A question about 4e naysayers and economics?

[Tough_Tonka]

I've been noticing a number of the arguments people against 4e or feel that it is inferior to 3.5 have about the game. One being that 4e doesn't properly simulate a realistic environment. In other words it doesn't have specific rules for weaving baskets (because if you don't have specific rules for weaving baskets you're not playing an RPG you're playing Risk).

You can probably tell from the last comment that I support 4e so far and if you've read any other of the 4e debate threads you you've read why. In case you haven't here's the reason, I know the rules for GURPS and WoD (among others) so if I want to do something besides heroic fantasy I'll just use those systems (because realistically a +1 to baking checks =/= fluency in another language). However this is not the point of the question.

What I want to ask is this: I've encountered player type I've dubbed the businessman. This type of player isn't content with following the plot, saving the day and exploring the world. This character often feels the need to exploit his or her environment.They like to make use of non-combat skills (profession, perform) to make danger-free money or use get rich quick schemes (like taking the kobold mine they just emptied and using undead to mine out the minerals for profit). I've noticed that many of these business men I've met have been apprehensive about 4e philosophy not putting to many details for things like (profession, perform etc.). I'm wondering if anyone else has encountered other businessmen that don't approve of 4e?

[Matthew]

The title of this thread could be less inflamatory. :smallwink:

Yes, there are no doubt people who oppose 4e on the grounds that there is insufficient systemisation of the environment. There are people within that group who use the system to produce effects that were not intended (or forseen) by the game designers, but we should not characterise every 4e 'naysayer' as being of this mind.

Certainly, the freedom to handle the majority of your own task resolution (with regard to trade and other world consistancy elements) is in my opinion desirable and better left to the game master. Where 4e has done this, I approve, and consider it a subjectively good outcome.

[EvilElitest]

I've been noticing a number of the arguments people against 4e or feel that it is inferior to 3.5 have about the game. One being that 4e doesn't properly simulate a realistic environment. In other words it doesn't have specific rules for weaving baskets (because if you don't have specific rules for weaving baskets you're not playing an RPG you're playing Risk).

No the general complaint about 4E is it is like a video game, in that it is shallow. It lacks depth, realism, logic, actually reminds me of Eragon in some way for some reason

Take the Monster Manual for example. 4E's monsters are nothing but generic creatures who exist to die. They lack depth, they lack interest, they are just fodder. They aren't interesting and have like, two sentences of description, and like 4E itself, they are shallow and primative in design. 4E might make a fine war game loosly based after D&D, but as a new edition it fails.



What I want to ask is this: If you are (or know) someone that doesn't really approve of 4e (or just thinks it doesn't facilitate roleplaying as much as 3.5) do you (or the person you know) really like to put (or force the GM to put) detailed rules about economics in your game?
I like consistency. While the game should revolve around the PCs, the world should not. It should exist logically and not as some device for drama, through it can be used for drama (you know, like the real world)
ke bartering rules and mercantile campaigns more than 4e supporters.



The reason I'm asking this is that many of the players I know that were reserved about 4e design philosophy were also the people that wanted to use trading to break the wealth by levels rule in the DMG. They would want to buy land and mines use undead for free labor and wait around to receive the benefits. If you've ever had to deal with characters that acted like this (especially in 3.5 where equipment=win) you know how troublesome this is to deal with in a way that doesn't make you look like a jerk or have to deal with tons of extra book keeping. I guess if you're running a merchant campaign from the get go that play style isn't such a problem, but I've rarely considered economics to be all that fun.

You player doesn't seem to actually think that deeply into things

Economics are a major effect upon any world. I don't think i need to explain how they can effect a world, but a world should have logical economics. If the PCs defeat the orcs in a certain mountain pass, an new trade route is opened and the village that is in the way quickly booms ect ect ect

basically i want logical worlds with a sense of thing happening like in a real world FR did a really good job at this, so does Five rings

from
EE

[Crow]

I think the OP's problem was with the player, not the system...But anyways;

I like a consistent world, where things make sense. Most people do, but I have never had any reason to make economics a major part of my game. The most our group ever goes into it is in the case of "No, you can't sell that flaming axe here because nobody needs it or would have the money to buy it if they did.". I think out of most of the people who have a problem with 4th edition, those whom economics ranks as a pressing issue are in the minority. The ones I have heard most are the illusion of options, over-dependence on attack bonus, lack of versatility, and too many hp for monsters.

[Tough_Tonka]

No the general complaint about 4E is it is like a video game, in that it is shallow. It lacks depth, realism, logic, actually reminds me of Eragon in some way for some reason

Take the Monster Manual for example. 4E's monsters are nothing but generic creatures who exist to die. They lack depth, they lack interest, they are just fodder. They aren't interesting and have like, two sentences of description, and like 4E itself, they are shallow and primative in design. 4E might make a fine war game loosly based after D&D, but as a new edition it fails.


I like consistency. While the game should revolve around the PCs, the world should not. It should exist logically and not as some device for drama, through it can be used for drama (you know, like the real world)
ke bartering rules and mercantile campaigns more than 4e supporters.



You player doesn't seem to actually think that deeply into things

Economics are a major effect upon any world. I don't think i need to explain how they can effect a world, but a world should have logical economics. If the PCs defeat the orcs in a certain mountain pass, an new trade route is opened and the village that is in the way quickly booms ect ect ect

basically i want logical worlds with a sense of thing happening like in a real world FR did a really good job at this, so does Five rings

from
EE

First off I'd like to thank you for not answering the only question I asked. Secondly, I'd like to ask why you can't run a logical world in a 4e game as good as you could in a 3.5 game (I mean the 4e DMG has the same stuff explaining how the world in the campaign should run logically and consistently that it did in the 3.5 DMG.)? I haven't found the part in the 4e books that reads, " Every aspect of the setting should remain static. The players just kill monsters and thats all. Just randomly generate NPCs and arbitrarily decide the hardness of breaking down a normal wooden door."

[Tough_Tonka]

I think the OP's problem was with the player, not the system...But anyways;

I like a consistent world, where things make sense. Most people do, but I have never had any reason to make economics a major part of my game. The most our group ever goes into it is in the case of "No, you can't sell that flaming axe here because nobody needs it or would have the money to buy it if they did.". I think out of most of the people who have a problem with 4th edition, those whom economics ranks as a pressing issue are in the minority. The ones I have heard most are the illusion of options, over-dependence on attack bonus, lack of versatility, and too many hp for monsters.

I repeat: I AM NOT ASKING WHY YOU DISLIKE 4th EDITION! I know there are plenty of other reason people don't like it and I know that the core rules for pricing and equipment haven't really changed much with the new edition.

I guess a better question would be: Do you find the people who complain, "There should be rules for that (*crafting, profession, etc.)" do *that in their campaigns all that often? Do they tend to play experts and artificers and in extreme cases have they ever halted the story so they could run their business?

You don't need to just say yes or no, I'm really just asking out of curiosity. Thanks in advance for any hateful responses:smallbiggrin:

[Kompera]

No the general complaint about 4E is it is like a video game, in that it is shallow. It lacks depth, realism, logic, actually reminds me of Eragon in some way for some reason

Take the Monster Manual for example. 4E's monsters are nothing but generic creatures who exist to die. They lack depth, they lack interest, they are just fodder. They aren't interesting and have like, two sentences of description, and like 4E itself, they are shallow and primative in design. 4E might make a fine war game loosly based after D&D, but as a new edition it fails.


I like consistency. While the game should revolve around the PCs, the world should not. It should exist logically and not as some device for drama, through it can be used for drama (you know, like the real world)
ke bartering rules and mercantile campaigns more than 4e supporters.



You player doesn't seem to actually think that deeply into things

Economics are a major effect upon any world. I don't think i need to explain how they can effect a world, but a world should have logical economics. If the PCs defeat the orcs in a certain mountain pass, an new trade route is opened and the village that is in the way quickly booms ect ect ect

basically i want logical worlds with a sense of thing happening like in a real world FR did a really good job at this, so does Five rings

from
EE
You've expressed this viewpoint in many threads, but have always failed to provide any substantiation to back your viewpoint. Or perhaps I've failed to see your posts providing this substantiation.

But to the point, where in 4e are the rules forbidding a new trade route from being opened after the PCs defeat the Orcs guarding a mountain pass?

How is 4e like a video game? What aspect of sitting around a table playing D&D 4e with a few friends is more like a video game than sitting around a table playing D&D 3.x with a few friends?

What are the specific rules which makes 4e monsters "nothing but generic creatures who exist to die", while in 3.x they are presumably not "nothing but generic creatures who exist to die"? I own MMs from many versions of D&D, and while the level of detail provided in these MMs is either greater or lesser from version to version, a Goblin is a Goblin is a Goblin from version to version without fail. It is a evil humanoid monster which is the enemy of the good races to which the PC characters belong. The party kills it and takes its treasure and moves on, and that hasn't changed from 1e to 4e as far as I can tell. But perhaps you can point me at the 4e rules which have changed this status quo, please.

I seem to have missed all of these definitions and prohibitions and assertions that blandness is the new world order in my reading of the 4e rules. Or perhaps these rules do not exist, and the assertions that they do is only propaganda from those who dislike the 4e rules for whatever reasons. I'd never insist that anyone be forced to like 4e or any other rule set, but I do dislike what I see as intellectual dishonesty in describing 4e. Love it, hate it, that's all fine and good. But to insist that the rules force or enforce things which they do not is neither honest nor fair.

[Crow]

I repeat: I AM NOT ASKING WHY YOU DISLIKE 4th EDITION! I know there are plenty of other reason people don't like it and I know that the core rules for pricing and equipment haven't really changed much with the new edition.

I guess a better question would be: Do you find the people who complain, "There should be rules for that (*crafting, profession, etc.)" do *that in their campaigns all that often? Do they tend to play experts and artificers and in extreme cases have they ever halted the story so they could run their business?

You don't need to just say yes or no, I'm really just asking out of curiosity. Thanks in advance for any hateful responses:smallbiggrin:

Dude, what? Did I say I didn't like 4th edition and missed it?

I don't think people would be complaining about the lack of craft and profession skills if it hadn't come up in their games before. I think players like to be able to say "This is the magic sword I crafted myself." without any other character saying "Yeah, I can do that too...". While I've never had profession skills come up very often, my players often took crafting skills. I've taken them but haven't used them much, so I'm not too worried about them being missing.

[erikun]

I'm one of the people who like 4e. I think they did a remarkable job of simplifying and balancing attack v. AC, magic v. melee, and so on. I think the new skill challanges are great, and the powers allow the fighter-like classes to avoid being overshadowed by the nukemages.

I also miss crafting.

It isn't because I wanted to carry around rods of disintegration. It's wasn't because I wanted to create golems to run my own personal mithral mine. It was because I liked making stuff that had a real impact on the world and the game. My cleric of Pelor had a flaming mace and golden armor that he enchanted himself. My wizard drew up spells and tried tinkering with magical items. Heck, my dwarven rogue (with Craft: Weaponsmithing, Disable Device, Knoweldge: Architecture and Engineering) had an obsession with crossbows, and was determined to build a better crossbow.

Not all of the stuff I tried worked. My rogue never did make that double crossbow, although my cleric did like leaving his magical gear behind at the church for the next holy warrior who needed it. However, the fun part was being able to do so. You can't really do that with 4e. I mean, the only way to get the money to create a +2 weapon is to sell/disenchant a bunch of other +2 weapons, and by the time you're capable of enchanting it yourself, you're almost running into the +3 weapons. Crafting is little more than "You're a dwarf? You were a blacksmith? You succeed." That isn't too exciting.

[Tough_Tonka]

Dude, what? Did I say I didn't like 4th edition and missed it?

I don't think people would be complaining about the lack of craft and profession skills if it hadn't come up in their games before. I think players like to be able to say "This is the magic sword I crafted myself." without any other character saying "Yeah, I can do that too...". While I've never had profession skills come up very often, my players often took crafting skills. I've taken them but haven't used them much, so I'm not too worried about them being missing.

Sorry about that. I was agitated after reading EE response and only read the list of complaints about the game when I read your post.

[JaxGaret]

Would it be that difficult to simply port the 3e Craft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/craft.htm) skill whole-hog into 4e, for those DMs who have players who want it and are willing to give it to them?

[Indon]

As precisely one of those 'economists' (My favorite prospective campaign setting is in fact about the players making use of extensive economic exploitation, and my second favorite is about a group of contracted spell-crafters for a world in which magic is recently discovered and still new), I'd like to chime in with agreement. 4'th edition facilitates the socioeconomic aspect of my play and DM'ing styles poorly.

That said, 3'rd edition D&D did not do much better - though D20 as a whole did take the prize. Namely, the World of Warcraft D20 RPG had extensive (and rather intuitive) rules on settlements, to include military and economic aspects. I felt it extremely fitting for an RPG originally based on an RTS series, and I thought it was an absolutely magnificent feature.

Now, that's not my only problem with 4'th edition, and to be honest since so few games actually provide that feature to any significant degree, 4'th edition isn't exactly underperforming in lacking it. But nonetheless, there you are.

Edit: And it would be possible to import 3'rd edition's not-that-bad economic rules - but absolutely not worthwhile to import WoW RPG's much better settlement rules.

And to be honest, I'd rather have a system that does something better than a system that gives up and makes me use the same system I've been using as a placeholder for something better.

[Artanis]

Sorry about that. I was agitated after reading EE response and only read the list of complaints about the game when I read your post.
This is why I have EE on ignore. It's better that way, trust me.

[JaxGaret]

Edit: And it would be possible to import 3'rd edition's not-that-bad economic rules - but absolutely not worthwhile to import WoW RPG's much better settlement rules.

And to be honest, I'd rather have a system that does something better than a system that gives up and makes me use the same system I've been using as a placeholder for something better.

So... for the vast majority of people who don't use the WoW RPG's rules for economy in their 3e campaigns, you agree that porting over Craft from 3e to 4e should be pretty straightforward?

[FoE]

As precisely one of those 'economists' (My favorite prospective campaign setting is in fact about the players making use of extensive economic exploitation, and my second favorite is about a group of contracted spell-crafters for a world in which magic is recently discovered and still new)

But Indon, that's not the fault of the system, that's your own personal preference. It's like going to a zombie movie and complaining afterwards about all the flesh-eating. Going as far back as First Edition, D&D has been about playing a hero, not setting up trade routes or building a magic item empire. You're asking of D&D something that it was never meant for.

I've never encountered that kind of player, Tough Tonka, but I can imagine them having a big problem with 4E, yeah.

[Animefunkmaster]

I guess a better question would be: Do you find the people who complain, "There should be rules for that (*crafting, profession, etc.)" do *that in their campaigns all that often?

No, for the campaigns that I dm they do not complain about 4e for the reasons you have given. However, even though you might not want to play an artificer, don't you feel better when the option is open to those who DO. Not everyone is you, and more options generally means more fun.

[EvilElitest]

First off I'd like to thank you for not answering the only question I asked. Secondly, I'd like to ask why you can't run a logical world in a 4e game as good as you could in a 3.5 game (I mean the 4e DMG has the same stuff explaining how the world in the campaign should run logically and consistently that it did in the 3.5 DMG.)? I haven't found the part in the 4e books that reads, " Every aspect of the setting should remain static. The players just kill monsters and thats all. Just randomly generate NPCs and arbitrarily decide the hardness of breaking down a normal wooden door."

1) Actually i'm rather confused on what your question is. I apologize if i upset you, but it seems like your making a broad generalization on the people who don't like 4E
2) Simple, because 4E's world is styled like a video game. LIke a video game, the world is designed to revolve around the PCs, not just the game. NPC PC level differences, the economics (oh gods, the economics) the monsters, the wealth by level, even teh DMG's ideas of world design (remember, it says that it is good to only make enough history to bring about quests for the PCs) and it is simplistic. In the same a video game's world is built around the PCs, so is the world of 4E



i guess a better question would be: Do you find the people who complain, "There should be rules for that (*crafting, profession, etc.)" do *that in their campaigns all that often? Do they tend to play experts and artificers and in extreme cases have they ever halted the story so they could run their business?
This seems to be an extremly silly generalization. I'm sorry, but it is so simplistic, and maybe i'm being more irritated than i normally am because of finals, but even so.

1) I fail to see how wanting consistency in terms of having rules for crafting makes you automatically characterized as a dude who only plays experts or artificaters. It seems, simple to automatically assume that a want of a consistent realistic world only applies to people who take pleasure only in idiosyncratic crafting
2) Also, the idea of having consistent rules some how hindering the "story" (funny, i don't think D&D has a story, what ever the PCs do is the story) in anyway. If the PCs want to make money logically (realistic goal) then you are hindering nothing because the "story" is them making money



You've expressed this viewpoint in many threads, but have always failed to provide any substantiation to back your viewpoint. Or perhaps I've failed to see your posts providing this substantiation.
the latter



But to the point, where in 4e are the rules forbidding a new trade route from being opened after the PCs defeat the Orcs guarding a mountain pass?

That was a different note, however 4E suffers from other economic problems. For example, the wealth by level system. Now in 3E we have wealth by level, but taht was recommended. Not a fact. in 4E however, it is a rule, and creatures will have magic items on them that they shouldn't logically have simply so the PCs can get their wealth by level to the proper level. It isn't based on in world logic, it is based upon the world revolving around the PCs.

3E didn't do much better in the economic standpoint, but it at least tried

And yes, i second Indon on WoW RPG's economic rules
Also if you cut crafting, the question on how stuff is made will come up and it will haunt


How is 4e like a video game? What aspect of sitting around a table playing D&D 4e with a few friends is more like a video game than sitting around a table playing D&D 3.x with a few friends?
Because the game is shallow, in the way the world of a video game in inherently shallow. I mean shallow in the sense that the world, not just the game is built around the PCs. In 3E, an attempt was made, a failed one, but an attempt non the less to make the D&D reality consistent and logical. It failed because of WotC's failure to organize or understand the nature of balence, however the world was intended to be consistent. There was a flavor to it, which 4E lacks. The game focuses on the PCs, making them from teh start "DA HEROS"

Now the PCs are the people who the game focuses upon, but from an in world perspective they aren't the heros, at least not yet (they should become that if they wish) However in 4E, the are heros from teh get go, the world is focused upon them. It is like the Caste System in Dominic actually


What are the specific rules which makes 4e monsters "nothing but generic creatures who exist to die", while in 3.x they are presumably not "nothing but generic creatures who exist to die"? I own MMs from many versions of D&D, and while the level of detail provided in these MMs is either greater or lesser from version to version, a Goblin is a Goblin is a Goblin from version to version without fail. It is a evil humanoid monster which is the enemy of the good races to which the PC characters belong. The party kills it and takes its treasure and moves on, and that hasn't changed from 1e to 4e as far as I can tell. But perhaps you can point me at the 4e rules which have changed this status quo, please.
1) yes lets look at the MM. It reads like the monsters section in a Final Fantasy guidebook. The monsters don't have any flluf, any flavor, barely any description, they are just existing as combat entities. In 3E, and even in 2E they weren't that, THey existed as creatures inhabiting the D&D reality, and
while they were given combat stats, they were custom built to fight the PCs. Take for example, Ettin. We have two sentences of description then a combat stat block, a small extremly simplistic lore then a second stat block for a similar but different creature called an Ettin Spirit Talker. It wasn't an ettin with a class level, it was just different, like an Orge is different from an Orge mage, and yet no description is given. Nothing to indicate why one type of ettin is totally different from teh other. It is like in a video game where you might fight a goblin with normal stats, then fight "Goblin Mage" who has fundamentally different stats, as if he is a different creature. It is simplistic, it is shallows and acts in a video game like manner, making the monsters nothing more than basic stat blocks
2) In 3E a goblin is still an evil humanoid, but there is a sense that it exist outside being slaughtered by the PCs. It isn't simply a stat block made to confront them


I seem to have missed all of these definitions and prohibitions and assertions that blandness is the new world order in my reading of the 4e rules. Or perhaps these rules do not exist, and the assertions that they do is only propaganda from those who dislike the 4e rules for whatever reasons. I'd never insist that anyone be forced to like 4e or any other rule set, but I do dislike what I see as intellectual dishonesty in describing 4e. Love it, hate it, that's all fine and good. But to insist that the rules force or enforce things which they do not is neither honest nor fair.
The design philosophy however is something entirely different. When i say 4E is designed like a video game, and plays like a board game (war game?) i am not spreading propaganda (If i say 4E is based entirely off WoW, i'm lying generally, because i don't think WoW is a specific factor). 4E however lacks the versatility of 3E, through it might not suffer from the same balence issues
The game is simplified, and that takes something important away from the game, it reduces what made it interesting to a video game styled world of narrow game play. Now 4E might make a great board game, or another styled game based loosely on D&D, but as an actual new edition it fails


This is why I have EE on ignore. It's better that way, trust me.
Because hiding behind an ignore list will make all of the bad things go away i'm sure

Actually Face of Evil, there is no rule saying that D&D has to be a hack and slash. It supports many types of adventures, not just hack and slash.
from
EE

[marjan]

On-topic: I personally used "economic" rules only a few times so far, but I wouldn't mind seeing rules for them. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have them and the thing that irks me a bit is that they shouldn't be to hard to include them (simple copy-paste from 3e would do a job IMO).

Now Off-topic:



2) Simple, because 4E's world is styled like a video game. LIke a video game, the world is designed to revolve around the PCs, not just the game. NPC PC level differences, the economics (oh gods, the economics) the monsters, the wealth by level, even teh DMG's ideas of world design (remember, it says that it is good to only make enough history to bring about quests for the PCs) and it is simplistic. In the same a video game's world is built around the PCs, so is the world of 4E


Game revolves around PCs. Yes that sucks. I would like to play in the game where nobody asks me anything and don't care what I do... Oh wait, I wouldn't.



1) I fail to see how wanting consistency in terms of having rules for crafting makes you automatically characterized as a dude who only plays experts or artificaters. It seems, simple to automatically assume that a want of a consistent realistic world only applies to people who take pleasure only in idiosyncratic crafting
2) Also, the idea of having consistent rules some how hindering the "story" (funny, i don't think D&D has a story, what ever the PCs do is the story) in anyway. If the PCs want to make money logically (realistic goal) then you are hindering nothing because the "story" is them making money


Lack of rules for crafting is a bit annoying. But the reason they aren't there is because most of the people didn't use them. Still, I'd like to see them included.



That was a different note, however 4E suffers from other economic problems. For example, the wealth by level system. Now in 3E we have wealth by level, but taht was recommended. Not a fact. in 4E however, it is a rule, and creatures will have magic items on them that they shouldn't logically have simply so the PCs can get their wealth by level to the proper level. It isn't based on in world logic, it is based upon the world revolving around the PCs.


OK, so table in 3e was recommendation, but in 4e it is absolute. I don't see how this is true. If you remember rules for random generation in 3e you should also remember that they tended to produce idiotic items for loot as monsters.



Because the game is shallow, in the way the world of a video game in inherently shallow. I mean shallow in the sense that the world, not just the game is built around the PCs. In 3E, an attempt was made, a failed one, but an attempt non the less to make the D&D reality consistent and logical. It failed because of WotC's failure to organize or understand the nature of balence, however the world was intended to be consistent. There was a flavor to it, which 4E lacks. The game focuses on the PCs, making them from teh start "DA HEROS"

Now the PCs are the people who the game focuses upon, but from an in world perspective they aren't the heros, at least not yet (they should become that if they wish) However in 4E, the are heros from teh get go, the world is focused upon them. It is like the Caste System in Dominic actually


The game is as shallow as you make it.

And here is definition of the word hero. Where do you see any mention of the abilities.


Later, hero (male) and heroine (female) came to refer to characters that, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self-sacrifice, that is, heroism, for some greater good, originally of martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence.



1) yes lets look at the MM. It reads like the monsters section in a Final Fantasy guidebook. The monsters don't have any flluf, any flavor, barely any description, they are just existing as combat entities. In 3E, and even in 2E they weren't that, THey existed as creatures inhabiting the D&D reality, and
while they were given combat stats, they were custom built to fight the PCs. Take for example, Ettin. We have two sentences of description then a combat stat block, a small extremly simplistic lore then a second stat block for a similar but different creature called an Ettin Spirit Talker. It wasn't an ettin with a class level, it was just different, like an Orge is different from an Orge mage, and yet no description is given. Nothing to indicate why one type of ettin is totally different from teh other. It is like in a video game where you might fight a goblin with normal stats, then fight "Goblin Mage" who has fundamentally different stats, as if he is a different creature. It is simplistic, it is shallows and acts in a video game like manner, making the monsters nothing more than basic stat blocks
2) In 3E a goblin is still an evil humanoid, but there is a sense that it exist outside being slaughtered by the PCs. It isn't simply a stat block made to confront them


Just because you see "monsters" in MM as cannon fodder doesn't mean that they are. Most of the monster's fluff will be redefined in campaigns so why bother doing it now. You get the general idea from what you read in MM. For rest, wait for more books or use imagination.



Because hiding behind an ignore list will make all of the bad things go away i'm sure


No it won't, because there were no bad things in the first place.


You are pretty good in ignoring certain part of 4e books and avoiding the application of common sense when such things make 4e rules look idiotic. Interesting is however that you don't do such thing when you discuss 3e.

Here is a piece of wisdom: D&D is a game where you have a DM who tells a story and serves as a judge and players who interact with the game world. You can do that without knowledge of what happens to the rest of the world and lack of knowledge your character isn't supposed to know is blessing for players. It makes not metagaming easier.

And we don't exactly need rules for everything possible (they don't hurt, but are not necessary). And besides, who the hell wants to watch DM amking rolls 3h every session just to see who sold what to whom and who made what.

Sorry for derailing the thread.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Two of my four players in our first D&D 3.0 campaign both turned out to be businessmen (although only one has really displayed the same traits in other games). But they could have done the exact same sort of things in any other system, regardless of skills and other mechanics - the druid started a carpentry store (mostly run by an employee) at Elvencrossing in Mistledale, and made a herbalism side-business (I think the whole thing was to cement his "belonging" to the community), and the fighter started a "casino" in Ashabenford (basically a front for his attempt to take over the town through organized crime).

I can't see any reason they couldn't do the same things in 4E - in fact, with money having less relevance (especially at higher levels), I could let them set up incredibly profitable ventures, tax large fiefs, and so on, without affecting play balance.

[Kizara]

As precisely one of those 'economists' (My favorite prospective campaign setting is in fact about the players making use of extensive economic exploitation, and my second favorite is about a group of contracted spell-crafters for a world in which magic is recently discovered and still new), I'd like to chime in with agreement. 4'th edition facilitates the socioeconomic aspect of my play and DM'ing styles poorly.

That said, 3'rd edition D&D did not do much better - though D20 as a whole did take the prize. Namely, the World of Warcraft D20 RPG had extensive (and rather intuitive) rules on settlements, to include military and economic aspects. I felt it extremely fitting for an RPG originally based on an RTS series, and I thought it was an absolutely magnificent feature.

Now, that's not my only problem with 4'th edition, and to be honest since so few games actually provide that feature to any significant degree, 4'th edition isn't exactly underperforming in lacking it. But nonetheless, there you are.

Edit: And it would be possible to import 3'rd edition's not-that-bad economic rules - but absolutely not worthwhile to import WoW RPG's much better settlement rules.

And to be honest, I'd rather have a system that does something better than a system that gives up and makes me use the same system I've been using as a placeholder for something better.

I'd be REALLY interested in getting a look at those settlement rules you mentioned, any chance you could share?

[Saph]

What I want to ask is this: I've encountered player type I've dubbed the businessman. This type of player isn't content with following the plot, saving the day and exploring the world. This character often feels the need to exploit his or her environment.They like to make use of non-combat skills (profession, perform) to make danger-free money or use get rich quick schemes (like taking the kobold mine they just emptied and using undead to mine out the minerals for profit). I've noticed that many of these business men I've met have been apprehensive about 4e philosophy not putting to many details for things like (profession, perform etc.). I'm wondering if anyone else has encountered other businessmen that don't approve of 4e?

What a bizarre question . . . So you have a problem with a certain vaguely defined group of players and you're looking for other people to tell you that those people don't like 4e? I haven't a clue how to answer that. I don't even really know who these people you're referring to are.

I've always allowed players in my games to use their non-combat skills for benefit or to allow them to come up with weird ways of making money. I haven't the faintest idea why you wouldn't, unless you really do want your 4e game to revolve around killing things. Every non-hack-and-slasher I've ever played with has tried this at one point or other - "Hey, let's do something apart from killing monsters for a change!" - so I suppose by your definition they're all 'businessmen'.

Anyway, personally I've usually gotten more fun from those of my character's skills that aren't used in combat or in adventuring than from those that are, so it annoys me that 4e's removed them all. It's not particularly for the sake of making money, though.

- Saph

[Roderick_BR]

Honestly, I've been following the discussions, and no one really said why 4E is bad. All I hear is the generic "it's shallow, looks like a video game, etc" but doesn't explain WHY.

Back to the OP's question, I guess my groups never had businessmen problems. They tend to to follow hints for the plot, and try to act badass to each other. Actually, a inside joke in my groups is that when we start calculating stuff is because we are too tired to pay proper attention to the story :smalltongue:

[Tormsskull]

What I want to ask is this: I've encountered player type I've dubbed the businessman. This type of player isn't content with following the plot, saving the day and exploring the world. This character often feels the need to exploit his or her environment.They like to make use of non-combat skills (profession, perform) to make danger-free money or use get rich quick schemes (like taking the kobold mine they just emptied and using undead to mine out the minerals for profit). I've noticed that many of these business men I've met have been apprehensive about 4e philosophy not putting to many details for things like (profession, perform etc.). I'm wondering if anyone else has encountered other businessmen that don't approve of 4e?

I have encountered this type of player in past editions, and I assume I'll encounter them when I get a bit more into 4e.

From your tone and choice of words (isn't content, exploit, danger-free, get rich quick schemes) it is obvious that you do not care for these types of players. Maybe these things are distractions to your world, and that's why you don't like them.

Personally, I've always encouraged this type of behavior, as I feel that it brings more life to a campaign. I had a player once that started his own business in town, hired an assistant to run the store when he was of adventuring, and generally used his income to improve on the store.

It was very interesting as it provided me as the DM with a ton of easy ways to engage that PC. Other players thought it was fun too as they would toss out their suggestions of what the business owner PC should sell, what kind of sales he should offer, etc.

I haven't had any players who have looked at the 4e rules in great depth, so I can't say if they will approve of them or not.



Anyway, personally I've usually gotten more fun from those of my character's skills that aren't used in combat or in adventuring than from those that are, so it annoys me that 4e's removed them all. It's not particularly for the sake of making money, though.


I've had the same experience. I'm thinking of ripping an idea from World of Warcraft and offering certains skills as Secondary Skills. These would be skills that a PC can learn that don't require an expenditure of a skill as another skill would. If a PC dedicates some time to developing weapons, then they can become trained in weapon making, for example.

Its just a cursory idea for now, but I think I'll look more into it when one of my players shows a specific interest.

[Indon]

So... for the vast majority of people who don't use the WoW RPG's rules for economy in their 3e campaigns, you agree that porting over Craft from 3e to 4e should be pretty straightforward?

It would require reworking due to the different basic economics of 4'th edition, but yeah, it's doable.


But Indon, that's not the fault of the system, that's your own personal preference. It's like going to a zombie movie and complaining afterwards about all the flesh-eating.
Well, it's not that cut and dry - it's more like being a big movie fan when 90% of the films released, particularly the big feature films, feature zombies.

Socioeconomic rules are not a frequent addition to gaming systems. So you make do with what you can get.


Going as far back as First Edition, D&D has been about playing a hero, not setting up trade routes or building a magic item empire. You're asking of D&D something that it was never meant for.

Well, I'd say with things like rules for morale, what it was meant for was smaller-scale warfware. So going as far back as First Edition, D&D has been changing - just as it changed to 3'rd edition to have better support for that sort of thing, and just as it dropped that feature for 4'th edition.

But, as I said earlier, it's not that big a deal, precisely because it's not something most games have - it's not as if this is some state-of-the-art feature 4'th edition doesn't have, quite the opposite. It'd be awesome and very unique were 4'th edition to have comprehensive rules for that, but I don't think anyone's accused the game of being revolutionary, so really that's not something you'd expect of the system.


Game revolves around PCs. Yes that sucks. I would like to play in the game where nobody asks me anything and don't care what I do... Oh wait, I wouldn't.
Games can revolve around PC's without the game environments revolving around them. There's a distinction.


I'd be REALLY interested in getting a look at those settlement rules you mentioned, any chance you could share?

Unfortunately, it wasn't my book, but just one I was borrowing, and I gave it back recently. I'm looking for a copy to buy, though.

To basically skim over the system, basically it ran down like this:

-Settlements are treated like characters. Each has 6 stats, measuring Military might, mobility, ability to recover from catastrophes, degree of learning and education, degree of spiritual development, and degree of cultural influence - basically correlating with Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha. Stats are purchased with point-buy and increase with settlement level.

-Settlements have levels, associated with population count. They can freely 'multiclass' between different types of settlement, such as military, civilian, arcane (think Dalaran, if you're a WoW fan), or religious (think Vatican City).

-Settlements gain skill points to reflect the kinds of things their population, as a whole, can provide and produce. So a settlement with ranks in Craft(Armor) can produce armor for their troops - the higher the score, the more and better the armor. And if that settlement also has ranks in Spellcraft, they might be able to produce magical armor, or make armor out of special materials like Mithril. (Edit: Obviously, settlements had a distinct list of skills, though there was overlap, such as Spellcraft, and craft and profession skills)

-Settlements also have feats to reflect the impact of unique elements to that city, such as natural fortifications, or sites of sacred or arcane significance.

-Finally, there was a detailed breakdown of aspects of a society, how they affect each other, and how events (such as, and paying particular attention to, a party of adventurers) could affect them to help or harm a community.

[Dan_Hemmens]

It's funny you should mention this.

I've got a friend who often talks of his first 2nd Edition group who went by the name "Adventuring Party PLC". Their entire raidon d'etre was to exploit the never-terribly sensible economic system of D&D for their own benefit.

Their crowning glory, as I understand it, was to defeat the Demilich in the Tomb of Horrors by excavating it from above, still sealed inside its crypt, and then selling it on the open market.

Basically the "buisnessman" attitude stems directly from the fact that, in D&D (and ever more so in ever more recent editions of D&D) money = power. Every dozen copper pieces you save by selling the boots of the Kobolds you kill is a tiny incremental step closer to being able to break those precious wealth-by-level guidelines.

That said, I don't think that the people complaining about no longer being able to make five Gold Pieces a week selling pottery are actually complaining about the *money*, I think they're complaining because they feel that something they did as a character trait is no longer supported.

[tumble check]

The poster of this thread defines a "businessman" as:



type of player isn't content with following the plot, saving the day and exploring the world.


If you're talking about 3.5, then you are grossly oversimplifying what the game was all about. In fact, it almost sounds like you've been waiting for 4e all along. One could have an entire 3.5 campaign without one in-round battle. Does that disgust you? If indeed someone wanted to take Basketweaving as a Profession, they could. In 4e, they can not. If you feel that this mechanic was completely useless, then clearly your scope was not wide enough to fully view what 3.5 was.

Not only is your Basketweaving remark a huge hyperbole for what you consider to be trascendent of the traditional "quest, battle, loot" formula, but it also shows your lack of understanding or respect for someone who wants to play a character as such.




This character often feels the need to exploit his or her environment.They like to make use of non-combat skills (profession, perform) to make danger-free money or use get rich quick schemes (like taking the kobold mine they just emptied and using undead to mine out the minerals for profit).


Exploit the environment? If, in other words, you mean players who like to take advantage of all the detailed rules, mechanics, and flavorful options that 3.5 had to offer, then yes. If your 3.5 campaigns have only involved getting a quest from some old guy in a tavern, going to a cave to fight a bunch of orcs, save some children, and pillage the orcs' loot reserves, then you've been missing the the things that made it so grand: the option to do whatever you wanted.

If, however, all you wanted to do was go fight things to get gold so you could buy cooler stuff so you could go fight bigger things, then clearly this post is lost on you. Enjoy 4e to its fullest, as I know you will.

[Dan_Hemmens]

If you're talking about 3.5, then you are grossly oversimplifying what the game was all about. In fact, it almost sounds like you've been waiting for 4e all along. One could have an entire 3.5 campaign without one in-round battle. Does that disgust you? If indeed someone wanted to take Basketweaving as a Profession, they could. In 4e, they can not. If you feel that this mechanic was completely useless, then clearly your scope was not wide enough to fully view what 3.5 was.

I think the OP's pont was that if you want to play a game that *isn't* ultimately about quests, battles, and loot, you could play one of about ten million other games which are far, far, far better set up for it than 3.X.

The whole *concept* of a class/level system is that your characters get better at fighting, questing, and looting. That's what your character's level *is*, it's how good they are at fighting stuff. That's why your combat abilities go up when you level up.

[Krrth]

It would require reworking due to the different basic economics of 4'th edition, but yeah, it's doable.


Well, it's not that cut and dry - it's more like being a big movie fan when 90% of the films released, particularly the big feature films, feature zombies.

Socioeconomic rules are not a frequent addition to gaming systems. So you make do with what you can get.



Well, I'd say with things like rules for morale, what it was meant for was smaller-scale warfware. So going as far back as First Edition, D&D has been changing - just as it changed to 3'rd edition to have better support for that sort of thing, and just as it dropped that feature for 4'th edition.

But, as I said earlier, it's not that big a deal, precisely because it's not something most games have - it's not as if this is some state-of-the-art feature 4'th edition doesn't have, quite the opposite. It'd be awesome and very unique were 4'th edition to have comprehensive rules for that, but I don't think anyone's accused the game of being revolutionary, so really that's not something you'd expect of the system.


Games can revolve around PC's without the game environments revolving around them. There's a distinction.



Unfortunately, it wasn't my book, but just one I was borrowing, and I gave it back recently. I'm looking for a copy to buy, though.

To basically skim over the system, basically it ran down like this:

-Settlements are treated like characters. Each has 6 stats, measuring Military might, mobility, ability to recover from catastrophes, degree of learning and education, degree of spiritual development, and degree of cultural influence - basically correlating with Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha. Stats are purchased with point-buy and increase with settlement level.

-Settlements have levels, associated with population count. They can freely 'multiclass' between different types of settlement, such as military, civilian, arcane (think Dalaran, if you're a WoW fan), or religious (think Vatican City).

-Settlements gain skill points to reflect the kinds of things their population, as a whole, can provide and produce. So a settlement with ranks in Craft(Armor) can produce armor for their troops - the higher the score, the more and better the armor. And if that settlement also has ranks in Spellcraft, they might be able to produce magical armor, or make armor out of special materials like Mithril. (Edit: Obviously, settlements had a distinct list of skills, though there was overlap, such as Spellcraft, and craft and profession skills)

-Settlements also have feats to reflect the impact of unique elements to that city, such as natural fortifications, or sites of sacred or arcane significance.

-Finally, there was a detailed breakdown of aspects of a society, how they affect each other, and how events (such as, and paying particular attention to, a party of adventurers) could affect them to help or harm a community.
They have something very similar in the Gamma World books, only with a Technology slant. Just change out some of the feats, and you would be good to go. Of course, I have no idea on how to port that to 4e, but still...

[tumble check]

I think the OP's pont was that if you want to play a game that *isn't* ultimately about quests, battles, and loot, you could play one of about ten million other games which are far, far, far better set up for it than 3.X.


Lamborghinis are exotic sports cars that excel in performance, but many people would prefer Audis because they manage to balance both performance and comfort.

I feel that, its problems notwithstanding, 3.x had more balance RAW than 4e does.

[Andras]

Lamborghinis are exotic sports cars that excel in performance, but many people would prefer Audis because they manage to balance both performance and comfort.

I feel that, its problems notwithstanding, 3.x had more balance RAW than 4e does.

This depends on what sense of "balance" you're talking about. I strongly dislike most of 4E, but I can at least admit the combat portion is significantly more balanced than 3/3.5E's. That being said, as far as non-combat things go, I definitely miss actual mechanical support for most of them -- I understand that I could just roleplay them out or whatever, but if I wanted to do that to balance non-combat things, I would just apply that logic to everything else (because in reality it is inherently more balanced), at which point I'd be playing pretend with a DM, not D&D. This leads to another nitpick with 4E: either you're specialized in something or you aren't, there's no grey area, so there's no *good* way to support heavy use of skills like Craft or Profession without a lot of conditional modifiers and Rule 0...but kvetching about skills is a subject for another thread.

To answer the OP, yes, a lot of "businessmen" dislike 4E. God forbid someone enjoy having the option to explore parts of the game that aren't hack and slash. And that's what it comes down to: options.


Game revolves around PCs. Yes that sucks. I would like to play in the game where nobody asks me anything and don't care what I do... Oh wait, I wouldn't.

The world in real life doesn't revolve around you. Does that mean nobody asks you anything and nobody cares what you do? Not necessarily. You don't have to take PC involvement to one extreme to avoid the other.

[Moak]

But Indon, that's not the fault of the system, that's your own personal preference. It's like going to a zombie movie and complaining afterwards about all the flesh-eating. Going as far back as First Edition, D&D has been about playing a hero, not setting up trade routes or building a magic item empire. You're asking of D&D something that it was never meant for.


Up until the title level,yes...after...a little bit.

A lot of the Companion Player Guide in OD&D was around building and governing you own barony...

Back on topic...

In my games people putted point in craft&profession more for a "background thing" and,sometimes,I made them take something from it...rule 0 a lot for creative applications...

I will do the same here,looking at their background and giving them some bonus on skill check related to their background...

[wumpus]

While I didn't slog through the last economics thread, I should point out that the way magic item shops operate (buy magic at just under the destruction price) pretty much kills the whole point of a magic item fence. I suppose that the standard source of residium might be a fence, but that would still change the prices.

[Indon]

A lot of the Companion Player Guide in OD&D was around building and governing you own barony...

And come to think of it, Fighters did get a keep, didn't they?

[EvilElitest]

I'd be REALLY interested in getting a look at those settlement rules you mentioned, any chance you could share?

Am i allowed to share? I think it is copy right. But if you can check out the WoW RPG PHB, they are there

Dan, that group should get a medal





Game revolves around PCs. Yes that sucks. I would like to play in the game where nobody asks me anything and don't care what I do... Oh wait, I wouldn't.

Don't use a progandist methods, it is insulting both to me and everybody else here. As i said before
the game should revolve around the PCs, that is the way it should be run. But the world should not revolve around the PCs. The world should exist as an independent, logical entity, like you know, a real world. The PCs can and should effect it, but it shouldn't exist to cater to their needs

I've made this clear time and time again, don't misquote me, don't lie about what i say, and don't make false assertions. It is rude, and leads to confusions and mis conceptions.



Lack of rules for crafting is a bit annoying. But the reason they aren't there is because most of the people didn't use them. Still, I'd like to see them included.
1) Most people? Do we have a poll on that? In fact, Artifactor is one of the most broken classes.
2) Crafting wasn't considered important by WotC's standards and was left out, like so many other thing that leads to a bad game



OK, so table in 3e was recommendation, but in 4e it is absolute. I don't see how this is true. If you remember rules for random generation in 3e you should also remember that they tended to produce idiotic items for loot as monsters.

1) Because the table in the 3E, while badly implemented, wasn't designed to be absurd. The wealth by level's intention was to show the DM a general idea of how much a PC should have.
2) However in 4E, monsters will have loot that they wouldn't normally have simply to suit the wealth by level. Which is extremly silly in terms of world consistency and leds to the world, not the game revolving around the PCs


The game is as shallow as you make it.

No it is as shallow as it is designed to be.


And here is definition of the word hero. Where do you see any mention of the abilities.
By heros, i mean that in the Eragon sense, they are special just......because. They don't make themselves heros, the don't start out normal and rise, they start out with the world focusing on making them heros. And that leads to bad world design, as the world, not the game is focused on the PCs, which is in fact, and lets all say it together, like a video game


Just because you see "monsters" in MM as cannon fodder doesn't mean that they are.
A few minimal sentences of text and nothing but unexplained combat blocks. You know, like a Final Fantasy or Oblivion monster guide, hmmmmmmm


Most of the monster's fluff will be redefined in campaigns so why bother doing it now. You get the general idea from what you read in MM. For rest, wait for more books or use imagination.

Homebrewing does not make up for a bad book. Even the 3E monster manual was able to pull off a better manual in terms of description, and 4E looks primitive in comparison . You can't use people's ability to homebrew as an excuse for WotC's laziness and inept writing. As portrayed, the monsters nothing more than carbon fodder


No it won't, because there were no bad things in the first place.

How zealous, 4E is the perfect edition than?



You are pretty good in ignoring certain part of 4e books and avoiding the application of common sense when such things make 4e rules look idiotic. Interesting is however that you don't do such thing when you discuss 3e.
using exaggerations and out right lies to prove a point only makes you into a Propagandist, not a debater.

1) I actually have complimented 4E on a few things. When i first read the advertisement books, i made the mistake of them saying that each monster would have an unique and interesting back story/lore literally. I was under the silly impression that they were actually going to try to make them more in depth and better written, which, for all of my complaints about Ebberon it did do that very well
2) Why do i need to lie to make 4E look primitive. It does the work for me
3) Don't you dare make that lying assertion. Take that back this instant, you lying propagandist. I have always been extremly critical of 3E, and i have mocked it on several occasions. [B]I have never, ever sited it as the perfect edition [B], and even in the segment you posted i criticize 3E. When 4E was first announced i was for a new edition, because 3E badly needed change. But i didn't like the results.



Here is a piece of wisdom: D&D is a game where you have a DM who tells a story and serves as a judge and players who interact with the game world. You can do that without knowledge of what happens to the rest of the world and lack of knowledge your character isn't supposed to know is blessing for players. It makes not metagaming easier.
Having a shallow game does not make metagaming easier, in fact 4E encourages meta gaming. With having the PCs and NPCs different, the use of monsters, the design philosophy, these all come from a shallow meta gaming view point that relays on the simplistic assumption on the "proper way" of playing D&D. In the same way a video game does, it simplifies things in a metagame in its design. Video games are excused however, as they simply lack the ability to pull of a consistent world, while D&D does not have that limitation


And we don't exactly need rules for everything possible (they don't hurt, but are not necessary). And besides, who the hell wants to watch DM amking rolls 3h every session just to see who sold what to whom and who made what.

1) Why aren't they necessary? really why? Does it interfere with the one true way of playing D&D
2) And saying such an event would happen simply because of crafting is a fallacy


Honestly, I've been following the discussions, and no one really said why 4E is bad. All I hear is the generic "it's shallow, looks like a video game, etc" but doesn't explain WHY.

So what i just said was, what not detailed enough?

here have another one


“OK....... I really REALLY REALLY wanted to love this game. To be honest I've been a sucker for every incarnation of DnD that's come out. I liked all of em in their own way. I prebought this one and every 'pre-book' they've put out... We were all so eager for this new incarnation. It read so well. I can't believe this, but this game has actually managed to depress me!! I HAVE played it. Just spent three hours playing, in fact.

When we finished the party reported that they had the distinct feeling that we had just played a board game version of WOW. Now we all LOVE WOW in our gaming group.. but that's NOT what we sat down to play around a table. We saw nothing 'quick' or 'streamlined' about the gaming experience. We moved pieces around a board adhereing to movement rules and 'squares' for this and that in a fashion that reminded me way too much of the old 'Heroes Quest', albeit a complicated version! Were the game mechanics good? Yes. Why did I give it a 'one star'? Because whilst the game is a good miniature warfare game it seemed to rob the flavor of DnD. The character creation was extrememly confined and the selections were limited. Gone was the ability to customize your character to the point that you actually felt like you had something unique. You will feel as if WOC is controlling the direction your character takes. The game DEMANDED a board and game pieces.. I've always felt that DnD's flavor relied on the 'minds eye', which is so much more colorful in my head than staring at plastic pieces on a piece of cardboard. I do realize that the 'original' DnD was just that, a wargame with a fantasy element. But I feel it evolved into so much more... I guess we've 'returned to our roots'... so why do I feel like we climbed back into the primordial ooze?!

A great deal of the time the magic users felt like they were 'hitting the hot button key'. They had one or two actions that they relied on every round to cause the maximum amount of damage. No inovation or imagination. Everything was geared towards 'how does this directly effect combat'.

The DM's guide isn't that bad. Reminds me a LOT of the first edition book. Information on how to be an effective dm, traps, dungeons, and artifacts. Not what 'thirders' would expect, but not bad.

The Monster Manual is awful. A third of the pictures are just rehashed from all the previous Monster Manuals. The book is concerned with stats so you can play your miniature game effectively. Again.... great if your into miniature gaming. The ecology and culture information is virtually non-existant. Make all the arguments you want about this now being in the pervue of the DM.. the honest answer is that WOC is being lazy. You have a vast variety of stats to place against your carefully created stats, but very little flavor to guide you in roleplaying the encounters.

I have read that the streamlined combat will enhance the rolplaying as you'll have more time available.... that was really exciting.. too bad this wasn't the case. Going to miniatures and a combat board, whilst carefully figuring out where your party and the encounter is, everytime combat arose was time consuming. You'll also notice that you'll have to change the map everytime, of course, which is also time consuming.

If you LOVE miniature wargaming. If Warhammer is something you daydream about.... this is the game for you! As a miniature game experience it ranks a three or four...

If you love games that take place in your head fired by limitless imagination then your probably going to be disappointed.

I really feel like power gamers are going to LOVE this game and probably flame me for my remarks. The game is geared towards being 'godlike'. I'm not knocking this. If you love powergaming and twinking then this is DEFFINITLEY the game for you. To each his or her own. You should buy it immediately... and keep DnD fiscally sound enough to perhaps manage an inevitable rewrite that might restore my faith.

Ironically I'll be keeping my set... I think it'll make a great board game for those rare nights when I just wanna run through dungeons killings things and working off frustrations. According to the DMG I don't even need a DM to do this..... Sound like any RPG you ever heard of???? No story teller... no RPG. Just another board wargame.. albeit a pretty good one.

Good day!”



have another

Sigh... where to begin?

First off, I should say that 4E does not appear to be on the surface a mechanically poor system. As far as it seems to go (having not read it cover to cover; I've only got it this morning and have only skimmed the classes and powers and concentrated on reading the bulk (hah) of the rest of the rules).

It is not, however, in my opinion, either particularly elegant not particularly good. It's functional. Unlike 3.x, there is nothing that I've looked at gone "wow, that's just...why did we never think of that before!" (E.g. 3.0 multiclassing, easily the finest idea of the edition in my opinion.) (Note: 3.5 is by no means without flaws. But I find despite those flaws - some of which can be fixed with light to moderate house-ruling or simply lived with - it's the most mechanically superior set of RPG rules I've encountered.)

Lest anyone misinterpret me before I go any further I should qualify my position by saying that D&D - any edition - has no nostalgic hold over me. I started playing with HeroQuest and gravitated to Rolemaster right away (talk about a step up!) No rules system, wargame or roleplaying, commands any degree of respect from me other than what it earns by it's purely mechanical elements. So, no nostalgic grognarding drives me, only what I percieve as mechanical inferiority.

Right, that said...

I dislike the design philosphy. I dislike the hero-centric mechanics and 'exception based design'. The greatest strength of 3.x for me was the standardisation of everything. I thought that the monsters and the PCs being on equal footing was an outstanding step foward.

I hate the skill system with a passion; coming from a background of skill-based RPGs, having skills as basically negligable I find an anthema. Despite the fact I've a pretty heavy optimiser when all's said and done, a look a the skills on any of my characters will show a smattering of skills outside the primaries. My current Necormancer/Pale Master, for example, has picked up new knowledge skills in the last few levels and has skill ranks in Profession (Undertaker) and (Herbalist).

(The concept of skill challenges is one of the better ideas and one I shall steal, however.)

I dislike the homogenising of the classes. While I grant you, 3.5's wide disparity in character class power levels was not good, homogenisation to this point was not the answer. After 3.x's superlative multiclassing, 4E's is laughable. I feel that the class roles are too restrictive and artificial for my tastes and I found the lack of permissibility and flexibility to be poor when compared to 3.x.

I personally find 4E to be littered with too much world-specific fluff. I really hate this because I do not play on existing campaign worlds if I can help it, as world building gives me as much joy as playing. I don't freakin' want shared fictional histories, renamed or otherwise, I want my world to be my world, not some broadly similar thing to what WotC considers ideal (this applies to 3.5 too; I tossed out the entire MM for my current campaign world).

Related to this, the MM is absolutely hands down the worst bestiary I have ever seen in any game, RPG or wargame, ever. I'm not happy, but don't regret buying the PHB and DMG; but I do the MM because it's just a collection of stat blocks. The mix of monsters and multiple levels of the same type remind me more or those found in Final Fantasy or Dungeon Siege. I've no problems with them in context but I want my table-top bestiary to include some of the normal, generic stuff like animals as well as the weird oddities. Now this would be forgivable, because reading bestiaries are usually a fun read for the sake of a read, except the MM has basically nothing to read. Most monsters get about what four-six lines of fluff. Call me nuts, but while I don't like too much fluff (or at least world-specific fluff) in my mechanics, I expect it my monster descriptions. A picture and a stat block are not inspiring me to use any of them. (Size of monsters, guys? Aside from the size stat, not heights or weights are listed; how do I describe them to the PCs? Plonk the minature down (assuming I was daft enough to buy trillions of D&D minis to have enough to do that)? Show them the picture - which doesn't help because I still don't know how big it is...)

I find the use of squares as a measurement risable, not only because it forces you to use a grid (I prefer the grid to be a rough guide not an absolute; I don't use a grid in wargames, I'm bloody well not playing a smaller-scale RPG under greater restrictions) but because I find it shatters immersion and forces you to convert back to feet anytime you deal with a described envrioment anyway (see Jump skill example. It tells you to work out your jump distance in squares and promptly has to convert it back to feet. Poor design, folks.)

The distance in squares is just one of the aspects of the rules that make me think it it too game-y for an RPG. The phrasing of the rules reminds me of a lot of (generally poor) wargames. I was particularly reminded of Warhammer Fantasy Battle (no, not even the RPG) in style - only without the strong Warhammer flavour that characterised the later stuff (not that I would want that anyway, but...)

Overall, the set-up reminded me forceably of a CRPG (not necessarily an MMORPG, because I've never played one) but more of Diablo, Dungeon Siege or JRPGs where the monsters are totally different from the players and everything has to have some combat use.

Finally, I found that it didn't have enough of a grounding in reality for me (two fantasy armour-types for every loosely historical one? No, I think not.) Now, I'd be the first to agree my games, containing as they do on occasion laser-breathing psionic crow-falcons or Pokemon (once) are not realisitic. They are however, very firmly grounded in reality (and where appropriate history - not just Medieval either), which I use as a springboard to do the crazies. 4E bears very little lip service (longbows have a range of 200' (40 squares)? Keh? That's not even a hundred yards.) to reality, sacrificing it for the game-y aspects, which as mentioned earlier, I don't like as I find them counter to immersion.



Frankly, WotC seem to me to have done a Games Workshop; a lot of heavy commercialisation (plugging D&D mini cards for random encounters but never suggesting random encounter tables? What?) and trying very hard to recruit new blood. (I could, with perhaps a touch of unfairness but a fair degree of justification, accuse them of dumbing it down.) I imagine it'll be great for newcomers or for DMs who just want to pull WotC monsters right out of the box. But for a mechanic-loving, wargaming, homebrewer like me, it's just not what I want from an RPG system. I may well play it (but I'll play pretty much anything if it eases my DMing duties a touch), but I'm certainly not going to DM it.



(And clerics with lasers? What?)


enjoy

Andras, you are amazing, keep it up

From
EE

[Tough_Tonka]

I'd like to get a few things straight. I don't dislike the players that want to be businessmen (one of my favorite characters was a gnome mage that learned magic to aid his practice as a baker). I do however have reservations of this mentality being taken to an extreme, which I've run into on a few occasions. Take the case of the abandoned mine one of these businessmen discovered, after they set up the mine the player said, "I want to wait a year to monitor the progress of the mine and collect my silver, how much do I get?". He wanted a year to pass in a matter of seconds so he could get some money for sweet magic items. Interestingly enough that players interest in business affairs dwindled when I said I was going to use the DMG II rules for running businesses since as he said, "I can't break the Wealth Level Table with these".

The reason for this thread was to see if the people who complained about a lack of non-combat/social rules (crafts, professions) really used them all that much? Or are they just concerned about the lack of specific rules (besides the DM logic) about these activities?

[Tough_Tonka]

I'd like to get a few things straight. I don't dislike the players that want to be businessmen (one of my favorite characters was a gnome mage that learned magic to aid his practice as a baker). I do however have reservations of this mentality being taken to an extreme, which I've run into on a few occasions. Take the case of the abandoned mine one of these businessmen discovered, after they set up the mine the player said, "I want to wait a year to monitor the progress of the mine and collect my silver, how much do I get?". He wanted a year to pass in a matter of seconds so he could get some money for sweet magic items. Interestingly enough that players interest in business affairs dwindled when I said I was going to use the DMG II rules for running businesses since as he said, "I can't break the Wealth Level Table with these".

The reason for this thread was to see if the people who complained about a lack of non-combat/social rules (crafts, professions) really used them all that much? Or are they just concerned about the lack of specific rules (besides the DM logic) about these activities?

[Andras]

I'd like to get a few things straight. I don't dislike the players that want to be businessmen (one of my favorite characters was a gnome mage that learned magic to aid his practice as a baker). I do however have reservations of this mentality being taken to an extreme, which I've run into on a few occasions. Take the case of the abandoned mine one of these businessmen discovered, after they set up the mine the player said, "I want to wait a year to monitor the progress of the mine and collect my silver, how much do I get?". He wanted a year to pass in a matter of seconds so he could get some money for sweet magic items. Interestingly enough that players interest in business affairs dwindled when I said I was going to use the DMG II rules for running businesses since as he said, "I can't break the Wealth Level Table with these".

The reason for this thread was to see if the people who complained about a lack of non-combat/social rules (crafts, professions) really used them all that much? Or are they just concerned about the lack of specific rules (besides the DM logic) about these activities?

It sounds more like you have a munchkin player than a bad system. I've never had a player be that blatant about what he was doing.

It's not so much that I necessarily used the rules as it was that I enjoyed the fact that there was support should I ever want to.

[GlordFunkelhand]

Well, one definition of game is "a series of interesting choices." One of these choices were the skills.
If your char is not a skill monster, placing the skill points was interesting. And even with high int, there were never enough skill points. Some chars in my groups even use the skill focus talent.

Balance, Escape Artist, Swim ... so many nice moments involving these skills. So many ad-hoc rulings involving the player to roll several skills in order to do what he wants. Knowledge skills have been useful at many moments. Craft and profession not that often, TBH.

Still, I miss them. But I also admit that I give players up to 4 skill points as a special bonus from time to time. If a player does a certain things IC or if he manages to pull something off using attribute checks only, I give him 4 skill points per level he can spend on limited list of skills. So, if he balances over a bar, jumps onto a chandelier to swing over a fire to land at a certain spot, that's worth 4 skill points to be spend on (balance, jump, tumble).
Sometimes magic items will give a skill bonus. The wizard found a book with rituals and arcane lore. He spends some time to study it, I give him 2 points in knowledge (the planes) and knowledge (arcana).
The fighter tries to get the furs of slain monsters - so I might give him 4 points worth of profession (skinning).
I keep a log about these bonus point to ensure they don't get out of hand. I also try to give them out only sparingly and for more obscure stuff. Or to use them later as a plot device.

[EvilElitest]

I'd like to get a few things straight. I don't dislike the players that want to be businessmen (one of my favorite characters was a gnome mage that learned magic to aid his practice as a baker). I do however have reservations of this mentality being taken to an extreme, which I've run into on a few occasions. Take the case of the abandoned mine one of these businessmen discovered, after they set up the mine the player said, "I want to wait a year to monitor the progress of the mine and collect my silver, how much do I get?". He wanted a year to pass in a matter of seconds so he could get some money for sweet magic items. Interestingly enough that players interest in business affairs dwindled when I said I was going to use the DMG II rules for running businesses since as he said, "I can't break the Wealth Level Table with these".

As said before, that is just a bad player with a lack of common sense more than a bad style of play.



The reason for this thread was to see if the people who complained about a lack of non-combat/social rules (crafts, professions) really used them all that much? Or are they just concerned about the lack of specific rules (besides the DM logic) about these activities?
In a word yes, due to need of options. I don't use them moronically like your player did apparently but i still use them, both as a DM and as a player
from
EE