4th Edition isn't WoW...it's Chutes and Ladders

[GryffonDurime]

Please don't take the title as too big a source of scorn, but ever since I picked up Fourth Edition and started reading it, something just bugged me about it. A lot of my concerns have been addressed time and again, so I won't bring any arguments to the table save this one, which I just now realized as I considered the way a mini moves across the battlefield:

Fourth Edition wants, maybe even needs you to get excited by having things move. Shifting both your own and other characters is a big, common ability that seems to be an implicitly desirable option. My problem, then, is that I just don't find "Move X squares" to really be an exciting option.

So, with respects to Fourth Edition players, I have to ask: is this a fair assessment? How often does shifting come up in your games, and do your players really get excited over moving the little giblets around the board? For my money, it's just not for me, but I can see how, to the right player, it would definately be a big-draw ability.

[Starsinger]

Sometimes Shifting is a big deal. Shifting an ally out of the reach of the very large golem? That's nice. Being able to help your plate wearing ally with a speed of 5 to the enemy? That's nice. Being able to punch the goblin and push it in range of the fighter? That's nice too. As Mel Brooks' character says in Dracula Dead and Loving It "Everything these days is location, location, location."

[Covered In Bees]

It's not "WOO I AM MOVING THE GOBLIN THIS IS SO FREAKING AWESOME DUDES I CAN'T STOP SHOUTING" or anything. But it is fun, say, shoving that goblin into the Wizard's Web/Wall of Fire/Icy Terrain/whatever, or next to the fighter so that he'll have a hard time getting away to hurt you, or away from the rogue to keep him safe, or into the middle of your friends.

The movement and pushing abilities are fun because you can use them tactically and go JUST AS PLANNED. Last game, the Warlord's Leaf on the Wind power saved my character from taking, like, five high-damage attacks.

[wodan46]

Condition, Position, and Damage. Thats what 4e's combat is all about. Its worth noting that how you go about improving it involves a lot of variety and options.

[EvilElitest]

well i have never heard this one before
from
EE

[Myatar_Panwar]

Now that everything has unlimited Attacks of opportunity, shifting can be VERY important in many instances.

And can we PLEASE stop comparing 4e to other games. Its 4e. Its not an MMO, its not a board game, its not a card game, or whatever. Its as if everyone is trying to see if they should hate it or not by comparing it to 'exceptable' games (table top strategy games, etc) and games quite often frowned upon on these boards (MMO's). If you like it, play it. If you don't like it, don't play it. No need to go to all this trouble finding out if you should be liking this game or not.

[EvilElitest]

Now that everything has unlimited Attacks of opportunity, shifting can be VERY important in many instances.

And can we PLEASE stop comparing 4e to other games. Its 4e. Its not an MMO, its not a board game, its not a card game, or whatever. Its as if everyone is trying to see if they should hate it or not by comparing it to 'exceptable' games (table top strategy games, etc) and games quite often frowned upon on these boards (MMO's). If you like it, play it. If you don't like it, don't play it. No need to go to all this trouble finding out if you should be liking this game or not.

quite frankly, no. If a game shares elements or brings about a feeling of nostalgia, of course you can compare it. Its like saying i can't compare books from one genre to another. I can point out the ways 4E is designed and how that resembles a video game, board game, card game, foot ball game, fencing match, Duel monster game, what have you if i can notice similarities
from
EE

[Starsinger]

quite frankly, no. If a game shares elements or brings about a feeling of nostalgia, of course you can compare it. Its like saying i can't compare books from one genre to another. I can point out the ways 4E is designed and how that resembles a video game, board game, card game, foot ball game, fencing match, Duel monster game, what have you if i can notice similarities
from
EE

There is a difference in saying, "Hey, this is reminiscent of that!" and crying like a child "Eberron has Magic Trains! That makes it Harry Potter!" or "The game has levels and magic! That makes it Final Fantasy!"

[Covered In Bees]

quite frankly, no. If a game shares elements or brings about a feeling of nostalgia, of course you can compare it. Its like saying i can't compare books from one genre to another. I can point out the ways 4E is designed and how that resembles a video game, board game, card game, foot ball game, fencing match, Duel monster game, what have you if i can notice similarities
from
EE

But it's always pointless. Either something is a problem, in which case it doesn't matter WHAT it resembles, or it isn't, in which case, it still doesn't matter. 4E is very obviously a tabletop RPG, and obviously plays like one.

You can compare it to WoW (you do realize there are many MMORPGs, and that they're not all the same? EVE and WoW aren't remotely similar) all you like, but you can compare anything you like to WoW.

For example:
3.5 is a lot like WoW. Characters fight progressively tougher monsters with a number ranking that indicates if it's too tough for them or not. They do this in a group, usually with a healer, a mage with blasting spells and buff/debuff effects, a heavily armored warrior, and a rogue that does high damage with Sneak Attack.
What's more, these characters' abilities are defined by two things: "build" and "gear", just like in WoW. A bad build or lack of level-appropriate gear/poorly chosen gear will make your character suck. Gear is enormously important, to the point where it almost defines many high-level characters.
Clearly, if you're playing 3E you might as well just play an actual MMO.

[EvilElitest]

But it's always pointless. Either something is a problem, in which case it doesn't matter WHAT it resembles, or it isn't, in which case, it still doesn't matter. 4E is very obviously a tabletop RPG, and obviously plays like one.

Basic comparasion skills. When you compare 4E to 3E, you will see a lot of video game elements come up, part of the whole simplification deal. You can do that through comparison. Its like saying 4E is becoming more combat focused than fluff focused, which is pretty self evident



You can compare it to WoW (you do realize there are many MMORPGs, and that they're not all the same? EVE and WoW aren't remotely similar) all you like, but you can compare anything you like to WoW.

And you do realize that i don't tend to compared 4E to WoW so much as video games in general



For example:
3.5 is a lot like WoW. Characters fight progressively tougher monsters with a number ranking that indicates if it's too tough for them or not. They do this in a group, usually with a healer, a mage with blasting spells and buff/debuff effects, a heavily armored warrior, and a rogue that does high damage with Sneak Attack.
What's more, these characters' abilities are defined by two things: "build" and "gear", just like in WoW. A bad build or lack of level-appropriate gear/poorly chosen gear will make your character suck. Gear is enormously important, to the point where it almost defines many high-level characters.
Clearly, if you're playing 3E you might as well just play an actual MMO.
And yet, your making a bad comparison, which is why comparing things to a specific game is never good, but better to compare it to a genre. (Also it is ironic to note that there is an RPG verison of WoW, actually better than 4E)
from
EE

[Myatar_Panwar]

quite frankly, no. If a game shares elements or brings about a feeling of nostalgia, of course you can compare it. Its like saying i can't compare books from one genre to another. I can point out the ways 4E is designed and how that resembles a video game, board game, card game, foot ball game, fencing match, Duel monster game, what have you if i can notice similarities
from
EE

Ok sure, I suppose you can compare them if you want, but seriously, please don't say that they are the same thing. I cant tell you how many times I've practically ripped the hair from my scalp when someone has told me "4e is basically WoW." !!!ARGHHHH!!! :smallmad: Sure they have similar concepts but OMGDUDE have you ever played an MMO and/or D&D? Just the core fundemantals of D&D already seperate the 2 genres (table-top and MMO) by a mile.

Also same can be said with just about any other D&D/other type of game comparison. D&D is still about role playing, dungeon crawling, saving the town, starting fights in a tavern, etc. Most other games don't even touch on the complexity a game of D&D can involve. Don't pretend otherwise.

[Draco Dracul]

And yet, your making a bad comparison, which is why comparing things to a specific game is never good, but better to compare it to a genre. (Also it is ironic to note that there is an RPG verison of WoW, actually better than 4E)
from
EE

But the MMO genre is so varied that anything can be reasonblely compared to it.

[EvilElitest]

Ok sure, I suppose you can compare them if you want, but seriously, please don't say that they are the same thing. I cant tell you how many times I've practically ripped the hair from my scalp when someone has told me "4e is basically WoW." !!!ARGHHHH!!! :smallmad: Sure they have similar concepts but OMGDUDE have you ever played an MMO and/or D&D? Just the core fundemantals of D&D already seperate the 2 genres (table-top and MMO) by a mile.


While i don't think 4E is an MMO more than any other video game, i will say comparisons are right. But your right, you can't say 4E is WoW. You can say it is similiar, or it has video game elements. You could however make a pretty good argument saying it is essentially a board game version of D&D



Also same can be said with just about any other D&D/other type of game comparison. D&D is still about role playing, dungeon crawling, saving the town, starting fights in a tavern, etc. Most other games don't even touch on the complexity a game of D&D can involve. Don't pretend otherwise.
Um, what? D&D has always been complex, with 4E as the least immersive. I think 3E and 2E were very immersive and complex games yes, see 2E DMG, or the Book of Exalted Deeds as examples of this, but 4E falls far short in terms of non combat complexity. Legend of the five rings, WoW RPG setting, even Exalted (and that is coming from me mind you) can trump it in terms of fluff complexity.
from
EE

edit


But the MMO genre is so varied that anything can be reasonblely compared to it.
hence why i tend to go for "video game" rather than just MMO, but even if we disregard that we can not the game taking elements from MMOs (actually just video games in general, but we can make the claim it is just MMOs)


Personally, i don't like comparing 4E to a specific game, like WoW, or even MMOs because i think 4E is more like the entire video game genre. When people say "4E is WOW" other people simply point out specific differences, and how the are too different for that to make any real sense. So yes, you can't say "4E is WoW" because of specifics. you can say it is like a video game in design and a board game in pratice, broader scopes




There is a difference in saying, "Hey, this is reminiscent of that!" and crying like a child "Eberron has Magic Trains! That makes it Harry Potter!" or "The game has levels and magic! That makes it Final Fantal

While i think you gravely over simplify the point, i agree you can't say it is a specific thing, but you can make comparisons to specific things
"Its like final fantasy, with bland monsters who exist to be killed" for example. you can't say "It is Final Fantasy" however
from
EE

[Myatar_Panwar]

Um, what? D&D has always been complex, with 4E as the least immersive. I think 3E and 2E were very immersive and complex games yes, see 2E DMG, or the Book of Exalted Deeds as examples of this, but 4E falls far short in terms of non combat complexity. Legend of the five rings, WoW RPG setting, even Exalted (and that is coming from me mind you) can trump it in terms of fluff complexity.
from
EE

What are you talking about? This is another thing that really irks me as a misconception. What about 4e is stopping you from doing cool out-of-combat roleplaying stuff? I don't see any difference in this regard at all. What could you do in 3e that you coulden't do by 4e core?

As I see it, if you need to refer to your rule-book everytime you want to do something cool out-of-combat, then you are doing something wrong.

[Covered In Bees]

Basic comparasion skills. When you compare 4E to 3E, you will see a lot of video game elements come up, part of the whole simplification deal. You can do that through comparison. Its like saying 4E is becoming more combat focused than fluff focused, which is pretty self evident
Maybe *you* see a lot of "video game elements", but you're seeing them when they aren't there.


And you do realize that i don't tend to compared 4E to WoW so much as video games in general
"Video games in general" is such an enormous category you can compare anything to them.


And yet, your making a bad comparison, which is why comparing things to a specific game is never good, but better to compare it to a genre. (Also it is ironic to note that there is an RPG verison of WoW, actually better than 4E)
from
EE
Why not? I think it's a pretty good comparison. Okay, replace "WoW" with "an MMO" there. Done.
PROTIP: you can't compare something to MMOs as a genre, because [i]the only thing all MMOs have in common is that they're Massively Multiplayer Online games. EVE is nothing like World of Warcraft.
If there is something that defines MMOs as a genre, it's grinding and repetitive, pre-written quests.


"Video games" as a whole are so broad a category comparing anything to them is meaningless.
But it looks like a fun game, let me try:

D&D 3.5 is like a video game, because you control a character that overcomes challenges and faces enemies he has to defeat to accomplish his goals. Along the way, he collects power-ups (magic items) and gains new abilities, fighting progressively more difficult enemies. Also, the character is capable of taking a limited set of actions by the rules, and you imagine the rest (attacking is a mechanical action, just like hitting the attack button; breathing is just something you assume and talking is something you do without the ruls getting involved).

tl;dr: Don't say "this is like X!", because it's pointless. If you have a problem with something, identify the problem. Saying "it's like Final Fantasy" is pointless. Saying "monsters exist only to be killed" isn't pointless. It is, however, wrong (only you seem to have this strange idea that just because monsters have combat statblocks, they don't do anything other than fighting. Monsters don't exist to be killed any more than they did in 3.5, which had RANDOM ENCOUNTER TABLES for heaven's sake).

[Myatar_Panwar]

Hey, did you know that Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is totally just like actually being in the army? Yeah, I mean, there are guns, trees, ground and stuff. Totally the same. Probally join later this year, as I need some better maps. "But like, I heard that IRL doesnt have respawn points. I mean, if I get lag out there, I'm like dead!"

[GryffonDurime]

Alright, then. No longer my thread, I've no delusions about that.

Seriously, though, why are we allowing ourselves to get caught up in this particular level of acrimony. Whether or not you're allowed (by whom, I'd ask) to compare anything to anything else, I asked a simple question about other people and their experience with the game because I was genuinely curious as to both whether or not this was an exciting feature for some people.

If you'd like to argue about the validity of comparisons...maybe start a thread for that?

[The_Werebear]

This is another example of 4E looking shallow but playing deep. 4E is all about tactical positioning for maximum advantage. Shifting foes around is one of the ways you gain an advantage over your enemies.

An Example: A Rogue and a Warlord are in combat together. They are facing several enemies, including a Goblin Underboss and several other goblins. The Underboss has been using Superior Goblin tactics to put he and his allies between the two, and have forced the Rogue and Warlord 8 squares apart. The Rogue has taken a beating from the Underboss. That goblin is standing directly inbetween her and the Warlord, and there are two goblin's to the Boss's side. The Rogue needs a heal, but the warlord is too far away to use inspiring word.
_R
GUG




GG
W

The Rogue hits the underboss with Trick Strike(slide your target 1 square), shifting him back one and to the left.
_R
G G
U




GG
W

She then spends an action point and uses bait and switch (switch squares with a target then shift squares equal to your charisma mod) to switch spots with the goblin and slide (we'll say charisma of 14) two squares towards the warlord.
_G
G
U
___R



GG
W

Finally, she spends her move action and moves six squares around the goblins and next to the warlord. From utterly screwed to able to be healed and regroup and fight some more with no attacks of opportunity.


So, Overall it is much more interesting than the simple rules would indicate.

[erikun]

You know what 4e is? It's just like a webforum, where people will quibble over the smallest detail. No, wait...

I would've probably compared 4e to something like Stratego myself, although I don't see how moving your character around = board game. I personally don't care for it that much; I like being able to image the scene in my head, without needing a placemat to determine positioning.

Also, could we not have the same argument in every thread? Seriously, make your points and leave it at that. Letting people hear your viewpoint is a good thing. Calling others stupid is not.

[Kiara LeSabre]

This is definitely the first time I've ever seen anyone complain that they believe 4e is like WoW/Candyland/whatever. This is a new and interesting topic for discussion, filled with thoughtful insights and in no way needlessly provocative or redundant. Thank you very much for bringing it to our attention.

[Starsinger]

4e is like Candyland. Thog would like that.

[Covered In Bees]

This is definitely the first time I've ever seen anyone complain that they believe 4e is like WoW/Candyland/whatever. This is a new and interesting topic for discussion, filled with thoughtful insights and in no way needlessly provocative or redundant. Thank you very much for bringing it to our attention.

Sarcasm?

On MY internet?!

[Pirate_King]

I just want to say this observation is pretty hilarious. Though, in 3.5, I took the spells slide, greater slide, benign and benevolent transposition for similar reasons, and I enjoy such movement related abilities. that aside, movement does seem a rather stressed game mechanic in 4e

[Skyserpent]

Alright, then. No longer my thread, I've no delusions about that.

Seriously, though, why are we allowing ourselves to get caught up in this particular level of acrimony. Whether or not you're allowed (by whom, I'd ask) to compare anything to anything else, I asked a simple question about other people and their experience with the game because I was genuinely curious as to both whether or not this was an exciting feature for some people.

If you'd like to argue about the validity of comparisons...maybe start a thread for that?

Alright, back on topic then:

I have mixed feelings about the increased level of movement based powers and complexity thereof mostly because this could make Theatre of the Mind style D&D which I've grown fond of when I'm too lazy to scrawl five rooms connected by intricate tunnelwork onto my fifth Wet-Erase mat with Dry-Erase marker, I don't know if 4e makes it so difficult that it's unplayable, or even if it makes it more difficult at all, but This whole "squares" business takes a little getting used to if you don't like using minis.

Of course, I also really enjoy tactical combat and love it when huge elaborate fight sequences break out in villainous chambers, it may well be my favorite part of the session.

I think this increased focus on tactical movement may come from the twitchy instant gratification "ADD" of more modern games. Moving around is just more interesting... I'm not going to say that these movement abilities are a fantastic life-changing boon that I will tell stories about to my grandchildren. But the fact that they are pretty much EVERYWHERE in the game I think hints at an increased support for more high-octane maneuvering and such. Watch the Darth Maul fight in Star Wars Episode I, or the CLASSIC duel between the Dread Pirate Roberts and Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride and you'll see why this kind of stuff is popular.

REMINISCING NOW OCCURS. you have been warned.

I remember a spectacular 3.5 game where we had just lit fire to an evil cultic pirate clan's stronghold and were battling their Clerical leader on the sacrificial altar for the lives of two-dozen kidnapped citizens, the clashing of steel harmonizing with the crackle of flames that wreathed the terrible demonic statues that watched silently as the battle was joined.

And then we realized that all my Monk/Paladin and my Archery Fighter friend could really do is take it in turns to whack away at him back and forth for the better part of forty-seven minutes in realtime. Pretty much repeating the rigmarole of "I attack, okay, he attacks/casts a spell, okay I attack again." and I crashed unceremoniously back into reality where I was nothing more than an irritated High-Schooler who's most meaningful tactical choice was whether to roll the dice on the desk or the map.

In contrast, we recently ran a 4e session where we were dealing with an obscenely overpowered Barbarian/Demon/cleric/thing and our Ranger was running around, and at some points THROUGH the boss's square purposefully provoking opportunity attacks by moving and shooting in melee so my Fighter could make good on his free strikes whenever the big guy tried to attack anyone else. Meanwhile the Warlord was helping flank, as well as doing his best to provide AC support to the Ranger so he ran a smaller risk of atomization when purposefully provoking attacks.

These are the two examples that sprung to mind when I was considering whether this tactical movement thing was really my cup of tea, and I think it is.

REMINISCING OVER

I will concede though, that this proclivity for motion is entirely a matter of taste, but I am willing to wager the majority of gamers think that tactical movement is a good thing. Maybe not balls-to-the-wall spectacular, but nonetheless good.

[Covered In Bees]

And then we realized that all my Monk/Paladin and my Archery Fighter friend could really do is take it in turns to whack away at him back and forth for the better part of half-an-hour in realtime. Pretty much repeating the rigmarole of "I attack, okay, he attacks/casts a spell, okay I attack again."

This is why I don't play non-ToB warrior characters in 3E. How on earth do other people avoid being bored by it?

[amanamana]

These discussions amuse somehow...
I see lots of people talking about D&D being similar to MMO mechanics... but do these people remember where did those MMO borrowed their mechanics from in the first place?
greetings,
amanamana.

ps: Almost 3 years reading the comics and the forum, but just registered now, 15 minutes ago!
NICE TO MEET YOU, EVERYBODY!

[Pirate_King]

These discussions amuse somehow...
I see lots of people talking about D&D being similar to MMO mechanics... but do these people remember where did those MMO borrowed there mechanics from in the first place?
greetings,
amanamana.

ps: Almost 3 years reading the comics and the forum, but just registered now, 15 minutes ago!
NICE TO MEET YOU, EVERYBODY!

Welcome to the forum! hope no one scares you away.

[amanamana]

Welcome to the forum! hope no one scares you away.

Thank you!

[Kiara LeSabre]

Sarcasm?

On MY internet?!

I'm in ur Interwebs, ridiculing ur threads.

[Skyserpent]

This is why I don't play non-ToB warrior characters in 3E. How on earth do other people avoid being bored by it?

Truth.

That session was about two or three months before ToB came out, if I'm not mistaken. I mean, I like the standard classes, but they really aren't on the same power-scale.

I'm a big fan of the Swordsage myself. Though with 4e, I can just say I'm a Fighter or a Rogue, and I'm okay with that.

[Viruzzo]

Please don't take the title as too big a source of scorn, but ever since I picked up Fourth Edition and started reading it, something just bugged me about it.
Emphasis mine. That's the problem, if you play it with a DM that knows how to use terrain hazards, you'll find that's actually a good thing. :smallwink:

[Myatar_Panwar]

Not to go further away from the actual thread discussion (:smallwink:), but I only found fighters/ melee types in 3e fun when I totally pimped them out behond recognition. To the point where they were probally out-damaging the casters and breaking many fundamental physics. For example, I once had a crossbow fighter who could get off 10 shots per round, 16/round 3/day. Each dealing a fair amount of damage. Dont ask how.

As a side note, said character lead to my DM throwing a horrible horrible encounter at as the final boss (we are level 16, lich in a 4x4 room covered with solid fog which we are unable to dispel as he just constantly sends maximized area spells at us. Oh yeah, did I mention that he had around 45 AC and a high level cleric behind him?)

[nagora]

But it's always pointless. Either something is a problem, in which case it doesn't matter WHAT it resembles, or it isn't, in which case, it still doesn't matter.
I don't think that's exactly what people are saying (that the resemblance to other games in general is the problem in itself), they are saying there's a problem because the game resembles a well known type of NON-RPG game.

Things like the marking rules are lifted straight from computer games and represent absolutely nothing IC - the characterisation has been sacrificed in order to make combat "more fun" where fun is defined as what those guys over there on their computers are doing. Similarly, the new healing rules, power recharge rules, and even the skill challenge rules (as they were, not as now errataed(sp?)) had a strong computer-game feel to them. In each case, the roleplaying was reduced for the sake of mechanical changes which seem to be coming from the realm of MMOs. Some people have a problem with that.

[Viruzzo]

I don't think that's exactly what people are saying (that the resemblance to other games in general is the problem in itself), they are saying there's a problem because the game resembles a well known type of NON-RPG game.

Things like the marking rules are lifted straight from computer games and represent absolutely nothing IC - the characterisation has been sacrificed in order to make combat "more fun" where fun is defined as what those guys over there on their computers are doing. Similarly, the new healing rules, power recharge rules, and even the skill challenge rules (as they were, not as now errataed(sp?)) had a strong computer-game feel to them. In each case, the roleplaying was reduced for the sake of mechanical changes which seem to be coming from the realm of MMOs. Some people have a problem with that.
You do understand that nothing of that is an objective statement, and that is just your (and some other people's) opinion? Also, you are just stating things without justifying them, so... Trolling?

[nagora]

You do understand that nothing of that is an objective statement,
That's just your opinion. What real-world action is marking supposed to be simulating? This is a technique used in programming to make AI simpler - it's a straight lift from MMOs.

and that is just your (and some other people's) opinion? Also, you are just stating things without justifying them, so... Trolling?
Yeah, right.

[Viruzzo]

That's just your opinion.
That is not an objection. And if all those were facts, then no one could easily debate on them.


What real-world action is marking supposed to be simulating? This is a technique used in programming to make AI simpler - it's a straight lift from MMOs.
Explain me where 4e marking appears in MMOs; if you are thinking of the aggro mechanics most of those have, then it's definitely not the same thing. And it really has nothing to do with "simpler IA". Like, really nothing. Besides, marking simulates the event that a defender right in front of you is trying to prevent you from attacking his allies, making it harder for you to hitting them and attacking you whenever you leave an open spot by trying to. It is as much a "simulation" as most 3.x stuff. Also, what real world anything are dragons supposed to simulate?


Yeah, right.
I'm happy we are in agreement. Your post has nothing to with the OP's one, it's just a random attack versus 4e. If you don't like it, don't play it and don't comment on it, what's the problem?

[Arioch]

You do understand that nothing of that is an objective statement, and that is just your (and some other people's) opinion? Also, you are just stating things without justifying them, so... Trolling?

How is what he said in any way trolling? He expressed his opinion, was polite and didn't make any inflammatory statements. I like 4e, but he nevertheless made good points. Trolling, as I understand it, is posting with the intention of upsetting people and attracting flames. His post was not that.

[Viruzzo]

How is what he said in any way trolling? He expressed his opinion. I like 4e, but he nevertheless made good points. Trolling, as I understand it, is posting with the intention of upsetting people and attracting flames. His post was not that.
All the "good points" he made where his PoV, but where expressed as being objective truths, and were overall a denigration of 4e that had nothing to do with the original post. Is not that trolling? I'm not saying that he wants to cause flames or anything, but how many times has a discussion swayed to "4e vs 3.x" in this forum?

Posting against 4e in a thread about 4e is definitely not constructive, nice and polite. :smallannoyed:

[Matthew]

Posting against 4e in a thread about 4e is definitely not constructive, nice and polite. :smallannoyed:

Sorry, what? That makes no sense to me. Are you saying that threads about 4e de facto make posting criticisms in that thread of 4e impolite? What if I start a thread about 4e and why I think it sucks?

[Viruzzo]

Are you saying that threads about 4e de facto make posting criticisms in that thread of 4e impolite?
If it's about 4e itself, then yes.
Example: I open a thread asking why 4e has that many powers that relate to forced movement, and how could they be useful, tactical and fun to play with. Some guy jumps in and replies "well 4e sucks because is like MMOs".
Does that seems polite and constructive to you? Has it anything to do with the thread's subject?


What if I start a thread about 4e and why I think it sucks?
There is no point in opening that thread, but it's fine to open one like "I don't like this in 4e, what do you think about it?", and it's been done already. If someone jumps there and replies "I love 4e and you are stupid because you don't" then he is then who is being impolite and destructive.
You seem to imply that I have a problem with those who don't like 4e: it's not that, I just can't bear destructive criticism.

My apologies to the OP, I have strayed the thread quite far... :smallfrown:

[Arioch]

Some guy jumps in and replies "well 4e sucks because is like MMOs".

But that's not what he did. That conversation was already present, and he added his thoughts. And he didn't just say "4e sucks because it's like MMOs", he offered arguments and specific examples.

[Telok]

What about 4e is stopping you from doing cool out-of-combat roleplaying stuff? I don't see any difference in this regard at all. What could you do in 3e that you coulden't do by 4e core?

If I recall the power list correctly... cast Levitate more than once a day.

For some reason (I'm still not sure why) talking about 4e recently reminded me of the old Talisman game. Fairly balanced, entertaining, but it feels less like a roleplaying game than previous editions of D&D. That feeling is probably based on the battlemat requirement. Previous editions didn't require anything more than the books, some dice, paper, pencil, and a few friends. This one wants you to buy more stuff (other than books, settings, adventures).

Perhaps it's just me but the new power structure seems to discourage thinking up strange and interesting ways to do things. I know I haven't read the power lists exhaustively but they are much much more limited and constrained than previous abilities for classes. 4e won't stop people from roleplaying and pulling cool tricks, but it doesn't read like it encourages it either.

Mostly for me 4e just doesn't have the depth that core 3e or AD&D has. Perhaps after another three or six books come out, but it's just not as interesting to me.

[Matthew]

If it's about 4e itself, then yes.
Example: I open a thread asking why 4e has that many powers that relate to forced movement, and how could they be useful, tactical and fun to play with. Some guy jumps in and replies "well 4e sucks because is like MMOs".
Does that seems polite and constructive to you? Has it anything to do with the thread's subject?

It would be useful if you drew a distinction between constructive and destructive criticism, because from where I am standing your previous statement implied all criticism was undesirable. I still don't see why you would single out Nagora as being impolite in this thread, when he was responding only to what had already been said.



There is no point in opening that thread, but it's fine to open one like "I don't like this in 4e, what do you think about it?", and it's been done already. If someone jumps there and replies "I love 4e and you are stupid because you don't" then he is then who is being impolite and destructive.
You seem to imply that I have a problem with those who don't like 4e: it's not that, I just can't bear destructive criticism.

You are mixing up personal attacks with criticism of a game system. I am not implying anything, I am trying to understand your point of view, which seems to have been badly conveyed, since you do seem to recognise the distinction between constructive and destructive criticism. I would assume you see the differences between the following statements.

1) I don't like the way Dungeons & Dragons 4e handles X and would prefer that it worked in a manner more conducive to Y.
2) I don't like Dungeons & Dragons 4e because it does X.
3) Dungeons & Dragons 4e sucks because it does X.
4) I don't like Dungeons & Dragons 4e, and anyone who does is an idiot.

All Nagora was doing was clarifying why he thinks comparisons to a video game have some validity. He might be right, he might be wrong, but he isn't even criticising 4e, he's saying some people don't like 4e because of X, Y and Z. You then responded with "don't you know that's just your opinion?" Which is frankly impolite and somewhat insulting (and unsurprisingly baited him into replying in kind); I imagine that Nagora is fully aware that what he wrote is his opinion.

[Overlard]

Well in the last few sessions, I've chucked enemies off cliffs, into an iron maiden, into a furnace, straight between the fighter and paladin and into a cage.

Seems fun to me.

[Wizzardman]

Also, what real world anything are dragons supposed to simulate?


Gigantic monitor lizards.

...But, really, now: Please stop basing arguments about simulationism around the presence or absence of dragons, magic, silly-looking monsters, or similar. That's a specious way to argue about simulationism. He's not saying "D&D has to be exactly like the real world," he's making the argument that marking isn't internally consistent, whereas dragons and other such things have obvious explanations for their existence (magic, which isn't present in the real world), and at least have the illusion of making sense from the standpoint of real-world physics+magic.

There's no way to actively "mark" someone in the real world so that they'll attack only you (at least, without the wonderful roleplaying opportunities of insulting their mother), or that you'll automatically do better when fighting them. And yet marking isn't a "magic" ability (which is the general excuse for how dragons exist, and other things that differ from real-world physics), so it should either mimic something that happens in the real world, or should have some other internally-consistent explanation. Marking doesn't. Its just kinda there.

Now, if you want to say "all marking in 4E is based on magic," that would be acceptable, as suddenly we'd have a reason why its there (in that some wizards decided aggro systems are nice, and developed crazy charm spells).

[Deepblue706]

I don't think that's exactly what people are saying (that the resemblance to other games in general is the problem in itself), they are saying there's a problem because the game resembles a well known type of NON-RPG game.

Things like the marking rules are lifted straight from computer games and represent absolutely nothing IC - the characterisation has been sacrificed in order to make combat "more fun" where fun is defined as what those guys over there on their computers are doing. Similarly, the new healing rules, power recharge rules, and even the skill challenge rules (as they were, not as now errataed(sp?)) had a strong computer-game feel to them. In each case, the roleplaying was reduced for the sake of mechanical changes which seem to be coming from the realm of MMOs. Some people have a problem with that.

I don't think you formed a single coherent sentence.

Stop trolling, you trolli rolli!

[Wizzardman]

I don't think you formed a single coherent sentence.

Stop trolling, you trolli rolli!

....I don't think you formed a single sentence that actually contributed to the conversation at hand.

My turn! Stop trolling, before we break out the acid flasks and alchemist's fire.

[EagleWiz]

Any discussion about anything 4e will turn into people calling eachother trolls.
\

[Jade_Tarem]

My goodness. Seems that 4e could best be compared to a large torch that sets fire to any thread it touches.

I personally don't care for 4e. I do think that the guy who posted about the 47 minute fight where he didn't do anything in 3.5 was doing it wrong. There are ways to accelerate battles that get like that - and a battle shouldn't have been run like that by the players or DM. You didn't have to slog through a bad fight, any more than you have to repeatedly hit yourself with a baseball bat.

Actually, alot of the sunshine and light opinions for 4e that I see appear to be things that the new edition "fixed" for people who happened to not like a particular aspect of the old edition that wasn't precisely a flaw.

Take the comment about "Fighter types were no fun unless they were pimped out." I ran a game where the barbarians in the party (there were two) were the most fun characters in the group, followed by the rogues. The casters tended to be somewhat bored - not because casters are boring, but because the warrior players were simply better. The barbarian types got all their kicks roleplaying both out of combat and *gasp* in combat - and that includes finding creative things to do with that shiny axe and elven courtsword. And yes, they were completely pimped out characters. But so what?

[SmartAlec]

Things like the marking rules are lifted straight from computer games and represent absolutely nothing IC.

The marking condition represents being under immediate threat and being 'crowded' by an opponent who's in your face very well, I thought. There is a big difference between, say, a Wizard who is trying to avoid physical combat and rely on his or her spells, and a Fighter actively trying to engage in physical combat, even when they're side by side and right next to monsters. The marking rules are that difference.


There's no way to actively "mark" someone in the real world so that they'll attack only you.

That's true. It's also not what marking does - marking makes it more difficult for a monster to attack someone who isn't you, which is much more within the realms of likelihood.

[nagora]

If it's about 4e itself, then yes.
Example: I open a thread asking why 4e has that many powers that relate to forced movement, and how could they be useful, tactical and fun to play with. Some guy jumps in and replies "well 4e sucks because is like MMOs".
Does that seems polite and constructive to you? Has it anything to do with the thread's subject?

Firstly, since the thread title compares 4e to another game and mentions WoW, it's hardly radical that a discussion of other more serious claims to such similarities should have been aired. Secondly, I didn't initially air them, I was replying to someone else who had brought the topic up.

If you want to start a board where all replies must be to the OP, then fire away, but here there is an expectation of a developing conversation (within reason), which CoveredinBees and others exploited (without your royal censure) and I continued. Basically, your problem appears to be only that someone poked 4e with a stick and you've taken that personally.

[Artanis]

There's no way to actively "mark" someone in the real world so that they'll attack only you
Gee, it's a good thing that it doesn't do that then, isn't it?

[Kiara LeSabre]

Gee, it's a good thing that it doesn't do that then, isn't it?

Although, interestingly enough, the 3.5e Complete Adventurer feat Goad does do that for melee attacks. It is, in fact, a "save or you can only attack me" feat.

So you're right, Wizzardman -- there's no way to actively prevent people in the real world from attacking anyone but you, but I still don't think that alone is enough of a reason to dispense with 3.5e. There are plenty of other, better reasons anyway.

[Flying Elephant]

To me, Combat Challenge seems like it's just concentrating on one specific opponent, and harassing them, so if they try to hit somebody else they are distracted by you, and if they move you can get a hit in.

[Xyk]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm gonna say all the combat I ever have in my head has alot of running and tactical everything. "Moving around the board" if you will. especially when it's not 1 on 1. In my opinion this adds a slice of realism.

Edit: If you stand still, you're gonna get shot.

[Covered In Bees]

Things like the marking rules are lifted straight from computer games and represent absolutely nothing IC -
Marking does not come from any computer game ("computer games" is majorly broad). It does not represent absolutely nothing IC.

As far as I know, 1E does not have "opportunity attacks" in the default rules (it may be an optional rule somewhere).
This means that if I'm fighting an armed warrior, I can turn my back on him and walk over to punch his wizard buddy with total impunity.

"Marking" represents actively engaging an enemy and keeping his attention because you're a trained warrior waving a sword in his face, and you know how to exploit momentary opening. If the guy wants to take his eyes off you to do something else, you can take advantage of that in a way that a wizard whacking away with his staff can't. Fighters, the armored melee warriors of 4E, are especially good at this. They find more openings to take advantage of you, and can keep you hemmed in. Trying to disengage from a trained warrior is risky.

Marking is not the perfect, most realistic way to represent this, but neither is "an attack roll vs. AC, X points of HP damage if you hit". Neither is armor making you harder to hit. D&D combat has never been so realistic, detailed, and specific that marking would be out of place (in fact, it's a better simulation than most of the rest of it ever was--[i]the AD&D combat round was a minute long).

Basically, marking does represent something IC, has nothing to do with video games, and is more accurate than most of D&D combat has ever been.

Now why don't you tell me what standing in the same spot and trading blow after blow, taking HP damage all the while, represents.


the characterisation has been sacrificed in order to make combat "more fun" where fun is defined as what those guys over there on their computers are doing.
First of all, no, it's really not. I could just as easily say that AD&D sacrificed things in order to make the game "more realistic", regardless of whether or not the result was people enjoying themselves or not.

Second of all, some of those guys are having fun. Tabletop gaming is not inherently more fun than everything else. I've been to some very mediocre games, and to others which had high points but also low. Do you really think that the rules of your preferred edition are flawlessly designed for maximum fun, and that there's no change which would make a game more fun to play? Even if that's the case for you, it's certainly not the case for most people; that's why they changed them.
Computer games are fun. They have to be. They're fun in various ways; Planescape: Torment sure isn't fun because you're HACKANSLASHAN your way through enemies.


Similarly, the new healing rules, power recharge rules, and even the skill challenge rules (as they were, not as now errataed(sp?)) had a strong computer-game feel to them.
To you. You're apparently a 1E grognard; I wouldn't expect anything else from you (do you also think that 2E was bad for the game, and 3E was also "just like a video game"?) and I'm not exactly going to be relying on your perspective for an accurate judgement.

The new healing rules are straight out of Conan moreso than anything else (except for the Leaders' active healing). It's the older editions' "spam cure spells until the guy's up to full" that resembles a computer game far more (casting Cure Light Wounds on the Fighter four times bears an eerie similarity to selecting Cure and hitting the button four times in a Final Fantasy game).


In each case, the roleplaying was reduced for the sake of mechanical changes which seem to be coming from the realm of MMOs. Some people have a problem with that.
Nagora, if you can reasonably tell me how skill challenges are actually like an MMO, I will eat one thing of your choice*. Skill challenges are a great example of a mechanic unique to tabletop games because they can only work in tabletop games.

Skill challenges don't reduce roleplaying. On the contrary, they set up a structure which supports a player-driven narrative. Even in 1E, dice get rolled when players are trying to do things (except talking, because dice should determine how sneaky a character can be but not how charming), and "freeform everything except for combat" certainly isn't the best approach for most games and most people anyway.


*that will not send me to the hospital, but was nevertheless never meant to be eaten.

---


he's making the argument that marking isn't internally consistent, whereas dragons and other such things have obvious explanations for their existence (magic, which isn't present in the real world), and at least have the illusion of making sense from the standpoint of real-world physics+magic.
In 4E, warriors know how to punish their opponents for trying to disengage or go after someone else. How is this not internally consistent? What in 4E is it not consistent with?

(PROTIP: D&D hasn't been about "real-world physics plus magic" for a long time. Even in 3E, (Ex) abilities explicitly allow you to do things the laws of physics wouldn't let you.)


There's no way to actively "mark" someone in the real world so that they'll attack only you (at least, without the wonderful roleplaying opportunities of insulting their mother), or that you'll automatically do better when fighting them. And yet marking isn't a "magic" ability (which is the general excuse for how dragons exist, and other things that differ from real-world physics), so it should either mimic something that happens in the real world, or should have some other internally-consistent explanation. Marking doesn't. Its just kinda there.
Good thing MARKING DOESN'T MAKE SOMEONE ATTACK ONLY YOU. It just makes it harder for them to attack other people. Some classes are better at capitalizing on the little openings made by someone focusing on someone else while fighting them, like the Fighter.



Now, if you want to say "all marking in 4E is based on magic," that would be acceptable, as suddenly we'd have a reason why its there (in that some wizards decided aggro systems are nice, and developed crazy charm spells).
Marking isn't "aggro" any more than crowd-control spells are or positioning is. It's a fundamentally very realistic mechanic--so realistic that it wouldn't have any place in D&D combat if it didn't [i]also contribute to the tactical fun.


Comeon, guys. Go pick on Bloody Path or something; this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Matthew]

As far as I know, 1E does not have "opportunity attacks" in the default rules (it may be an optional rule somewhere).
This means that if I'm fighting an armed warrior, I can turn my back on him and walk over to punch his wizard buddy with total impunity.

Nope, you couldn't. Part of the reason you couldn't has to do with the quite different way that actions are adjudicated in AD&D (and the timescale they are supposed to occur on), but there are also several other rules that would make this impossible, depending on whether and how the DM implements them. Basically, though, you only have two default choices for disengaging from combat in AD&D, withdrawing or running away (and the latter results in a barrage of free attacks). If your character moves a distance greater than 1" (10 ft indoors/ 30 ft outdoors, or 'melee range') he will not be able to attack in any case (and even that degree of movement is inference).

[Starbuck_II]

And yet, your making a bad comparison, which is why comparing things to a specific game is never good, but better to compare it to a genre. (Also it is ironic to note that there is an RPG verison of WoW, actually better than 4E)
from
EE

Yes, and the WoW Version of D&D is 3.5 (I've played it). Sure, they change lots of things, but it was really just a supped up 3.5.
They let Arcanist (Wizard in that game) get sorceror spellcasting and known spells done like Wizard, and spells prepared like Spirit Shaman.

Really, a super 3.5 is World of Warcraft the Roleplaying game d20.

[Covered In Bees]

Nope, you couldn't. Part of the reason you couldn't has to do with the quite different way that actions are adjudicated in AD&D, but there are also several other rules that would make this impossible, depending on whether and how the DM implements them.

I've played 2E, not 1E, but I don't remember anything of the sort (except the optional opportunity attacks). What are these rules?

[Viruzzo]

I was going to reply to explain why I replied to Nagora's post in the first place, but actually he is right saying that since I did not say anything to EE and CiB (I skipped their posts when I saw they were gone on the flame boat) I should have ignored his post too. If anything I should have replied to EE's second post which too I consider trolling.
Nagora, the fact that the non-OP discussion was initiated by others is no excuse, I do think that replies should be pertinent (within reason) to the thread. Obviously I failed at myself by replying the first time to you, but understand that my problem is not with "anti-4e-ers", but with the flames they bring. I should have known better though than trying to stop a flame by replying to it...


Any discussion about anything 4e will turn into people calling eachother trolls.
Indeed! But do I at least get regeneration 5?

[Matthew]

I've played 2E, not 1E, but I don't remember anything of the sort (except the optional opportunity attacks).

The specific rules are quite different in 1e than 2e regarding movement in combat (and even melee target determination). 2e is very much more open or cinematic than 1e, but relies entirely on DM adjudication to resolve. However, you still only have two official options in default 2e for extracting yourself from combat, withdrawing or fleeing. Anything else is either an optional rule or a DM adjudication. In the former case the opponent is free to 'follow up', providing he has sufficient movement and a companion doesn't block his advance. In the latter case, the character is exposed to 'free attacks' from all adjacent opponents.

The round process is also much simplified for 2e, being:

Declare Actions
Roll Initiative
Resolve Actions

Everything happens at the same time, which is why action declaration is necessary. However, initiative determines whether somebody strikes first in the round or completes some other action before something else happens. It's very, very abstract stuff, and so people often run it action by action (which also works, but renders action declaration unnecessary).

[Covered In Bees]

The specific rules are quite different in 1e than 2e regarding movement in combat (and even melee target determination). 2e is very much more open or cinematic than 1e, but relies entirely on DM adjudication to resolve. However, you still only have two official options in default 2e for extracting yourself from combat, withdrawing or fleeing. Anything else is either an optional rule or a DM adjudication. In the former case the opponent is free to 'follow up', providing he has sufficient movement and a companion doesn't block his advance. In the latter case, the character is exposed to 'free attacks' from all adjacent opponents.

See, we were taking "a character carefully backs away from an opponent (who can choose to follow)" to mean that the character can choose to follow on his turn.

Now how d'you explain the Punching and Wrestling rules? :tongue:

[The_Werebear]

Perhaps it's just me but the new power structure seems to discourage thinking up strange and interesting ways to do things. I know I haven't read the power lists exhaustively but they are much much more limited and constrained than previous abilities for classes. 4e won't stop people from roleplaying and pulling cool tricks, but it doesn't read like it encourages it either.

Mostly for me 4e just doesn't have the depth that core 3e or AD&D has. Perhaps after another three or six books come out, but it's just not as interesting to me.

Actually, there's a section in the 4E DMG that talks about how to resolve some of the strange stuff people do (Pg42).

[Matthew]

See, we were taking "a character carefully backs away from an opponent (who can choose to follow)" to mean that the character can choose to follow on his turn.

Yeah, I doubt your group would be alone with that interpretation; I still can't tell from the book whether a withdrawing character is supposed to be able to make an attack or not. That's just the way the rules are written, though, it's basically left for the game master to adjudicate as he feels appropriate.



Now how d'you explain the Punching and Wrestling rules? :tongue:

Heh, if you think the 2e version is bad you should see the version in the 1e DMG. I'm pretty sure the guys behind Role Master looked at that section of the combat rules and thought to themselves "You know, all the combat rules should be like this" (Not that I dislike Role Master).

[Reinforcements]

I find it interesting that people always go, "OMG 4E FIGHTERS HAVE AGGRO JUST LIKE WOW," because it seems to me that the 4e fighter's crowd control abilities are the OPPOSITE of aggro.

I mean, aggro as it exists in a game like WoW is about tricking the monster. You can imagine how this plays out "IC" however you like, but the point of a warrior's aggro-inducing abilities in WoW FORCE the monster to attack HIM, even though it's a bad idea. In no case should the monster attack the warrior - he should kill the healer and go from there, but he's forced to attack the guy with the highest "threat" because that's how it works.

A 4e defender's crowd control isn't like that at all. In no case does a creature in 4e HAVE to attack the fighter. The DM controls him, and can have him attack whomever he wants. What the fighter's abilities do is to ACTUALLY make it a bad idea for the creature to attack anyone else. He'll get a penalty to attack anyone but the fighter, or he'll provoke an AoO if he does so, or even if he tries to shift away from the fighter, or the fighter gives his buddy a bonus to AC for being next to him, etc, etc. That's a COMPLETELY different thing than aggro. And, of course, the DM CAN still do what he wants, so if he decides that this particular enemy just hates the wizard and will attack him no matter what (for example)... then the fighter's still effective, making the wizard harder to hit, punishing the enemy for ignoring him. Again unlike WoW, where if a monster ends up attacking someone other than the tank, it's almost always a bad thing and all the tank can (and should) do is to try to get the monster back to attacking him.

[Wizzardman]

In 4E, warriors know how to punish their opponents for trying to disengage or go after someone else. How is this not internally consistent? What in 4E is it not consistent with?

And that would be an acceptable argument, except that 4E's rules on marking are very general about "breaking off", in that someone can be out of melee range and remain marked (despite no longer having to directly face that opponent; and unless you've got rules for covering fire, marking shouldn't work out of melee range.) Moreover... I'm still not sure why this wouldn't be covered by "combat advantage" or something similar? Why do you get an additional "marking" action to prevent someone from running off to fight someone else, when a rule that "you gain combat advantage because the guy's distracted from you" would be easier and make just as much sense fluffwise?


(PROTIP: D&D hasn't been about "real-world physics plus magic" for a long time. Even in 3E, (Ex) abilities explicitly allow you to do things the laws of physics wouldn't let you.)
Yes, yes, we know. For the thousandth time, we know. We've heard you. Just because 3.5 isn't good at something doesn't mean that 4E is good about that something.



Marking isn't "aggro" any more than crowd-control spells are or positioning is. It's a fundamentally very realistic mechanic--so realistic that it wouldn't have any place in D&D combat if it didn't [i]also contribute to the tactical fun.

As I've already pointed out, I disagree.


Comeon, guys. Go pick on Bloody Path or something; this is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Hey, to be fair, I'm just working with the stuff the other guy posted. I'll refrain from bringing my own arguments in until we're done with these.

[Dervag]

A 4e defender's crowd control isn't like that at all. In no case does a creature in 4e HAVE to attack the fighter. The DM controls him, and can have him attack whomever he wants. What the fighter's abilities do is to ACTUALLY make it a bad idea for the creature to attack anyone else. He'll get a penalty to attack anyone but the fighter, or he'll provoke an AoO if he does so, or even if he tries to shift away from the fighter, or the fighter gives his buddy a bonus to AC for being next to him, etc, etc. That's a COMPLETELY different thing than aggro.It's also at least marginally realistic. In real life, a guy with a sword can be quite effective at forcing you to choose between fighting him and getting stabbed in the head.

[SmartAlec]

unless you've got rules for covering fire, marking shouldn't work out of melee range.)

Why not?

To put it another way, when you lift the abstractions of things like turns, actions and whatnot, 4th Ed combat is very dynamic. The word I'd use is 'swashbuckling'. OOC, the monster has moved away from the marker. IC, the chaos of the fight is still very much going on and that monster could still be demoralised/off-balance/forced to keep looking over its' shoulder in case the fighter it just ran away from catches it up etc etc.

Ok, that's a specific example and marking is caused by lots of other things, but I'd say it's at least as consistent as, say, hit points.

[Deepblue706]

....I don't think you formed a single sentence that actually contributed to the conversation at hand.


That was the point. It was mere commentary. I do not believe Nagora's posts are driven by a desire to rouse emotion, but rather to state his opinion - nobody should be censured just because you don't like what they have to say.

[Covered In Bees]

And that would be an acceptable argument, except that 4E's rules on marking are very general about "breaking off", in that someone can be out of melee range and remain marked (despite no longer having to directly face that opponent; and unless you've got rules for covering fire, marking shouldn't work out of melee range.)
An archer gunning for you is dangerous. If you're rushing him, that's one thing; if you're fighting someone else...
What's more, everything in a combat round is theoretically happening at the same time, remember? The fighter could well be following you. That's why the fighter's mark ends at the end of his next turn, rather than at the start of yours.

(The paladin's mark, of course, is actual divine magic; the Swordmage's is arcane magic.)


Moreover... I'm still not sure why this wouldn't be covered by "combat advantage" or something similar? Why do you get an additional "marking" action to prevent someone from running off to fight someone else, when a rule that "you gain combat advantage because the guy's distracted from you" would be easier and make just as much sense fluffwise?
There are lots of different ways to implement this same fluff. Marking is more tactically interesting. I mean, it'd be mechanically simpler if we just used the Wushu system and narrated all the details.
Marking is implemented because it changes how things play. If you were to grant combat advantage to everyone you're not engaging in melee, that would have a different effect on gameplay than the way marking works now. The current method is more tactical and more interesting, with more active choices made by everyone involved.

So where's the problem? Marking does in fact represent something--at least as realistically as TURN-BASED COMBAT can represent something.



Yes, yes, we know. For the thousandth time, we know. We've heard you. Just because 3.5 isn't good at something doesn't mean that 4E is good about that something.
If you don't care about it in 3.5, you shouldn't care about it in 4E. If you do care about it in 3.5, then you will have a hard time enjoying most games. If you think everyone without magic should be 100% limited by the real laws of physics, you're... well, your tastes are your own, but I wouldn't go near a fantasy game like that with a ten-foot pole. Try Rein of Steel; that's got realistic combat.
It's a magical world, okay? Maybe everyone soaks up ambient magical radiation from birth and is inherently a little magical. If you really need that kind of stupid explanation to accept that in fantasy games, people can do the physically impossible without being wizards, then use it. The rest of us don't have a problem with "non-spellcaster" not meaning "unable to exceed real-world human capabilities ever".

[nagora]

Really busy this weekend so here's some quick replies:

do you also think that 2E was bad for the game, and 3E was also "just like a video game"?
Yes and no in that order.

Nagora, if you can reasonably tell me how skill challenges are actually like an MMO, I will eat one thing of your choice
I actually said that they were like something from a computer game. I was not thinking of an MMO but one of those old menu-driven games when you had to take options that make no sense just because there's no flexibility allowed. In the case of SCs, this is the "Barbarian rolls while the Paladin speaks to the king" situation that the original 4e SC rules forced; it seems to have been fixed now although I've not gone over it in detail.


Skill challenges don't reduce roleplaying.
Perhaps if you're not roleplaying already, otherwise having to treat conversations like a combat basically outlaws roleplaying the character and enforces rollplaying the numbers.


Marking isn't "aggro" any more than crowd-control spells are or positioning is. It's a fundamentally very realistic mechanic--so realistic that it wouldn't have any place in D&D combat if it didn't also contribute to the tactical fun.
LOL The funny thing is that marking might have made a little bit of sense in 1e's much more abstract combat system. In the rediculous "more detail always means more realistic, right?" clockwork boardgame that is 3e and 4e combat, it just leaps out as inexplicable nonsense.

It's a magical world, okay? Maybe everyone soaks up ambient magical radiation from birth and is inherently a little magical. If you really need that kind of stupid explanation to accept that in fantasy games, people can do the physically impossible without being wizards, then use it. The rest of us don't have a problem with "non-spellcaster" not meaning "unable to exceed real-world human capabilities ever".
That's because, to you, D&D has become an abstract game, much like chess is. The characters are just pieces to be shoved around while dice determine their every action. As such, you have no interest in believable - everything is classed as acceptable because "it's fantasy". Well, I think that's very bland, dull, and make every game into a series of cop-outs.

To take the Die Hard example once more: I'm happy with Bruce Willis' character having 100+ hit points and being skilled at about a million things that you can sort of see that he might have had some chance to train in somehow. It's a fantasy. But, if he escapes from a burning skyscraper by flapping his arms and flying to the next one, then it's all over as far as I'm concerned.

Got to go.

[Starsinger]

Perhaps if you're not roleplaying already, otherwise having to treat conversations like a combat basically outlaws roleplaying the character and enforces rollplaying the numbers.

You're doing it wrong. A skill challenge is not "Convince the Duke to be your friend" that's a conversation and maybe a skill roll. A skill challenge is "distract the guard with witting conversation while your friend sneaks behind him and sneaks into the room he's guarding to liason with the princess while your other friend keeps the patrolling guards occupied somehow."

[EvilElitest]

What are you talking about? This is another thing that really irks me as a misconception. What about 4e is stopping you from doing cool out-of-combat roleplaying stuff? I don't see any difference in this regard at all. What could you do in 3e that you coulden't do by 4e core?

1) I can do Roleplaying in 4E, but taht doesn't make it a less shallow system. I can add to a system, but when the system has a massive lack of options, versatility and options. When the game is one that makes encourages a very video game style of play, and a shallow one (Ie, Minions, NPCs, World Design) and when it simplifies its self almost because it wants to treat the players like children (IE, monsters, new plane design, classes, races, light, NPCs again, style of play). It is streamlined, and in the end limiting and close minded. I can do something with it, but that doesn't excuse the system
2) Um, i can do a lot more in 3E. I have more options for both my races, and my classes. I have consistency, and logic in the game design, the rules, the way it was set up, the general way the system function. The fact taht the NPCs were actual people in game rather than just plot tools, that they could take PC and NPC classes at will. The fact that we had a massive variety of classes and options and that even within a single class you could have a massive amount of options and different styles of play. the game encouraged consistency, logic, and options, and the game didn't coddle you (through i think 2E was better at that) and didn't automatically make a character special. The game was complex, versitile, consistent (most importantly) and well rounded. It wasn't balanced, and has massive massive flaws, but it at least was interesting, complex, and in depth, where 4E is nothing more than a board game in denial


a review i posted ealirer but nobody commented upon is this

The new edition of D&D is headed for some problems, in my opinion. The Monster Manual is not the worst of the three core rulebooks - that honor goes to the Player's Handbook, without a doubt. The MM and the Dungeon Master's Guide are duking it out for second place.

I rated this book at 2 stars, so there must be something good about it, right? Well, yes. Actually many of the individual monster entries have interesting features that could be mined for use in other games. The art is mostly very good, and the monster stat blocks are clear and easy to read. Unfortunately this book has the bad luck to be part of the 4th Edition rules, which are broken in many fundamental ways.

The goal with 4E was simplify, simplify, simplify. Regrettably Wizards of the Coast seems to interpret "simplify" to mean "eliminate options for players and DMs," and that shows here as it does throughout the new rules. There's little or no cultural information given on most monsters. In fact generally there is not even a physical description. If the DM can't come up with a good one based on the art, he's out of luck. Everything has been cut out except for combat abilities - because 4E has almost no support for anything that happens outside combat.

For most monsters, of course, combat information is all you absolutely need - the bare minimum. However 4E takes this to extremes, and it is really glaring in the case of monsters that used to be oriented toward non-combat. Subtlety is gone from the 4E Monster Manual. Mastermind and manipulator monsters are either gone or revised into combat opponents now.

A shining example is the succubus. Those who remember earlier editions (or even basic mythology) will recall that the succubus was never really a combat monster. She was a string-puller who worked behind the scenes. A big part of an adventure involving a succubus used to be just figuring out who your opponent was, because her powers were all about deception, seduction, and temptation. She controlled other NPCs and made life tough for the player characters from afar. No longer. The 4E succubus has few if any abilities that are useful outside combat. Even her "charming kiss" (which used to be a charm monster effect in 3.5) now has one and only one effect: it causes her victim to step in front of an attack directed at the succubus and take the damage that was meant for her. It has no non-combat uses at all, and can't even do any more than that in combat. As for seduction and temptation, the 4E succubus is literally no better at that than a pretty barmaid.

This has happened to the succubus, the vampire, the lich, the mind flayer, all demons and devils, djinns, even those old schemers, the Drow. A DM who wants to build an adventure around a devious mastermind who avoids combat will have to make it up himself - and at that point why pay for this book?

Also gone from the rules is any pretense at internal logic or verisimilitude. Monster abiities often work by completely different rules than PC abilities. For example an "encounter" power works only once per encounter for a PC, but many monster "encounter" powers can "recharge" on a successful die roll. PCs don't get this ability. Even if a monster happens to be of a PC race (such as an elf or dwarf) it still gets abiities that player characters do not get even with feats. No explanation is given for these differences; the game simply treats monsters as collections of powers for PCs to fight, and their connection to the larger universe is never considered.

Players and DMs who like the World of Warcraft experience may not be bothered by this and similar rules issues in the game, but those who like an immersive experience that makes sense internally will likely find it jarring.





As I see it, if you need to refer to your rule-book everytime you want to do something cool out-of-combat, then you are doing something wrong.

Yet another fallacy. Just because i can do it, doesn't forgive the system for being shallow and lazy

Maybe *you* see a lot of "video game elements", but you're seeing them when they aren't there.

No, i'm pointing out a logical comparason, and your apperently in denial


"Video games in general" is such an enormous category you can compare anything to them.

Um, why not. I can easily compare something to a video game. It is like a video game in that it throw consistency aside in order to acomidate the PCs. This doesn't create a realistic or logical world, but instead one that is shallow and inconsistent (and also ruined our best setting, FR forever)

I feel it is shallow because it lacks the detail, depth, complexity ,and actual commitment it had in the past. Take the 2E DMG for example. There are a lot of actually very complex RPG issues taht are explained in detail. 3E does less of that, but it still does it.

the game isn't designed in a video game style, IE seeing how things best benefit the PCs. 4E isn't like that. you know when you play a video game, and it seems like the world exist just to benefit you. You know in assassin's creed how those hay stacks exist for the purpose of your jumps. Or the world of legend of zelda. It is just kinda existing to serve the player, and that takes away actual immersion. I mean, its fine for a video game, but a table top has no excuse for that, it isn't limit like that, it doesn't have that sort of


Look at the monsters. They are nothing more than a bunch of stat blocks indication they want to die. No actual fluff, no spirit. It is like the monster guide to WoW, hell, WoW has better fluff tahnt 4E, which is pretty sad considering. The WOW RPG is far better than 4E, which is actually kinda pathetic. But Blizzard has establisehd that while they are very capitalist, they certainly have a taste for quality


The game is flavorless, and only supports one style of play, IE the hack and slash sterotypical slaughter.

There are always people who claimed (White Wolf, i'm looking at you) taht D&d couldn't handle complexity and was nothing more than a hack and slash. This was totally unfustified, as all three editions could handle complexity quite well. 4E seems to take taht as a compliment and is trying to impliment itself as a single minded simply game as much as possible.


Why not? I think it's a pretty good comparison. Okay, replace "WoW" with "an MMO" there. Done.
Because the things i find bad about 4E aren't entirely unique to WoW or MMOs alone, but video game and board games in general.

PROTIP: you can't compare something to MMOs as a genre, because [i]the only thing all MMOs have in common is that they're Massively Multiplayer Online games. EVE is nothing like World of Warcraft.
If there is something that defines MMOs as a genre, it's grinding and repetitive, pre-written quests.



"Video games" as a whole are so broad a category comparing anything to them is meaningless.
But it looks like a fun game, let me try:
How about this, another niffty review


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!




D&D 3.5 is like a video game, because you control a character that overcomes challenges and faces enemies he has to defeat to accomplish his goals. Along the way, he collects power-ups (magic items) and gains new abilities, fighting progressively more difficult enemies. Also, the character is capable of taking a limited set of actions by the rules, and you imagine the rest (attacking is a mechanical action, just like hitting the attack button; breathing is just something you assume and talking is something you do without the ruls getting involved).

Thats just being moronic. Your missing the point, deliberately so, in a manner that is chillily like that of a progandist. your focusing on specifics, and while yes, those minor things are familar to 3E, taht your aren't proving anything. By comparing 4E to a video game, i'm pointing out that 4E, like a video game, is a one tracked adventure with only


tl;dr: Don't say "this is like X!", because it's pointless. If you have a problem with something, identify the problem.
Of course you can compare something, its done all the time in analize of litature, movies, shows ect. Why are RPGs except. The problem is it is shallow in the same way video games are shallow, except video game are excused because of flaws inherent in the design when table tops don't have such limiations



Saying "it's like Final Fantasy" is pointless. Saying "monsters exist only to be killed" isn't pointless. It is, however, wrong (only you seem to have this strange idea that just because monsters have combat statblocks, they don't do anything other than fighting. Monsters don't exist to be killed any more than they did in 3.5, which had RANDOM ENCOUNTER TABLES for heaven's sake).
Is evading the point without evidence going to be a habit, because if so this is going to be a long and dreary thread. Of course i can compare something to Final Fantasy. Like final fantasy, 4E has a world that exist simply to accommodate the players, an has a hatred of consistency and realism that seems almost pathological. LIke FF monsters only exist for the sole purpose of being killed. You claim of it not is ether lack of common sense, or moronic. There aren't any good monsters, they isn't an fluff at all, just a series of combat stats. LIke FF, the main characters and everybody else are operating under totally different and unequal rule standards. LIke FF, monsters don't have an perement threat level, like FF the world and the game revovles around the players to the point of absuritiy, like FF it has a huge focus on apperences and has little actual content underneath it My strange idea is simply noting that they only have combat state blocks. They are nothing more than combat state block, with fluff that is little more than "It is ugly, it exists, please kill it" and is essentially flavorless.


another review that isn't mine, since people seem not to trust my option on these things



Ok, so I'm reviewing the Monster Manual book more than the way the creatures work. They're just a bunch of worthless stat blocks, so they work just fine, but that's what they are: working stat blocks.

First, let me say that I don't like the artwork. In old monster manuals, there were a lot of monsters that you might fight just because you were at odds with them, or you might not even fight them at all. They could be allies. Take giants for example, the art was of some giant people that looked pretty cool, and some pre-made 3.5 campaigns included them as allies. But in this book, they look ridiculously evil. In fact, everything looks evil. It just looks like they filled the book with things to fight, not think about, which I think it less imaginative and therefore more boring. Even the treant is evil.


MORE IMPORTANTLY...There is no flavor.

Take the Shambling Mound.

In version three, it has Four Paragraphs of description. In version four it has 1 sentence. A single sentence. And then listen to the description of its ability.


This is a direct quote of version 4:

"The shambling mound makes two basic attacks. If both attacks hit the same Medium or smaller target, the shambling mound makes a secondary attack against the target. Secondary Attack: +12 vs. Fortitude; the target is pulled into the shambling mound's space and restrained (save ends). While the target is restrained, no creature has line of sight or line of effect to it. At the start of the shambling mound's turn each round, the enveloped target takes 10 damage and the shambling mound regains 10 hit points. The shambling mound can envelop up to 2 creatures at a time. When the target makes its save, it reappears in a square of its choice adjacent to the shambling mound."

It's so dull. It just gives you all the tactical information to play out the game. It's just rules without anything interesting or imaginative. Monsters have lost tons of cool abilities like swallow whole that require some really imaginative thinking. And Lycanthropes just give you a disease. I feel like 4th edition reduces everything to statistics. The game takes place on a board in stead of in your imagination.


I just can't believe that the Monster Manual took all the fun out of monsters. They all seem evil, and there's pretty much no description of them anymore. I just used to have so much fun learning about monsters and their abilities. It's just sort of sad to see them reduced to mere enemies as opposed to interested creatures with backstories and cool characteristics.

I suppose the book doesn't deserve a 1, but I miss the way things used to be. It's a perfectly acceptable book that does everything it needs to, but it doesn't delve further into things like before, and that's what I thought D&D was about./QUOTE]


[QUOTE]
Hey, did you know that Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is totally just like actually being in the army? Yeah, I mean, there are guns, trees, ground and stuff. Totally the same. Probally join later this year, as I need some better maps. "But like, I heard that IRL doesnt have respawn points. I mean, if I get lag out there, I'm like dead!"
Yeah, because its based upon it. Are you going to actually prove a point or simply rely on bad claims and comparisons, because taht is little more than propaganda



This is another example of 4E looking shallow but playing deep. 4E is all about tactical positioning for maximum advantage. Shifting foes around is one of the ways you gain an advantage over your enemies.

except yet again, taht is only in combat. 4E has combat, and nothing else. Like a board game or a video game.


I'm happy we are in agreement. Your post has nothing to with the OP's one, it's just a random attack versus 4e. If you don't like it, don't play it and don't comment on it, what's the problem?
Don't like don't play it, ok that is simply silly. I don't read shreeded Moose on a regular basis, does that mean i can't mock it for being bad. I don't play FATAL, does that mean i can't point out its massive flaws. If we go by your standards, then you shouldn't ever comment upon anything you don't like, just ignore it instead.



You do understand that nothing of that is an objective statement, and that is just your (and some other people's) opinion? Also, you are just stating things without justifying them, so... Trolling?
Hmmm, absurd inflamatory unbacked statements and you call him a troll? And hypocracy as well it seems

And as 4E is directly effecting D&D as a whole, then commenting on it makes perfect sense.


All the "good points" he made where his PoV, but where expressed as being objective truths, and were overall a denigration of 4e that had nothing to do with the original post. Is not that trolling? I'm not saying that he wants to cause flames or anything, but how many times has a discussion swayed to "4e vs 3.x" in this forum?

Posting against 4e in a thread about 4e is definitely not constructive, nice and polite.

Wow, that doesn't even make sense. Expressing your option about 4E when 4E is under discussion and it isn't contructive nor polite simply because his option is negative, and yet accusing him of being a troll by flaming him is polite? WFT kind of standard is that. Expressing a constructed backed option, even if you don't agree with it isn't trolling, trolling is trying to piss people off for its own sake


If it's about 4e itself, then yes.
Example: I open a thread asking why 4e has that many powers that relate to forced movement, and how could they be useful, tactical and fun to play with. Some guy jumps in and replies "well 4e sucks because is like MMOs".
Does that seems polite and constructive to you? Has it anything to do with the thread's subject?

As that didn't happen, i'm forced to call yet again, another BS




....I don't think you formed a single sentence that actually contributed to the conversation at hand.

My turn! Stop trolling, before we break out the acid flasks and alchemist's fire.

I don't think you've formed a single sentene that actually contributed to the conversation at hand. And i prove this because.........I say so. Not enough for you. Well let me do it again, IN CAPS. oh yeah, can't beat that:smallbiggrin:
from
EE

[Gralamin]

Um, why not. I can easily compare something to a video game. It is like a video game in that it throw consistency aside in order to acomidate the PCs. This doesn't create a realistic or logical world, but instead one that is shallow and inconsistent (and also ruined our best setting, FR forever)

Just a question, but have you done any coding? It is much easier for a coder to simply apply all the same rules to everything (Through the uses of classes and similar coding principles), then it is to create a different system for each creature. Because of this, the largest difference between things you battle and you is that your both "children" classes of the same parent, with the PC one including input options, and the Monster one including AIs.
If you think its not internally consistent for not all things to have stats, then it depends on the video game. In WoW for example, every creature has the same sort of statistics based on the same engine, since it is plausible they will be fought at some point. The reason not all games are like this is there is no reason to waste time on it if they will never be fought. Coding in every NPC takes time, just like stating any NPC.

From here comes the question: Is the knowledge that the DM can produce stats for any creature given time mean it is internally consistent? If it does, then video games are just as consistent.

[EvilElitest]

Just a question, but have you done any coding? It is much easier for a coder to simply apply all the same rules to everything (Through the uses of classes and similar coding principles), then it is to create a different system for each creature. Because of this, the largest difference between things you battle and you is that your both "children" classes of the same parent, with the PC one including input options, and the Monster one including AIs.
If you think its not internally consistent for not all things to have stats, then it depends on the video game. In WoW for example, every creature has the same sort of statistics based on the same engine, since it is plausible they will be fought at some point. The reason not all games are like this is there is no reason to waste time on it if they will never be fought. Coding in every NPC takes time, just like stating any NPC.

Except we've seen what 3E, unbalenced as it was could do. 3E made a valient attempt, and all of its ideas had merit, just bad execution (except for diplomacy of course). 4E had the chance to evolve from their, to expand, to become something greater, and instead took two steps back.



From here comes the question: Is the knowledge that the DM can produce stats for any creature given time mean it is internally consistent? If it does, then video games are just as consistent.

No, because the world is still inconsistent, in the same way a video game is
from
EE

[thegurullamen]

Hooray flame war!

In an actual contribution to this thread, I present "Summatione of Arguements as Perceiv'd by a thegueruellamen in D Majore". Ahem.

Pro 4e: D&D has achieved balance and allows for interesting combat. In short, 4e is fun.
Anti 4e: Maybe for you. We miss several aspects of previous editions. (tear)
Pro 4e: Sorry.
Anti 4e: (sniff) 'sokay.

This only applies, of course, to general trends seen in several forums over a long period of time (say, two months?) The specific arguments that make up the microcosmos of this paradigm seem to go more like this:

1337 version:
Anti 4e: 4e SUCSK!!!!!!
Pro 4e: UR DOIN IT RONG!!!!!1
Anti 4e: STFUNUBLETS!!!
And so on.

Or:

Hobbyist version:
Pro 4e: You can do anything in 4e that you could do in 3.x.
Anti 4e: No, 4e lacks verisimilitude.
Pro 4e: Quit crying, loser.
Anti 4e: Why don't you play a real edition, you immature simpleton?
And so on.

Or:

Pseudo-philosopher/pseudo-intellectual version:
Anti 4e: 4e is like chess: sure there's a decent combat mechanic, but it's not built for roleplaying, which is the WHOLE POINT OF AN RPG!!!!
Pro 4e: I see someone's still clinging to the broken bones of a former system, how sad. And comparing 4e to chess? How simple. Your analogy falls apart after you realize that chess and D&D are both GAMES. They're both meant to be played and enjoyed. That said, 4e is way more fun than any of its predecessors.
Anti 4e: Do you realize how ignorant you sound right now? So what if they're both games? They have totally different approaches to how they engage the players and create fun or enjoyment or whatever it is you people feel when you're playing your so called "ar-pee-gee". And, as many INTELLIGENT people have mentioned, 4e's approach is wrong considering what it claims to be.
Pro 4e:
what it claims to be. What it claims to be is a good edition of an rpg that was lacking in quality since its inception. Of course, you wouldn't know that, having never played 4e before as anyone who has would obviously see the wisdom of my words.
Anti 4e: I've played 4e before and I'm surprised anyone can stick with that system. It's so poorly written, that WotC had to release a widely encompassing and radical errata to one of the MAJOR components of the system. 4e equals epicfail to anyone with a brain.
And so on.

Considering the harshness of the above examples, some might be wondering why I included the apologetic remarks in the macrocosmic model of inter-edition relations above? The reason is simple: examples of compromise and mutual respect do exist on forums, but they're usually drowned out by the passionate voices of dissenters and naysayers. Look for them; they do exist.

[Starsinger]

4e is videogame

I actually think you're being limited by your own thinking here as opposed to a limit in the system. 3.5 took a lot of power from the DM and put it in the hands of players. The DM doesn't have to decide if a fire spell can set something on fire, all the fire type spells that can do so say so. So, does the PC set the Necromancer's robes on fire? Well check the spell the PC cast. The DM doesn't have to arbitrate whether a horse can splash damage from a black powder grenade or something that assaults the PCs, the horse has stats just roll your DM dice and check. So in other words, 3.5 took the burden off of DMs, you no longer have to think as hard, spells and creatures and what not have indepth explanations that do all the hard thinking for you. You just sit back and read about what orcs like to eat, let your books do the thinking.

4e, by taking away fantastic little gems like "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does." puts the power of arbitration back in a DM's hands. By not having a rule that says you can do every little thing, you are forced to be creative when you want to do something the PHB doesn't flat out say you can. Acid Arrow does Acid damage in a burst? Can the PC use it to melt down a door? That's up to the DM. Can a player make an athletics check to swim if they're in a vacuum? That's up to the DM.

Now, maybe one of us is wrong on what creativity is. But I'm pretty sure being creative isn't pointing out a rule that says you can do something, or a rule exploit or a chain of related rules. I thought being creative was looking at something and thinking out of the box with the tools at your disposal.

[nagora]

4e, by taking away fantastic little gems like "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does." puts the power of arbitration back in a DM's hands.
This is a pretty weak argument (as was your post about skill challenges - negotiation is specificly given as an example of SCs). If you go down that road, why not have spells consisting only of a name and...well, that's it?

In previous editions the DM could houserule any effects that s/he didn't like away anyway, but at least s/he had a starting point that could be left alone for the most part. You're suggesting that forcing the DM to design every single spell effect before play is an improvement. It's not, at least in anything you have to pay money for.

A big part of the DM's job is to run the NPCs realisticly (well, it used to be). Other things have to be attended to as well, but that's probably the biggest item on the list, certainly pre-game preparation is almost all deciding about what NPCs have done, are doing, and will want to do once play starts. Letting the "books do your thinking" when it comes to issues like monsters' characteristics and spell effects is a very desirable thing because it frees time to work on the imporant stuff.

While it's true that spell descriptions and monster ecology are creative things to do, they are nothing without a game to set them in. The normal scheme of things is that the game company works on the former and the DM on the latter and, unless your DM is both unemployed and obsessive, that's the only sensible way of dividing the labour.

[Starsinger]

I suppose having the books do all of your thinking for you does free you up to come with such challenging and interesting quests like "Why does this Ogre have gloves of dexterity?"

[SmartAlec]

That's because, to you, D&D has become an abstract game, much like chess is. The characters are just pieces to be shoved around while dice determine their every action. As such, you have no interest in believable - everything is classed as acceptable because "it's fantasy". Well, I think that's very bland, dull, and make every game into a series of cop-outs.

I think you need to get off your high horse here, man. Just because someone can see an IC explanation for something and you don't accept it doesn't make their perception of the gameworld abstract. Just because a person enjoys 4th Ed combat doesn't mean they're treating it like chess. And just because a player enjoys 4th Ed in general doesn't mean they have no interest in 'believable'.

[nagora]

I suppose having the books do all of your thinking for you does free you up to come with such challenging and interesting quests like "Why does this Ogre have gloves of dexterity?"
Was that post supposed to mean anything? Did you have a traumatic experience with a bad DM once? Or just a bad encounter with an Ogre?

[Starsinger]

Was that post supposed to mean anything? Did you have a traumatic experience with a bad DM once? Or just a bad encounter with an Ogre?

I was actually recalling a post of yours where you said something about that being a good plot hook or something. And funnily enough, I seem to recall you saying it was the work of a good DM.

[nagora]

I was actually recalling a post of yours where you said something about that being a good plot hook or something. And funnily enough, I seem to recall you saying it was the work of a good DM.
I think I said that a good DM could get a lot of milage out of answering that question (although calling it a quest is a bit pretentious). They can, but that doesn't shine any light on why you think that a DM should be spending their time on answering questions like "Does a fireball set fire to things?" instead.

The ogre with the gloves is a plot hook, or can be if used carefully, the fireball question is drudge-work and a waste of time.

Are you advocating that what a monster has in its treasure should not have any explanation? That's what a bad/boring DM does, and that's what I was wondering if you had suffered.

[Starsinger]

Are you advocating that what a monster has in its treasure should not have any explanation? That's what a bad/boring DM does, and that's what I was wondering if you had suffered.

I don't really think about it. There a several reasons why that Ogre has gloves of dexterity. The Ogres ambushed another adventurer and took his gear after they ate him. The Ogre is a Warlock/Artificer (or an NPC class with item creation) that likes to make items. The Ogre traded them from some Duergar to trade with the Drow to get a Belt of Giant's Strength but the PCs interrupted the item chain. Exactly which of those reasons isn't particularly compelling to me, but we tend to worry less about such things unless there's a reason for them to be of interest.

As for "Is this flammable?" I'm not asking the DM to decide on day 1 exactly what is and isn't flammable. I'm saying, when the PC says "Can I use Scorching Burst to set the door on fire?" the DM can make up his mind instead of saying, "Well, the spell doesn't say that you can. So no, you can't. But you could've used Fireball."

[Ralfarius]

Anti 4e: 4e is like chess: sure there's a decent combat mechanic, but it's not built for roleplaying, which is the WHOLE POINT OF AN RPG!!!!
See, this is one of the points that the pro 4e crowd actually takes contention with. They find it a dubious statement to suggest that an RPG that has always been heavily invested in combat mechanics somehow can or can not facilitate roleplaying any more than the similarly combat-mechanic-heavy previous editions, because roleplaying is the purview of the people playing. The proponents of 4e rebut that such a postulation is just incorrect at its core, because good roleplaying is completely seperate from the mechanics of the system, which are strictly there for task resolution, or more specifically in D&D's case, combat.

[EvilElitest]

I actually think you're being limited by your own thinking here as opposed to a limit in the system. 3.5 took a lot of power from the DM and put it in the hands of players. The DM doesn't have to decide if a fire spell can set something on fire, all the fire type spells that can do so say so. So, does the PC set the Necromancer's robes on fire? Well check the spell the PC cast. The DM doesn't have to arbitrate whether a horse can splash damage from a black powder grenade or something that assaults the PCs, the horse has stats just roll your DM dice and check. So in other words, 3.5 took the burden off of DMs, you no longer have to think as hard, spells and creatures and what not have indepth explanations that do all the hard thinking for you. You just sit back and read about what orcs like to eat, let your books do the thinking.

Bad way of putting it. 3E, well technically 2E, but 3E more, tried to make it clear what could and couldn't happen, IE consistency, magic A vs. magic B. The examples you've mentioned aren't really anything new, and no offense, don't really prove your point, it is more of a fun fact


4e, by taking away fantastic little gems like "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does." puts the power of arbitration back in a DM's hands.
quite frankly, taking away detail doesn't actually improve the game, it just shows the designers don't care. 4E isn't a story telling game like exalted, it is a mechanics driven game, don't use taht argument


By not having a rule that says you can do every little thing, you are forced to be creative when you want to do something the PHB doesn't flat out say you can. Acid Arrow does Acid damage in a burst? Can the PC use it to melt down a door? That's up to the DM. Can a player make an athletics check to swim if they're in a vacuum? That's up to the DM.

Ok, that is simply silly. 4E isn't a story telling game in the way WW products are. It is just destorying consistency, quite frankly because WoTC is lazy and couldn't be buggered. An argument like that is like saying Shreeded Moose is a cunningly hidden parody.

If you want an improve system, D&D has never been that. D&D is about steady mechanics. Saying that you can make stuff up doesn't change the fact that 4E is simply being lazy. Remember, in a complex game, it is easy to simply ignore rules. In a lazy game, it is hard to make new ones.

Hell, i could say that the balence flaws in 3E were only there to encourage DMs to homebrew their own balance.



Now, maybe one of us is wrong on what creativity is. But I'm pretty sure being creative isn't pointing out a rule that says you can do something, or a rule exploit or a chain of related rules. I thought being creative was looking at something and thinking out of the box with the tools at your disposal.
If you look at a box with only one tool, and then take home made materials and make your own, that doesn't make the options presented to you any less limiting
from
EE

[Viruzzo]

Hell, i could say that the balence flaws in 3E were only there to encourage DMs to homebrew their own balance.
So it's easier and better to have a broken complex ruleset that you have to fix, than having a simple one that you only have to expand? Dude, Spock would kill you...

And yes, 4e is not a storytelling RPG (not nearly as WoD), but that's because D&D is not a storytelling RPG. Which by the way is not by itself half a bad thing.

[Matthew]

So it's easier and better to have a broken complex ruleset that you have to fix, than having a simple one that you only have to expand? Dude, Spock would kill you...

And yes, 4e is not a storytelling RPG (not nearly as WoD), but that's because D&D is not a storytelling RPG. Which by the way is not by itself half a bad thing.

This comes up a lot. Some people do indeed find it easier to cull stuff from complex rule sets than to add to simple rule sets. All systems have problems, but usually they are relatively minor or corner case. The AD&D/D20 preference discussions tended to revolve around precisely this issue.

[Jade_Tarem]

I actually think you're being limited by your own thinking here as opposed to a limit in the system. 3.5 took a lot of power from the DM and put it in the hands of players.

Other people responded to other parts of your post, but I have to take exception to this. The DM has every bit as much power in 3.5 as he did in 3.0, 2.0, AD&D, and possibly 1st edition, although I'm not sure about those last three. The DM is the DM, and rule 0 applies just as much across the editions. What 3.5 did there with such priceless gems as actually describing spell effects and some possible limitations was give the players more options, and thus more power. Why this is a bad thing is lost on me. We've already just seen that the DM has not become less powerful - he has infinite power within the game, so how can expanding options for the players be bad?

Well, they could powergame. And frequently do. But saying that giving additional power to the players is intrinsically bad because it hurts the DM is like saying that every new brick invented by LEGO is bad because it brings people who play with LEGOs one step closer to being the LEGO company.

We can take the LEGO analogy further, if necessary. Each brick custom-crafted for a specific role can still be taken out of the original model and used for another purpose - a purpose that by definition couldn't be fulfilled before, or had to be filled by more than one brick in a clumsy or awkward manner. And while you *could* melt down some plastic and craft your own bricks, that's a time consuming process (that not everyone finds fun) with an uncertain outcome (you don't know that the brick will work well with existing ones, which means that you may have to test it and re-mold it several times) and frankly I'd rather spend the time making better models and let LEGO make and playtest the basic bricks. And that analogy was about as subtle as, well, a brick, but I think I made my point.

More fluff description allows the players and the DM more creativity ahead of time, not less. But how can that be? Written fluff crushes creativity under the iron heel of text, right? Well, no. You can still make up new spells or re-invent old ones if you want, but now you can spend time on the campaign. Despite your earlier response to Nagora, I'd rather spend time on why the Ogre has Gloves of Dex +4 (which is not provided in the rulebooks, mind you) than on what the Ogre smells like or what the Gloves of Dexterity do. Meanwhile, the players can build characters without having to worry about whether or not Lightning Bolt is going to electrocute them when they cast it. But now I'm edging into EE's and Nagora's arguments.

Peace!

[Viruzzo]

We've already just seen that the DM has not become less powerful - he has infinite power within the game, so how can expanding options for the players be bad?
The difference lies in this event: the PCs want to do X, but the GM by rule 0 says they cannot.
- if it's written in the rules they can, they are going to argue, thereby entering in conflict because they by the rules have the right to do it
- if it's not written in the rules, the DM is the sole arbiter of what happens
Explicit rules give more power to the players, and that interferes with the GM's power.

As for the fluff: it's all good and nice when you run a mostly standard setting. But sooner or later you are just going to change the way monster X looks or smells or breeds, and will throw the fluff out of the window. In my opinion fluff is not something bad, but nothing really useful either. Also, 3.x moster fluff is totally vague compared to 2.x's, and both are full of stuff that just doesn't make any sense. What 4e does is separate setting and rules, forcing the DMs to make their own stuff. That could mean that the DM has to do more work, but since 4e makes the DM job easier with the encounter creation and other stuff, in the end it just forces DMs to be creative. Which is as a good thing as your DM is good.

[Jade_Tarem]

The difference lies in this event: the PCs want to do X, but the GM by rule 0 says they cannot.
- if it's written in the rules they can, they are going to argue, thereby entering in conflict because they by the rules have the right to do it
- if it's not written in the rules, the DM is the sole arbiter of what happens
Explicit rules give more power to the players, and that interferes with the GM's power.

If the players begin to argue with the DM, they are breaking the rules. This is not a flaw with 3.5 any more than it is a flaw of Chess if I declare and forcibly argue that I can avoid checkmate by unplugging Deep Blue. The DM is the sole arbiter of what happens regardless of the words in the books.


As for the fluff: it's all good and nice when you run a mostly standard setting. But sooner or later you are just going to change the way monster X looks or smells or breeds, and will throw the fluff out of the window. In my opinion fluff is not something bad, but nothing really useful either. Also, 3.x moster fluff is totally vague compared to 2.x's, and both are full of stuff that just doesn't make any sense. What 4e does is separate setting and rules, forcing the DMs to make their own stuff. That could mean that the DM has to do more work, but since 4e makes the DM job easier with the encounter creation and other stuff, in the end it just forces DMs to be creative. Which is as a good thing as your DM is good.

Your argument here is: "The fluff is useful until it's not, which means it's not useful." That doesn't make any sense. This idea that the DM needs to be the architect and engineer of every last minute detail of the campaign is silly. As before, I would prefer that my DM spent his time building campaigns, plots, bad guys, and settings rather than the spells, weather effects, equipment, monsters, etc. that they run on. Automotive engineers do not re-invent the wheel or spend their time describing the relative effects and abilities of wheels and why drivers should or should not like them. They're busy designing cars.

[Deepblue706]

This is not a flaw with 3.5 any more than it is a flaw of Chess if I declare and forcibly argue that I can avoid checkmate by unplugging Deep Blue.

Unplugging Who?!

[Winterwind]

Unplugging Who?!Good job, now you've made me feel old. Those famous matches weren't that long ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_%28chess_computer%29)! :smalltongue:

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Good job, now you've made me feel old. Those famous matches weren't that long ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_%28chess_computer%29)! :smalltongue:

Pssst, look at the name of the poster who you are quoting. :smallamused:

[Winterwind]

Pssst, look at the name of the poster who you are quoting. :smallamused:Okay, now I do not feel old anymore, merely like the idiot I am. :smallbiggrin:

Nevermind. Keep going. Nothing to see here, people. :smallwink:

(I need to stop posting when I'm suffering from sleep deprivation!)

[Viruzzo]

If the players begin to argue with the DM, they are breaking the rules.
Why? The DM gets the final say of course, but the players are rightfully going to be unhappy if they have a firmly written rule and they see it taken away because of DM fiat.


Your argument here is: "The fluff is useful until it's not, which means it's not useful." That doesn't make any sense. This idea that the DM needs to be the architect and engineer of every last minute detail of the campaign is silly.
1) I never said that fluff is not useful. Just not very useful, especially in the long run, at least to me. It's better than nothing of course.
2) 3.x MM fluff tells very little of a monster's ecology anyway. I see the difference with 4e but it's hardly noticeable. Simply put, 3.x contains combat tactics (as 4e) plus some random description.
3) 2.x had more ecology fluff, but failed common sense at every step.
4) you get this strange idea that for every encounter and every monster the DM has to define a strict and coehrent ecology: that would be a total waste of time, since most of it wouldn't be used.
5) as was pointed out by many, 4e makes many DM tasks easier, such as monster creation. If the DM wants to use that extra time to write fluff, he can. If he wants to use it on plot, he can. At least he has a choice, instead of spending ages trying to make the right humanoid NPC.
5) if you still want to define in great detail the ecology of a monster, no MM of any edition of D&D will suffice.
6) since the players have access to the MM, using the fluff in it can give them knowledge that their character should not possess. A common problem of any RPG, but lessened the more homebrew you use.
7) as for item fluff, what's the problem? The actual description of a standard magic item takes nothing to make up, which you could want to do anyway to prevent the players from identifying the stuff just by the looks of it.

[Shatteredtower]

If the players begin to argue with the DM, they are breaking the rules. This is not a flaw with 3.5 any more than it is a flaw of Chess if I declare and forcibly argue that I can avoid checkmate by unplugging Deep Blue.Actually, checkmate isn't a required victory condition in chess. Resignation will suffice, but I draw your attention to articles 12.6 and 12.8 of the Laws of Chess (http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article), as drawn up by FIDE:

12.6 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers of a draw.

12.8 Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalized by loss of game. The arbiter shall decide the score of the opponent.

Articles 12.7 and 13.4 make it clear that the arbiter is not required to wait for a persistent distraction before barring the interfering player, either. If the distraction is likely to leave your opponent unable to continue the game, the arbiter is almost certainly going to declare your game lost. If you were losing on the board, your opponent is likely to be awarded at least a full point for a win. If you were clearly winning, however, the arbiter might award half a point, or even none at all, to the other player. (The match arbiter is permitted to score such a decision as more than a full point, though this is unlikely. It could happen if the distraction forces the opponent to miss more than one game of a match between the two opponents, but it's more likely to see the match forfeited to the distracted player.)


The DM is the sole arbiter of what happens regardless of the words in the books.Not at all. A playing group has the right to replace any DM found unfit for the role. Said group is not required to change their campaign while doing so.


This idea that the DM needs to be the architect and engineer of every last minute detail of the campaign is silly.That's no different now than it was in any previous edition. The use of PrCs and additional rulebooks meant you'd have to adjust encounters to compensate. Even if you were selective about what you allowed, you were still looking at an increase in your workload that far exceeds what you'd require to adapt any monster to your setting.

Earlier on in this thread, there was a complaint that the 4th Edition succubus was no more a master of subterfuge, seduction, and guile than an attractive barmaid. I don't see how this argument can be supported. The monster's Bluff and Diplomacy modifiers are still quite good (far better than the barmaid's), and it can still pose as specific humanoid individuals.

True, it can only charm one individual at a time, but that individual remains charmed indefinitely. Does the effect have any use outside of combat? Yes, it does, so long as you acknowledge the role laid out for it within the devil's entry, rather than relying solely on the combat stat block for information. The charmed individual is, after all, at the mercy of a skilled manipulator. What DM isn't going to look at the creature's overall description and conclude that any target of its powers isn't going to eventually come under its social influence after associating with it for a few days (or even a few hours)? More to the point, what DM relied entirely on the creature's magical abilities to influence and control people in previous editions? That sounds like a poorly played succubus to me. I'm not going to blame previous rulesets for encouranging such lazy thinking, because I don't think it's the fault of those rules. What counts hasn't changed. A skilled DM in 1st Edition wasn't going to deny her the chance to pull a dragon's strings just because it was immune to charm person any more than a 3rd Edition DM would have kept her from getting the better of a lich in spite of its immunity to mind-influencing effects. It's still true, and that's all that matters.

I've seen the comparison of 4th Edition to video games, but that's about as valid as claiming that 1st Edition was like playing an early text-based game, in which you had to word your instructions very specifically in order to get anything done (or survive). I don't judge the 1st Edition rules on the basis of DMs that used to say, "You didn't actually say you were taking care to avoid touching any of the rubble strewn across the passage; take 56 hp of damage," than I would for a 4th Edition DM that claimed a succubus can't manipulate groups into doing her bidding just because she can't compel them all with magic now.

It's as true as claiming that 3rd Ed. was more like a video game because that edition allowed you to spam opponents with specific powers if they proved especially effective. Actually, it was worse in some ways: an opponent that couldn't counter being tripped or thrown over and over again in a 2D fighting game obviously had at least a few more things to learn, while the same opponent in a 3rd Edition D&D game was simply at the mercy of the trip expert's dice rolls again and again... and again... In 4th Ed., the same ability is easier to perform (all it takes is success on the attack roll, rather than a successful touch attack, followed by an opposed roll, and maybe then by a free attack against the prone target if you've got Improved Trip, which you almost assuredly did if you were going to make trip attacks), but designed in such a way that the trick rarely works more than once per encounter -- a good representation of having your opponent's get wise to your tricks (at least for the course of this particular fight, which is usually all you'd need it to).

I'm not entirely happy with the disconnect between 3.5 and 4th Edition, but I don't see it as a failing of the latter. Some claim it took away choices, but I find that a very superficial argument. Where it held true the most was in the choice to "suck" -- for very relative values of suckage, most of them having to do with how well you stacked up against other party members. This didn't mean you couldn't build good teams, but such were nearly always defined solely by mechanical standards set down by players who "know the game best".

"Build your character my way or I'll dominate the game," is not much of a standard for what's supposed to be a choice-friendly game. I don't think that is what 3rd Edition was all about, but it's a very common sentiment on D&D-focused forums.

Sure, I'd have liked to see more descriptive text on monsters in 4th Edition. I'm also not a fan of how planar cosmology and alignments were scaled back. To me, however, those are just cosmetic adjustments, easily restored to 4th Edition without significant disruption. It's handling of magic dependency works just fine for me, however. I'm of mixed minds on skills, but generally positive about the changes -- where I don't agree, I can again adapt without having to meaningfully change the new system.

It's not chess, though I find the notion of chess as an abstract game laughable. It's not even Chess 960 (or Fischer Random). Anyone that limits their vision of it to the maneuvering of pieces around a board in accordance to the nature of the position is missing the point. When I screw up on the chessboard, I expect that my opponents will do their level best to take advantage of that. When I do it in D&D, however, I expect that my DM will do whatever makes for the most enjoyable game, whether that means my character dies horribly on the spot or is spared because his opponent now considers him unworthy of the effort or amusing enough to keep as a toy.

I can play chess without a physical board, but it's nevertheless limited by said board. I can play a session of 4th Edition without ever having to bring out a battlemat or even envision one in my head, because entire sessions can be conducted without a single combat encounter. Regardless of how well the combat mechanics have been defined in each version of the game. That's never been the case.

(Back in 1st Edition, surely your 8th level fighter's had more options than cutting down eight 0-level men-at-arms in a single round when asked to come with them. The rules made that sort of action possible and very effective, but they didn't compel you into selecting the combat option, even if there was a difference in alignment involved.)

[Charity]

Other people responded to other parts of your post, but I have to take exception to this. The DM has every bit as much power in 3.5 as he did in 3.0, 2.0, AD&D, and possibly 1st edition, although I'm not sure about those last three. The DM is the DM, and rule 0 applies just as much across the editions.

Please look again at what you are saying here. (bolded for your convenience)
'DM's in 3.5 have just as much power as in 3.0'... gosh really.
This statement does nothing to support your assertion. In editions earlier than 3.x there was far more reliance on DM interpretation, and thus players were far more used to DM's telling them how it worked (in their games) this lead to DM's having a much larger say in how the game played (for better or for worse that was how it was)

[Xion_Anistu-san]

Now that everything has unlimited Attacks of opportunity, shifting can be VERY important in many instances.

And can we PLEASE stop comparing 4e to other games. Its 4e. Its not an MMO, its not a board game, its not a card game, or whatever. Its as if everyone is trying to see if they should hate it or not by comparing it to 'exceptable' games (table top strategy games, etc) and games quite often frowned upon on these boards (MMO's). If you like it, play it. If you don't like it, don't play it. No need to go to all this trouble finding out if you should be liking this game or not.

I happen to like comparisons. It helps me decide if I should invest in something or not. And I'll give a few examples (please these are strictly examples I'm making up so don't take anything from them for future or further flaming):

1) Some friends of mine were trying to tell me about a movie I've never seen. They told me it had action like Spiderman and a story like Batman Begins. So those comparisons helped me deicide if I should go see the matinee or the late night showing of the movie.

2) I talked to people about how a certain car drives or handles. Not having driven the vehicle in question, they said it rode like a station wagon or steered like a pickup. This helped me decide if I should test drive said vehicle to buy one or not.

Two seperate examples of how I appreciate comparisons.

Now I have played 4E and run it a few times now. I will be honest--I don't really like it. There isn't very much I can take from the 4e books to use in other games, even 3.5 D&D. It lacks depth in both mechanics and fluff as well as choices and simplified math it was reported to have. Because of those things, I can see why 4E is being compared to WoW or even Chutes & Ladders. However I wish I would have listened more to the comparisons about 4E before I invested in the rather expensive core books.

[Viruzzo]

But all your comparisons are on the same genre: movies with movies, cars with cars. MMOs are definitely different from pen and paper RPGs (usually, they hardly qualify as RPGs at all).

As for the lack of fluff: yes, they separated the setting from the rules. As for the lack of mechanics: uh?

[Jade_Tarem]

Must have struck a nerve to get three people to respond to one post... each with an essay!

@Viruzzo:

From page 6 of the DMG: "...you're (the DM) the final arbiter of the rules within the game."

The final arbiter of the rules within the game.

The final arbiter.

Final.

There's really no room for interpretation.

Since my brief comparison to chess was greeted with a giant essay on the differences between chess and DnD (See below!) I will try another comparison that maybe won't get my head bitten off. If the players argue with the DM over the particuars of X, then they are suddenly playing outside the bounds of DnD, just as football players arguing with the referee is outside the bounds of football. It does happen. But it's not a part of football as written.

@Shatteredtower: You have read entirely too much into my one-line comparison between rule 0 of DnD and a couple of rules of chess. Nowhere did I say the following:

DnD is like Chess with miniatures!
It's like Chess with miniatures!
DnD is Chess!
(Bonus for the reference)
Chess is a completely abstract game!

I do not think DnD is like chess, although your quotes of the chess rules actually improve my argument.

A parade of every broken build in DnD does not sum up 3.5. I'd like to say more here, but I'm out of time.

@Charity: I'm not sure how to respond to that, except with my response to Viruzzo.

[Covered In Bees]

The rules of the game are thoroughly secondary to the social contract between the players. if the DM is a jerk, the players can and should rebel and put him in bed with the captain's daughter.

[Viruzzo]

The rules of the game are thoroughly secondary to the social contract between the players. if the DM is a jerk, the players can and should rebel
That's what I mean: as a DM you can break the rules, it is your divine right. But doing so will definitely displease the players, and should be avoided when possible. Manipulating: yes, ordering: no.


and put him in bed with the captain's daughter.
Since when is sex a punishment? :smallamused:

[nagora]

Since when is sex a punishment? :smallamused:
The "Captain's Daughter" is an old nick name for the cat O'nine tails.


I find the notion of chess as an abstract game laughable.
In what way is chess not an abstract game? Are you suggesting that it actually is a representation of real combat? Chess is the pinnacle of abstract gaming (apart from Shogi, obviously).

[Jade_Tarem]

The rules of the game are thoroughly secondary to the social contract between the players. if the DM is a jerk, the players can and should rebel and put him in bed with the captain's daughter.

Well, yes. That's how it's been all along. Except for the part about captains and daughters.

[Charity]

@Charity: I'm not sure how to respond to that, except with my response to Viruzzo.

My point is you are making a comparison to 4 systems (which by your own admission) 3 of which you know too little about to make such a comparison and the last of which is essentially the same thing as what you are comparing it to, saying 3.5 is the same as 3.0 in feel is saying nothing at all, they are essentially the same thing.

Earlier editions to the 3.x had a different level of rules definition.
They required more interpretation by the DM, which lead to a greater degree of player acceptance of DM rulings, there was no wealth by level guidlines to tell you you were being gipped by a stingy DM etc etc.
This rails against your assertation that things are the same as they ever were, and the fact that you admit to knowing only 3.x makes your statement seem pretty flimsy to start with, do you not aggree?

[JupiterPaladin]

Since when is sex a punishment? :smallamused:

Are you kidding? The captain is a Dwarf, and his daughter has a 7 CHA score and a beard longer than her dad's! :smalleek:

I agree that 4e could be compared to so many different things it's not even worth arguing. I don't understand why some people get mad about it? At first glance I thought it was a WoW ripoff too, but WoW and all like it are poor D&D adaptations for the computer anyway. If D&D is viewed so similar by the majority it would be a good thing. Why? Because WoW is very popular and being compared to it should give D&D a positive response from a broader audience.

So what would I compare 4e to? Fireball Island. An old Milton Bradley board game. Both have fireballs, islands, magic items (talisman of protection from the fireball), and are fun. I loved that game. I loved all the older editions of D&D too. Each has it's own play style, but they all had good qualities. I still prefer AD&D 2nd Edition overall, but I won't hate on 4e because I like something else better.

[Ralfarius]

Since when is sex a punishment? :smallamused:
It works with the drunken sailor, apparently. Well, either that or shaving his belly with a rusty razor.

[Matthew]

I still prefer AD&D 2nd Edition overall, but I won't hate on 4e because I like something else better.

A very good attitude. :smallbiggrin: In case you don't know about it, I recommend you take a look at Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/).

[Jade_Tarem]

My point is you are making a comparison to 4 systems (which by your own admission) 3 of which you know too little about to make such a comparison and the last of which is essentially the same thing as what you are comparing it to, saying 3.5 is the same as 3.0 in feel is saying nothing at all, they are essentially the same thing.

Earlier editions to the 3.x had a different level of rules definition.
They required more interpretation by the DM, which lead to a greater degree of player acceptance of DM rulings, there was no wealth by level guidlines to tell you you were being gipped by a stingy DM etc etc.
This rails against your assertation that things are the same as they ever were, and the fact that you admit to knowing only 3.x makes your statement seem pretty flimsy to start with, do you not aggree?

Mmmm... it could be stronger, but I don't have to experience Ebola, Tetanus, and Rabies to know that the Flu is also a bad thing to have and that Typhoid is similar in certain ways. Secondhand knowledge works fine, here. The simple fact is that the DM is the ultimate authority in each of these and that the players are, rules-arbitration-wise, beneath him. I think people are mistaking "additional player options" as "players will argue with the DM more" and not what it really is: "players can make a character and be prepared for a session without the DM holding their hand." For example, I usually find that the wealth by level guidelines are used during character creation and ignored the rest of the time. I also think you're nit-picking on the previous editions thing. "You never played 1e? Then you must not know anything about any edition!" Yes, that's a straw man of your argument, but you've beaten one line out of a previous post to death and claimed that it makes the rest of what I posted ever since invalid. It doesn't. That line about the previous editions was backup for my point, not the point itself.

[Viruzzo]

Mmmm... it could be stronger, but I don't have to experience Ebola, Tetanus, and Rabies to know that the Flu is also a bad thing to have and that Typhoid is similar in certain ways. Secondhand knowledge works fine, here.
Not really, it works perfectly when (like with illnesses) it's not a matter of taste, but with most things you can only count on it if the person giving the advice has your same tastes.
Not having much experience in the other editions does not take away your right to express yourself, but you may be a little more optimistic towards things you don't know well. Being accustomed to 3.x has some disadvantages in that you take for granted (or necessary, or useful) a lot of stuff that wasn't present in the previous editions, but didn't prevent them being fun, creative, intelligent or whatever good side you can find in an RPG.

[Matthew]

Mmmm... it could be stronger, but I don't have to experience Ebola, Tetanus, and Rabies to know that the Flu is also a bad thing to have and that Typhoid is similar in certain ways. Secondhand knowledge works fine, here. The simple fact is that the DM is the ultimate authority in each of these and that the players are, rules-arbitration-wise, beneath him. I think people are mistaking "additional player options" as "players will argue with the DM more" and not what it really is: "players can make a character and be prepared for a session without the DM holding their hand." For example, I usually find that the wealth by level guidelines are used during character creation and ignored the rest of the time. I also think you're nit-picking on the previous editions thing. "You never played 1e? Then you must not know anything about any edition!" Yes, that's a straw man of your argument, but you've beaten one line out of a previous post to death and claimed that it makes the rest of what I posted ever since invalid. It doesn't. That line about the previous editions was backup for my point, not the point itself.

Thing is, there is a difference. Figuring out what the difference is between B/AD&D and D20 is a tricky business, because they are very, very similar. It's possible to run them in very similar ways, but for some reason people do tend to fall into playstyles divided by rule sets. The shackles of D20 are an illusion, but they are an effective illusion. If I take an ordinary Orc and give him +1 to hit because "he's that good", typical D20 folk will look for a rule to justify it, instead of the fact that "he's that good" justifying the rule. They don't need to, but they will. I've seen it happen more than once, and it's not the fault of the game.

Perhaps a better example is the "move, attack, move" issue. In D20 you can get a feat that lets you "move, attack and then move". In AD&D there is no such feat. The introduction of a feat "feels" like empowerment, but it actually creates only an illusion of empowerment. In both editions any character can "move, attack and then move", as long as the DM okays it. By the same token, the DM can forbid it. "Sorry, you can't use that feat in this combat." So what's the point in the feat?

[Jade_Tarem]

If it's all a matter of taste, then why argue about it? :smalltongue:

As for the move-attack-move example, I would say that the difference is that in one case, there's a feat that covers it and can be referenced by both players and the DM, whereas in the other case the DM is just making stuff up as he goes and giving powers to the players not covered in the rules - an activity for which I was heavily chastised in a separate thread on more than one occasion. Again, it's a tool.

I would like to point out that this part of the thread has moved from "Let's talk about 4e movement rules" to "Lets talk about 4e" to "Lets talk about 4e fluff" to "Let's talk about what a DM is and how he should behave" to "Let's talk about what Jade does and does not know." The original post I made was to mention what I thought about the fluff or extra mechanics in 3.5, that they took out in 4e. The poster I was responding to thought that it was a good idea to have each and every move and spell described only by numbers and mathematical formulae, with the rest made up by the DM, and I disagreed by asserting that having a baseline comparison, fluff-wise, was useful and a timesaving device that didn't take anything away from the game or the DM. The DM power thing was a lead-in to the rest of my argument. That's all I ever wanted to say, but the argument kinda snowballed from there to include chess and terminal illness and God only knows what else.

[Matthew]

If it's all a matter of taste, then why argue about it? :smalltongue:

As for the move-attack-move example, I would say that the difference is that in one case, there's a feat that covers it and can be referenced by both players and the DM, whereas in the other case the DM is just making stuff up as he goes and giving powers to the players not covered in the rules - an activity for which I was heavily chastised in a separate thread on more than one occasion. Again, it's a tool.

Well, I don't think it's an argument, it's a discussion. Discussions are useful for discovering what you like, why you like it and what you may like in the future, as well as discovering what other people enjoy and why. There's more to a "feat" than a rule, and that's the root of the problem (for me). They're character resources, which is to say a player who feels he isn't getting as much out of feat X as he would have done out of feat Y may think he's being ripped off. The whole question of character resource allocation is fundamental to understanding why one person likes A and another likes B.



I would like to point out that this part of the thread has moved from "Let's talk about 4e movement rules" to "Lets talk about 4e" to "Lets talk about 4e fluff" to "Let's talk about what a DM is and how he should behave" to "Let's talk about what Jade does and does not know." The original post I made was to mention what I thought about the fluff or extra mechanics in 3.5, that they took out in 4e. The poster I was responding to thought that it was a good idea to have each and every move and spell described only by numbers and mathematical formulae, with the rest made up by the DM, and I disagreed by asserting that having a baseline comparison, fluff-wise, was useful and a timesaving device that didn't take anything away from the game or the DM. The DM power thing was a lead-in to the rest of my argument. That's all I ever wanted to say, but the argument kinda snowballed from there to include chess and terminal illness and God only knows what else.
Believe me, I have been following the thread, and it's not really surprising to see it wander off topic (or become only tangentally related) in this manner. That there are no absolute rights and wrongs, only preferences, is the issue that this sort of discourse tends to ignore. One guy arguing that X is better than Y and somebody else arguing that Y is better than X, and both are right and both are wrong, because these things are only subjectively better or worse than one another. These discussions always come down to, "I like X and here's why", and somebody else saying "that's exactly why I don't like X and prefer Y."

However, if we do not recognise that there is a difference between X and Y (which is different from saying X is just as good as Y), then that's a different avenue of exploration (and in my opinion not sustainable or useful).

[Charity]

X has less vectors and uses more ink than Y therefore Y is superior, all you old X grognards are doing it wrong... whut?

[Shatteredtower]

In what way is chess not an abstract game?It's not representative of anything resembling a military struggle. You might as well claim it's an abstract of medicine for its use of terms like prophylaxis. There isn't a grandmaster out there that things of the game as anything but a struggle to impose the move order most likely to win (or draw) a given game. They don't see themselves as playing at war, and they aren't.

Meanwhile, D&D, in every form, has been an abstraction of fantasy adventure tales, especially those in which personal combat is likely to be an element.


@Shatteredtower: You have read entirely too much into my one-line comparison between rule 0 of DnD and a couple of rules of chess.I disagree. I think you're reading too much into what I wrote. :smallwink:


I do not think DnD is like chess, although your quotes of the chess rules actually improve my argument.Uh-huh. I'll believe that when I meet an International Arbiter of D&D and listen to the hassles they've had in dealing with the appeals committee. RPGA? Please.


A parade of every broken build in DnD does not sum up 3.5.I already acknowledged that. I'm just tired of the double standard displayed by those claiming that 4th Edition is a step backward, a dumbing down of the great game.

It's not. Steps have been taken to get away from the mechanical addiction mentality that guided so much of 3rd Edition, while still avoiding the often arbitrary nature of both 1st and 2nd Edition rules. It hasn't been entirely successful in doing either, but it's not the inflexible, spoonfed system adherents of previous rulesets insist it is.

I would like to see WotC provide more support given to the previous editions, however. I can see why it might not be practical, but that doesn't prevent wishful thinking. :smallsmile:

[Jade_Tarem]

X has less vectors and uses more ink than Y therefore Y is superior, all you old X grognards are doing it wrong... whut?

Oddly enough, I was just about to recommend that we all switch to GURPS...

[nagora]

It's not representative of anything resembling a military struggle. You might as well claim it's an abstract of medicine for its use of terms like prophylaxis.
Right. That's not what "abstract game" means. An abstract game is one which is not representative of anything. Chess, Go, and Nine Men's Morris are abstract, Third Reich and Civilisation are concrete attempts to simulate something so they are not abstract.

Edit: see "abstract art".

[EvilElitest]

So it's easier and better to have a broken complex ruleset that you have to fix, than having a simple one that you only have to expand? Dude, Spock would kill you...

I didn't say anything about broken, i was talking about complexity. If you can't, for some reason, deal with complexity, then you can very easilty simplify the system. If you don't like being treated like your reading "D&D for dummies", then it is far harder to make complexity.

and why are you responding to my other points?
[QUOTE]

And yes, 4e is not a storytelling RPG (not nearly as WoD), but that's because D&D is not a storytelling RPG. Which by the way is not by itself half a bad thing.

I know, which is why Starsingers point makes no sense
from
EE

[Matthew]

X has less vectors and uses more ink than Y therefore Y is superior, all you old X grognards are doing it wrong... whut?

That's exactly why I prefer X. :smallbiggrin:

[Viruzzo]

If you can't, for some reason, deal with complexity, then you can very easilty simplify the system.
Complexity: bad.
Depth: good.
That is my humble opinion. In my experience:
2e is simple, but a bit shallow (same as OD&D)
3.x is quite complex, but deeper
4e is simpler and about as deep
Combine this with the above opinion and you understand why I am quite fine with 4e. If some of these considerations are different for anyone, they would logically come to different conclusions. That's fine, as long as there is some kind of reasoning behind those opinions and are not only stances taken for some obscure, unattackable reason.

And if it really is complexity that you want, there are many more RPGs that would fit better than D&D, Rolemaster being an obvious suggestion. I think that they are less fun, but I'm not a complexity fun in the first place.


If you don't like being treated like your reading "D&D for dummies", then it is far harder to make complexity.
This is an implicit insult to anyone who likes 4e, because "it is a dumbed down version of 3.x" and so those who like it are dumber, cannot cope with "complexity" or are "not roleplayers". Insulting people is not a correct way to communicate, and betrays a lack of maturity on your side.

[Roderick_BR]

Hmm... doesn't AD&D 2nd edition actually compares itself with a more complex version of Chutes and Ladders to explain to newbies how it works? :smalltongue:

[Jade_Tarem]

This is an implicit insult to anyone who likes 4e, because "it is a dumbed down version of 3.x" and so those who like it are dumber, cannot cope with "complexity" or are "not roleplayers". Insulting people is not a correct way to communicate, and betrays a lack of maturity on your side.

Ironically, the original "X for Dummies" books were made by and for relatively smart people, who felt that explanations of practices that they did not have a great deal of experience with were overly complicated, and could be streamlined to appeal to more users...

[Matthew]

This is an implicit insult to anyone who likes 4e, because "it is a dumbed down version of 3.x" and so those who like it are dumber, cannot cope with "complexity" or are "not roleplayers". Insulting people is not a correct way to communicate, and betrays a lack of maturity on your side.

Whilst I agree with you, I think that saying anything 'bad' [i.e. that can potentially be read negatively] about a system that other people don't agree with tends to be construed as insulting the players. For instance, I think AD&D is much 'deeper' than D20 3e/4e, but it all depends on what you mean by 'deep' (and what importance you attach to it) [i.e. if you don't like deep games, you must like shallow games and ergo be a shallow person, logical fallacy, but people don't often react logically].

[Deepblue706]

As long as we're discussing what's deep, you might as well take me as the final arbiter.

4E is not deep. 3E is not really deep, but has some measure of depth, like a puddle. AD&D also has some measure. OD&D has a bit, too.

Hackmaster, however, has real depth. Let's all play that instead.

Okay, so after rolling all of your stats 3d6, in order, you must then choose Race and Class. Then proceed to roll handedness, height, weight, social class, legitimacy of birth, number of parents living (or merely present during your upbringing), quality of parents, number of siblings, whether they are male or female, status of relationship with siblings, whether any are twins, whether any of those twins have a psychic link with you, your birth order, your starting funds, and any number of quirks and flaws that you establish you will take prior to rolling for them (yes, they're random, and you have to hold to that number. I once had a maimed (no nose), one-eyed, albino High Elf assassin. Who somehow suffered from nosebleeds. He kicked ass.). Then, finally choose your proficiencies, skills and talents.

Now that's depth.

[Viruzzo]

@Jade_Tarem
Yeah, obviously the books' title does not refer to stupid people, because insulting your own potential buyers wouldn't make much sense, they are aimed at inexperienced people. I do know.

@Matthew
True, but amongst sensible people your tone can make the difference between a critic and an insult.
BTW, I'm not saying that shallow (and simple) games are not bad in themselves, they can always provide some fun without requiring too much effort. I mean, Diablo is damn fun even if most of the time you're hacking mindlessly through hordes of minions on the road to the next Prime Evil! :smallbiggrin:

@Deepblue706
I was making a comparation between the various D&D editions only.
And I suppose that is irony? On my Internet?

[Dan2]

I never minded the complexity of 3rd ed. (3.5).
I thought that they did a pretty good job of creating a reasonable method for doing pretty much whatever you wanted.

This will probably stop most of you from reading the rest, but I considered 3.5 a decent "reality simulation". (barring magic)

What first got to me about 4th ed. is the lack of that sort of "realism".
I looked through the rules, and noticed that they had simplified a lot of things, many of the changes I disagreed with.

However, in the spirit of fairness, I decided to give it a try.

Lo and behold! The players loved it! Unlike myself, they had disliked the complexity of the rules. They felt constrained by the need to memorize how to do things rather than liberated by having a given method with which to do them.

So, I'll probably be playing mostly with 4th ed. in my groups. My players prefer it, and whatever is fun for the most of us is what I'm going to pursue.
And I have to say... Some of the changes (skill challenges) were genius.

But, that's just my opinion.

[The New Bruceski]

There isn't a grandmaster out there that things of the game as anything but a struggle to impose the move order most likely to win (or draw) a given game. They don't see themselves as playing at war, and they aren't.


That's a pretty gutsy claim, given that chess grandmasters are crazy. It's something about the brain being able to work so well for chess, it breaks in other ways.

See: http://www.uglychart.com/archives/2004/11/crazy_chess_pla.html for a good sampling. I've also read of one (but am having trouble tracking a citation down that gives a name) where a guy lost dur to touch-move rules and his arm brushed his queen. He snuck back into the hall at night and cut the heads off all the queens.

[EvilElitest]

Complexity: bad.
Depth: good.
That is my humble opinion. In my experience:


That is a silly and unbacked option. If you say complexity is bad, does that make Song of Fire and Ice a bad book. Does taht make Rome a bad series, does that make Godfather a bad book/movie (the first one). Does that make Snatch a bad film, and Vinland Saga a bad manga? no. Complexity is good, depth comes from complexity. What has more depth, Lord of the Rings, or Eragon? Depth comes from complexity, and consdidering you didn't actually answer my point



2e is simple, but a bit shallow (same as OD&D)
3.x is quite complex, but deeper
4e is simpler and about as deep

2E is not shallow in the least. Read the old manuals, particularly 2E's DMG. They are extremely in depth.
3E is a better designed system, and losses some depth, but not too muh

4E has next to no depth, it is shallow. Utterly and totally shallow. And while i'd gladly write a massive statement proving why, i already did and you simply ignored it, so i don't see the need (post 73)
In short, 4E has no depth, and almost prides itself in this



Combine this with the above opinion and you understand why I am quite fine with 4e. If some of these considerations are different for anyone, they would logically come to different conclusions. That's fine, as long as there is some kind of reasoning behind those opinions and are not only stances taken for some obscure, unattackable reason.

yet again, empty words. 4E is a step down in terms of standards in D&D, it is like a D&D for beginners, D&D for dummies, D&D board game, offical rules for the D&D minatures.


And if it really is complexity that you want, there are many more RPGs that would fit better than D&D, Rolemaster being an obvious suggestion. I think that they are less fun, but I'm not a complexity fun in the first place.


Except D&D already had complexity. It not only had complexity, it also handled it well. 2E, 3E, and from what i've seen of 1E (never played it) were able to create consistent, in depth, logical games that had complexity abundance. I'm not demanding something new, i want more of what we have already had, not a simplified version of the newest stuff



This is an implicit insult to anyone who likes 4e, because "it is a dumbed down version of 3.x" and so those who like it are dumber, cannot cope with "complexity" or are "not roleplayers". Insulting people is not a correct way to communicate, and betrays a lack of maturity on your side.
No its not, i'm comparing it to the series, X for dummies. things that would be implict insults include
Calling people trolls without any justifications
Ignoring people's options then asking for them to back their already made options
using strawmen, or jumping to unbacked conclusion based upon bad interpretations
Making claims without backing and expecting people to take that at face value, for example claiming something equals good, something else equals bad without any actual backing in the matter.
Implying lack of maturity after doing all of the above, while making an obvious misinterpretation
That is insluting

In case you aren't aware, the X for dummies series purpose is to make a simplified, stream lined, easy to understand, and basic. That doesn't make the people who read it dummies, that just means that the books is only making a brief explanation of the stuff at hands. 4E is liked that. It is a streamlined, simplified, shallow version of D&D, like a X for dummies might be, or if you want another metaphor, it is like the Spark notes verison. that doesn't make people who play it dummies (as i said before) it means that 4E would be a fine game, just not a new D&D game, more like a D&D for beginners game, or a D&D board game, not a new edition to D&D

also you didn't actually address my points in that quote there, you just went off on a tangent .

from
EE

[Deepblue706]

@Deepblue706
I was making a comparation between the various D&D editions only.
And I suppose that is irony? On my Internet?

I like to think of it as D&D: The Better Version. I mean, it's basically the same thing, except the DM's screen has funny pictures and there are Gnome Titans (yes, that's a race separate from Gnomes) that have an ability called Groin Stomp. It damages Honor (which I should note, is another stat).

Ooh, ooh, and Knights Errant. Those are great.

[EvilElitest]

Why? The DM gets the final say of course, but the players are rightfully going to be unhappy if they have a firmly written rule and they see it taken away because of DM fiat.

Which is the nature of Social interaction, some people won't get what they want. What your fallacy is that you some how imply that 4E makes that any easier than 3E. Bad Dms are a normal



1) I never said that fluff is not useful. Just not very useful, especially in the long run, at least to me. It's better than nothing of course.
2) 3.x MM fluff tells very little of a monster's ecology anyway. I see the difference with 4e but it's hardly noticeable. Simply put, 3.x contains combat tactics (as 4e) plus some random description.
3) 2.x had more ecology fluff, but failed common sense at every step.
4) you get this strange idea that for every encounter and every monster the DM has to define a strict and coehrent ecology: that would be a total waste of time, since most of it wouldn't be used.
5) as was pointed out by many, 4e makes many DM tasks easier, such as monster creation. If the DM wants to use that extra time to write fluff, he can. If he wants to use it on plot, he can. At least he has a choice, instead of spending ages trying to make the right humanoid NPC.
5) if you still want to define in great detail the ecology of a monster, no MM of any edition of D&D will suffice.
6) since the players have access to the MM, using the fluff in it can give them knowledge that their character should not possess. A common problem of any RPG, but lessened the more homebrew you use.
7) as for item fluff, what's the problem? The actual description of a standard magic item takes nothing to make up, which you could want to do anyway to prevent the players from identifying the stuff just by the looks of it.
1) Fluff is the most important part of the game, it is what makes the game alive. Without fluff, you have a shallow empty game, just a series of numbers, like say a board game.
2) hardly noticable. BS. in 3E, for all of its many faults, it did provide more details than 4E, which basically says "It exists, kill it"
3) Um, this is the part where you actually back that up
4) BS. Why not? Creatures shouldn't exist simply as monsters to be killed, there should be some logic behind it. WFT do you mean by wouldn't be used? Maybe not if the only way you play is hack and slash, but taht isn't the only style of D&d, or was until 4E
5) Why not? 3E was able to do better, and that is pretty sad. And since when is length a problem? This is WotC, more room means more books, good for them and us if they are good quality. Yet again, i'd rather have a well quality book, instead of a shallow one with more creatures
6) And that is bad why? Yet again, your points make no sense Considering there isn't any fluff in the DMG really anyway, your point makes no sense
7) BS. Take the magic items in both 2E and 3E, plenty of details and cool stories. Take 4E, where they have about as much detail as FF items.





That's no different now than it was in any previous edition. The use of PrCs and additional rulebooks meant you'd have to adjust encounters to compensate. Even if you were selective about what you allowed, you were still looking at an increase in your workload that far exceeds what you'd require to adapt any monster to your setting.

What confuses me about this line of Pro 4e defense is that if their claim is that 4E encourages Dm creativity, then that destroys 4E's claim of streamlining and making DM's job easier. It doesn't make felt


Earlier on in this thread, there was a complaint that the 4th Edition succubus was no more a master of subterfuge, seduction, and guile than an attractive barmaid. I don't see how this argument can be supported. The monster's Bluff and Diplomacy modifiers are still quite good (far better than the barmaid's), and it can still pose as specific humanoid individuals.

Well you could check out the quote and respond to it directly


True, it can only charm one individual at a time, but that individual remains charmed indefinitely. Does the effect have any use outside of combat? Yes, it does, so long as you acknowledge the role laid out for it within the devil's entry, rather than relying solely on the combat stat block for information. The charmed individual is, after all, at the mercy of a skilled manipulator. What DM isn't going to look at the creature's overall description and conclude that any target of its powers isn't going to eventually come under its social influence after associating with it for a few days (or even a few hours)?
Compare to the old Succubus, and it becomes apparent that this is primative compared to the last version.


More to the point, what DM relied entirely on the creature's magical abilities to influence and control people in previous editions? That sounds like a poorly played succubus to me. I'm not going to blame previous rulesets for encouranging such lazy thinking, because I don't think it's the fault of those rules. What counts hasn't changed. A skilled DM in 1st Edition wasn't going to deny her the chance to pull a dragon's strings just because it was immune to charm person any more than a 3rd Edition DM would have kept her from getting the better of a lich in spite of its immunity to mind-influencing effects. It's still true, and that's all that matters.

So your saying that we don't need rules. Ok, then we don't actually need new editions then




Please look again at what you are saying here. (bolded for your convenience)
'DM's in 3.5 have just as much power as in 3.0'... gosh really.
This statement does nothing to support your assertion. In editions earlier than 3.x there was far more reliance on DM interpretation, and thus players were far more used to DM's telling them how it worked (in their games) this lead to DM's having a much larger say in how the game played (for better or for worse that was how it was)
Except rules zero works for all of them


Viruzzo


But all your comparisons are on the same genre: movies with movies, cars with cars. MMOs are definitely different from pen and paper RPGs (usually, they hardly qualify as RPGs at all).

As for the lack of fluff: yes, they separated the setting from the rules. As for the lack of mechanics: uh?
I already countered this, post 73

through nobody seems to be willing that
from
EE

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

That's exactly why I prefer X. :smallbiggrin:

That is ludicrous!!!!!!!11111ONEELEVEN

Z is clearly superior to both X and Y. X plays like brussel sprout and Y is like Pulling Teeth, Z however is Popcorn!!!

[Jayabalard]

But it's always pointless. Not to some people; they like those sort of comparisons, and they like compartmentalizing things. If you don't want to discuss it, you could always just leave those conversations to the people who do want to make that comparison.

[Ralfarius]

That is ludicrous!!!!!!!11111ONEELEVEN

Z is clearly superior to both X and Y. X plays like brussel sprout and Y is like Pulling Teeth, Z however is Popcorn!!!
Ugh. I hate getting Z kernels stuck in my teeth.

[EvilElitest]

Not to some people; they like those sort of comparisons, and they like compartmentalizing things. If you don't want to discuss it, you could always just leave those conversations to the people who do want to make that comparison.

but wait a second, i thought that something is pointless when i don't agree with it. Wasn't that how things worked?
from
EE

[Viruzzo]

So, you (EE) made not one but two enormous posts, to say that you don't agree with me on almost anything, starting from the very definition of "deep" and "complex": it seems then quite useless to reply to all of your replies, since we depart on the basic criteria on which we judge D&D.

Just a few bits though.
Fluff (can't we say "setting", "backstory" or something else? it makes me think of teddy bears): I (for the last time) do not mean that fluff is something bad or useful. It's a role-playing game, it's bound to have some kind of setting! What I don't need is a book that has both fluff and core mechanics in it. I need core books to have core rules inside them, as for the fluff I'll end up making my own stuff anyway (or my DM will). I don't like some book telling me how many eggs an Aboleth deposes, even less if it's some incoherent stuff.


yet again, empty words. 4E is a step down in terms of standards in D&D, it is like a D&D for beginners, D&D for dummies, D&D board game, offical rules for the D&D minatures.
Yet again, empty words. These are your opinions (still not facts), and show that you consider 4e less <something> than 3.x. Those sentences above equate to "I don't like your game, and if you do it means that you are less <something>".
Oh and (for the last time) I do know what the "For Dummies" books are, I have one about C++ somewhere.


Calling people trolls without any justifications
Ouch! Correct, I already said on the other thread that if I had to call anyone a troll it should have been the one that begun the flaming (you). :smallwink:

One last point (again, I made a longer post than I wanted): what's the point in telling people that like something that they shouldn't like it?
If they have decided they like it, they will ignore you or fight with you.
If they have decided they don't like it, there is no point.
If they are undecided, they could only make themselves a real opinion by trying it, and then fall back to the above cases. Discouraging them is not only useless, but may prevent them from trying something they may like.

[Charity]

but people don't often react logically].

Hey I'm people and I take great umbrage at your assertion!


That is ludicrous!!!!!!!11111ONEELEVEN

Z is clearly superior to both X and Y. X plays like brussel sprout and Y is like Pulling Teeth, Z however is Popcorn!!!

Damn Z fanboiz, can't you accept your soulless newcomer is an insult to the whole alphabet, heck it can't even decide how to be pronounced...

[Woot Spitum]

1) Fluff is the most important part of the game, it is what makes the game alive. Without fluff, you have a shallow empty game, just a series of numbers, like say a board game.I disagree. You could, with a little messing around, convert the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting from any edition of D&D to a setting for World of Darkness, Exalted, GURPS, or even a completely homebrew system without changing the fluff one bit. As long as you have a good idea of what kind of story you want to tell, you can adapt it to pretty much any system.

The most important part of a game system is how well it handles conflict resolution. If conflicts are resolved in a manner that is easy to remember and understand, the system is worth using. If not, then it is probably best confined to those who simply like the way it does things.

Personally, I think nothing breaks immersion in an RPG more often than simply having to flip through dozens of poorly organized rules just to figure out whether Bob the fighter can take any actions in the same round of combat he jumps over a small fence to reach his foes. And if you are often introducing new players to the game, this sort of thing happens a lot.

Don't discount crunch. It's far more important than you think.

[Viruzzo]

Damn Z fanboiz, can't you accept your soulless newcomer is an insult to the whole alphabet, heck it can't even decide how to be pronounced...
Why are you ignoring W? I mean, V sucked, I admit it, but this double-V! Twice as much! It has to be better!

[AKA_Bait]

Finally an argument I can get into!


Damn Z fanboiz, can't you accept your soulless newcomer is an insult to the whole alphabet, heck it can't even decide how to be pronounced...

Nonsense! The flexible pronunciation of Z is one of its greatest advantages. It doesn't piegonhole you into a single, humdrum way of saying it and encourages creativity.

[EvilElitest]

So, you (EE) made not one but two enormous posts, to say that you don't agree with me on almost anything, starting from the very definition of "deep" and "complex": it seems then quite useless to reply to all of your replies, since we depart on the basic criteria on which we judge D&D.

And you simply ignored me and didn't respond and didn't respond. And even now you didn't respond to half the things i wrote. Are you conceding the point or just being obtrusive

by saying it is usless to disagree, then don't comment at all. If your not going to respond to well backed options, why why are you debating on an online forum if you not even going to response


Just a few bits though.
Fluff (can't we say "setting", "backstory" or something else? it makes me think of teddy bears):
The proper term is meat



I (for the last time) do not mean that fluff is something bad or useful. It's a role-playing game, it's bound to have some kind of setting! What I don't need is a book that has both fluff and core mechanics in it. I need core books to have core rules inside them, as for the fluff I'll end up making my own stuff anyway (or my DM will). I don't like some book telling me how many eggs an Aboleth deposes, even less if it's some incoherent stuff.

And i'm saying, or correctly i already said and you simply ignored me (Hey, post 73, the one where i cover everything)


Yet again, empty words. These are your opinions (still not facts), and show that you consider 4e less <something> than 3.x. Those sentences above equate to "I don't like your game, and if you do it means that you are less <something>".
Except i back up my option. You didn't acknowledge them but i have backed up my option. Just because something is an option doesn't make it wrong.

here is another option. Song of fire and ice is better than eragon.



Oh and (for the last time) I do know what the "For Dummies" books are, I have one about C++ somewhere.
they why are you totally misunderstanding my point


Ouch! Correct, I already said on the other thread that if I had to call anyone a troll it should have been the one that begun the flaming (you). :smallwink:

You did that on this thread.



One last point (again, I made a longer post than I wanted): what's the point in telling people that like something that they shouldn't like it?
If they have decided they like it, they will ignore you or fight with you.
If they have decided they don't like it, there is no point.
If they are undecided, they could only make themselves a real opinion by trying it, and then fall back to the above cases. Discouraging them is not only useless, but may prevent them from trying something they may like.
You can say the same about anything, for example i also claim taht FATAL is a god awful game, Shreeded Moose is a awful webcomic, and Eragon is a bad novel



I disagree. You could, with a little messing around, convert the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting from any edition of D&D to a setting for World of Darkness, Exalted, GURPS, or even a completely homebrew system without changing the fluff one bit. As long as you have a good idea of what kind of story you want to tell, you can adapt it to pretty much any system.
and this is meanenless without fluff



The most important part of a game system is how well it handles conflict resolution. If conflicts are resolved in a manner that is easy to remember and understand, the system is worth using. If not, then it is probably best confined to those who simply like the way it does things.
only if your system is nothing more than a combat stimulation (See video game and board game comparisons


Personally, I think nothing breaks immersion in an RPG more often than simply having to flip through dozens of poorly organized rules just to figure out whether Bob the fighter can take any actions in the same round of combat he jumps over a small fence to reach his foes. And if you are often introducing new players to the game, this sort of thing happens a lot.

And nothing makes a shallow system than one that resembles a video or board game (see post 73)



Don't discount crunch. It's far more important than you think
I never did, i am however pointing out the flaw in your argument.

Really, if you not even going to respond to other people's claim, what is the point of debating. I've responded to all of your statement, show me the same respect please
from
EE

[Draco Dracul]

The proper term is meat


I disagree, the mechanics are the meat of the game fluff is seasoning to the flavor of the setting.

[EvilElitest]

I disagree, the mechanics are the meat of the game fluff is seasoning to the flavor of the setting.

no, the mechanics are the process of the cooking, the meat is the actual content being cooked
from
EE

[AKA_Bait]

no, the mechanics are the process of the cooking, the meat is the actual content being cooked
from
EE

Personally, I prefer the cheese.





I'm sorry. I just couldn't help myself.

[EvilElitest]

Personally, I prefer the cheese.





I'm sorry. I just couldn't help myself.


the cheese is a lie......wait
from
EE

[nagora]

I disagree, the mechanics are the meat of the game fluff is seasoning to the flavor of the setting.
Mechanics are the fluff you have to put up with to some extent, the setting is the crunch. Mechanics are a necessary evil; one should strive to find the minimum possible (but, of course, no less).

[Draco Dracul]

no, the mechanics are the process of the cooking, the meat is the actual content being cooked
from
EE

No, I think the fluff would be the cooking because fluff is how you present the mechanics.

[Viruzzo]

If your not going to respond to well backed options, why why are you debating on an online forum if you not even going to response
The problem is, they do not seem well backed to me, and also I don't see any real chance to convince you that 4e is not as a bad system as you think it is, and since it all boils down to a matter of taste, there is no particular reason for me to try to pierce your impenetrable beliefs.
I have made my points, you disagreed with them (and maybe misunderstood some). You made yours, and didn't convince me. Maybe someone else though.


Except i back up my option. You didn't acknowledge them but i have backed up my option. Just because something is an option doesn't make it wrong.
True, but if it is definitely right is a fact, not an opinion.


You can say the same about anything, for example i also claim taht FATAL is a god awful game, Shreeded Moose is a awful webcomic, and Eragon is a bad novel
I think you misunderstood me: you can say all of that, but what point there in telling it on a FATAL/Shredded Moose (whatever it is)/Eragon thread?


the cheese is a lie......
Only if it's a cheese cake.

[Karaswanton]

I have run a few campaigns. Not many, but a few.
I have yet to use "standard fluff" unless I am using a pre-made campaign setting.

My dwarves are not smiths that live in caves within the mountains. They are a proud, pastoral, tribal race that lives on the exposed surfaces of the mountains riding domesticated mountain goats.

My elves are not forest people. They are a maritime nation, heavily influenced by British history. My Eladrin are Elves who retreated into the Feywild, instead of being the original "elves" that stayed behind. My Drow are Elves that retreated into the Shadowfell instead of the Feywild.

My goblinoids are not broken down into small warring tribes. They live in one united, fascist, caste-based nation, and they like it that way. Furthermore, Orcs are "goblinoids."

My kobolds are not lizard-men who worship dragons. They are a conquered people, who were crushed into servitude by the Goblin Nation--and eventually made into "pets" for the wealthy.

I don't need "fluff" in the core rule books. That just serves as filler. I need crunch to be able to run a game. It is my job to run the story--I don't need (or want) rules for that. Or at least not rules I can't easily work around.

I need rules that are easy to implement and use. I don't need a pre-fabricated setting--unless that's what I'm going for, and then I want it to not be part of the Core rules.

4E delivers in crunch.
3.5 doesn't, not for me, not for my game, not for my players,not for what I want.

[Jade_Tarem]

Nonsense! The flexible pronunciation of Z is one of its greatest advantages. It doesn't piegonhole you into a single, humdrum way of saying it and encourages creativity.

You're being far too optimisic about the lack of clearly defined options and sounds provided for Z. Sure, you can make your language work with Z, but that means that a speaker has to go through the effort to come up with interesting ways to use the letter when they could be stringing words together. What's more, Z is just a hard S sound in most words, but with Z out less support will be given to S - and the S sound recognition is the only reason people are miffed about Z in the first place - it would have been a fun, if simplistic letter on its own. Z is just civilization being lazy with language development.

And with that, "I" just probably killed the alphabet pun and possibly several forum posters.

[tyfon]

No, I think the fluff would be the cooking because fluff is how you present the mechanics.

Elves move easily throught forest because they live in forest, or they live in forest because they move more easily in forest?

Real world: dark skinned pople live in Africa because more pigment is better to withstand sunbeams, or they live in Africa because they are dark-skinned ?

Yaks (and yak-people) are not living in mountains because they have thick fur, they have fur because they live in mountains

And so on...


Ahhhh... btw : 4ed/WoW

GameSpy: There's been lots of commentary lately about how D&D 4th Edition's rules are similar in ways to computer role-playing games. How do you guys respond to this?

Andy Collins: I love answering this one. The sound-bite answer is, I take it as a compliment that people are saying that D&D has taken on some aspects of games that are exceptionally popular, exceptionally well-reviewed by fans and by critics alike, and are beloved by thousands if not millions of players. And that's not just computer games, but that's the one that people notice off the bat. The fact is that, as professional game designers, we interact with games of all genres and all sorts all the time, and we take concepts and ideas from all of them.

Computer games are the ones that map most easily to the fantasy and D&D genres because, let's face it -- they've been stealing from us for 20 or 30 years. So people notice those. But we've learned from German-style board games, we've learned from TCGs [trading-card games], we've learned from computer games, we've learned from entertainment, we've learned from fiction. D&D is a wonderful amalgamation of fantasy archetypes, from all different kinds of places, and that's always been one of its strengths. The fact that we're starting to embrace smart game design from other genres is just another testament to how enduring and resilient and adaptable D&D is.

When a game designer sees a good concept, whether it's a specific mechanic or just a way of approaching play and writing games, he's foolish to not break that open, and see how it ticks, and see which of those concepts he can adapt to his game design.

[Draco Dracul]

Elves move easily throught forest because they live in forest, or they live in forest because they move more easily in forest?

Real world: dark skinned pople live in Africa because more pigment is better to withstand sunbeams, or they live in Africa because they are dark-skinned ?

Yaks (and yak-people) are not living in mountains because they have thick fur, they have fur because they live in mountains

And so on...


A little of both with evoultion and all that.

[thegurullamen]

4E delivers in crunch.
3.5 doesn't, not for me, not for my game, not for my players,not for what I want.

I like this. It doesn't make outlandish claims for the entirety of gaming-dom, doesn't insult other ideas that came before it. It just sits there and says "I have an interpretation. Works for me and mine."

You win the Peace-itP Medal.

[lord_khaine]

I will just throw in my copper piece on EE, since i dislike how 4e isnt internaly consistent in the same way as 3.5 are.

[Skjaldbakka]

As much as I hate 4E overly simplistic mechanics and gamist design philosophy, there are two things I'm looking forward to about it.

1) The next generation of the Baldur's Gate video games should rock pretty hard, since the simpler mechanics lend themselves really well to that kind of game.

2) Rumor has it that Spelljammer is in the works for release as a setting in 4E. Its just a shame it couldn't have been released with a better edition.

[Draco Dracul]

I will just throw in my copper piece on EE, since i dislike how 4e isnt internaly consistent in the same way as 3.5 are.

Could you point out some inconsistent parts of 4e?

[Skjaldbakka]

PC vs. NPC distinction. Minions vs. non-minion distinction. 4E is gamist. D&D before 4E was simulationist. If I want a gamist fantasy system, I play BESM (or, more recently, Savage Worlds). I play D&D and WoD when I want a more simulationist game.

[Draco Dracul]

PC vs. NPC distinction. Minions vs. non-minion distinction. 4E is gamist. D&D before 4E was simulationist. If I want a gamist fantasy system, I play BESM (or, more recently, Savage Worlds). I play D&D and WoD when I want a more simulationist game.

Thank you for the information.

[Winterwind]

Ironically, a PC/NPC asymmetry (and likewise asymmetries in the treatment of different types of NPCs) strikes me as about as narrativist as could be. Having everyone run by the same rules helps with estimating their respective power and hence the challenge provided by the NPCs, which aids the gamist faction, whereas the rules' complexity adjusting according to what role a character plays in the story (ranging from protagonists (PCs) to mooks-to-be-disposed-in-cineastic-fashion (minions))? Yep, definitely storyteller approach.

Of course, having neither played nor read either the 3rd or the 4th edition, I cannot say to which degree they factually lend themselves to the respective playstyles. Just an observation of an outsider.

[Covered In Bees]

PC vs. NPC distinction. Minions vs. non-minion distinction. 4E is gamist. D&D before 4E was simulationist. If I want a gamist fantasy system, I play BESM (or, more recently, Savage Worlds). I play D&D and WoD when I want a more simulationist game.

I'll get to some of the Walls Of Text posts when I have time, but I just had to pop in to go AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA. 3E was SIMULATIONIST? You mean the part where armor adds to AC or the prat where being ugly makes you worse at intimidating people?
No. Just no.
In 2E and 3E, monsters and PCs worked differently. For example, you roll PC stats. Or the part where you evaluate monsters based on CR. Or where monsters get tons of abilities players don't and can't and shouldn't be able to.

There's nothing "inconsistent" about minions unless you do your best to misuse the rules.

And here's a little excerpt from the AD&D DMG for you...


A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything, either.

[batsofchaos]

Isn't it at this point accepted that the NPC/PC power difference is an abstraction to save time? The DMG flat out says that you can stat an NPC like a PC. It says to do it rarely, but if you have such an aversion to simplicity for expediencies sake that you need to fully stat it, the rules clearly allow it.

[Deepblue706]

No, I think the fluff would be the cooking because fluff is how you present the mechanics.

As silly as this discussion is, I have to participate!

Mechanics are the bones. Without them, you'd have just a blob. An unsupported blob of flesh that does nothing but lay around. Might be fun to kick around, but it's formless and ultimately useless (unless you're eating it).

Fluff is the flesh and muscle. It's what gives the bones movement. There are games that can exist on only an abstract level, with just mechanics - but roleplaying games are not built to do so.

Of course, more muscle is generally seen as a good thing. After all, stronger people are just better. As far as I know, bone density doesn't limit one's muscle capacity, and muscles don't deteriorate bones. But instead, bones rely on muscle for movement, and flesh requires bones for a foundation.

As far as I can tell, 4E doesn't tell us to stop working out. It's just loaded with calcium. But, as we all know, people obsessed with calcium (old women) hardly work out.

...

I forgot where I was going with this.

[Deepblue706]

I'll get to some of the Walls Of Text posts when I have time, but I just had to pop in to go AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA. 3E was SIMULATIONIST? You mean the part where armor adds to AC or the prat where being ugly makes you worse at intimidating people?
No. Just no.

And here's a little excerpt from the AD&D DMG for you...

3e was highly simulationist! Everyone knows how dangerous a housecat is to the common man...

But really tho - I agree 4E places PCs on too high a pedastal. Second Wind is certainly heroic and can be fun to do - doing it twelve times a day just kinda kills me inside. Same goes for the slaughter of minions.

And what happens when you drink a healing potion and are out of surges? I never understood that bit.

[Covered In Bees]

3e was highly simulationist! Everyone knows how dangerous a housecat is to the common man...

And let's not forget how getting older makes you see better! Or how being really strong lets you swim well even if you never learned how! Or how you never have to repair armor (or weapons, unless sundered)... and how you can totally cut everyone's swords in half with your own.

Ooh, maybe the bit where learning powerful magic automatically makes you better in a fistfight is simulationist?
Or the party where a good, easy, and effective combat strategy is knocking your enemy off his feet every six seconds?

[Viruzzo]

But really tho - I agree 4E places PCs on too high a pedastal. Second Wind is certainly heroic and can be fun to do - doing it twelve times a day just kinda kills me inside.
You will never get that many SWs a day: either you use the surges through healing spells/potions, or you can only heal once per encounter and are probably screwed.


Same goes for the slaughter of minions.
It's not like you have to use them. They are an effectively optional rule.


And what happens when you drink a healing potion and are out of surges? I never understood that bit.
The potion increases your normal healing rate, at the cost of your stamina (surges). If you don't have enough left the potion fails, since your body is too strained. Actually, you could houserule that if you spend "negative" healing surges you get the HP back, but get exausted or faint.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Ugh. I hate getting Z kernels stuck in my teeth.

Who said you could have any? :smalltongue:

[Frosty]

Or the party where a good, easy, and effective combat strategy is knocking your enemy off his feet every six seconds?

In a real sword fight, I'd *love* to be able to have my opponent knocked on his ass regularly. It's a horrible position to be in (for the person on the ground)

[Jade_Tarem]

And let's not forget how getting older makes you see better! Or how being really strong lets you swim well even if you never learned how! Or how you never have to repair armor (or weapons, unless sundered)... and how you can totally cut everyone's swords in half with your own.

Ooh, maybe the bit where learning powerful magic automatically makes you better in a fistfight is simulationist?
Or the party where a good, easy, and effective combat strategy is knocking your enemy off his feet every six seconds?

And a classical favorite: where rogues can dodge 20' diameter explosions in a 5x5 windowless room.

Or how a 10' long chain covered in spikes is an effective weapon.

Although it could be worse: It could be GURPS, where finding a large sum of money will make you physically, mentally, or magically weaker compared to the rest of the party later in the game, even if you participate in all of the same activities as your party members to the same degree.

To clarify: GURPS is still awesome, IMO.

[EvilElitest]

No, I think the fluff would be the cooking because fluff is how you present the mechanics.

no, the fluff is the meat, the actual stuff that goes into it. the mechanics are the way you make the game, and the meal is the final solution.


The problem is, they do not seem well backed to me, and also I don't see any real chance to convince you that 4e is not as a bad system as you think it is, and since it all boils down to a matter of taste, there is no particular reason for me to try to pierce your impenetrable beliefs.
I have made my points, you disagreed with them (and maybe misunderstood some). You made yours, and didn't convince me. Maybe someone else though.
An option is worth nothing if it isn't backed. If you don't think my option isn't backed, then bloody well prove it, don't waste my time


I think you misunderstood me: you can say all of that, but what point there in telling it on a FATAL/Shredded Moose (whatever it is)/Eragon thread?

Because i'm proving a point


In short, back your options, because they mean nothing as of now

yet again, Karaswanton, just because you can do something with a system, doesn't excuse the shallowness of the system


and now another WotC designer who doesn't understand his game, Andy Collins



GameSpy: There's been lots of commentary lately about how D&D 4th Edition's rules are similar in ways to computer role-playing games. How do you guys respond to this?

Andy Collins: I love answering this one. The sound-bite answer is, I take it as a compliment that people are saying that D&D has taken on some aspects of games that are exceptionally popular, exceptionally well-reviewed by fans and by critics alike, and are beloved by thousands if not millions of players. And that's not just computer games, but that's the one that people notice off the bat. The fact is that, as professional game designers, we interact with games of all genres and all sorts all the time, and we take concepts and ideas from all of them.

Computer games are the ones that map most easily to the fantasy and D&D genres because, let's face it -- they've been stealing from us for 20 or 30 years. So people notice those. But we've learned from German-style board games, we've learned from TCGs [trading-card games], we've learned from computer games, we've learned from entertainment, we've learned from fiction. D&D is a wonderful amalgamation of fantasy archetypes, from all different kinds of places, and that's always been one of its strengths. The fact that we're starting to embrace smart game design from other genres is just another testament to how enduring and resilient and adaptable D&D is.

When a game designer sees a good concept, whether it's a specific mechanic or just a way of approaching play and writing games, he's foolish to not break that open, and see how it ticks, and see which of those concepts he can adapt to his game design.


Thanks you Andy thank you for making our game utterly shallow like a video game. At least your honest about it. In your effort to emulate a video game, you even took all of its flaws. Um, horray





I will just throw in my copper piece on EE, since i dislike how 4e isnt internaly consistent in the same way as 3.5 are.
Horrary





1) The next generation of the Baldur's Gate video games should rock pretty hard, since the simpler mechanics lend themselves really well to that kind of game.

2) Rumor has it that Spelljammer is in the works for release as a setting in 4E. Its just a shame it couldn't have been released with a better edition.
1) There is going to be a new Baldur's gate series. Anyways, no matter the edition the game would be good becasue biwere is awsome
2) Meh, i love that setting, but i rememeber FR





ll get to some of the Walls Of Text posts when I have time, but I just had to pop in to go AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA. 3E was SIMULATIONIST? You mean the part where armor adds to AC or the prat where being ugly makes you worse at intimidating people?
3E looks simulationist in comparason to 4E. Which is pretty depressing actually


No. Just no.
In 2E and 3E, monsters and PCs worked differently. For example, you roll PC stats. Or the part where you evaluate monsters based on CR. Or where monsters get tons of abilities players don't and can't and shouldn't be able to.
Flat out wrong. in 3E, being an NPC or a PC didn't matter, it was your class. A PC wizard could be exactly the same as an NPC with the same class level.



There's nothing "inconsistent" about minions unless you do your best to misuse the rules.
of course it is, it doesn't make sense, its moronic. THe idea of people who go through life with only one hit point is insane, its inconsistent because they exist for the purpose of dying at the hands of PCs, and another example of the world, not the game, revolving around the PCs (like a vide game).



And here's a little excerpt from the AD&D DMG for you...
Funny, there are other GG quotes that 4E people seem to find objective




and since everybody seems deterimined to ignore this, but most of my points are backed here




What are you talking about? This is another thing that really irks me as a misconception. What about 4e is stopping you from doing cool out-of-combat roleplaying stuff? I don't see any difference in this regard at all. What could you do in 3e that you coulden't do by 4e core?

1) I can do Roleplaying in 4E, but taht doesn't make it a less shallow system. I can add to a system, but when the system has a massive lack of options, versatility and options. When the game is one that makes encourages a very video game style of play, and a shallow one (Ie, Minions, NPCs, World Design) and when it simplifies its self almost because it wants to treat the players like children (IE, monsters, new plane design, classes, races, light, NPCs again, style of play). It is streamlined, and in the end limiting and close minded. I can do something with it, but that doesn't excuse the system
2) Um, i can do a lot more in 3E. I have more options for both my races, and my classes. I have consistency, and logic in the game design, the rules, the way it was set up, the general way the system function. The fact taht the NPCs were actual people in game rather than just plot tools, that they could take PC and NPC classes at will. The fact that we had a massive variety of classes and options and that even within a single class you could have a massive amount of options and different styles of play. the game encouraged consistency, logic, and options, and the game didn't coddle you (through i think 2E was better at that) and didn't automatically make a character special. The game was complex, versitile, consistent (most importantly) and well rounded. It wasn't balanced, and has massive massive flaws, but it at least was interesting, complex, and in depth, where 4E is nothing more than a board game in denial


a review i posted ealirer but nobody commented upon is this

The new edition of D&D is headed for some problems, in my opinion. The Monster Manual is not the worst of the three core rulebooks - that honor goes to the Player's Handbook, without a doubt. The MM and the Dungeon Master's Guide are duking it out for second place.

I rated this book at 2 stars, so there must be something good about it, right? Well, yes. Actually many of the individual monster entries have interesting features that could be mined for use in other games. The art is mostly very good, and the monster stat blocks are clear and easy to read. Unfortunately this book has the bad luck to be part of the 4th Edition rules, which are broken in many fundamental ways.

The goal with 4E was simplify, simplify, simplify. Regrettably Wizards of the Coast seems to interpret "simplify" to mean "eliminate options for players and DMs," and that shows here as it does throughout the new rules. There's little or no cultural information given on most monsters. In fact generally there is not even a physical description. If the DM can't come up with a good one based on the art, he's out of luck. Everything has been cut out except for combat abilities - because 4E has almost no support for anything that happens outside combat.

For most monsters, of course, combat information is all you absolutely need - the bare minimum. However 4E takes this to extremes, and it is really glaring in the case of monsters that used to be oriented toward non-combat. Subtlety is gone from the 4E Monster Manual. Mastermind and manipulator monsters are either gone or revised into combat opponents now.

A shining example is the succubus. Those who remember earlier editions (or even basic mythology) will recall that the succubus was never really a combat monster. She was a string-puller who worked behind the scenes. A big part of an adventure involving a succubus used to be just figuring out who your opponent was, because her powers were all about deception, seduction, and temptation. She controlled other NPCs and made life tough for the player characters from afar. No longer. The 4E succubus has few if any abilities that are useful outside combat. Even her "charming kiss" (which used to be a charm monster effect in 3.5) now has one and only one effect: it causes her victim to step in front of an attack directed at the succubus and take the damage that was meant for her. It has no non-combat uses at all, and can't even do any more than that in combat. As for seduction and temptation, the 4E succubus is literally no better at that than a pretty barmaid.

This has happened to the succubus, the vampire, the lich, the mind flayer, all demons and devils, djinns, even those old schemers, the Drow. A DM who wants to build an adventure around a devious mastermind who avoids combat will have to make it up himself - and at that point why pay for this book?

Also gone from the rules is any pretense at internal logic or verisimilitude. Monster abiities often work by completely different rules than PC abilities. For example an "encounter" power works only once per encounter for a PC, but many monster "encounter" powers can "recharge" on a successful die roll. PCs don't get this ability. Even if a monster happens to be of a PC race (such as an elf or dwarf) it still gets abiities that player characters do not get even with feats. No explanation is given for these differences; the game simply treats monsters as collections of powers for PCs to fight, and their connection to the larger universe is never considered.

Players and DMs who like the World of Warcraft experience may not be bothered by this and similar rules issues in the game, but those who like an immersive experience that makes sense internally will likely find it jarring.





As I see it, if you need to refer to your rule-book everytime you want to do something cool out-of-combat, then you are doing something wrong.

Yet another fallacy. Just because i can do it, doesn't forgive the system for being shallow and lazy

Maybe *you* see a lot of "video game elements", but you're seeing them when they aren't there.

No, i'm pointing out a logical comparason, and your apperently in denial


"Video games in general" is such an enormous category you can compare anything to them.

Um, why not. I can easily compare something to a video game. It is like a video game in that it throw consistency aside in order to acomidate the PCs. This doesn't create a realistic or logical world, but instead one that is shallow and inconsistent (and also ruined our best setting, FR forever)

I feel it is shallow because it lacks the detail, depth, complexity ,and actual commitment it had in the past. Take the 2E DMG for example. There are a lot of actually very complex RPG issues taht are explained in detail. 3E does less of that, but it still does it.

the game isn't designed in a video game style, IE seeing how things best benefit the PCs. 4E isn't like that. you know when you play a video game, and it seems like the world exist just to benefit you. You know in assassin's creed how those hay stacks exist for the purpose of your jumps. Or the world of legend of zelda. It is just kinda existing to serve the player, and that takes away actual immersion. I mean, its fine for a video game, but a table top has no excuse for that, it isn't limit like that, it doesn't have that sort of


Look at the monsters. They are nothing more than a bunch of stat blocks indication they want to die. No actual fluff, no spirit. It is like the monster guide to WoW, hell, WoW has better fluff tahnt 4E, which is pretty sad considering. The WOW RPG is far better than 4E, which is actually kinda pathetic. But Blizzard has establisehd that while they are very capitalist, they certainly have a taste for quality


The game is flavorless, and only supports one style of play, IE the hack and slash sterotypical slaughter.

There are always people who claimed (White Wolf, i'm looking at you) taht D&d couldn't handle complexity and was nothing more than a hack and slash. This was totally unfustified, as all three editions could handle complexity quite well. 4E seems to take taht as a compliment and is trying to impliment itself as a single minded simply game as much as possible.


Why not? I think it's a pretty good comparison. Okay, replace "WoW" with "an MMO" there. Done.
Because the things i find bad about 4E aren't entirely unique to WoW or MMOs alone, but video game and board games in general.

PROTIP: you can't compare something to MMOs as a genre, because [i]the only thing all MMOs have in common is that they're Massively Multiplayer Online games. EVE is nothing like World of Warcraft.
If there is something that defines MMOs as a genre, it's grinding and repetitive, pre-written quests.



"Video games" as a whole are so broad a category comparing anything to them is meaningless.
But it looks like a fun game, let me try:
How about this, another niffty review


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!




D&D 3.5 is like a video game, because you control a character that overcomes challenges and faces enemies he has to defeat to accomplish his goals. Along the way, he collects power-ups (magic items) and gains new abilities, fighting progressively more difficult enemies. Also, the character is capable of taking a limited set of actions by the rules, and you imagine the rest (attacking is a mechanical action, just like hitting the attack button; breathing is just something you assume and talking is something you do without the ruls getting involved).

Thats just being moronic. Your missing the point, deliberately so, in a manner that is chillily like that of a progandist. your focusing on specifics, and while yes, those minor things are familar to 3E, taht your aren't proving anything. By comparing 4E to a video game, i'm pointing out that 4E, like a video game, is a one tracked adventure with only


tl;dr: Don't say "this is like X!", because it's pointless. If you have a problem with something, identify the problem.
Of course you can compare something, its done all the time in analize of litature, movies, shows ect. Why are RPGs except. The problem is it is shallow in the same way video games are shallow, except video game are excused because of flaws inherent in the design when table tops don't have such limiations



Saying "it's like Final Fantasy" is pointless. Saying "monsters exist only to be killed" isn't pointless. It is, however, wrong (only you seem to have this strange idea that just because monsters have combat statblocks, they don't do anything other than fighting. Monsters don't exist to be killed any more than they did in 3.5, which had RANDOM ENCOUNTER TABLES for heaven's sake).
Is evading the point without evidence going to be a habit, because if so this is going to be a long and dreary thread. Of course i can compare something to Final Fantasy. Like final fantasy, 4E has a world that exist simply to accommodate the players, an has a hatred of consistency and realism that seems almost pathological. LIke FF monsters only exist for the sole purpose of being killed. You claim of it not is ether lack of common sense, or moronic. There aren't any good monsters, they isn't an fluff at all, just a series of combat stats. LIke FF, the main characters and everybody else are operating under totally different and unequal rule standards. LIke FF, monsters don't have an perement threat level, like FF the world and the game revovles around the players to the point of absuritiy, like FF it has a huge focus on apperences and has little actual content underneath it My strange idea is simply noting that they only have combat state blocks. They are nothing more than combat state block, with fluff that is little more than "It is ugly, it exists, please kill it" and is essentially flavorless.


another review that isn't mine, since people seem not to trust my option on these things



Ok, so I'm reviewing the Monster Manual book more than the way the creatures work. They're just a bunch of worthless stat blocks, so they work just fine, but that's what they are: working stat blocks.

First, let me say that I don't like the artwork. In old monster manuals, there were a lot of monsters that you might fight just because you were at odds with them, or you might not even fight them at all. They could be allies. Take giants for example, the art was of some giant people that looked pretty cool, and some pre-made 3.5 campaigns included them as allies. But in this book, they look ridiculously evil. In fact, everything looks evil. It just looks like they filled the book with things to fight, not think about, which I think it less imaginative and therefore more boring. Even the treant is evil.


MORE IMPORTANTLY...There is no flavor.

Take the Shambling Mound.

In version three, it has Four Paragraphs of description. In version four it has 1 sentence. A single sentence. And then listen to the description of its ability.


This is a direct quote of version 4:

"The shambling mound makes two basic attacks. If both attacks hit the same Medium or smaller target, the shambling mound makes a secondary attack against the target. Secondary Attack: +12 vs. Fortitude; the target is pulled into the shambling mound's space and restrained (save ends). While the target is restrained, no creature has line of sight or line of effect to it. At the start of the shambling mound's turn each round, the enveloped target takes 10 damage and the shambling mound regains 10 hit points. The shambling mound can envelop up to 2 creatures at a time. When the target makes its save, it reappears in a square of its choice adjacent to the shambling mound."

It's so dull. It just gives you all the tactical information to play out the game. It's just rules without anything interesting or imaginative. Monsters have lost tons of cool abilities like swallow whole that require some really imaginative thinking. And Lycanthropes just give you a disease. I feel like 4th edition reduces everything to statistics. The game takes place on a board in stead of in your imagination.


I just can't believe that the Monster Manual took all the fun out of monsters. They all seem evil, and there's pretty much no description of them anymore. I just used to have so much fun learning about monsters and their abilities. It's just sort of sad to see them reduced to mere enemies as opposed to interested creatures with backstories and cool characteristics.

I suppose the book doesn't deserve a 1, but I miss the way things used to be. It's a perfectly acceptable book that does everything it needs to, but it doesn't delve further into things like before, and that's what I thought D&D was about./QUOTE]


[QUOTE]
Hey, did you know that Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is totally just like actually being in the army? Yeah, I mean, there are guns, trees, ground and stuff. Totally the same. Probally join later this year, as I need some better maps. "But like, I heard that IRL doesnt have respawn points. I mean, if I get lag out there, I'm like dead!"
Yeah, because its based upon it. Are you going to actually prove a point or simply rely on bad claims and comparisons, because taht is little more than propaganda



This is another example of 4E looking shallow but playing deep. 4E is all about tactical positioning for maximum advantage. Shifting foes around is one of the ways you gain an advantage over your enemies.

except yet again, taht is only in combat. 4E has combat, and nothing else. Like a board game or a video game.


I'm happy we are in agreement. Your post has nothing to with the OP's one, it's just a random attack versus 4e. If you don't like it, don't play it and don't comment on it, what's the problem?
Don't like don't play it, ok that is simply silly. I don't read shreeded Moose on a regular basis, does that mean i can't mock it for being bad. I don't play FATAL, does that mean i can't point out its massive flaws. If we go by your standards, then you shouldn't ever comment upon anything you don't like, just ignore it instead.



You do understand that nothing of that is an objective statement, and that is just your (and some other people's) opinion? Also, you are just stating things without justifying them, so... Trolling?
Hmmm, absurd inflamatory unbacked statements and you call him a troll? And hypocracy as well it seems

And as 4E is directly effecting D&D as a whole, then commenting on it makes perfect sense.


All the "good points" he made where his PoV, but where expressed as being objective truths, and were overall a denigration of 4e that had nothing to do with the original post. Is not that trolling? I'm not saying that he wants to cause flames or anything, but how many times has a discussion swayed to "4e vs 3.x" in this forum?

Posting against 4e in a thread about 4e is definitely not constructive, nice and polite.

Wow, that doesn't even make sense. Expressing your option about 4E when 4E is under discussion and it isn't contructive nor polite simply because his option is negative, and yet accusing him of being a troll by flaming him is polite? WFT kind of standard is that. Expressing a constructed backed option, even if you don't agree with it isn't trolling, trolling is trying to piss people off for its own sake


If it's about 4e itself, then yes.
Example: I open a thread asking why 4e has that many powers that relate to forced movement, and how could they be useful, tactical and fun to play with. Some guy jumps in and replies "well 4e sucks because is like MMOs".
Does that seems polite and constructive to you? Has it anything to do with the thread's subject?

As that didn't happen, i'm forced to call yet again, another BS




....I don't think you formed a single sentence that actually contributed to the conversation at hand.

My turn! Stop trolling, before we break out the acid flasks and alchemist's fire.

I don't think you've formed a single sentene that actually contributed to the conversation at hand. And i prove this because.........I say so. Not enough for you. Well let me do it again, IN CAPS. oh yeah, can't beat that:smallbiggrin:
from
EE

from
EE

[Covered In Bees]

This again? Monster HP doesn't matter unless they're fighting PCs.

EE, HP does not represent how tough a monster is. If it falls off a cliff offscreen, you do not roll to see if it survives. If two monsters fight offscreen, you don't roll out the fight.
HP is a mechanical absraction. It does not actually represent how physically tough something is.

They don't "go through life with only one hit point". The system doesn't simulate everyday life, and it never has.

D&D isn't simulationist. It never has been. It's a much better game for that.



In a real sword fight, I'd *love* to be able to have my opponent knocked on his ass regularly. It's a horrible position to be in (for the person on the ground)
Yeah, but if you can knock someone on their ass every six seconds, you should be able to kill them in the first six seconds. The idea of knocking someone down over and over during the course of a fight, as a routine tactic...

[EvilElitest]

This again? Monster HP doesn't matter unless they're fighting PCs.

Which is another shallow example of
1) World, not the game revolving around the PCs
2) shallow inconsistency
3) video game style play
And again, see above post


EE, HP does not represent how tough a monster is. If it falls off a cliff offscreen, you do not roll to see if it survives. If two monsters fight offscreen, you don't roll out the fight.
HP is a mechanical absraction. It does not actually represent how physically tough something is.
of course it does. HP means how much something can take. the PCs can take as much as their HP shows. If a monster only has 1 HP, then it is like a basic video game fodder monster, existing to die



They don't "go through life with only one hit point". The system doesn't simulate everyday life, and it never has.

however it is expected to be consistent rather than a shallow mass of mechanics


from
EE

[Covered In Bees]

Which is another shallow example of
1) World, not the game revolving around the PCs
2) shallow inconsistency
3) video game style play

It's really not. It's an example of the mechanics being used to play the game, not to simulate everything in the world.


of course it does. HP means how much something can take. the PCs can take as much as their HP shows. If a monster only has 1 HP, then it is like a basic video game fodder monster, existing to die
If a monster only has 1 HP, a PC will take it down in one or two rounds. That's all it means. It does not mean that it does of a scratch.
HP in 4E is EXPLICITLY not "how much punishment something can take". You are fixated on the idea that a monster's HP is relevant when it's not onscreen. You need to dispense with this idea, because it is not the case, and every time you judge 4E based on this erroneous assumption, you're coming to false conclusions that make it hard to take you seriously.



however it is expected to be consistent rather than a shallow mass of mechanics

from
EE
The system is consistent just fine. It's a task-resolution system for when the players are involved.

Do you seriously ROLL OUT the fights of your monsters offscreen, NPCs' bluff/diplomacy checks to each other, etc? When do you do this? WHY would you BOTHER?

[ArmorArmadillo]

of course it does. HP means how much something can take. the PCs can take as much as their HP shows. If a monster only has 1 HP, then it is like a basic video game fodder monster, existing to die.
Not necessarily.

If a fighter attacks twice, and hits a soldier orc and a minion orc, then that translates to the fighter dealing a grazing wound that hurts the soldier, such as a hard, blunt blow to armor or a deep cut to the arm, whereas the fighter dealt a critical blow to the minion, such as a sword through the heart or a slit neck.


I see stats not as a measure of health, I see it as a way to translate your actions into the context of the game.

It is video-gamy, if you want to see it that way, but HP has always been that way.

[EvilElitest]

It's really not. It's an example of the mechanics being used to play the game, not to simulate everything in the world.

I wasn't aware that repeating an empty argument that i just countered with no backing some how proves me wrong?


If a monster only has 1 HP, a PC will take it down in one or two rounds. That's all it means. It does not mean that it does of a scratch.
HP in 4E is EXPLICITLY not "how much punishment something can take". You are fixated on the idea that a monster's HP is relevant when it's not onscreen. You need to dispense with this idea, because it is not the case, and every time you judge 4E based on this erroneous assumption, you're coming to false conclusions that make it hard to take you seriously.


And this is still a shallow game play, a point i made you haven't countered. It still a video game style game with monsters existing to be killed. Your not adressing the issue, your evading the point

The system is consistent just fine. It's a task-resolution system for when the players are involved.

The system is inconsistent

in the words of a good friend of mine

Yeah, in some ways, I do believe things are dumbed down and "videogame-ized". I personally find the usage of powers, action points and healing surges to be completely arbitrary and stale, and using them makes me feel as if I'm getting some sort of "special treatment" for simply being a player-character. That's not what I'm into, and it's not how I feel I'm treated when I play 3.x. And, I certainly didn't feel like that with earlier editions either - considering it was a lot easier to die.

I don't like how the game encourages the presumption that players are supposed to be inherently better than 99% of all people - that's just not my style. As sloppy as 3E's attempt at NPC classes was (housecats can kill a commoner?), I still find it favorable. Their existence plays an influence in how the PCs and even the DM look at the world.

While I believe that lengthy monster descriptions are not an absolutely necessity for a game, I do think it was a poor idea to further cut details - because this also probably plays an influence in how everyone views the game. If every group of enemies is just "an encounter with a tidbit of extra info", the PCs just view it as another bunch of things to slaughter. I believe that letting everything rest in the hands of the DM with such little guidance means that they'll be less likely to think to develop monster descriptions beyond the "bare-bones" minimum. It just won't be a concern. What WILL be a concern is movement, abilities and damage - all of which are important. But, I wish they hadn't thought that these were the only things to develop.

I think 4E does a few things right - it's certainly a smooth system, and seems to have a few failsafes to keep DMs from making a lot of minor mistakes that newbies would with prior editions, but honestly, I think the method used to do this will be detrimental to the new DM's overall ability to deliver an entirely fulfilling game to anyone who has played an earlier edition, because the 4E books seem to place more emphasis in some areas, while ignoring others. The areas ignored by the books will be likely ignored by the readers - and if fewer issues are discussed, the DM will have fewer things on his or her mind.

It looks to me that the newest edition is a game for the young. I admit, there are some aspects I enjoy - but I still think it's still one of the cheesiest systems I've ever used. Good with beer and pretzels, and a light-hearted mood. And, while I'll never say that really advanced roleplayers will feel like they can't roleplay in 4E like they would with earlier editions, I do firmly believe that the next generation of D&Ders will be a bit stunted./QUOTE]




[QUOTE]
Do you seriously ROLL OUT the fights of your monsters offscreen, NPCs' bluff/diplomacy checks to each other, etc? When do you do this? WHY would you BOTHER?
When did i make that claim. Consistency means consistency rule and world basis. I'd do so if it some how mattered, i've never had a reason to do so, but that doesn't hinder consistency in a way.

Stop wasting time with empty words and actually adress the points
from
EE

[Helgraf]

And this is still a shallow game play, a point i made you haven't countered. It still a video game style game with monsters existing to be killed. You're not addressing the issue, you're evading the point.

Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and everyone thinks theirs doesn't stink.

[EvilElitest]

Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and everyone thinks theirs doesn't stink.

thank you, never thought of it that way
from
EE

[Deepblue706]

You will never get that many SWs a day: either you use the surges through healing spells/potions, or you can only heal once per encounter and are probably screwed.

Yes, once per encounter - but if you have four encounters a day, and need to heal during each (I have needed to), then it starts to stretch things. It's not uncommon for me, in games I've played, to pretty much use all my surges. Almost all are second winds, or surges between encounters (no leader to heal the party - not that I miss them, since I think both the Cleric and Warlord classes suck).



It's not like you have to use them. They are an effectively optional rule.


Well, in my opinion, this kind of rule should be about a paragraph long in the very back of the MM.



The potion increases your normal healing rate, at the cost of your stamina (surges). If you don't have enough left the potion fails, since your body is too strained. Actually, you could houserule that if you spend "negative" healing surges you get the HP back, but get exausted or faint.

I don't like that flavor at all. If it strains me to use a healing potion, I'm wondering why things like Haste don't kill all of my muscles. I'd like magic to be magic, where healing magic is effectively drinking water from the carpenter's cup from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I mean, how much would it suck if after Sean Connery got shot, that Indiana gave him the cup only to hear him say, "Ugh, alas junior - my body is too tired. Now, I die"? No - if this is supposed to be cinematic, a magical healing potion should work because it's freaking magic. I understand it as a balance issue - but it tears apart an aspect I like, because it appears totally arbitrary.

[Viruzzo]

@EE
You say "because I want to prove my point". Again, why should people who like 4e care that you don't? And why should you discourage those that still haven't decided or are ambiguous about it? Convincing people to dislike something they are not obligated to use, but may benefit them if they do, what purpose it serves?
Is your point "you should use 3.x because it's better because of this, this and that"?


Yes, once per encounter - but if you have four encounters a day, and need to heal during each (I have needed to), then it starts to stretch things. It's not uncommon for me, in games I've played, to pretty much use all my surges.
Ok, but is having you drink a lot of potions or a cleric continually cast Cure X Wounds better? And SW is definitely more cinematic, referring to your comment below.


Well, in my opinion, this kind of rule should be about a paragraph long in the very back of the MM.
Why? Do you have a problem with the placement of the rule? It can be ignored without problems, some people like it, I can't see any way it could be a bad rule.


I understand it as a balance issue - but it tears apart an aspect I like, because it appears totally arbitrary.
Well there a lot of things in D&D that look stretched if you try to find a realistic explanation for them, and HP are first among these (and saying "it's magic" means nothing, it can be "magic that can be uses X times per day top" then, just as "realistic"). But all in all we come to a basic problem: 4e abstracts HP and healing more than previous editions, for the sake of balance. If you can come over it, it's a good thing, but not everybody wants to.

[nagora]

If a monster only has 1 HP, a PC will take it down in one or two rounds. That's all it means. It does not mean that it does of a scratch.
So, when does it die?


HP in 4E is EXPLICITLY not "how much punishment something can take".
Well, it's been like that since OD&D, so nothing's changed there, however:

You are fixated on the idea that a monster's HP is relevant when it's not onscreen.
Well...ish. If I tell the players that a lion took down that Brachiosaur "off screen" then I'm going to be pushing the envelope as regards suspension of disbelief.


The system is consistent just fine. It's a task-resolution system for when the players are involved.
Yes, but that system sets the bar for what the players expect of the world around them. I agree that it's daft to run off-screen combats in detail, but the players have - or should have - an idea of what are the likely oucomes of such fights. They should not be arbitrary. Once you have non-player combat decided by what the DM wants as opposed to what makes sense, you're well on your way to story-telling and leaving the city limits of Roleplayopolis behind you.

Another issue is when NPCs are closely associated with PCs - spouses, parents, teachers, henchmen. When such characters are involved in "off-screen" action, then it may well be important for fairness to actually play the action out with or without the associated player.

[Winterwind]

Since my last post was ignored, I'll try asking this again.

Why do you deem a disparity in the treatment of PCs and (different types of) NPCs as videogamish? I'd argue this is, in fact, following the example of books (and other media for telling stories), not videogames, and hence another step away from mechanisms for raw tactical gaming which incidentally also support roleplaying towards mechanisms which actively support telling a story. It's books and other stories where the entire action focusses on the very special protagonist characters. They are not the focal point of the world, but very much so of the story itself. Since player characters are the protagonists of the story the entire group is trying to weave together, it seems reasonable that the rules for them would be the most complex, and scale down the less important to the story the character is, ending with the redshirts, stormtroopers and Tolkien orcs who are just faces in the crowd, which is why it's no longer of great importance to the players and gamemaster whether they live or die. The hit points or lack thereof could be taken as narrative character shield; the reason Kirk lives and Red Shirt Ensign X dies is that Kirk has hit points, Ensign X does not.

Same goes for non-combat - the more important a character is to the story, the more rules (s)he requires, and vice versa. Massive rules for characters not crucial to the story are unnecessary ballast, for they will, by definition, not come into play.

And the gamemaster deciding what happens with "off-screen" NPCs doesn't seem like a break of consistency to me, but merely a matter of sanity - I doubt the players will derive much fun from watching the gamemaster roll three dozen checks to see what happens without any input of their own. It's a pointless exercise in tediousness, breaking the flow and atmosphere of the story. To say omitting this step for the gamemaster's judgement (which will, unless the gamemaster is a fool, yield results quite similar to those the dice would have brought up anyway) is leaving Roleplayopolis is, frankly, mystifying to me - there is no playing a role involved in dice rolls, much less so ones where the players are not involved in the least.

Rules that actively support storytelling tropes? That's a rare and valuable thing, I dare say.

[nagora]

Since player characters are the protagonists of the story the entire group is trying to weave together
I agree with almost everything you said, but I totally disagree with this assumption. Our group is not trying to weave a story together at all. I would not bother playing in such a group as such play is a waste of my time, given that I can write my own stories. I am there to play my character; the story is what we tell in retrospect and it is absolutely not an objective in itself, even a minor one.

I do agree that there is little sense in having the same level of detail for every living thing in the game world as one has for the PCs and major NPCs. That's one reason why 1e had a clear distinction between leveled characters and non-leveled characters. The blacksmith might be a great guy and he might be a fantastic blacksmith, but the DM can decide either points without giving him levels in a blacksmith class or calculating how many xp as a blacksmith he has accumulated. Likewise the redshirt town guards and so forth. A DM has a limited capacity for detail; don't waste it on things that aren't important.

In a lot of ways, the rules serve to limit the PCs in ways that the NPCs are not so limited; this is a large part of the "game" element in D&D. A core concept in D&D from the start was that PCs start low and gain in abilities (if they survive). NPCs are assigned abilities by DM fiat.


To say omitting this step for the gamemaster's judgement (which will, unless the gamemaster is a fool, yield results quite similar to those the dice would have brought up anyway) is leaving Roleplayopolis
If you read my other post carefully, you'll find that my point was that there is a problem when the DM's fiat flies in the face of what would be expected by playing the situation out - in other words, I agree with you that a DM is a fool if s/he uses "off-screen" as an excuse to produce arbitrary events which make no sense.

Rules that actively support storytelling tropes? That's a rare and valuable thing, I dare say.
Again, IMO such rules should be excised from any role-playing game. You want story-telling? Go read a book.

[Jade_Tarem]

Again, IMO such rules should be excised from any role-playing game. You want story-telling? Go read a book.

"I'll never play Tomb Raider! I'll run from you to the farthest corners of the earth! I'll hide in secret caves and mysterious, ancient underground lairs riddled with puzzles and traps!" - Jason Fox, Foxtrot

"In short, you'll play Tomb Raider. Try not to trip on the hair."
- Imaginary Lara Croft, in response

Does your campaign have:

A setting?
A plot?
Conflict central to said plot?
More-than-one dimensional major Characters?
Minor characters?
Any kind of conflict resolution?
A climax of any sort, ever?

If your answer to most of these (be honest, now) was "yes," then congratulations, you're storytelling! Yes, even if you're just a player. I think you're confusing "storytelling" of a DnD sort with a bunch of hippies sitting around a campfire singing some ballad version of Kum-bi-yah. If your answer to most of the above is "No" then you need to switch to a real wargame, because you're not getting your money's worth out of DnD.

[Matthew]

If your answer to most of these (be honest, now) was "yes," then congratulations, you're storytelling! Yes, even if you're just a player. I think you're confusing "storytelling" of a DnD sort with a bunch of hippies sitting around a campfire singing some ballad version of Kum-bi-yah. If your answer to most of the above is "No" then you need to switch to a real wargame, because you're not getting your money's worth out of DnD.
It's the different definition game again. :smallwink: When Nagora refers to "storytelling" he's probably using the definition common to out of print Dungeons & Dragons folks that refers to the Dragonlance Modules, where the story being told by the Game Master takes precedence over the game [i.e. the GM will fudge the game results and railroad the players], whereas you're using a much broader sense of storytelling.

[Winterwind]

I agree with almost everything you said, but I totally disagree with this assumption. Our group is not trying to weave a story together at all. I would not bother playing in such a group as such play is a waste of my time, given that I can write my own stories. I am there to play my character; the story is what we tell in retrospect and it is absolutely not an objective in itself, even a minor one.Fair enough; this seems to be either a difference in taste or (probably) even only perspective. While each of the players is there to play their respective characters, through their interaction with the gamemaster and each other a story is woven, and if this story does not end up interesting, thrilling or enticing enough, the whole group is not having nearly as much fun as it could have. Playing a character is nice and all, but if there is no backdrop, nothing exciting to happen, no accomplishment or explicit lack thereof for the characters to grow and change upon, we might as well get on with our everyday lives. And as gamemaster, I view it as my duty to make sure the story does end up as good as possible, and provide a foundation on which, through mutual interaction, the players and me can create the story together - automatically, as a by-product of the players playing their characters, not necessarily by them being aware that what they do is actually craft a story by being their protagonists.

Which doesn't change the fact that they are. There would be no point in crafting a story where the PCs are merely bystanders; while there may be many plots that evolve in the background, way out of the PCs' sphere of influence, those serve merely as that - background to the story we actually do focus upon, the one wherein the final result is fully in the PCs' hands.


I do agree that there is little sense in having the same level of detail for every living thing in the game world as one has for the PCs and major NPCs. That's one reason why 1e had a clear distinction between leveled characters and non-leveled characters. The blacksmith might be a great guy and he might be a fantastic blacksmith, but the DM can decide either points without giving him levels in a blacksmith class or calculating how many xp as a blacksmith he has accumulated. Likewise the redshirt town guards and so forth. A DM has a limited capacity for detail; don't waste it on things that aren't important.

In a lot of ways, the rules serve to limit the PCs in ways that the NPCs are not so limited; this is a large part of the "game" element in D&D. A core concept in D&D from the start was that PCs start low and gain in abilities (if they survive). NPCs are assigned abilities by DM fiat.What is the difference, though, between varying the level of details in other games according to NPC importance, and what 4e apparently does with its PC/NPC disparity? (I am asking out of genuine curiosity - I haven't read 4e, so I do not know what (if so) it did differently)


If you read my other post carefully, you'll find that my point was that there is a problem when the DM's fiat flies in the face of what would be expected by playing the situation out - in other words, I agree with you that a DM is a fool if s/he uses "off-screen" as an excuse to produce arbitrary events which make no sense.Oh, I see. Misunderstanding on my part, then. My apologies. :smallredface:


Again, IMO such rules should be excised from any role-playing game. You want story-telling? Go read a book.When writing a book, I am the only contributing. Neither do I get unpredictable actions from the story's protagonists as I do from the players when I am the gamemaster, nor do I get to immerse in only a single character's perspective and experience the plot with the same kind of lack of a priori understanding and excitement as I do when I am a player.
I could set up an arrangement with a few friends that we write a book together, with each of us only stating what (s)he thinks one particular character should say or do, and one selected person from our midst arbitrating the whole thing and providing the whole rest of the characters and plot. This, however, would be utterly undistinguishable from freeform roleplaying; add some mechanics to introduce an element of randomness that arbitrates what happens next every now and then instead of the one selected "writer", and we have exactly replicated what tabletop roleplaying games are (okay, plus an additional element of writing down everything we say and do).

Either way, even if you do not concentrate on creating a story as good as possible, by playing your character and interacting with the other PCs and the DM, you do create a story. I'd argue that the more fun will be had the better said story is; ergo I consider the existance of storytelling enhancing rules to be something positive, especially since I don't see yet how their existance could possibly hurt you even if you do not care about the story per se.


If your answer to most of these (be honest, now) was "yes," then congratulations, you're storytelling! Yes, even if you're just a player. I think you're confusing "storytelling" of a DnD sort with a bunch of hippies sitting around a campfire singing some ballad version of Kum-bi-yah. If your answer to most of the above is "No" then you need to switch to a real wargame, because you're not getting your money's worth out of DnD.Thank you for expressing what I was trying to with my overly wordy posts in a much more elegant way. :smallsmile:


It's the different definition game again. :smallwink: When Nagora refers to "storytelling" he's probably using the definition common to out of print Dungeons & Dragons folks that refers to the Dragonlance Modules, where the story being told by the Game Master takes precedence over the game [i.e. the GM will fudge the game results and railroad the players], whereas you're using a much broader sense of storytelling.If this is correct, I should clarify that I am running under Jade_Tarem's definition of storytelling as well.

[nagora]

Does your campaign have:
A setting?
Yes

A plot?
No. It has NPCs who are doing things. Some are in opposition to the PCs' goals, some are in tune and some are merely people that they may cross paths with, with undefined results. There is no campaign-wide plot that I will force on the players. Generally, it's the PCs who force events on me (ie, on the world).


Conflict central to said plot?
Some NPCs are in conflict with others but there's no main plot to be central to.


More-than-one dimensional major Characters?
Minor characters?
Any kind of conflict resolution?
Yes, yes, and yes.

A climax of any sort, ever?
Depends on what you mean. The campaign never ends but the players generally manage to cause major events once they are into double figures level-wise. Sometimes a scenario has the possibility of growing into something that will impact the world, but even then life goes on afterwards.

From all this, a story does emerge - sometimes a very dull one, sometimes a very funny one, and sometimes a tragic one, but the vital point for me is that the story emerges from the play, not the other way around.

[Jade_Tarem]

No. It has NPCs who are doing things. Some are in opposition to the PCs' goals, some are in tune and some are merely people that they may cross paths with, with undefined results. There is no campaign-wide plot that I will force on the players. Generally, it's the PCs who force events on me (ie, on the world).

That thar's a plot. Even if it's enacted by PCs. The NPCs who are doing things contray to/in cohesion with/unrelated to the goals of the players are generating conflict, advancing the plot, and enhancing the setting respectively.


Some NPCs are in conflict with others but there's no main plot to be central to.

There is, although there may be more than one. If the exploits of your party receive more attention than the trials and tribulations of the Blacksmith NPC John Noonecares, a peasant living half a world away, then that's the central plot.


Depends on what you mean. The campaign never ends but the players generally manage to cause major events once they are into double figures level-wise. Sometimes a scenario has the possibility of growing into something that will impact the world, but even then life goes on afterwards.

That thar's a climax (although not all climaxes are major events), assuming said major events do not last ad infinitum. Very rarely does a climax end life as we know it.


From all this, a story does emerge - sometimes a very dull one, sometimes a very funny one, and sometimes a tragic one, but the vital point for me is that the story emerges from the play, not the other way around.

Very much a chicken and egg scenario. Without the beginning elements of a story there is no gameplay, unless the first words of the campaign are "roll for initiative."

[batsofchaos]

I'm still at a loss for why folks think there's a disparity of consistency that's "built in" to the system between PCs/NPCs. Can someone give concrete examples, please? As far as I can tell the whole point of it is to be able to make an NPC 10th level fighter without having to actually make a 10th level fighter, which can be very time-consuming.

Instead of taking the hour to stat out a full 10th-level character (something that always took me as a DM a long time in 3.5 and tended to dominate my planning stage for games), you follow the guide, spend ten minutes, and come up with stats that work pretty much like a Fighter 10. It can hit about as well, soak about as well, and has enough powers/healing surges to pretty much play just like a fighter for one encounter a day. And why should you bother detailing anything else? If the characters are statted, then that means you're probably going to use them in a fight. A fight. At the end, they'll either be dead, incapacitated, moved on to other things, or are a major character that you probably should have fully-statted, anyway.

I'd imagine going through the effort to fully stat the campaigns Big Bad Evil Guy, any DMPCs, or other major players, and guess what? The DMG explicitly states that you may want to do this, and that it's absolutely within the rules to do so.

What exactly makes this a consistency breaker for people? To me, it all just sounds like a way for DMs to save planning time, and I have absolutely zero problem with that.

[Deepblue706]

Ok, but is having you drink a lot of potions or a cleric continually cast Cure X Wounds better? And SW is definitely more cinematic, referring to your comment below.

Is it better? No - I think both should be present, but they shouldn't directly limit the usage of one-another.

SW is a good idea - it's just that with too much use, it's no longer fun (for me).



Why? Do you have a problem with the placement of the rule? It can be ignored without problems, some people like it, I can't see any way it could be a bad rule.

Well, if it were a bad rule, I would say it shouldn't be in the book. I just think this sort of thing should be encouraged as a variant, rather than presumed as normal-but-alright-to-take-out. It suits a very specific playstyle - and I think the more specific you get, the less often it should be thrust upon players. Personally, I think healing surges should have been fitted as an optional rule, but the entire game seems balanced around their regular usage.



Well there a lot of things in D&D that look stretched if you try to find a realistic explanation for them, and HP are first among these (and saying "it's magic" means nothing, it can be "magic that can be uses X times per day top" then, just as "realistic"). But all in all we come to a basic problem: 4e abstracts HP and healing more than previous editions, for the sake of balance. If you can come over it, it's a good thing, but not everybody wants to.

Abstracted HP can be okay. But, to effectively be able to dust almost anything off, just after the fight and 5 minutes of rest, stretches just how much belief I had in my character ever actually being hit. While it may be unlikely that a party will face just one big monster and call it a day (and then just immediately heal), it can still happen in a session.

I guess that Ogre wasn't so tough - the fighter of the party doesn't need any medical attention at all!

Healing magic was the advanced medical attention, and if your party failed to have it, there was a heal skill. You used bandages, had the poor chum sleep for a week, and that was it - and I actually liked it that way. Personally, I think Healing Surges, in general, should be reserved for characters with very high CON scores, only (as far as healing while you rest and using SW go, anyway).

And I disagree with your comment, ""it's magic" means nothing", because I think magic should be something, say, pretty damn sweet. I already dislike "X spells per day", but I would tend to ignore it because I figured, "hey, it's magic, I don't understand it - I just know it's hella awesome". Now, magic is no longer "hella awesome", because if you've used your healing surges, magic just, uh, stops healing you. I personally think magic has been cheapened, and that's not cool in my book. I'd actually be happier if you could only heal half-as-much through magic, but didn't have your subjects limited to certain amounts of treatment.

[Jack Zander]

I'm still at a loss for why folks think there's a disparity of consistency that's "built in" to the system between PCs/NPCs. Can someone give concrete examples, please? As far as I can tell the whole point of it is to be able to make an NPC 10th level fighter without having to actually make a 10th level fighter, which can be very time-consuming.

Instead of taking the hour to stat out a full 10th-level character (something that always took me as a DM a long time in 3.5 and tended to dominate my planning stage for games), you follow the guide, spend ten minutes, and come up with stats that work pretty much like a Fighter 10. It can hit about as well, soak about as well, and has enough powers/healing surges to pretty much play just like a fighter for one encounter a day. And why should you bother detailing anything else? If the characters are statted, then that means you're probably going to use them in a fight. A fight. At the end, they'll either be dead, incapacitated, moved on to other things, or are a major character that you probably should have fully-statted, anyway.

I'd imagine going through the effort to fully stat the campaigns Big Bad Evil Guy, any DMPCs, or other major players, and guess what? The DMG explicitly states that you may want to do this, and that it's absolutely within the rules to do so.

What exactly makes this a consistency breaker for people? To me, it all just sounds like a way for DMs to save planning time, and I have absolutely zero problem with that.

My major beef with it is that while the players may never know the difference between a goblin wizard, and a goblin with the mage template slapped on him, I will. It will break my believability of my own game world, and a campaign is already hard enough to run and make things consistent when I am immersed in it.

[batsofchaos]

Again, if for whatever reason a DM wants to stat out an NPC all the way, the rules specifically state that you may do so, so I don't see the problem. If you want to use the rules to save time, go nuts. If not, you don't have to.

[Jack Zander]

Again, if for whatever reason a DM wants to stat out an NPC all the way, the rules specifically state that you may do so, so I don't see the problem. If you want to use the rules to save time, go nuts. If not, you don't have to.

So I either have to make up NPCs really quick with "fake" rules if I want to save time, or I can take the time to fully stat things.

No thank you. I rather play a system that gives you lots of options and is quick to build a character with.

[batsofchaos]

Why is fully statting in 4e so much more time-consuming than statting in 3.5? The time's about the same. So in other words you can:

1) Do pretty much the same thing you were doing in 3.5.

2) Fake it fairly well in much less time.

In other words, the stat generation time for NPCs is as good or better than 4e, not "worse"

[SpikeFightwicky]

So I either have to make up NPCs really quick with "fake" rules if I want to save time, or I can take the time to fully stat things.

No thank you. I rather play a system that gives you lots of options and is quick to build a character with.

Are we still talking about 3.5 for that last part, or a different game system? I haven't statted any NPCs in 4th ed., but I know it's a chore for 3.5. And despite all the options, I'm almost forced to pick from a very limited selection to have an NPC that's not gimped and it's rarely a quick process, even if I know what I want to make. I can't see it taking much more time to create one in 4th ed.

In fact, I typically only stat up stuff that by default, the PCs will end up fighting (though they still don't always end up fighting them... curse those crafty PCs!). If an enounter happens with an NPC I didn't expect it to, I just crunch the numbers in my head real quick (this guy's a level 10 warrior with 14 str, so he has +14/+9 to attack due to his masterwork sword and weapon focus feat. He has 12 Con, so that's an average of 65 HP thanks to his improved toughness feat). Any additional background information required I'll make up on the spot.

[batsofchaos]

Are we still talking about 3.5 for that last part, or a different game system? I haven't statted any NPCs in 4th ed., but I know it's a chore for 3.5. And despite all the options, I'm almost forced to pick from a very limited selection to have an NPC that's not gimped and it's rarely a quick process, even if I know what I want to make. I can't see it taking much more time to create one in 4th ed.

Exactly, that time-consumption is what I was speaking to, both for 3.5 and for fully-statting in 4e.

[AKA_Bait]

Again, if for whatever reason a DM wants to stat out an NPC all the way, the rules specifically state that you may do so, so I don't see the problem. If you want to use the rules to save time, go nuts. If not, you don't have to.

This is not actually true. You are not supposed to, ever, fully stat out an NPC as a PC character. For NPCs where you want to stat them out to a large extent (rather than just slapping the PC class template on something), there are rules for doing so (which are not identical to the PC creation rules and are only 'in PC fashion' in terms of detail) and can be found on page 187 and 188 of the 4e DMG. Certianly, you can stat out an NPC as a PC, but it is not encouraged by the rules.

[EvilElitest]

@EE
You say "because I want to prove my point". Again, why should people who like 4e care that you don't? And why should you discourage those that still haven't decided or are ambiguous about it? Convincing people to dislike something they are not obligated to use, but may benefit them if they do, what purpose it serves?
Is your point "you should use 3.x because it's better because of this, this and that"?

Because my point is taht 4E fails as a new edition to D&D. You can chose to bury your head in the sand and go "I'm not listening, nah nah nah, troling" but that doesn't make it so. If i run across Eugenicists, even if i'm not going to convince them that isn't going to stop them from believing what they want to believe, that won't stop my from pointing out the massive flaws in their arguments.

For that matter, if your not going to respond to arguments, you refuse to even regonize other arguments, and ignore statements, why are you here? You aren't doing anything other than making me repeat myself, without adressing what i actually have to say


Ok, but is having you drink a lot of potions or a cleric continually cast Cure X Wounds better? And SW is definitely more cinematic, referring to your comment below.

1) D&D is not a story telling game, and so consistency comes before cinematic ideals
2) and potions/spells make sense. You don't heal on your own, you are using an item or spell to do it. With the absurd SW, which are based upon the "Per encounter" rather than per day, or per amount, it is basically going "well i'm massivily bleeding, oh wait, ok i'm good now" It is very video game like, because it is the world, not teh game revolving around the PCs. Think about it, if people could heal themselves like that, then the entire world wouldn't function in the way. Its like how in Final Fantasy no body uses downs Phinox




Why do you deem a disparity in the treatment of PCs and (different types of) NPCs as videogamish? I'd argue this is, in fact, following the example of books (and other media for telling stories), not videogames, and hence another step away from mechanisms for raw tactical gaming which incidentally also support roleplaying towards mechanisms which actively support telling a story.

Here is the two main problems

1) D&D is not a storytelling game. It has never been a story telling game. It is a game where the fluff and the mechanics are firmly with each other. If that wasn't the case, then there would be no need to change from 2E to 3E and 3E to 4E. They would have been fine as they were. The game has always been focused upon mechanics and fluff mixing, unlike say Exalted of WoD, where the main focus is about storytelling and drama
2) The other thing is 4E is, by D&D standards, the farthest you can get from Storytelling. It is streamlined, and shallow in terms of fluff, story line, and back ground, it is all about a hack and slash style of game, it has the assumption that Players can't handle complexity. It isn't like Exalted, which is in fact very complicated and in depth, or the realistic gritty WoD, Legend of the Five rings or even bloody Warcraft RPG. Those are games that have both consistency and storytelling status. 4E is simply a game set for Gauntlet.
3) the thing is, this leads to the World, not the game revolving around RPGs. The thing is, you can't compare D&D to novels per say, because in a novel, the writer has total control of the world. That isn't the case in the games, it is far more fluid. The World is suppose to be more like the real world, in terms of the players trying to find their own place in it (hopefully eventually becoming major figures). The game should focus on the PCs of course, but hte world should only treat them as they warrant from their actions. 4E is like a video game because it revolves around the players, in the same way a JRPG does, or bloody Legend of Zelda


It's books and other stories where the entire action focusses on the very special protagonist characters. They are not the focal point of the world, but very much so of the story itself. Since player characters are the protagonists of the story the entire group is trying to weave together, it seems reasonable that the rules for them would be the most complex, and scale down the less important to the story the character is, ending with the redshirts, stormtroopers and Tolkien orcs who are just faces in the crowd, which is why it's no longer of great importance to the players and gamemaster whether they live or die. The hit points or lack thereof could be taken as narrative character shield; the reason Kirk lives and Red Shirt Ensign X dies is that Kirk has hit points, Ensign X does not.

1) Actually, Tolkien used a rather realistic books, his orcs didn't die because they were red shirts, they did because the simply didn't do very well in fights. That has nothing to do with NPC/PC relations. Also, its a book, not a game, so bad medium comparason
2) But hte more important part of this is, D&D is not designed to run as an interactive story. It is designed to run as your players, wandering around the world, doing what ever. They can chose to be part of an interactive story, but they don't have to
3) and most importantly, the system has not explanation for the PCs being so uber. It doesn't make sense from an in game perspective. Exalted out right stats that hte PCs and those like them are in fact Demi gods. There is a reason for it. LoFR makes it lcear that the PCs are good because they are the noblilty and have higher training. 4E and D&D as a whole doesn't do that



Same goes for non-combat - the more important a character is to the story, the more rules (s)he requires, and vice versa. Massive rules for characters not crucial to the story are unnecessary ballast, for they will, by definition, not come into play.
1) A story that focuses entirely on plot armor has major problems, compare Song of Fire and Ice to Eragon
2) and the game isn't made as story, it is made for interacting between mechanics and fluff. FR is a wonderful example of this


And the gamemaster deciding what happens with "off-screen" NPCs doesn't seem like a break of consistency to me, but merely a matter of sanity - I doubt the players will derive much fun from watching the gamemaster roll three dozen checks to see what happens without any input of their own. It's a pointless exercise in tediousness, breaking the flow and atmosphere of the story. To say omitting this step for the gamemaster's judgement (which will, unless the gamemaster is a fool, yield results quite similar to those the dice would have brought up anyway) is leaving Roleplayopolis is, frankly, mystifying to me - there is no playing a role involved in dice rolls, much less so ones where the players are not involved in the least.

Just handle it logically, you know, like in FR and Ghost walk


Rules that actively support storytelling tropes? That's a rare and valuable thing, I dare say.
4E is shallow in terms of story . It has no support for stories because it has no support for complexity.

Now remember, in 3E, flawed as it was, we had NPC classes. IE, a local militia or black smith, had an NPC class. So the PCs are like the elite guard, the knights, the tops, but they aren't unique, they aren't the chosen ones like they are in 4E

from
EE

from
EE

[batsofchaos]

This is not actually true. You are not supposed to, ever, fully stat out an NPC as a PC character. For NPCs where you want to stat them out to a large extent (rather than just slapping the PC class template on something), there are rules for doing so (which are not identical to the PC creation rules and are only 'in PC fashion' in terms of detail) and can be found on page 187 and 188 of the 4e DMG. Certianly, you can stat out an NPC as a PC, but it is not encouraged by the rules.



In the rare case where you want to build a campaign long villain, then it might serve for you to fully stat out the NPC in PC fashion, but this should be the exception— the rare exception.


This sounds pretty clear-cut to me that it's okay to stat as a PC. It's certainly not encouraging you to do it; the game designers think it's more important to save time than to have "full stats." Still says you can, so by RAW you can go nuts and fully-stat.

[EvilElitest]

Exactly, that time-consumption is what I was speaking to, both for 3.5 and for fully-statting in 4e.

not for 3E, you just give them a PC class instead of a non PC class
from
EE

[SpikeFightwicky]

As an aside, I think the main reason why base NPCs and Monsters are treated differently in 4th ed. compared to PCs, rules wise is explained thusly:

One thing that often came up in my 3.5 games is how unfair it seems that an NPC wizard will typically alpha strike his spells in one encounter, whereas the PC wizard will have to be a little miserly with his spell casting, since he's typiaclly expected to anticipate more encounters during the day (and so on with any other NPC with X/day, X/week abilities or spells). Same with monsters and X/day/week abilities. For the NPCs, it makes a whole lot of sense to burn through their best abilities. Now, you can assume that an NPC wizard may have cast some of his repertoire during the day before meeting the PCs, but this only makes sense for a random encounter, and even so, it should affect the CR of the enemy.

Then we have 4th ed. With fully statted NPCs in PC classes, the party would be sucking down daily powers as the NPCs used them with abandon. The PCs may not even have any dailies left during the encounter. By using similar but different rules, NPCs have lost the ability to alpha strike their best powers as devastatingly as possible. Any powers that fall into this category are instead given recharge dice, so that they'll be used sparingly, but don't need the same care daily level powers would need in the hands of a NPC.

That's how I see it, in any case.

[EvilElitest]

As an aside, I think the main reason why base NPCs and Monsters are treated differently in 4th ed. compared to PCs, rules wise:

One thing that often came up in my 3.5 games is how unfair it seems that an NPC wizard will typically alpha strike his spells in one encounter, whereas the PC wizard will have to be a little miserly with his spell casting, since he's typiaclly expected to anticipate more encounters during the day (and so on with any other NPC with X/day, X/week abilities or spells). Same with monsters and X/day/week abilities. For the NPCs, it makes a whole lot of sense to burn through their best abilities. Now, you can assume that an NPC wizard may have cast some of his repertoire during the day before meeting the PCs, but this only makes sense for a random encounter, and even so, it should affect the CR of the enemy.

Then we have 4th ed. With fully statted NPCs in PC classes, the party would be sucking down daily powers as the NPCs used them with abandon. The PCs may not even have any dailies left during the encounter. By using similar but different rules, NPCs have lost the ability to alpha strike their best powers as devastatingly as possible. Any powers that fall into this category are instead given recharge dice, so that they'll be used sparingly, but don't need the same care daily level powers would need in the hands of a NPC.

That's how I see it, in any case.

Which is quite frankly, a meta game video game idea of looking at it, with no regards to consistency and world design
from
EE

[batsofchaos]

not for 3E, you just give them a PC class instead of a non PC class
from
EE

Which takes forever to do, whether PC class or NPC class.

[Jade_Tarem]

This is not actually true. You are not supposed to, ever, fully stat out an NPC as a PC character. For NPCs where you want to stat them out to a large extent (rather than just slapping the PC class template on something), there are rules for doing so (which are not identical to the PC creation rules and are only 'in PC fashion' in terms of detail) and can be found on page 187 and 188 of the 4e DMG. Certianly, you can stat out an NPC as a PC, but it is not encouraged by the rules.

Ehhhh.... 3.5 encouraged the use and distribution of candles of invocation, and look how that turned out. Oh, and 3.5 tried to hammer the largely superficial link between dragons and sorcerers into our very souls. DMs have been spitting in the faces of the occasional stupid rule for a long time now. I actually thought some of the NPC shorthand creation stuff was one of the better aspects of 4e. Most of my problems are with the way the PCs interact.

[ArmorArmadillo]

4E is shallow in terms of story . It has no support for stories because it has no support for complexity.

Now remember, in 3E, flawed as it was, we had NPC classes. IE, a local militia or black smith, had an NPC class. So the PCs are like the elite guard, the knights, the tops, but they aren't unique, they aren't the chosen ones like they are in 4E

from
EE

from
EE

NPC classes were a bad idea. The idea that everyone in the entire world has to have a set of stats that determines what they can do hurts storytelling.

If a DM wants the village blacksmith to forge a sword for the players so they can slay the dragon, saying that he can only do this based on his personal Craft check results unduly hampers the actual story.


The PCs are always going to be the chosen ones. They are the players, they are the ones who need versatility and who need to last through 20 levels of play. The idea that you're creating a large world that could go just fine with or without PC involvement has always violated the essential tenets of storytelling: the idea that something is at stake.


Moreover, players are by no means the only special people in the world. There are still powerful knights and evil mages, they just don't use the same stat system as PCs.


Also, demanding that PCs and NPCs use the same inherent design system is just flawed design. Anyone who's statted and played an NPC wizard against a party knows how meaningless it is to have a bunch of first level spells when you're going to be casting your high level spells for 4 rounds and then die or retreat. Monsters and NPCs are inundated with redundant features and forced to constantly be given "bonus" feats just so they can fit a concept without having to add more hit die.


Finally, it isn't as though a hit die/class system has some inherent realism to it. People don't have "levels" in life, it's just an abstraction of general skill.
The idea that the system isn't real unless everyone has the same abstraction applied even when it's not relevant or helpful is flawed.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Which is quite frankly, a meta game video game idea of looking at it, with no regards to consistency and world design
from
EE

How so? If by meta game video game idea you mean that they wanted to find a balance between PCs as PCs and NPCs as PCs, then I think most games out there (except maybe GURPS?) strive for the same effect. Mutants and Masterminds is possibly the most balanced out of them, and by your statement is the most videogame-like of them all. And in City of Heroes, 'minions' are typically weaker at the same level as the player, so is City of Heroes a rare example of a non-videogame-like videogame?

Do you have any examples of how this effects world design? I can make a king in 3.5 and I can make a king in 4.0. I can make a war involving battlemages and huge monsters in 3.5 and I can do the same in 4.0. In fact, I don't recall any crunch at all making its way into Rich's "The World" section of the Gaming part of the website.

[Eorran]

not for 3E, you just give them a PC class instead of a non PC class
from
EE

Just to clarify... are you suggesting that ALL the people the PCs interact with should have a complete set of stats?

[nagora]

That thar's a plot. Even if it's enacted by PCs. The NPCs who are doing things contray to/in cohesion with/unrelated to the goals of the players are generating conflict, advancing the plot, and enhancing the setting respectively.
You asked if my campaigns have "A plot". They don't. My NPCs have plots/goals, which are constantly adapting to fit what chaos the PCs have unleased this week.


There is, although there may be more than one. If the exploits of your party receive more attention than the trials and tribulations of the Blacksmith NPC John Noonecares, a peasant living half a world away, then that's the central plot.
There's a difference between "action" and "plot", I feel. The exploits of the PCs do receive more attention than the blacksmith, but those exploits are largely of their own design. In fact, I think it's vital to roleplaying that the PCs are free of plotting; it's sort of the core idea that some characters are not harnessed to some overall plot.


That thar's a climax (although not all climaxes are major events), assuming said major events do not last ad infinitum. Very rarely does a climax end life as we know it.
Now you're just talking dirty:smallredface:


Very much a chicken and egg scenario. Without the beginning elements of a story there is no gameplay, unless the first words of the campaign are "roll for initiative."
My preferred first words are "That's your character sheet, and this is where you are. What do you want to do?"

Again, what follows after that is what I would call action - the players do things and I, as DM, decide how the world reacts based on what the goals of those who are in some way affected by the PC's actions are. My decisions are based on consideration of what the NPCs want, not on what I feel is needed to drive an artificial plot along.

Sure, I develop scenarios and plots as part of sessions, but those are a long way from being campaign plots. The PCs are almost always free to walk away and do something else. In which case, things may or may not develop on their own.

I think it's all about the interpretation of the phrase "campaign plot".

[batsofchaos]

It seems to me, EE, that your main problem with 4e is that they left the core rulebooks mostly bones and didn't include much meat. Why do the books need to have meat? I make up my own meat, if I want meat handed to me I'll pick up a campaign-setting book. I don't need it in the core books, I just need the bones to wrap my meat around.

...Why does that sound filthy?

While I can appreciate including meat is a positive, not a negative; you can only gain from and use meat without losing anything from the game itself by changing it. But still, just because the core books left the meat up to the DM doesn't mean it can't support any.

[Covered In Bees]

Again, IMO such rules should be excised from any role-playing game. You want story-telling? Go read a book.

Why do you object so strongly to people enjoying games in a different way from you? What makes the way you game the One True Way, even though people are obviously enjoying other ways a lot?

[AKA_Bait]

Ehhhh.... 3.5 encouraged the use and distribution of candles of invocation, and look how that turned out. Oh, and 3.5 tried to hammer the largely superficial link between dragons and sorcerers into our very souls. DMs have been spitting in the faces of the occasional stupid rule for a long time now. I actually thought some of the NPC shorthand creation stuff was one of the better aspects of 4e. Most of my problems are with the way the PCs interact.


Oh I agree with you. I don't really see the division as much of a problem, if a problem at all, in practical gameplay. I was just pointing out that the assertion that the game is designed to accomidate statting out an NPC just as a PC is incorrect.

[Jade_Tarem]

You asked if my campaigns have "A plot". They don't. My NPCs have plots/goals, which are constantly adapting to fit what chaos the PCs have unleased this week.


There's a difference between "action" and "plot", I feel. The exploits of the PCs do receive more attention than the blacksmith, but those exploits are largely of their own design. In fact, I think it's vital to roleplaying that the PCs are free of plotting; it's sort of the core idea that some characters are not harnessed to some overall plot.

I could argue that you have a plot by inclusion, but I don't think it would add anything.


Now you're just talking dirty:smallredface:

Hey, you're the one plotting all this action. :smallamused:


My preferred first words are "That's your character sheet, and this is where you are. What do you want to do?"

Which is not a bad way to start, really...


Again, what follows after that is what I would call action - the players do things and I, as DM, decide how the world reacts based on what the goals of those who are in some way affected by the PC's actions are. My decisions are based on consideration of what the NPCs want, not on what I feel is needed to drive an artificial plot along.

Sure, I develop scenarios and plots as part of sessions, but those are a long way from being campaign plots. The PCs are almost always free to walk away and do something else. In which case, things may or may not develop on their own.

I think it's all about the interpretation of the phrase "campaign plot".

Probably.

[Covered In Bees]

Which is quite frankly, a meta game video game idea of looking at it, with no regards to consistency and world design
from
EE

"All monsters and NPCs have their full powers whenever the party runs into them" would be the thing with no regards to consistency and world design. And I seriously doubt you regularly had your players fight things with their 1/day or 3/day SLAs, special abilities, spells, etc used up.

4E monsters/NPC tend to have recharge powers, which are inherently more potent than encounter powers. They're a way of representing abilities along the style of daily abilities. 4E does it more abstractly, but also more believably (since the party isn't always running into enemies who have never expended any resources).

In conclusion, you need to stop spouting "VIDEO GAME DESIGN OMG" at the drop of a hat, especially since you apparently don't know what that means (there are video games have enemies with limited-use abilities).

[EvilElitest]

NPC classes were a bad idea. The idea that everyone in the entire world has to have a set of stats that determines what they can do hurts storytelling.

What the hell is this story telling idea? D&D is not a storytelling game, that is exalted. It has always been a game based upon the mechanics and the fluff working hand and hand. How does having a logical world hurt story telling. Song of Fire and ice is a wonderful series and works under this princible, FR does this, even bloody LotFRs pulls this off.

People can do what they can logically do. A world will not exist simply to please half a dozen dudes, that is a video game ideal, which leads to the boring worlds of JRPGs. If a world exists to simply accommodate the PCs, (not the story, because again, not a story telling styled game) then you do have a video game ideal, like Legend of Zelda how everything exists simply to work with link (that world wouldn't make sense from a logical perspective, but it is fine because it is a video game, table tops don't have those limitations)


If a DM wants the village blacksmith to forge a sword for the players so they can slay the dragon, saying that he can only do this based on his personal Craft check results unduly hampers the actual story.

Which is totally logical. If the Dm personally choses to make him win, then taht is his choice, but from a logical consistent perspective, if the black smith doesn't pull it off, then he doesn't pull it off. The game doesn't revolve around some omnipresent story, it isn't designed that way. It is focused upon the PLayer wandering around the world doing what they want. If a DM choses to make an omipresent story, fine, but the game isn't designed like that


The PCs are always going to be the chosen ones. They are the players, they are the ones who need versatility and who need to last through 20 levels of play. The idea that you're creating a large world that could go just fine with or without PC involvement has always violated the essential tenets of storytelling: the idea that something is at stake.

No they are not. They are always going to be the protagonists, but that is not always chosen one. The game doesn't work under a story telling method, it works under an idea that the players exist within a world. A large would could go just fine without PCs involvement, well when your making the world, yes. Yes it could. take FR as a wonderful example of this, even Ebberon. A game focused on some only a story isn't D&D, if that was the case, there would be no problems with 1E, 2E, or 3E.

When the game is first made, the players are just elite people, but still normal people. If a specific Dm wants to make them the only people with PCs classes, and call them chosen ones, fine, but that shouldn't be the way the game is designed

A world that exists only to serve the stories purpose is basically Eragon or Domnic Deegan.


Moreover, players are by no means the only special people in the world. There are still powerful knights and evil mages, they just don't use the same stat system as PCs.

Which is utterly inconsistent and totally illogical. Why not? the PCs have a race, and a class. Logically, there would be other people running around with similar stats. They might not be exactly the same, or they could. Its consistent.

If your have them being different simply to be different, that is utterly inconsistent. It makes the PCs some sort of chosen one, which serves fine for Exalted, as system designed to serve taht purpose, but not for D&D.

Why are they different? Simply because one has players. That is a meta gaming way to design a game, and in a game like D&D, it is a very bad one. It is like how in final fantasy how you have a full set of stats, but your enemies do not. It is like how in WoW, how your enemies only have a few attacks compared to your characters. yet again, fine for a Video game, awful for a table top that isn't designed around story telling



Also, demanding that PCs and NPCs use the same inherent design system is just flawed design. Anyone who's statted and played an NPC wizard against a party knows how meaningless it is to have a bunch of first level spells when you're going to be casting your high level spells for 4 rounds and then die or retreat. Monsters and NPCs are inundated with redundant features and forced to constantly be given "bonus" feats just so they can fit a concept without having to add more hit die.
That is a meta gamist and video game idea that NPcs will only exist for combat. If the PCs are fighting a band, the NPC's low level spells might come in handy. If the PCs do something unexpected, then the NPCs low level spells might come in handy. There are no such thing as "redundent features" unless you are only using one style of gaming with the NPCs and monsters serving like video game characters, IE NPCs being quest givers and guys who wander around saying random stuff, with monster existing to fight as random encounters. It is limiting and extremely simple. As i said, 4E would be a great board game, not a new edition.


Finally, it isn't as though a hit die/class system has some inherent realism to it. People don't have "levels" in life, it's just an abstraction of general skill.
The idea that the system isn't real unless everyone has the same abstraction applied even when it's not relevant or helpful is flawed.
In the world of D&D however, they do.
I want vermilitude

Batofchaos

In the DMG, they say that if you want to use a lot of NPCs, simply design on guy, then duplicate that. The adverage palace guard will be a level 5 fighter with a plus one long sword and a master work shield. The adverage silver star mage is a level 12 mage.

Eorran- In theory yes but taht isn't ever going to work. I don't expect the Dm to come up with a total stat block for every NPC, but he should base it upon the same system.


for example, the random goblin wizard i know is a level 8 adept. I give him some basic stuff and spells, but i make sure they add up (most likely, i've given him a pre made thing that i simply duplicate but anyways) and it might have some gaps, but should things not go as planned (which in my games happens a lot) i simply make sure the things i fill in are consistent with what he has). You don't have to give every random commoner complete stats, but based the upon the same system





It seems to me, EE, that your main problem with 4e is that they left the core rulebooks mostly bones and didn't include much meat. Why do the books need to have meat? I make up my own meat, if I want meat handed to me I'll pick up a campaign-setting book. I don't need it in the core books, I just need the bones to wrap my meat around.

...Why does that sound filthy?

While I can appreciate including meat is a positive, not a negative; you can only gain from and use meat without losing anything from the game itself by changing it. But still, just because the core books left the meat up to the DM doesn't mean it can't support any.
So now Lazyness is something we want from an new edition? Shallowness is the norm? Simplicity and streamlined anti depth is something to be glorified?



Why do you object so strongly to people enjoying games in a different way from you? What makes the way you game the One True Way, even though people are obviously enjoying other ways a lot?
thing is Bees i've covered taht. you ignored it, but hey, you seemed focused upon doing that.

The thing is, with a complex system, it is so so so easy to simply not use that style. Withing 3e, you want the PCs to be special, very simply way to solve it. Don't give any NPCs PC classes. You want an omipresent rule basis. Just don't use NPC rules. being lazy in a complicated system is really easy. Taking a shallow and basic system and making work in other ways is a hard way.

4E only supports one style of play, and that is the hack and slash style of play.

from
EE

[Shosuro Ishii]

In conclusion, you need to stop spouting "VIDEO GAME DESIGN OMG" at the drop of a hat, especially since you apparently don't know what that means (there are video games have enemies with limited-use abilities).

We get it....you don't think 4ed is anything like a video game, but he's right.

In a world with completly arbitrary, meta-game concepts like 'encounter powers', the concept that all opponents save their powers for use on the PCs kills realism and is an explination-less meta concept. It's exactly scenario in a video game where you're enemies always have full mana bars and rare use items waiting for you.

There are dozens of pointless meta concepts in 4ed that are fairly video game like. There were many pointless meta concepts that made 3.5 fairly video game like, but they weren't as massive, nor were they as immersion destroying. I'm not saying 3.5 was perfect, but 4ed does share many things in common with traditonal RPGs (I've actually looked at it as FF tactics like).

Having read your posts, it seems like you're the one sitting with his fingers in his ears refusing to acknowledge that anyone but you could be right.

*sits back and waits for this post to be deconstructed and strawman'd beyond recognition*

[Covered In Bees]

thing is Bees i've covered taht. you ignored it, but hey, you seemed focused upon doing that.
I was talking to Nagora. I'll get to your walls of text eventually, probably, although I don't have much hope of getting through to you, since you approach everything with an eye for "how can I compare this to video games?"


The thing is, with a complex system, it is so so so easy to simply not use that style. Withing 3e, you want the PCs to be special, very simply way to solve it. Don't give any NPCs PC classes. You want an omipresent rule basis. Just don't use NPC rules. being lazy in a complicated system is really easy.
Monsters work on the same basis only in very superficial ways. They get tons of abilities that are absolutely inappropriate for PCs. This is why "LA --" exists and is so widespread.


4E only supports one style of play, and that is the hack and slash style of play.

from
EE
4E supports urban street chases, negotiation sessions, traps, and other "non-combat encounters" more than any edition before it. Pretending that you have to struggle against the system to do anything other than kick in dungeon doors is completely disingenuous. My group's game has had less hacking and less slashing than our previous 3.5 game, and we've had no problems; the system has supported everything we've done.

[EvilElitest]

{Scrubbed}

[Covered In Bees]

We get it....you don't think 4ed is anything like a video game, but he's right.

In a world with completly arbitrary, meta-game concepts like 'encounter powers', the concept that all opponents save their powers for use on the PCs kills realism and is an explination-less meta concept. It's exactly scenario in a video game where you're enemies always have full mana bars and rare use items waiting for you.
You realize that in 4E, NPCs don't "save their powers", because their powers are per-encounter or recharge? It's in 3E that enemy spellcasters have all their spells, not having cast any (beyond the buffs they have up), enemy monsters have their 1/day and 3/day SLAs, etc.
"The concept that all opponents save their powers for use on the PCs" is there in 3E, not 4E.

P.S.: I don't believe that you regularly have PCs fight enemies who aren't at full HP, for example.


There are dozens of pointless meta concepts in 4ed that are fairly video game like.
Do you know what this word means? Encounter powers, for example, aren't pointless--they have a very specific point. They affect the game in specific ways, and this is intentional.


There were many pointless meta concepts that made 3.5 fairly video game like, but they weren't as massive, nor were they as immersion destroying. I'm not saying 3.5 was perfect, but 4ed does share many things in common with traditonal RPGs (I've actually looked at it as FF tactics like).
I think 3.5 is just as unimmersive as 4E, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Not *for you*, mind you--I don't really care what immerses you; individuals have completely arbitrary standards--but overall.


Having read your posts, it seems like you're the one sitting with his fingers in his ears refusing to acknowledge that anyone but you could be right.

*sits back and waits for this post to be deconstructed and strawman'd beyond recognition*
If you play it like a video game, it'll be like a video game.
If you play it like a tabletop game, it'll be a tabletop game.

[EvilElitest]

I was talking to Nagora. I'll get to your walls of text eventually, probably, although I don't have much hope of getting through to you, since you approach everything with an eye for "how can I compare this to video games?"

and you approach every argument with "how can i evade the question". If your only going to respond to things i've already backed up then demand evidence, your simply wasting my time. I adress everything you say, please treat me with the same courtesy
you've claimed that you'd get to my main points eventually i think four times now, and never has, don't simply nit pick and actually make a point


Monsters work on the same basis only in very superficial ways. They get tons of abilities that are absolutely inappropriate for PCs. This is why "LA --" exists and is so widespread.

LA applies to PC races as well. Doesn't work, but i've never made the claim taht 3E is perfect



4E supports urban street chases, negotiation sessions, traps, and other "non-combat encounters" more than any edition before it. Pretending that you have to struggle against the system to do anything other than kick in dungeon doors is completely disingenuous. My group's game has had less hacking and less slashing than our previous 3.5 game, and we've had no problems; the system has supported everything we've done.
1) and has the weakest fluff, setting, background,consistency , vermilitude, and logic to date. It has negotiation sessions, so did 3E, 4E does it better but honestly, that isn't that hard. It still however isn't the focus. The game is designed around this meta gamist ideal rather than actually consistency
2) and my group can make Exalted into a hack and slash, however that isn't what it was designed to do

Shosuro Ishii, great job
from
EE

[EvilElitest]

You realize that in 4E, NPCs don't "save their powers", because their powers are per-encounter or recharge? It's in 3E that enemy spellcasters have all their spells, not having cast any (beyond the buffs they have up), enemy monsters have their 1/day and 3/day SLAs, etc.
"The concept that all opponents save their powers for use on the PCs" is there in 3E, not 4E.

Show me a rule where it says in 3E that the monsters have to be at full health with full spells. 4E has proven, thanks to the monster manual, that having enemy encounters revolve around the PCs is the way the game should play, like final fantasy.


P.S.: I don't believe that you regularly have PCs fight enemies who aren't at full HP, for example.
Why not? Generally, i only have enemies fight the PCs at full health if they are somewhere where they would be at full health (for example, in their own fortress or in a place where they wouldn't be fighting

Are you trying to prove a point based upon a mis conception


Do you know what this word means? Encounter powers, for example, aren't pointless--they have a very specific point. They affect the game in specific ways, and this is intentional.

it is pointless in its use in the new edition

I think 3.5 is just as unimmersive as 4E, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Not *for you*, mind you--I don't really care what immerses you; individuals have completely arbitrary standards--but overall.

i have, and you ignored it. What is this, Jack Thompson challenge



If you play it like a video game, it'll be like a video game.
If you play it like a tabletop game, it'll be a tabletop game.
Thank you for evading his point and mine
from
EE

[Covered In Bees]

Depends on the situation. If the logically might have used them at that point, yes i do. Like 2E use to do as well
But that's not what the game is set up for. It doesn't take this into account or support it.



What kind of BS is this? You dare, accuse me of using Video game design as a buzz word and not backing my arguments, when you haven't even bloody responded to what i already had to say?
What is this? Is this lazyness or out right hypocrisy? I've already made my basic argument, and i backed it up several times. You have done nothing but ignore it, even through i reminded you of it quite a few times.
You DO use it as a buzzword. It's your first response to absolutely everything, no matter how ridiculous it is.

I'll get to your Wall of Text eventually. It's not your fault, but getting through your writing is an awful chore, and getting through that much of it would take more free time in one sitting than I've got to spare. Shorter, quick posts, I can do.


So don't even say i haven't backed it when i have and you simply pretend it never happpened
You "back it up" by refusing to acknowledge that a monster's statistics aren't some kind of absolute truth about how it interacts with the world. You refuse to acknowledge that HP is an abstraction, not a measure of how much physical punishment a monster can take. As long as you cling to these ridiculous basic premises, it'd be pointless to go through your post anyway.





for your beneifit
Please don't spam up everyone's screen, it's rude. I'll get to your post when I have the time and the morphine to do so.Yet another fallacy. Just because i can do it, doesn't forgive the system for being shallow and lazy

No, i'm pointing out a logical comparason, and your apperently in denial


Um, why not. I can easily compare something to a video game. It is like a video game in that it throw consistency aside in order to acomidate the PCs.
It doesn't "throw consistency aside", you're just confusing the rules of the game for the physics of the game world. This is never a good idea.

[Jade_Tarem]

OK, let's just all grab a beer and go back to discussing how much I don't know about 1e! That had some growth potential, there... :smallsmile::smalleek:

[Covered In Bees]

and you approach every argument with "how can i evade the question". If your only going to respond to things i've already backed up then demand evidence, your simply wasting my time. I adress everything you say, please treat me with the same courtesy
you've claimed that you'd get to my main points eventually i think four times now, and never has, don't simply nit pick and actually make a point
I'll get to it when I get to it. I'm not "evading the question", but wading through your wall of text is painful, and takes lots of time at a sitting.


LA applies to PC races as well. Doesn't work, but i've never made the claim taht 3E is perfect
LA applies to PCs. CR applies to monsters. CR is entirely unrelated to LA (vampires are CR +2, LA +8), precisely because what's appropriate for monsters is often inappropriate for PCs.
But my point was there are tons of monsters WITHOUT level adjustment. "LA --", which translates directly into a PC can never do this.


1) and has the weakest fluff, setting, background,consistency , vermilitude, and logic to date. It has negotiation sessions, so did 3E, 4E does it better but honestly, that isn't that hard. It still however isn't the focus. The game is designed around this meta gamist ideal rather than actually consistency
4E doesn't have a default setting. It leaves that to campaign settings.This isn't "lazy"--it's common sense. No one, but no one, used the Grehawk-y default setting fluff in the 3E PHB. They make their own worlds. 4E sets up overall concepts like the whole "points of light" thing, the crumbled empires everywhere, etc, and lets you play with them. If you really want a setting, that's what the FRCS is for.

4E has negotiation sessions, street chases, and all that. It handles this vastly better than 3E. It ENCOURAGES this vastly better than 3E, and actually rewards it (PROTIP: if you give XP for something, you're encouraging it).


2) and my group can make Exalted into a hack and slash, however that isn't what it was designed to do
D&D was always designed to be a combat-heavy game. That's why the class abilities in every edition revolve so heavily around combat. That's why there's a class called "Fighter" who can do nothing but fight.

[batsofchaos]

In the DMG, they say that if you want to use a lot of NPCs, simply design on guy, then duplicate that. The adverage palace guard will be a level 5 fighter with a plus one long sword and a master work shield. The adverage silver star mage is a level 12 mage.

And? So? Didn't you ever reuse stats in 3.5 to save time and energy? The fact that three mooks all have the same stats doesn't mean you can't give them different personalities, appearances, tactics, or anything really. If it really bothers you, switch a couple stats around, change weapons, and trade out a power or two. Done, they're fairly different, took three minutes.


So now Lazyness is something we want from an new edition? Shallowness is the norm? Simplicity and streamlined anti depth is something to be glorified?

How exactly is a lack of meat lazy, shallow, and depthless? Meat doesn't make a game system! These are rules for a game. A game that can have nearly infinite varieties of meat. The meat doesn't make the game, the bones do. What meat you add to the game shapes that individual game. I assert that having a rulebook based on meat rather than bones is more videogame-like; video-games have an internal flavor that cannot be changed by the players. Players often have absolutely no say in what type of character they can play (they might get multiple options, but those options are pre-selected), and the environment meat is one way only per game.

Frankly, I find a game system built on the meat, not just the bones, to encourage laziness. Why come up with an idea for next week's session when I can use this pre-written module? Why come up with my own campaign world when I can just use this campaign setting?

[EvilElitest]

But that's not what the game is set up for. It doesn't take this into account or support it.

And you are going to prove this how


You DO use it as a buzzword. It's your first response to absolutely everything, no matter how ridiculous it is.

No i don't. A buzz word is unbacked. You claim that it is a buzz word is un backed. You using the word spam below is an unbacked buzz word. I am backing them up. I have backed up every one of my claims, and you have simply evaded my points. That doesn't make my use a buzz word, it makes you just somebody who simply puts his fingers in his ears and goes "i'm not listening"

I'll get to your Wall of Text eventually. It's not your fault, but getting through your writing is an awful chore, and getting through that much of it would take more free time in one sitting than I've got to spare. Shorter, quick posts, I can do.
So you nitpick on posts that require you to read the big posts to get the backing. That is both wasting my time, and evading my point. You want to put your head in the sand, fine, but don't bother responding at all if you aren't even going to bother to read somebody's backing. Don't bother with small stuff, actually address my points directly


You "back it up" by refusing to acknowledge that a monster's statistics aren't some kind of absolute truth about how it interacts with the world. You refuse to acknowledge that HP is an abstraction, not a measure of how much physical punishment a monster can take. As long as you cling to these ridiculous basic premises, it'd be pointless to go through your post anyway.

1) proof
2) No, i'm just pointing out the inconsistency
3) So are you just being a fantastic? If you not going to even read opposing posts and opposing argument, that your words are essentially worthless



Please don't spam up everyone's screen, it's rude. I'll get to your post when I have the time and the morphine to do so.Yet another fallacy. Just because i can do it, doesn't forgive the system for being shallow and lazy

Look up the word spam, it doesn't mean what you think it means, and don't waste my time with buzz words. If you can't adress my points, then don't waste everybody's time nit picking.


No, i'm pointing out a logical comparason, and your apperently in denial


i back my point, i adress all of your points, i provide evidence to support my points, i use other people's statements within my points, and you evade my points and refuse to respond and i'm in denial? Hypocritical some


It doesn't "throw consistency aside", you're just confusing the rules of the game for the physics of the game world. This is never a good idea.

I've never made taht claim, and thank you for the use of a strawman. You think i'm wrong, then bloody back your point, don't just say it then expect me to believe you simply because you say so
from
EE

[Covered In Bees]

Show me a rule where it says in 3E that the monsters have to be at full health with full spells. 4E has proven, thanks to the monster manual, that having enemy encounters revolve around the PCs is the way the game should play, like final fantasy.
There's no rule, but it is the overwhelming default, and the CR system and other things are based on it.
The PCs are fighting the monsters. You are spending time on this. Of course it's more important, game-wise.


Why not? Generally, i only have enemies fight the PCs at full health if they are somewhere where they would be at full health (for example, in their own fortress or in a place where they wouldn't be fighting
The system doesn't support this. The monster's CR is for a creature with full HP and resources.

"Why not"? Because I have almost never seen anyone do this.


it is pointless in its use in the new edition
If you think encounter powers are "pointless"--that is, they aren't designed to influence the game in specific ways--then replying to you is really pretty pointless.


i have, and you ignored it. What is this, Jack Thompson challenge
You haven't. You're starting from completely incorrect default assumptions.

[Shosuro Ishii]

You realize that in 4E, NPCs don't "save their powers", because their powers are per-encounter or recharge? It's in 3E that enemy spellcasters have all their spells, not having cast any (beyond the buffs they have up), enemy monsters have their 1/day and 3/day SLAs, etc.
"The concept that all opponents save their powers for use on the PCs" is there in 3E, not 4E.

P.S.: I don't believe that you regularly have PCs fight enemies who aren't at full HP, for example.


I often have my party in 3.5 fight casters who have used spells or prepared non-combat spells. Or they have prepared spells that are useless in combat becasue they aren't expecting it. This is not a flaw of 3.5, but in 4ed becasue of the power system, its always like this....However, that may be the fault of the atrocious power system, so I'll leave this point alone.



Do you know what this word means? Encounter powers, for example, aren't pointless--they have a very specific point. They affect the game in specific ways, and this is intentional.


You're right, pontless is the wrong word, I apologize. Arbitrary would be more appropriate.



I think 3.5 is just as unimmersive as 4E, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Not *for you*, mind you--I don't really care what immerses you; individuals have completely arbitrary standards--but overall.


See, now we fall back on the 'you can't prove opinion X right/wrong, so that proves you wrong' arguement. There is no hard and fast definiton for immersion, so I can't produce a concrete defintion with you responding 'well that's not everyone's defintion of immersion, so I'm right and you're wrong'.

That being said, for the purpose of the arguements laid forth, I've defined immerison as the lack of gamist/cinematic elemtants that remind you that you are in a game/movie. Minions and SW are cinematic and immersion destroying. Powers are gamist and immersion destroying.



If you play it like a video game, it'll be like a video game.
If you play it like a tabletop game, it'll be a tabletop game

If you play it like a fishing simulator, it'l lbe like a fishing simulator.

I'm not saying that being vidoe game like is inherently a bad thing. It's created a balanced, easy to play, fun game. These are all good things, but you can't just write off that they are there and they are vidoe game like, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.

[Matthew]

OK, let's just all grab a beer and go back to discussing how much I don't know about 1e! That had some growth potential, there... :smallsmile::smalleek:

Ha, ha. Here's a quick AD&D 1e 'fact'...



P.S.: I don't believe that you regularly have PCs fight enemies who aren't at full HP, for example.

I always figured that was why the Game Master randomly rolled hit points for monsters , but there are some follow through problems with that, such as the effect of [I]cure light wounds spells on a monster with 1 hp.

[Jade_Tarem]

EE, as effective as responding over and over again with "You're just evading my points/Wrong/Not listening/Burying your head in the sand/Playing a video game" (and I promise that you have used each of those at least a dozen times since this thread started) is as a debate tool, I'm going to ask you politely to stop. You did back up your initial points, but then others made good counter points and you only responded with "you never read my initial stuff."

They did, they really did. Please take a closer look and consider the possiblity that all those people, all of whom are smart enough to grasp DnD, would have a hard time being that wrong.

[EvilElitest]

I'll get to it when I get to it. I'm not "evading the question", but wading through your wall of text is painful, and takes lots of time at a sitting.

Of course you are. as long as you spend time on these minor points without backing your argument and refusing to get to my evidence then you are evading the point. If you want to wade through a wall of text, then don't focus on these posts and actually get around to adressing the large ones


LA applies to PCs. CR applies to monsters. CR is entirely unrelated to LA (vampires are CR +2, LA +8), precisely because what's appropriate for monsters is often inappropriate for PCs.
But my point was there are tons of monsters WITHOUT level adjustment. "LA --", which translates directly into a PC can never do this.

Monsters do actually get LA, at least the ones that can get PC stats.


4E doesn't have a default setting. It leaves that to campaign settings.This isn't "lazy"--it's common sense. No one, but no one, used the Grehawk-y default setting fluff in the 3E PHB. They make their own worlds. 4E sets up overall concepts like the whole "points of light" thing, the crumbled empires everywhere, etc, and lets you play with them. If you really want a setting, that's what the FRCS is for.

I wasn't actually referring to that, i was referring to the fluff, the back ground, the consistency, the world (IE, the new cosmology), and the way creatures are implemented



D&D was always designed to be a combat-heavy game. That's why the class abilities in every edition revolve so heavily around combat. That's why there's a class called "Fighter" who can do nothing but fight.
News flash, you can have a combat heavy game while having consistency and it doesn't have to be hack and slash

Now stop focusing on these little posts, because you aren't proving anything, your just making empty statements




And? So? Didn't you ever reuse stats in 3.5 to save time and energy? The fact that three mooks all have the same stats doesn't mean you can't give them different personalities, appearances, tactics, or anything really. If it really bothers you, switch a couple stats around, change weapons, and trade out a power or two. Done, they're fairly different, took three minutes.

um, what? I just said, that re using stats are fine, absolutly fine, as long as they are using the same rule basis.




How exactly is a lack of meat lazy, shallow, and depthless? Meat doesn't make a game system! These are rules for a game. A game that can have nearly infinite varieties of meat. The meat doesn't make the game, the bones do. What meat you add to the game shapes that individual game. I assert that having a rulebook based on meat rather than bones is more videogame-like; video-games have an internal flavor that cannot be changed by the players. Players often have absolutely no say in what type of character they can play (they might get multiple options, but those options are pre-selected), and the environment meat is one way only per game.

See my above point about the monster manual. you don't get a game, you get a mass of numbers. That is a shallow depthless game. It makes the actually story above just a mass of numbers



There's no rule, but it is the overwhelming default, and the CR system and other things are based on it.
The PCs are fighting the monsters. You are spending time on this. Of course it's more important, game-wise.
1) CR are based upon it in case the PCs find them in their own layer. the idea of the Cr, flawed as it is, basically is letting us know "ok, in case you fight this monster and it is at the height of its power, this is what you do."
2) overwhelming default? Prove it



The system doesn't support this. The monster's CR is for a creature with full HP and resources.

"Why not"? Because I have almost never seen anyone do this.
1) Because as i said, the CR is giving us a basic idea of what it would be at full power, not how to use it
2) and that proves absolutely nothing at all, because quite frankly, i don't care weather you've seen it or not, it doesn't prove anything.




If you think encounter powers are "pointless"--that is, they aren't designed to influence the game in specific ways--then replying to you is really pretty pointless.
When i say pointless i mean as a new edition implementation. However as you still haven't actually addressed most of my points, then i have to question why your on this thread?

Frankly, I find a game system built on the meat, not just the bones, to encourage laziness. Why come up with an idea for next week's session when I can use this pre-written module? Why come up with my own campaign world when I can just use this campaign setting?





EE, as effective as responding over and over again with "You're just evading my points/Wrong/Not listening/Burying your head in the sand/Playing a video game" (and I promise that you have used each of those at least a dozen times since this thread started) is as a debate tool, I'm going to ask you politely to stop. You did back up your initial points, but then others made good counter points and you only responded with "you never read my initial stuff."

Except they haven't. Or at least some haven't. It isn't responding to the actual argument, it is responding to a statement based upon an already established statement, based upon an argument.


They did, they really did. Please take a closer look and consider the possiblity that all those people, all of whom are smart enough to grasp DnD, would have a hard time being that wrong.
If people disagree with me, thats totally fine. People think i'm wrong, fine. People want to look at my points and be all like "hey, i think your wrong here because of T Y and Z" again, fine. Werebear and Winterfall did that. But at least adress what i'm saying, don't say i haven't back my arguments when i clearly have
from
EE

[Deepblue706]

No one, but no one, used the Grehawk-y default setting fluff in the 3E PHB. They make their own worlds.

Actually, when I was a new DM, I did. I make my own worlds now, but I actually enjoyed having detailed guidelines for a game-world when I was unsure of how to go about building my own setting, in a manner that didn't totally suck.



4E has negotiation sessions, street chases, and all that. It handles this vastly better than 3E. It ENCOURAGES this vastly better than 3E, and actually rewards it (PROTIP: if you give XP for something, you're encouraging it).

Interestingly, I actually found what 4E has to offer, in this case, to be utterly useless. I'm glad you find it works better, but honestly, I was able to work out whatever I wanted just using basic skill checks. Although, I will admit it's a nice guideline for people who have trouble running that kind of stuff. I only think they should have included more guidelines on how to build your own fluff a little better than they have in the DMG, etc.

[Covered In Bees]

And you are going to prove this how
By pointing you at every single module ever published, which is absolutely full of enemies who have all their 1/day, 3/day, etc. powers available. And all or the vast majority of their spells. And all their HP.

Also, by pointing out that encounters are based on the CR system, and the game gives you no way of calculating the CR of a wizard who only memorized noncombat spells, or a monster that used up its spells and SLAs and is at half HP.


So you nitpick on posts that require you to read the big posts to get the backing. That is both wasting my time, and evading my point. You want to put your head in the sand, fine, but don't bother responding at all if you aren't even going to bother to read somebody's backing. Don't bother with small stuff, actually address my points directly
Sorry, there's plenty of wrong stuff in the small posts that don't make my eyes hurt, too.


1) proof
2) No, i'm just pointing out the inconsistency
3) So are you just being a fantastic? If you not going to even read opposing posts and opposing argument, that your words are essentially worthless
You've said that minions having 1 HP means they always have 1 HP and therefore die easily offscreen. You've said this because you think the rules. When I pointed out that HP in 4E is abstract, you basically said "no it isn't."
Until you can come to accept the basic fact that HP is abstract and that the game rules are not the world physics, responding to your Wall of Text is pointless, because it is based on false assumptions.

Until you can accept that the rules of the game are just that--the rules of the game--and don't govern everything that happens in the game world, just things that happens in the game--then answering posts critiquing things like the minion system is pointless.


Look up the word spam, it doesn't mean what you think it means, and don't waste my time with buzz words. If you can't adress my points, then don't waste everybody's time nit picking.
But they're important nits. I'll get to your post when I get to it. Harping on it--OH YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THAT ONE WALL OF TEXT THAT QUOTES OTHER PEOPLE WITHOUT EVEN BOTHERING TO PUT THEM IN {QUOTE} TAGS--isn't going to help.


i back my point, i adress all of your points, i provide evidence to support my points, i use other people's statements within my points, and you evade my points and refuse to respond and i'm in denial? Hypocritical some
EE, you're talking to yourself. You're quoting yourself. This is what happens when you don't close your quote tags.


I've never made taht claim, and thank you for the use of a strawman. You think i'm wrong, then bloody back your point, don't just say it then expect me to believe you simply because you say so
from
EE
Oh, you HAVEN'T, have you? So are you now saying that you acknowledge that the game rules aren't the world physics? That HP is abstract, and doesn't apply offscreen? That you decide what happens offscreen, rather than the rules? Because if you finally do admit that, then we can actually be productive.



I often have my party in 3.5 fight casters who have used spells or prepared non-combat spells. Or they have prepared spells that are useless in combat becasue they aren't expecting it. This is not a flaw of 3.5, but in 4ed becasue of the power system, its always like this....However, that may be the fault of the atrocious power system, so I'll leave this point alone.
No. In 4E, what you described does not apply.

In the time it takes for you to write up a spellcater's spell list, I can slap a Daily power onto a monster (or, easier yet, upgrade an Encounter one to Daily).

This IS a flaw of 3.5, because the CR system is based on enemies with full health and all their abilities. This is a flaw of 3.5, because enemies can always "go nova" while the PCs have to conserve resources, because they are fundamentally different.


You're right, pontless is the wrong word, I apologize. Arbitrary would be more appropriate.
Really? They're arbitrary? That's even worse. Do you really think the designers picked "encounter" by chance? What, did they throw darts at a boarD? No, it's NOT arbitrary. It's very intentional, and it affects the game in intentional ways.

Do you also think that in WoD, "scene-length" powers are "abritrary"?


See, now we fall back on the 'you can't prove opinion X right/wrong, so that proves you wrong' arguement. There is no hard and fast definiton for immersion, so I can't produce a concrete defintion with you responding 'well that's not everyone's defintion of immersion, so I'm right and you're wrong'.
You're right, there isn't. It's almost as though it's a matter of random preference.


That being said, for the purpose of the arguements laid forth, I've defined immerison as the lack of gamist/cinematic elemtants that remind you that you are in a game/movie. Minions and SW are cinematic and immersion destroying. Powers are gamist and immersion destroying.
Wait. You think that minions destroy immersion? Even though they're 100% in-genre? When fantasy protagonists deal with them all the time? Second Winds are immersion-destroying, when they play directly into every "roar and shake it off" scene ever?

Okay, then our standards for immersion are so different it's pointless to discuss them. To you, "immersion" apparently means "realism", not "genre emulation".

PROTIP: Conan had Healing Surges and Second Winds.


If you play it like a fishing simulator, it'l lbe like a fishing simulator.
Yes. If you create a "fishing simulator" set of mechanics and focus a session around those, it'll indeed be like a fishing simulator.


I'm not saying that being vidoe game like is inherently a bad thing. It's created a balanced, easy to play, fun game. These are all good things, but you can't just write off that they are there and they are vidoe game like, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.
You realize you just said that being *fun* makes it *video game like*, right?

And with that, I'll be back later. Work to do.

[Eorran]

The problem with discussing 'immersion' in a game is that it is an issue the player has. If the player feels that the game system elements break immersion, then they do for him. It's a legitimate issue, but one that gets fuzzy when argued imprecisely.
What it isn't is a character issue. Heck, one of the reasons OOTS is so funny is that the characters are aware of the game world mechanics. Regular games run under the default assumption that the players do not know these mechanics. "My fighter can't believe that goblin went down in one hit, while this one took 12," is not exactly true; the character can believe anything the player wants him to.
If different rules for PCs vs monsters is a problem for you, that suggests that the game style does not suit you. That is a legitimate complaint, but it doesn't necessarily mean the game has an inherent flaw.

[Viruzzo]

@EE
What I actually suggest to you is to open a separate thread where you explain your point to best of your ability. There, CiB (and I maybe) and anyone who desires to could respond with due calm.

@DeepBlue
The flaw in your reasoning is that you still consider HP as physical damage, which was not completely true before but is definitely false in 4e (due to the aforementioned abstraction). If you say "you rest 5 minutes and your wounds disappear" it seems a lot worse than the actual "you rest 5 minutes and regain, your morale, calm, stamina, concentration and maybe heal up a bit", which is how is seen in 4e (in line with the idea of "second wind" too). Also, healing completely with one spell even in combat (Heal) it's definitely worse in terms of balance than healing out of combat: yeah, the first one is "magic", but is worse gameplay-wise.
Even more: yes, the potions and magic stop working when you use all of your surges. But what happens when your pre-4e cleric runs out of spells? Wait, weren't they prayers? How can you run out of prayers? Your god must be a real dork... Oh and you have to pray beforehand for them, in the morning. That is really something that blows away my supension of disbelief.


You realize you just said that being *fun* makes it *video game like*, right?
No, it has to be balanced and easy to play too. Makes me shiver...

[Shosuro Ishii]

No. In 4E, what you described does not apply.

In the time it takes for you to write up a spellcater's spell list, I can slap a Daily power onto a monster (or, easier yet, upgrade an Encounter one to Daily).

This IS a flaw of 3.5, because the CR system is based on enemies with full health and all their abilities. This is a flaw of 3.5, because enemies can always "go nova" while the PCs have to conserve resources, because they are fundamentally different.



As I said in my first post, you are correct, this is not a flaw in 4ed. This is the symptom of a greater flaw in 4ed, the power system, I am wrong in this regard. Moving on.



Really? They're arbitrary? That's even worse. Do you really think the designers picked "encounter" by chance? What, did they throw darts at a boarD? No, it's NOT arbitrary. It's very intentional, and it affects the game in intentional ways.

Do you also think that in WoD, "scene-length" powers are "abritrary"?


I think that the meta-game concept of an 'encounter power' that is an encoutner power purely for the sake of game balance is arbitrary. It is a meta-game concept, and if you're going to sit here and snipe my word choice instead of adressing my point, than I think you may need to rethink your point.




Wait. You think that minions destroy immersion? Even though they're 100% in-genre? When fantasy protagonists deal with them all the time? Second Winds are immersion-destroying, when they play directly into every "roar and shake it off" scene ever?

Okay, then our standards for immersion are so different it's pointless to discuss them. To you, "immersion" apparently means "realism", not "genre emulation".


Monster who exist soley to be canon fodder for PCs to hack through in cinematic glory are immersion destroying. A characters abiliy to ignore damage by shear force of will is a cinematic trope. It does destroy immersion. Something that reminds you that you are playing a game or watching a movie destroys immersion. Those things kill it. Immersion has never meant genre emulation.

Also, as I said, no matter what I responded, you would just tweak your defintion of immersion to counter my arguement. No True Scotsman much?



PROTIP: Conan had Healing Surges and Second Winds.


Read above: Conan is a movie. Conan contains cinematic tropes and elements. These things are contrary to immersion.




You realize you just said that being *fun* makes it *video game like*, right?



No I said that the things that make it fun are video game like. There is a difference.

[Jade_Tarem]

The problem with discussing 'immersion' in a game is that it is an issue the player has. If the player feels that the game system elements break immersion, then they do for him. It's a legitimate issue, but one that gets fuzzy when argued imprecisely.
What it isn't is a character issue. Heck, one of the reasons OOTS is so funny is that the characters are aware of the game world mechanics. Regular games run under the default assumption that the players do not know these mechanics. "My fighter can't believe that goblin went down in one hit, while this one took 12," is not exactly true; the character can believe anything the player wants him to.
If different rules for PCs vs monsters is a problem for you, that suggests that the game style does not suit you. That is a legitimate complaint, but it doesn't necessarily mean the game has an inherent flaw.

"So, there is sanity in all this madness." - Yoshimo, Baldur's Gate II

[Rachel Lorelei]

I think that the meta-game concept of an 'encounter power' that is an encoutner power purely for the sake of game balance is arbitrary. It is a meta-game concept, and if you're going to sit here and snipe my word choice instead of adressing my point, than I think you may need to rethink your point.
CiB is absolutely right when he says that encounter powers were designed for a reason and with a purpose. The idea of an encounter power is not arbitrary, it was designed for a reason, to shape how the game plays (for example, to remove the "four-encounter day" of 3E).

To me, it looks like you called it pointless, then were shown it wasn't, then called it arbitrary, then were shown it wasn't, and are now complaining that you were shown that what you're saying isn't remotely true.



Monster who exist soley to be canon fodder for PCs to hack through in cinematic glory are immersion destroying. A characters abiliy to ignore damage by shear force of will is a cinematic trope. It does destroy immersion. Something that reminds you that you are playing a game or watching a movie destroys immersion. Those things kill it. Immersion has never meant genre emulation.
Immersion has a lot to do with genre emulation!

Let me put it this way: in a pulp-action game like Spirit of the Century, fighting Nazis in a zeppelin doesn't shatter my immersion, it fuels it.
Fighting Nazis in a zeppelin in a game of D&D, on the other hand, would.

Minions are appropriate for D&D. They wouldn't be appropriate for World of Darkness--they'd be horribly immersion-breaking there.

As I understand it, you're saying that using or supporting any kind of genre trope is inherently immersion-breaking, which is just amazing. Are you one of those "realism or bust in every game ever" types?


Read above: Conan is a movie. Conan contains cinematic tropes and elements. These things are contrary to immersion.
Ack. Kids nowadays! Young whipper-snappers! Conan is a series of stories, in text form. There's also some decent comic adatations out.

Movie... gah. No no no no no.

[EvilElitest]

By pointing you at every single module ever published, which is absolutely full of enemies who have all their 1/day, 3/day, etc. powers available. And all or the vast majority of their spells. And all their HP.

1) every module ever published. Right, yeah, you do that, you'd be surprised, because not every single one does this. Generalization don't prove a point
2) and also, modules aren't part of the rules, they are just a sample adventure. Again, find me a rule saying i have to have my enemy NPCs at full health/spells



Also, by pointing out that encounters are based on the CR system, and the game gives you no way of calculating the CR of a wizard who only memorized noncombat spells, or a monster that used up its spells and SLAs and is at half HP.

because the CR is considered the most combat ready the monster can be. It is basically saying "ok, if the monster is at full combat potential that it can be at without terrain or external aid, this is its CR. Doesn't mean you have to do it that way.



Sorry, there's plenty of wrong stuff in the small posts that don't make my eyes hurt, too.
and when it is based upon larger already established arguments, like post 73 or post 212, then you are just wasting time. You have claimed i don't back my statements. I have, and you simply haven't given my backing and adressing




You've said that minions having 1 HP means they always have 1 HP and therefore die easily offscreen. You've said this because you think the rules. When I pointed out that HP in 4E is abstract, you basically said "no it isn't."
Until you can come to accept the basic fact that HP is abstract and that the game rules are not the world physics, responding to your Wall of Text is pointless, because it is based on false assumptions.
1) What i'm saying is that the rules and the world should not be based upon how it benefits the PCs, as i said in my mega posts, that is video gamist way of looking at things
2) even with HP as an abstraction, that doesn't make my point any less valid.
3) What falls assumptions. If you can prove my wall of texts wrong, go ahead. I'd much rather be found wrong if you proved it


Until you can accept that the rules of the game are just that--the rules of the game--and don't govern everything that happens in the game world, just things that happens in the game--then answering posts critiquing things like the minion system is pointless.

and the thing is, you make this claim here, but you don't back it, you don't prove it, you just claim it. I say that your claim is wrong, that the rules and the world should go hand in hand, like 3E was designed to do (failed due to balence)



But they're important nits. I'll get to your post when I get to it. Harping on it--OH YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THAT ONE WALL OF TEXT THAT QUOTES OTHER PEOPLE WITHOUT EVEN BOTHERING TO PUT THEM IN {QUOTE} TAGS--isn't going to help.
They are wastful nits, demanding evidence i've already provided.


EE, you're talking to yourself. You're quoting yourself. This is what happens when you don't close your quote tags.

what



Oh, you HAVEN'T, have you? So are you now saying that you acknowledge that the game rules aren't the world physics? That HP is abstract, and doesn't apply offscreen? That you decide what happens offscreen, rather than the rules? Because if you finally do admit that, then we can actually be productive.

My point has been about vermilitude and consistency. you can claim something else, but that isn't what i've been basing my points upon. I think that the mechanics should reflect the game world, but i said nothing about real world phyics

screw it, congratz, you are the first person to drive me to the thing i hate most, the ignore function. I hate the ignore function, i find it hypocritical, and extremly close minded, but at this point, i'm only hurting myself by responding to you, when i have already done so, and your not even giving me the decency of responding. You want to respond to my points, find, i'll defend them then


@EE
What I actually suggest to you is to open a separate thread where you explain your point to best of your ability. There, CiB (and I maybe) and anyone who desires to could respond with due calm.
My point is just as valid on this thread as anybody else's

from
EE

[Shosuro Ishii]

CiB is absolutely right when he says that encounter powers were designed for a reason and with a purpose. The idea of an encounter power is not arbitrary, it was designed for a reason, to shape how the game plays (for example, to remove the "four-encounter day" of 3E).

To me, it looks like you called it pointless, then were shown it wasn't, then called it arbitrary, then were shown it wasn't, and are now complaining that you were shown that what you're saying isn't remotely true.


You are correct, I have misused two words and fessed up to it. My bad. I'm feeling stupid that I messed up a simple word like arbitrary, thinking it meant something it didn't (even worse was pointless). It weakened my point. I admitted defeat on that ground and moved on (Twice....I R Smrt).

However, no one as actually tried to refute my point that things like SW and encounter powers are gamist concepts that would have no logical backing outside of a game world. That's really been my whole point.




Immersion has a lot to do with genre emulation!

Let me put it this way: in a pulp-action game like Spirit of the Century, fighting Nazis in a zeppelin doesn't shatter my immersion, it fuels it.
Fighting Nazis in a zeppelin in a game of D&D, on the other hand, would.

Minions are appropriate for D&D. They wouldn't be appropriate for World of Darkness--they'd be horribly immersion-breaking there.

As I understand it, you're saying that using or supporting any kind of genre trope is inherently immersion-breaking, which is just amazing. Are you one of those "realism or bust in every game ever" types?


Once again, I am really doing poorly with word choice today, so I'm once again going to backtrack and re-explain my point (completly my fault, I screwed up if people don't get it. Things that make no logical sense within the game world and exist soley for balance issues and cinematic bravdo destroy immersion. I don't care about realism so much as consistancy and logic. You can have Nazi's riding giant spiders made from the bones of the fallen so long as it makes sense within the context of the world. Things like minions and encoutner powers never make sense within the context of the world because they are abstract gamist concepts. That is my primary issue with 4ed.

In regards to minions. I feel (Personal opinion incoming) that the way the rules are written, they are designed to be monsters that the party can easily hack through in cinematic fashion as they push to the BBEGs lair. Is this cool? Yes. Is this cinematic. Yes. Does this seem odd that there exist monsters whose sole function is to die at the hands of the PCs for a cool scene as opposed to actually challenge them? Yes.

The idea of monster's who exist to be one shot by the PCs reminds me of the crazy 88 scene from Kill Bill. It was really really cool. But looking back on it, it was purely there for cinematic effect to show you just how badass The Bride was, and personally, I don't see the need for an entire class of monsters in game who exist just to be PC cannon fodder. Possibly I'm looking at it wrong. This falls into more of a matter of personal preference than anything else.



Ack. Kids nowadays! Young whipper-snappers! Conan is a series of stories, in text form. There's also some decent comic adatations out.

Movie... gah. No no no no no.

I assumed he was refering to the movies because he specified Conan as opposed to saying something braod like epic fantasy or sword and sorcery adventure. My fault once again (I'm like 0-7 today, go me!)

[Deepblue706]

@DeepBlue
The flaw in your reasoning is that you still consider HP as physical damage, which was not completely true before but is definitely false in 4e (due to the aforementioned abstraction).

I didn't say HP is necessarily physical damage. I never looked at it that way. I flavor many hits IC to be near-misses, jarring parries, etc, but, what are you saying here? That, no damage is physical unless we retroactively decide it is, because the cleric healed it and that wouldn't be necessary if it wasn't actually a wound, because the hurt party-member could just use a healing surge, and just effectively dust himself off? When does a player ever take a hit? Just a critical? What if I only fight one thing in a day, it scores a critical, and after I defeat it, I can *just* manage to heal myself using surges? I go about on my merry way? Sure, I might not want to strain myself further, but that doesn't change the fact that I just shrugged off a big hit. Like I said, I don't mind the concept of Healing Surges or Second Wind. They are acceptable, in my opinion, because I acknowledge HP is an abstraction. But, it doesn't look like it adds up when all you have to do is rest for a little while, no matter what just happened.



If you say "you rest 5 minutes and your wounds disappear" it seems a lot worse than the actual "you rest 5 minutes and regain, your morale, calm, stamina, concentration and maybe heal up a bit", which is how is seen in 4e (in line with the idea of "second wind" too). Also, healing completely with one spell even in combat (Heal) it's definitely worse in terms of balance than healing out of combat: yeah, the first one is "magic", but is worse gameplay-wise.

I wasn't referring to balance. I know it's more balanced this way - my gripe is that they chose this way to obtain balance.

And wait, if morale, calm, stamina and concentration are all included in the equation, why don't I suffer penalties to attack and AC before I heal? Why don't I have to save versus fear?



Even more: yes, the potions and magic stop working when you use all of your surges. But what happens when your pre-4e cleric runs out of spells? Wait, weren't they prayers? How can you run out of prayers? Your god must be a real dork... Oh and you have to pray beforehand for them, in the morning. That is really something that blows away my supension of disbelief.


Well, I'm not going to argue that prior editions weren't doing things solely for the sake of balance. However, doing more of the same shouldn't follow. I do not find it any more pleasing that earlier editions did the same.

But hey, as long as you're filling in blanks for healing surges, I might as well do the same for a cleric's spells: gods are creatures beyond mortals, and they do not impart a lot of trust upon us. Clerics of higher wisdom are the only ones able to cast high-level divine spells - perhaps the gods trust those with more wisdom to be able to use their power to better ends. Those with lesser wisdom are likely to squander and misuse these divine gifts, and are seen as unworthy. Lower-level clerics are simply not noticed by gods, and therefore receive less attention, and less access to grander abilities.

I can tell you're getting emotional about this, however. Maybe we should take a break?

[Jade_Tarem]

However, no one as actually tried to refute my point that things like SW and encounter powers are gamist concepts that would have no logical backing outside of a game world. That's really been my whole point.

If you bandy them about in-game, yes. Talking about treasure tables in 3.5 destroys immersion - they have no backing outside of a game world (being big an' bad in the real world does not make you richer than the next guy by default), and they exist for the sole benefit of the PCs!


Things that make no logical sense within the game world and exist soley for balance issues and cinematic bravdo destroy immersion. I don't care about realism so much as consistancy and logic. You can have Nazi's riding giant spiders made from the bones of the fallen so long as it makes sense within the context of the world. Things like minions and encoutner powers never make sense within the context of the world because they are abstract gamist concepts. That is my primary issue with 4ed.

Again, only if you describe them as minions and encounter powers does it crash down on the illusion. Saying that someone is attacked by a horde of minions wearing red shirts and "kill me now" signs is a lot different than telling your players that they're under attack by Orcs. Assuming that an army of orcs exists only for the PCs to kill is an assumption that really isn't backed by anything until or unless you remove all fluff forever - no, not just the lack of inherent fluff in the core rulebooks, but any fluff that anyone could ever make.

Look, in the Ramayana, an Indian epic, Rama manages to plow his way through a ridiculous number of guys on his quest to save his wife. At one point the epic actually fast forwards through this kind of thing.

"And then Rama fought the ten thousand men, and defeated them."

Just like that. The details were not important - but the book does not say that they were there just for him to kill - Just the opposite, he was specifically created to take down Ravana, the fully-statted out :smallamused: Demon King, who was himself created specifically to be killed by Rama, or something like that.


Does this seem odd that there exist monsters whose sole function is to die at the hands of the PCs for a cool scene as opposed to actually challenge them? Yes.

Only if you present it like that. The battle does not have to start with the horde showing up to announce that they are there for the PCs to kill - just the opposite, they're there just to kill the PCs.


The idea of monster's who exist to be one shot by the PCs reminds me of the crazy 88 scene from Kill Bill. It was really really cool. But looking back on it, it was purely there for cinematic effect to show you just how badass The Bride was, and personally, I don't see the need for an entire class of monsters in game who exist just to be PC cannon fodder. Possibly I'm looking at it wrong. This falls into more of a matter of personal preference than anything else.

Again, your minions can be different if you want to spice things up a bit.

[Rachel Lorelei]

I flavor many hits IC to be near-misses, jarring parries, etc, but, what are you saying here? That, no damage is physical unless we retroactively decide it is
Sort of. For us, it's more, oh... a party with a Cleric, Paladin, or other divine healer will take a lot more in the way of actual physical wounds, description-wise, than a party with a Warlord.


But, it doesn't look like it adds up when all you have to do is rest for a little while, no matter what just happened.
For those of you who are not OK with this but are OK with a little tube of HP labelled "wand of cure light wounds", have one of the party members carry around some of those wands and it'll explain all the healing you like.



And wait, if morale, calm, stamina and concentration are all included in the equation, why don't I suffer penalties to attack and AC before I heal? Why don't I have to save versus fear?
Because D&D is a highly abstract game, like it's been since 2E at least, that doesn't use a "death spiral" mechanic (penalties for lowered HP) like many games do. (And yet, people still argue it's simulationist...)


But hey, as long as you're filling in blanks for healing surges, I might as well do the same for a cleric's spells: gods are creatures beyond mortals, and they do not impart a lot of trust upon them. Clerics of higher wisdom are the only ones able to cast high-level divine spells - perhaps the gods trust those with more wisdom to be able to use their power to better ends. Those with lesser wisdom are likely to squander and misuse these divine gifts, and are seen as unworthy.
What, Pelor won't even grant Clara the Cleric an extra spell to save some children from burning to death?

The usual explanation is that it's not about the god's willingness, it's about the mortal's ability to channel that power. A higher-level or wiser cleric is better at it.

Really, it's not like 4E has any more things to fill in or work with so they make sense. We're just all so used to doing it for 3E that we do it automatically.

[Shosuro Ishii]

If you bandy them about in-game, yes. Talking about treasure tables in 3.5 destroys immersion - they have no backing outside of a game world (being big an' bad in the real world does not make you richer than the next guy by default), and they exist for the sole benefit of the PCs!

Again, only if you describe them as minions and encounter powers does it crash down on the illusion. Saying that someone is attacked by a horde of minions wearing red shirts and "kill me now" signs is a lot different than telling your players that they're under attack by Orcs. Assuming that an army of orcs exists only for the PCs to kill is an assumption that really isn't backed by anything until or unless you remove all fluff forever - no, not just the lack of inherent fluff in the core rulebooks, but any fluff that anyone could ever make.

Look, in the Ramayana, an Indian epic, Rama manages to plow his way through a ridiculous number of guys on his quest to save his wife. At one point the epic actually fast forwards through this kind of thing.

"And then Rama fought the ten thousand men, and defeated them."

Just like that. The details were not important - but the book does not say that they were there just for him to kill - Just the opposite, he was specifically created to take down Ravana, the fully-statted out :smallamused: Demon King, who was himself created specifically to be killed by Rama, or something like that.

Only if you present it like that. The battle does not have to start with the horde showing up to announce that they are there for the PCs to kill - just the opposite, they're there just to kill the PCs.

Again, your minions can be different if you want to spice things up a bit.

/bow

Really nothing more I can say. I guess it does come down to a matter of execution and personal preference in regards to minions. I personally just dislike that there is so much dedicated to them that it seems like we're expected to use them, which is a matter of personal preference I guess. Still hate the power system with a passion, but that's neither here nor there.

I'll admit that there are things in 4ed I really like, and things I dislike. I think everyone is this way.

Kinda funny when I look back and realize that my original point was that 4ed is like a video game, but the things that make it like a video game are the things that make it GOOD. Weird how these things work.

[Deepblue706]

Sort of. For us, it's more, oh... a party with a Cleric, Paladin, or other divine healer will take a lot more in the way of actual physical wounds, description-wise, than a party with a Warlord.

Well, that's obviously making good observations and using your resources to your advantage. Still, I think that you should have to do that is evidence that the system is clumsily designed, in this regard.



For those of you who are not OK with this but are OK with a little tube of HP labelled "wand of cure light wounds", have one of the party members carry around some of those wands and it'll explain all the healing you like.

Where did we get it? Do I have to pay money for it? What if I don't think it's appropriate to have such an item in the game? Personally, I don't think it's right that I should feel fixed, feel limited in such a way that I have to find excuses for the mechanics to exist. I would prefer if the whole healing surge thing was modular.



Because D&D is a highly abstract game, like it's been since 2E at least, that doesn't use a "death spiral" mechanic (penalties for lowered HP) like many games do. (And yet, people still argue it's simulationist...)

Yeah, I understand that much. What I fail to understand is that why everyone has an abstract healing that never fails. HP should be recoverable by more than just magic healing - but that doesn't mean any healing should necessarily do the trick.



What, Pelor won't even grant Clara the Cleric an extra spell to save some children from burning to death?

Iunno. Maybe death doesn't really matter, because the afterlife is effin' sweet anyway. Or maybe the god doesn't want to directly intervene. Maybe it's a test. But in any case, just because I can't answer some questions about flaws of earlier editions doesn't mean I should accept more instances where there are questions I can't answer. I'm already taking a hit to the gut for quite a few mechanics, more doesn't help.



The usual explanation is that it's not about the god's willingness, it's about the mortal's ability to channel that power. A higher-level or wiser cleric is better at it.

That works too.



Really, it's not like 4E has any more things to fill in or work with so they make sense. We're just all so used to doing it for 3E that we do it automatically.

Well, it has Healing Surges. But, I'll wait for your reply before saying the same thing twice.

[Eorran]

The challenge here is there are two sets of rules: the rules of the game, and the rules of the world.
The rules of the game exist solely for the players. Not the PCs; they are unaware that these rules exist. These are the rules as presented in the PHB, DMG, and MM. They focus on the PCs, because their entire raison d'etre is to help the DM when a player says "can I do this?"

The second set of rules are the rules of the game world; these are the rules that the characters are aware of. These are the rules the PCs use to determine their actions, which means they must be very similar to the game rules, in order for the characters to make reasonable decisions. However, they are not the same, and sometimes what the player knows is different than what the character knows.
Example: the PC is attacked by an ogre, who hits him. What the Player knows is his character took 16 points of damage, and how many HP he has left; what the character knows is he just took a wallop on his shield-arm, and it's going to sting like the blue blazes until he can get it looked after. It's also going to make him more vulnerable to repeated attacks.

It seems to me one of the big complaints about 4e is there is a larger apparent gap between the game rules and the world rules than there was in 3.X. Minions, for example, are known by the DM/Players as Minions, but the PCs don't know Minion rules. Therefore, the players have to make their own explanation as to what the characters know about these opponents. For some people, this is a problem; for others, it isn't. It depends entirely on taste.

[Jade_Tarem]

I'll admit that there are things in 4ed I really like, and things I dislike. I think everyone is this way.

Kinda funny when I look back and realize that my original point was that 4ed is like a video game, but the things that make it like a video game are the things that make it GOOD. Weird how these things work.

Yeah, remember how I started out arguing the anti-4e stance? I don't care for the game either, but I just always felt the NPC and minion system wasn't as horrid as people were making it out to be.

[batsofchaos]

I'm not sure why encounter powers are that unbelievable. The explanation given in the books is that these abilities are complicated enough that after a character uses them, they need time to recoup themselves before they can use it again. For a character whose power source is martial, it means they have to sit down and catch their breath before they can try that again. For a character powered by arcane, it means they need time to recollect their mental energies before they can do it again. Divine, they need to re-reflect with their diety or re-resolve their will.

I think it makes perfectly good sense.

[Jayabalard]

No one, but no one, used the Grehawk-y default setting fluff in the 3E PHB. They make their own worlds. Not true at all. Many people use the default fluff, at least in part. Some people use all of it.

Very few people (if any) create a detailed world from the ground up with no fluff from an outside source; the vast majority design specfic things (some more than othres), and then add in stuff borrowed from a bunch of different sources to flesh it out the rest of the way: movies, books, anime, manga, and other RPG settings.

So having a default setting can be quite useful for world designers, especially beginning world designers; since 4e is trying to cater to "new blood" the fact that it does not have a default setting seems pretty asinine.


This is a flaw of 3.5, because enemies can always "go nova" while the PCs have to conserve resources, because they are fundamentally different.Sounds like Poor GMing to me; NPC enemies don't know that the PCs are the only enemy that they are going to run into, any more than PC's know, in character, that they only have 4 encounters to go through that day. If, as a GM, you're going to roleplay NPCs that poorly then you're at fault, not the system.


You realize you just said that being *fun* makes it *video game like*, right?Wrong way around. He said that being "video game like" makes it "fun". Which doesn't say anything whether things things aren't "video game like are fun or not.


For those of you who are not OK with this but are OK with a little tube of HP labelled "wand of cure light wounds", have one of the party members carry around some of those wands and it'll explain all the healing you like.And for the people who object to both? I'm not a fan of either.


The explanation given in the books is that these abilities are complicated enough that after a character uses them, they need time to recoup themselves before they can use it again. That's the part that isn't believable.

[batsofchaos]

That's the part that isn't believable.

Why? What's not believable? I think it makes perfect sense for a martial type to do something particularly flashy or difficult, and need to sit down before doing it again.

[Shosuro Ishii]

Why? What's not believable? I think it makes perfect sense for a martial type to do something particularly flashy or difficult, and need to sit down before doing it again.

It's got more to do with the abstract definition of an 'encounter'.

Sitting around for 5 minutes completly refreshes these powers, regardless of what they are or what they do. Plus, if it's so flashy that it becomes off-limits, why aren't similair abilities or equally strenous actions put off limits.

[Jayabalard]

Why? What's not believable? I think it makes perfect sense for a martial type to do something particularly flashy or difficult, and need to sit down before doing it again.It makes sense for them to do some particularity flash or difficult and then not be able to continue fighting due to how tired you are.

It makes no sense for a particular type of swing to tire you so that you can't do that particular swing again, especially since you still have enough energy to can do a different attack that's even more draining (ie: a daily).

[Kiara LeSabre]

I see dead catgirls.