. (also appeared in dragon magasine) It is by far the best guide a new or even a moderatly experienced DM can read.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/dungeoncraft/

SCPRedMage
2008-06-11, 04:22 PM
Actually, in the section on INTEGRATING Oriental Adventures into other campaign settings, IT specifically suggests the possibility OF putting classes from outside IN. Furthermore, OA is now 3.5, having BEEN updated in A Dragon Magazine.
There's a difference between integrating OA into another campaign setting, and a player using IF. Iaijutsu Focus, IMHO, should only ever be allowed in a campaign when it's fairly common. After all, the main point behind the skill is for Iaijutsu duels.

wodan46
2008-06-11, 04:58 PM
So you admit those chapters don't focus on noncombat then?

I quite specifically stated that the 5 chapters I listed focused on non-combat and roleplaying elements, as opposed to combat, or recreational foosball.

Let me the list the quote from Matthew that I was disputing:
"Is it? Most of the rulebooks for D&D I have ever seen contain a lot of rules pertinent to combat and magic, but precious little about actually 'playing a role'. Those that do, don't discuss mechanics, but provide advice and guidelines about how to have a character behave.

Task resolution rules don't really facilitate role-playing, they just resolve tasks according to a mechanical formula (and maybe a die roll). That's actually not role-playing to my mind, that's an abstract mechanism for resolving events by reference to the character's numbers.

In fact, I might go so far as to say the numbers are a crutch for people who cannot role-play their character, but that might be deemed a little insulting (yet it is exactly the argument deployed when someone insists that skills are necessary, i.e. "What if I want to play a silver tongued Rogue, but am no good at speaking?")"

I was arguing that the DMG did in fact facilitate roleplaying AND noncombat encounters. I also don't understand Matthew's statement about role mechanics. Most roleplaying systems that I know of do NOT provide specific mechanics for roleplaying, most importantly 3.5e. Roleplaying has always been enforced near entirely by DMs, and the DMG and the like serve as guidelines for when and how to enforce.

Remember, I'm comparing 4e to past editions. Name a past edition of D&D that describes how to run a non-combat encounter with mechanical backing.

Prophaniti
2008-06-11, 05:11 PM
This idea is simply ridiculous. The system does not dictate how well or often a group RPs. The group does that. Every group is different and a different system will help them RP. ex: for my group, they're a pretty heavy hack'n'slash group, tending to take the most direct and violent approach. To help them RP more, I've found the best thing is to make combat more deadly, with less immediate reward. Setting has a lot to do with this. In Faerun you kill a group of monsters and find their treasure hoard. This is expected and required to many players. (I had a player go absolutely berserk once when a group of dark elves that ambushed them had no money. They had the magical equipment they were carrying, but no cash, and he felt it was simply inconceivable in the setting to have any intelligent humanoid running around with an empty wallet.) In other settings, such as WH40k (yay, DH!) Shadowrun, Firefly and so forth, treasure rooms are far less common, and huge loot piles are not the setting default.

By making combat a greater risk, with less immediate reward, my group tends to examine less direct and violent solutions much more frequently. So, for my group, 4E would actually hinder our roleplaying, by making combat (by default, at least, a DM can certainly fix this) easier and less risky. Most of my players don't RP in 'heroic' fantasy settings, they just bash things. In a more gritty, realistic setting, where people die in a fight and death is a big (ie permanent) deal, the roleplaying starts to come to the fore.

Again, the system does not make it easier or harder to roleplay, at least not universally. Maybe for a certain kind of group, but not for everyone. The group itself determines how much RP comes into the game, regardless of the system.

Matthew
2008-06-11, 05:12 PM
I quite specifically stated that the 5 chapters I listed focused on non-combat and roleplaying elements, as opposed to combat, or recreational foosball.

I was arguing that the DMG did in fact facilitate roleplaying AND noncombat encounters. I also don't understand Matthew's statement about role mechanics. Most roleplaying systems that I know of do NOT provide specific mechanics for roleplaying, most importantly 3.5e. Roleplaying has always been enforced near entirely by DMs, and the DMG and the like serve as guidelines for when and how to enforce.

Remember, I'm comparing 4e to past editions. Name a past edition of D&D that describes how to run a non-combat encounter with mechanical backing.
That'll be because a) you didn't quote me (so it was not easy to see who you were responding to, I missed it, for instance), b) you misread what I said (as the things you quoted back are exactly what I said most RPG books are like), plus of course, by your own admission, c) you don't quite understand what I am saying (which makes it a difficult and somewhat pointless excercise to attempt to contradict one another, when what we should be doing is working to understand one another).

So, in that spirit...

There appears to be some significant confusion over what 'role-playing' is. Role-playing is not "the stuff you do when not in combat"; in fact it's perfectly possible to 'role-play' a combat (I am sure you are aware of this, I am just stating it to be clear). Moreover, combat itself a form of task resolution.

1) Task resolution
2) Role-playing

They are two complementary parts of D&D and they are distinct. It is true that combat has a more in depth task resolution system than the none combat parts of the game. That's always been the case, and it still is the case. However, role-playing isn't a function of the rules, and it still isn't (indeed, I would argue that it probably cannot be), which gives the lie to such statements as "4e facilitates role-playing", because no systems and all systems facilitate role-playing by not interfering with it.

As for a system that "describes how to run a non-combat encounter with mechanical backing", well there's AD&D 1e, which does exactly that. Hell, all previous editions did that to some extent.

Whenever you systemise an element of the game (with some exceptions, but not D&D) it becomes a mathematical abstraction. An abstraction can interact with role-playing, but it does not facilitate it or support it, in fact it most often replaces it. It can 'encourage' role-playing, but that's a carrot and the stick situation. If your players like carrots, all is well, if not you end up beating them with the stick. Of course, if they like carrots, then there is no need to dangle them in the first place, they will find them for themselves.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-11, 05:13 PM
In other settings, such as WH40k (yay, DH!) Shadowrun, Firefly and so forth, treasure rooms are far less common, and huge loot piles are not the setting default.

In other news, would you like to buy 138 half-charged laspistols and some torn flak jackets?

Prophaniti
2008-06-11, 05:15 PM
In other news, would you like to buy 138 half-charged laspistols and some torn flak jackets?

Sorry, we had a Necromunda gang through earlier. Market's flooded with laspistols and flak jackets...

Saph
2008-06-11, 06:10 PM
My point still stands, and has yet to be acknowledged, I suppose because it's difficult to argue against. 4e supports roleplaying better than 3e, simple as that.

I haven't particularly tried arguing against your point, because there really isn't much to say. You claim that XYZ about 4e 'encourages role-playing'. I haven't found any evidence in my 4e sessions so far to support your belief.

I'm quite sure that 4e encourages role-playing for you, because you like the system and therefore will have a better time and RP more when you're playing it. But I don't think the 4e features you're rhapsodising about have any RP value significant enough for anyone who doesn't feel strongly about the system to notice.

Ditto for Wodan. I think both of you are mixing up "I love this system and think it's great!" with "It's objectively better and that's just a fact!" (Note that this applies to pretty much anyone who says that their favourite system encourages RP. Everyone says it, and for them, believing it makes it true.)

- Saph

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-11, 06:13 PM
Perhaps it would be better to say that it doesn't encourage roleplaying, but rather doesn't require you to deoptimize your character to represent an aspect of his personality (He's a sailor, for example)?

Solo
2008-06-11, 06:47 PM
First, Solo, Iaijustsu Focus is:
1. Campaign Specific.
2. From 3.0.
3.0 material is still in effect for 3.5 unless it has been updated.



3. Possibly the most broken use for skill points, EVER.
Thank you.



Any DM that let you use that skill outside of OA would be a complete IDIOT;
Oslecamo is the DM that allowed that skill.

Riva
2008-06-11, 06:47 PM
Okay. They flubbed. We got it. Maybe write them some letters, have them fix up their errata?

The mechanic is just fine, the specific example sucks. Chill?

Roland St. Jude
2008-06-11, 06:47 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Two "how does 4e play outside combat?" threads merged above. Sorry for any oddness. This can be avoided by not duplicating topics when you start a new thread.

Prophaniti
2008-06-11, 06:53 PM
Ah, that explains it. Peoples posts were making even less sense than usual all of a sudden...:smalltongue:

Matthew
2008-06-11, 06:55 PM
Perhaps it would be better to say that it doesn't encourage roleplaying, but rather doesn't require you to deoptimize your character to represent an aspect of his personality (He's a sailor, for example)?

That is indeed a valid complaint. Of course, it only applies to D20, no previous version of D&D forced characters to deoptimise in order to acquire mundane skills [though they had optional rules that could have had the same result]. Of course, like Saph, many people are not happy that 4e no longer numerically expresses such skills. This could be easily solved by assigning a 'grade' to these background skills that expresses the level of skill.

It was also a relatively easily solved D20 problem, as 'bonus skill points' and 'feats' were certainly not unknown methods of explicitly representing the background of a given character without deoptimising him.

Saph
2008-06-11, 07:19 PM
That is indeed a valid complaint. Of course, it only applies to D20, no previous version of D&D forced characters to deoptimise in order to acquire mundane skills [though they had optional rules that could have had the same result]. Of course, like Saph, many people are not happy that 4e no longer numerically expresses such skills. This could be easily solved by assigning a 'grade' to these background skills that expresses the level of skill.

The way I'd probably do it would be to make noncombat skills and feats available at about half the price of normal ones. So, for one feat, you'd get training and a +5 bonus to two noncombat/hobbyist skills. Given how weak 4e heroic tier feats are, that's a fairly trivial cost. Either that or just give everyone one or two free 'background' skills.

In 3.5 it's sometimes a problem, but most classes have more skill points than they have essential skills. A wizard, for instance, needs Spellcraft, Concentration, and Knowledge (arcana), and that's about it - you aren't going to lose anything significant by spending the other half of your skill points on stuff like Craft. The only time it's an issue is for a class like Rogue, where your skills really are an central part of what you do.

- Saph

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-11, 07:28 PM
The way I'd probably do it would be to make noncombat skills and feats available at about half the price of normal ones. So, for one feat, you'd get training and a +5 bonus to two noncombat/hobbyist skills. Given how weak 4e heroic tier feats are, that's a fairly trivial cost. Either that or just give everyone one or two free 'background' skills.

In 3.5 it's sometimes a problem, but most classes have more skill points than they have essential skills. A wizard, for instance, needs Spellcraft, Concentration, and Knowledge (arcana), and that's about it - you aren't going to lose anything significant by spending the other half of your skill points on stuff like Craft. The only time it's an issue is for a class like Rogue, where your skills really are an central part of what you do.

- Saph

Why bother using "half-priced" background skills when you could just give the PCs additional "background points" to spend on such things. That's kind of how Shadowrun 3rd Ed. did it - they have "knowledge skills" in things like "elven wines" and "20th century roleplaying games."

Personally, I've been unhappy with systematizing people's backgrounds. What I've proposed is letting people choose a "background" for free, and in the narrow circumstances that the background becomes relevant for rolls, give the PC an additional +2 circumstance bonus.

So a "gambler" might get +2 for using sleight of hand to cheat at gambling, and +2 perception for detecting cheaters at gambling... and maybe a streetwise bonus for looking for gambling dens. Sure, keep an eye out for abuse ("When I was five I grew up with a mercenary company, when I was six I studied with a powerful wizard, at seven I traveled with a master musician...") but it adds a little more background flavor without people being forced to decide "do I want to learn more spellcraft... or more baking?"

Matthew
2008-06-11, 07:54 PM
*Potential Solutions*



*Other Potential Solutions*

Both of those approaches sound fine to me. The reason Saph (I imagine) wants to make background skills part of 'character cost' (albeit a much reduced cost) is because in D20, you can do stuff with many of the skills in question, just not as good stuff as some of the others. I think I favour Oracle Hunter's approach on the whole (as closer tor my preferences), but I would be fine with either for 3e or 4e.

I am not much of a fan of the 'character building' paradigm in general, so any sort of mundane skill (including stealth, knowledge, perception, etc...) should be dislocated from classes and level progression in my estimation. That is just my preference, though, I think I probably summed it up in the rules section of the free OSRIC Fast Play Module Orcs' Nest (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=618885&da=y).

Paragon Badger
2008-06-11, 10:31 PM
Oh humble thread, what hath becometh of ye?

I'd prefer some solid evidence... We all have opinions, I'm sure- but a few in-depth descriptions of your actual games would be nice. :smalltongue:

Actually, I challenge someone to ask their DM to have a game with not one (planned, at least) battle. If the party's characters can use their unique talents and abilities to solve such problems, I shall be very pleased. :smallbiggrin: I'm particularly keen on vague challenges that don't neccesarily need to be completed with a simple skill roll, like say, a city on fire- rather than boring old wall that requires a climb check, ornery old man that requires a diplomacy check, ect. ect. ect.

Bolded, because I can and it's (somewhat) my topic. :smallwink:

Also note, I hold no illusion that 3.5 is the holy standard of roleplaying compared to 4.0. The thing that worries me is, has D&D made progress? There's a big difference between improving a game mechanic and leaving out a game mechanic. Frankly, I'd prefer the former.

As I said before, D&D 4.0 should be making steps forward, not sideways. It's a larger number! >_<

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-11, 11:38 PM
Actually, I challenge someone to ask their DM to have a game with not one (planned, at least) battle. If the party's characters can use their unique talents and abilities to solve such problems, I shall be very pleased. :smallbiggrin: I'm particularly keen on vague challenges that don't neccesarily need to be completed with a simple skill roll, like say, a city on fire- rather than boring old wall that requires a climb check, ornery old man that requires a diplomacy check, ect. ect. ect.

A non-combative adventure? Have you tried that in 3rd? D&D is at it's base a hack-and-slash kind of game after all - if people were really interested in a strictly social game, there are tons of good Storytelling systems out there.

However, you ask, and so you shall receive. I call it: Political Maneuvers.

Set-up: The players have been detained by the local law enforcement and had their weapons impounded. Apparently a writ has arrived from the King asking they be detained on suspicion of fomenting treason, and they are currently being interrogated by the local police chief.

Encounter One: "It's a set up!"
The Chief has just explained the charges to the PCs and says that while he waits for the King's Soldiers to arrive, he wanted to find out what was going on. The PCs know that there is a heavy guard outside, and that without weapons or armor they probably couldn't escape the city alive.

Options:
1) Ask to see the Writ
2) Cry Innocence

The Writ is a forgery, of course. A Normal History check will reveal that one of the minor seals used on the page is no longer current, while a Hard Perception check will reveal that the large, royal seal seems too rough to have come from a metal seal. A further successful Normal Diplomacy check will grant the PCs a free success on their "Cry Innocence" challenge.

Skill Challenge (Cry Innocence) (6/3)
- Diplomacy (protest their innocence) (Easy for clerics and paladins of LG deities, Normal for everyone else)
-- The Chief is a bit suspicious about this order, since it came about from a rather scruffy looking "royal messenger" and because the PCs look like good sorts
- Bluff (exaggerate their good deeds, other lies) (Hard)
-- The Chief may be curious about this whole set up, but he hates a liar (and he's good at sniffing them out). Any failed Bluff Checks count as 2 failures.
- Insight
-- The Chief will not be bullied (auto-fail), hates being lied to (Bluff is dangerous), but seems like he doesn't think these charges are on the level.

SUCCESS: He says that he believes that they're innocent, and that something fishy is afoot. They will be given parole and if they can find any leads, that he'll be happy to help them out. The Chief holds onto their gear (except money) and tells them not to leave town.

FAILURE: He says that while he doesn't think they're guilty of this, they're guilty of something. He's going to lock them up until he gets this all sorted out.

If locked up, put the PCs in separate, group cells. In one of the cells there is a prisoner who was in the employ of "the Mad Duke" when the Duke hatched this plan to frame up the PCs due to a plot they had foiled. Pick one of the cells and have the PCs notice that one of the guys seems to be acting weird about them. Intimidate or Diplomacy checks on him (Normal) will reveal that he knows that the Mad Duke is after them. The PCs can put 2 and 2 together here and realize that the Mad Duke is out to get them.

Sub-Challenge (You gotta believe me!) (4/2)
If the PCs have already used the Writ, they start with an automatic success here. If the PCs have not, they may request to see it (Easy Diplomacy now) and reveal it as before. The Chief reacts as above, but if the PCs force the Informant to confess (Normal Intimidate or Diplomacy) then add an automatic success.

SUCCESS: PCs are paroled, but told to be back before nightfall, or they'll be hunted by the police. And not to leave, of course.

FAILURE: Stuck in the cells. They will be paroled on Day 3 (this is Day 0) under "Success" conditions because the Chief has turned up some details of his own.

Encounter 2: Looking for Leads
Now that the PCs are out and about, they can pursue a couple of angles:
1) Look for the man who forged this document
2) Find out who would have it in for them
3) Find someone to vouch for them

Challenge A: Forgery (4/2)
- Streetwise (looking for a forger) (Normal)
-- Every success locates a Forger. Players can try Diplomacy on the Forger to get more details about who could do this kind of work. Intimidate works too, but a failed Intimidate will raise the DC of any subsequent Streetwise to Hard.
-- A failed Diplomacy check means that Forger will not give you any more details.

SUCCESS: You find out that Happy the Halfling is the only forger in town who'd do this kind of work, and where he lives.

FAILURE: The underworld gets suspicious of you, and no other low-life will help you out without Intimidate... which means you might start getting pressure from local gangs.

*Okay, here's where I stopped, 'cause it was taking way too long*

The long-story-short is that the PCs would either get one of the local nobles to agree to back you against the "King's riders" (actually the Mad Duke's men, dressed up), or get Happy to confess to the forgery (with proof!).

The Noble would require a couple 4/2 Social Challenges, followed by an optional (but very helpful) 6/3 Burglary Challenge (tipped off by a Streetwise/History check) that recovered blackmail material from a safe house to gain extra successes in the 8/4 negotiation challenge.

Happy would be much more straightforward, with the PCs breaking into Happy's house, finding the hidden stash of materials, the Mad Duke's instructions, and so forth.

The moral of the story is that D&D is a violent world, so pretty much all the adventures have some element of combat in it. I mean, that's what the adventurer's do and while I can write a non-combat adventure it feels a bit strained. But it is certainly better equipped to try this charade that 3rd is: Skill Challenges make it much easier to tie XP to social encounters.

Helgraf
2008-06-11, 11:49 PM
Except every playtest report I've read (and my own playtest experiences) indicate that combat takes up as much or more table time in 4th Edition.

So far, I've found the dissociated mechanics to be exactly the sort of serious problem. I've been consciously trying to avoid house ruling, but the result is that the system feels like a straitjacket. Because they've abandoned the "cinderblocks", as you call them, there's no support. So I can either throw consistency out the window and just dictate on a whim, or I can start layering on countless house rules.

For example, in my first session the PCs tied up a kobold prisoner. There are no rules for determining how good the knots the PCs tie are. The guidelines for Acrobatics recommends that I make up a target number out of thin air to determine how difficult it is to escape from restraints. This is almost useless to me if the players are the ones trying to escape and completely useless when its the NPC trying to escape.

And I ran into similar problems multiple times. In the first session.

So, compared to 3rd Edition, I have an immediate degradation of basic utility. And it's not only that he target number guidelines are gone, the comprehensive skill system is gone.

And it's easy to say, "Jesus Christ, Justin. It's tying up a friggin' kobold. Make a judgment call and do it."

Which is, of course, what I did. But the problem is that, at some point, they're going to want to tie up another prisoner... and they're going to expect the same mechanics to be used. That makes it a house rule. And tracking that one house rule isn't a big deal... but these problems are scattered all over the new edition. So now I've got dozens or hundreds of these house rules to track.

Or, ya know, you can make a judgement call that doesn't involve telling the PCs the mechanical odds involved. So you don't need to worry about whatever you told them coming back to bite you in the ass because they _can't metagame the system_ when they don't know the system.

Fhaolan
2008-06-12, 12:46 AM
Or, ya know, you can make a judgement call that doesn't involve telling the PCs the mechanical odds involved. So you don't need to worry about whatever you told them coming back to bite you in the ass because they _can't metagame the system_ when they don't know the system.

I do that all the time, in all systems. Of course, I do it for combat as well. Heck, I ran a game once where every player had a character from a different system. One D&D 2e, one GURPS 3rd, another was in RoleMaster, another from Earthdawn, and I never did bother to find out what the other girl used. It was something with a card-based resolution system. It was all irrelevant as I just had them role dice (or pull cards) and made up DC numbers based on whim.

OverWilliam
2008-06-12, 08:32 AM
[Long post]

The. Win. Period.

Antacid, that post was a deep breath of fresh air against the eye-wateringly noxious fumes of Blah that have permeated this thread. I bow humbly at your feet in reverence to your awesome.

I could write a really long, quite inflammatory post here critiquing first the imagination and second the ability to think on your feet of those complaining here, but I think I'd rather sum it up in a single sentence.

If you are incapable of making judgment calls based on experience and circumstances then how is your session any better than a videogame?

If all you can do is follow a set of predetermined rules, making predetermined decisions on predetermined issues that arise because of predetermined conflicts in your predetermined campaign... Then why are you even there?

Indon
2008-06-12, 11:32 AM
Perhaps it would be better to say that it doesn't encourage roleplaying, but rather doesn't require you to deoptimize your character to represent an aspect of his personality (He's a sailor, for example)?

That's called not representing an aspect of a character's personality - at least not mechanically. And you have that same option in 3'rd edition.

What made it required to deoptimize your character by actually representing aspects of your characters' personalities mechanically? It seems to me that the only pressure involved was the obvious superiority of having mechanics that better reflect your character.

By removing the ability to represent aspects of your characters' personality, yeah, you're getting rid of that "requirement" - by getting rid of the obviously superior option.

nagora
2008-06-12, 01:33 PM
That's called not representing an aspect of a character's personality - at least not mechanically. And you have that same option in 3'rd edition.

What made it required to deoptimize your character by actually representing aspects of your characters' personalities mechanically? It seems to me that the only pressure involved was the obvious superiority of having mechanics that better reflect your character.

By removing the ability to represent aspects of your characters' personality, yeah, you're getting rid of that "requirement" - by getting rid of the obviously superior option.

You're waving "obviously" about there with some abandon. I don't see that it's obvious at all to have to put numbers beside "Sailor", and make rolls to do normal sailing tasks compared to just writing "Was a sailor for 10 years" in the character's background text. It seems to me that letting the DM and the player come to an understanding as to exactly what that means is obviously better than making mechanics up for things that don't need them.

And that's just a professional skill, when it comes to "aspects of your characters' personality", I think that the requirement to have mechanics for it is offensive and insulting to the player. Is the "superior option" really to assume that the player is incapable of playing the character personality?

Paragon Badger
2008-06-13, 01:44 AM
You're waving "obviously" about there with some abandon. I don't see that it's obvious at all to have to put numbers beside "Sailor", and make rolls to do normal sailing tasks compared to just writing "Was a sailor for 10 years" in the character's background text. It seems to me that letting the DM and the player come to an understanding as to exactly what that means is obviously better than making mechanics up for things that don't need them.

And that's just a professional skill, when it comes to "aspects of your characters' personality", I think that the requirement to have mechanics for it is offensive and insulting to the player. Is the "superior option" really to assume that the player is incapable of playing the character personality?

But sailing is an actual skill. As are many other things that could be covered in the Craft and Profession skills.

The problem is, without such rules...What stops a character from saying they can do anything and everything?

3.5 by far went overboard, as you really should not need to handicap yourself for such things. D20 Modern did well with it's occupation rules, which gave you relevant bonuses in their respective areas. Even if you never put a skill point into your occupation's given skills, you're still implied to be more capable as a sailor than say- the nobleman.

As I said before- there are no rules. Only guidelines.

Also, don't you (Not you in particular, nagora. :smallwink:) dare insult me by saying that someone who prefers guidelines to roleplay just isn't creative- or can't roleplay.

They are aids. Just as HP and attack are all aids to combat.

So my question is; Why is it a good thing to give the player aids for resolving combat... but not aids for creating an interesting character?

Above all, the scarce few roleplaying guidelines in D&D have provided me with inspiration to be more creative, putting my own take on the class's flavor, using a spell in a way other than its most obvious way, and overall- these guidelines have helped me enjoy playing it more.

I would certaintly be displeased if I was plopped into an all-combat world and was asked to come up with a character with nothing to bounce off of or even launchpad from.

So enough with the 'You need rules to roleplay, you uninspired moron!?' arguement.

As it seems; I've come up with the conclusion that 3.5 and 4.0 are alike in this regard; there are many guidelines regarding combat to help aid the players and DMs alike... yet non-combat encounters have been neglected again.

Thankfully, 4.0 seems to be an improvement.. though not by very far.

Indon
2008-06-13, 12:48 PM
I don't see that it's obvious at all to have to put numbers beside "Sailor", and make rolls to do normal sailing tasks compared to just writing "Was a sailor for 10 years" in the character's background text.


I think that the requirement to have mechanics for it is offensive and insulting to the player.

What requirement? If backstory has such a small impact as many in this thread have said, something that can be readily houseruled, why do you feel any pressure at all to invest any mechanical aspect of your character into your backstory?

This is not something the system is doing to you. This is something you are doing to yourself, and you should contemplate why you would do that.

Again: The system is not forcing you to put skill points in Profession: Sailor for your sailor character. So what makes you feel forced?