PDA

View Full Version : [4E] Not for serious campaigns?



Pages : [1] 2

Isomenes
2008-08-16, 07:24 PM
My group has been merrily gaming along in our 4E campaign, and after some reflection, I realize that we've had exactly one combat, and that more an initiative-ordered sequence involving less than half our party, after 3 sessions. Needless to say, we've thrown down some mighty neat characters, and the plot's already thickening well. (I can tell the DM is about to turn up the heat a bit, maybe add some salt.)

The question is this: I've seen the charge that 4E isn't for "serious" campaigns, that it's not as suitable for them as 3.5. Rather than just say "you're wrong," my intent is to understand where the claim is founded. Because so far, we're pretty involved in what we've got going on, and the ruleset is supporting all the random things that we try. So, why is 4E unsuitable for "serious" campaigns? More specifically, what is a serious campaign, and how does 4E's ruleset fail to foster such?

Covered In Bees
2008-08-16, 07:30 PM
My 4E campaign is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

FoE
2008-08-16, 07:35 PM
{Scrubbed}

thegurullamen
2008-08-16, 07:37 PM
OP, I haven't heard that particular sentiment on the boards, though there is enough Wowification/simplification/dumbed-down/for kids talk going back and forth between adamant 4e protesters/lovers that I might understand how you could see that. In all reality, I don't see why 4e can't be as good as 3.5 for a "serious campaign". probably just an outgrowth of the "4e doesn't support roleplaying" opinion a lot of anti-4e posters have.

Also:


My 4E campaign is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

You gonna link that (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeriousBusiness)?

ZekeArgo
2008-08-16, 07:44 PM
My group has been merrily gaming along in our 4E campaign, and after some reflection, I realize that we've had exactly one combat, and that more an initiative-ordered sequence involving less than half our party, after 3 sessions. Needless to say, we've thrown down some mighty neat characters, and the plot's already thickening well. (I can tell the DM is about to turn up the heat a bit, maybe add some salt.)

The question is this: I've seen the charge that 4E isn't for "serious" campaigns, that it's not as suitable for them as 3.5. Rather than just say "you're wrong," my intent is to understand where the claim is founded. Because so far, we're pretty involved in what we've got going on, and the ruleset is supporting all the random things that we try. So, why is 4E unsuitable for "serious" campaigns? More specifically, what is a serious campaign, and how does 4E's ruleset fail to foster such?

You sort of answer the question yourself with your opening paragraph: you've been playing a game with merely one simple combat after 3 sessions, with what you describe as interesting and varied roleplaying. Unless you have specific arguments that can be refuted as to why 4E can't be used in "serious" campaigns, what do others have to say other than "yes, it can"?

Dhavaer
2008-08-16, 07:51 PM
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e100/Dhavaer/1168382483-1168292855537456.jpg

RebelRogue
2008-08-16, 08:13 PM
Basically, a campaign is as serious as the DM and the players make it. The system used has little influence on that matter.

Isomenes
2008-08-16, 08:46 PM
You sort of answer the question yourself with your opening paragraph: you've been playing a game with merely one simple combat after 3 sessions, with what you describe as interesting and varied roleplaying. Unless you have specific arguments that can be refuted as to why 4E can't be used in "serious" campaigns, what do others have to say other than "yes, it can"?

That's the question. The reason I posted it was that I have seen sentiments explicitly stating this, on these very boards, even. I'll be buggered if I can remember the specific threads, but I remember feeling that responding to that sentiment in those threads was a little...off-topic. I'll try to search for the ones that got my curiosity a-ticking and post them to the OP.

Just curious as to what makes people tick.

Inhuman Bot
2008-08-16, 08:49 PM
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e100/Dhavaer/1168382483-1168292855537456.jpg

O.Odamn you, Capt. Charcter limit!

Kyeudo
2008-08-16, 08:54 PM
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e100/Dhavaer/1168382483-1168292855537456.jpg

You win this thread.

Dhavaer
2008-08-16, 08:59 PM
You win this thread.

Why thankyou. :smallbiggrin:

Lupy
2008-08-16, 09:11 PM
Wish I could see the picture...

Anyway, the 4th edition campaign I have been running is serious as a campaign run by me can be. We crack too many Oots jokes to kep a serious atmosphere. :smalltongue:

Prophaniti
2008-08-16, 10:00 PM
<CENSORED---CODE 18/995/OMEGA>
Some men will be showing up shortly to escort you to a holding cell. Do not be alarmed. Cooperation is in your best interests.

(Oh, and yeah, you won the thread, definitely.:smallbiggrin:)

Alchemistmerlin
2008-08-16, 10:07 PM
You win this thread.

Threads are won by posting 2 year old image macros? Wow, if only I had known sooner. :smallsigh:



As for the OP: The system has a very minor influence on the tone of the campaign. Despite not personally liking 4e, I see no reason it can't be used to run a "serious" campaign.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-16, 10:09 PM
Threads are won by posting 2 year old image macros? Wow, if only I had known sooner. :smallsigh:

These guys' minds will really blow when they discover Encyclopedia Dramatica.

OP: The reasoning is, I guess, that since 4E is Actually D&DWoWE, it can only be used to play running mobs, and nothing else.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. But there you go.

Crow
2008-08-16, 10:35 PM
I don't about 4e not being good for "serious" campaigns, but it doesn't seem like the best choice for a campaign where the players are supposed to start off "low-powered". Level 1 4e characters just have too much awesome about them for a campaign like that to work.

Also, I've found myself a bit frustrated with the 4e monster manual. I'll be running my 4th "serious" session next week, and I've already had to use the monster creation rules twice.

chiasaur11
2008-08-16, 11:08 PM
These guys' minds will really blow when they discover Encyclopedia Dramatica.


I think the term you're looking for for the Encyclopedia Dramatica is "Brains melting in agony as they are forced to encounter a Lovecraftian embodiment of evil"

greenknight
2008-08-16, 11:13 PM
I think the main reason some people feel 4e isn't for serious campaigns is because of all the disassociated mechanics in the rules. Pretty much every ruleset includes some disassociated mechanics, but 4e seems to take it further than most. That said, 4e is fine if you aren't trying to explain or understand how the mechanics actually work (or if your campaign doesn't actually use the mechanics much).

Gavin Sage
2008-08-16, 11:17 PM
Despite rather loathing 4e I see no reason one can't run a "serious" campaign unless the definition of "serious" in this context relies on thing the 4e system isn't built to accomplish. Certainly one can run a serious hack'n'slash campaign based around a classic four man party. Or any campaign built around combat as the means to an end. Outside of combat, well I dare say it can be done and still be serious... just sounds like a lot more making it up as one goes along.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-16, 11:22 PM
I dare say it can be done and still be serious... just sounds like a lot more making it up as one goes along.

The skill challenge mechanic has done more for non-combat stuff in my game than 3E's "wait to see which caster has a spell to solve every problem" ever has.

C'mon, guys. 4E has quest XP, skill challenge XP... it rewards and thus encourages noncombat things more than any edition before it has.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-16, 11:26 PM
The skill challenge mechanic has done more for non-combat stuff in my game than 3E's "wait to see which caster has a spell to solve every problem" ever has.

C'mon, guys. 4E has quest XP, skill challenge XP... it rewards and thus encourages noncombat things more than any edition before it has.

I beg to differ! 3e gave us the ability to have Cooking Challenges and epic Profession (Sailor) Naval battles! :smalltongue:

turkishproverb
2008-08-16, 11:27 PM
That's the question. The reason I posted it was that I have seen sentiments explicitly stating this, on these very boards, even. I'll be buggered if I can remember the specific threads, but I remember feeling that responding to that sentiment in those threads was a little...off-topic. I'll try to search for the ones that got my curiosity a-ticking and post them to the OP.

Just curious as to what makes people tick.

I think your thinking of all the people who said they'd use it as a miniature combat game and not a RPG because they thought it was better suited to that.

ghost_warlock
2008-08-16, 11:42 PM
The only reasons I can really think of are dissassociated mechanics (e.g., marking and such) and the short duration of most effects (e.g., an attack that 'shatters bone and armor,' but only inflicts a penalty to AC for a single round as if the 'shattered' armor spontaneously heals itself). That sort of thing leave me with a feeling of impermanence but that's mostly a matter of taste.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-16, 11:43 PM
The only reasons I can really think of are dissassociated mechanics (e.g., marking and such) and the short duration of most effects (e.g., an attack that 'shatters bone and armor,' but only inflicts a penalty to AC for a single round as if the 'shattered' armor spontaneously heals itself). That sort of thing leave me with a feeling of impermanence but that's mostly a matter of taste.

Marking isn't really disassociated, it represents something.

DMfromTheAbyss
2008-08-16, 11:45 PM
I'm in a 4rth ed game.

It's rather serious.

I've been able to do more roleplay since my game went to 4rth ed. My character is much more balanced with the party so everyone can contribute in combat... and frankly with the monster level system I've found the fights much tougher and more enjoyable, becouse the GM doesn't have to wrestle the system to make the combats good and tough and still let us survive.

So yeah with a good enough GM (and players willing to go along with the concept) you can have any game be serious... but 4th ed is easier than 3.x becouse frankly there's less stuff to slog through so you can concentrate on actually playing/running the game. (aka it has simpler game mechanics, not lawyer esq rules for every possible eventuality)

Though I'm not sure if the GM exists that can run a serious game of Toon. Besm is sorta difficult too, unless you restrict the heck out of character options... when the cyborg magic girl riding a flying surfboard comes into your game it's a little hard to take seriously.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-16, 11:50 PM
I'm in a 4rth ed game.

It's rather serious.

Probably easier for the DM to do roleplaying without alot of rather silly rping skills to get in the way... you know so people can roleplay without having to dice out everything. Just describe... end of game mechanic.


Uh... 4E still has pretty much the same social skills.

Jack Mann
2008-08-16, 11:57 PM
Although, granted, skill challenges are more interesting than 3rd edition diplomacy checks. Still, I like to combine them with actual roleplaying.

NPCMook
2008-08-17, 12:21 AM
These guys' minds will really blow when they discover Encyclopedia Dramatica.

OP: The reasoning is, I guess, that since 4E is Actually D&DWoWE, it can only be used to play running mobs, and nothing else.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. But there you go.

DnD =/= WoW (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1044100)

This (http://www.warcraftrpg.com/index.php?line=intro) is DnD the WoW edition

Gavin Sage
2008-08-17, 12:27 AM
The skill challenge mechanic has done more for non-combat stuff in my game than 3E's "wait to see which caster has a spell to solve every problem" ever has.

C'mon, guys. 4E has quest XP, skill challenge XP... it rewards and thus encourages noncombat things more than any edition before it has.

I actually kinda like the skills in 4e personally. Given though they seemed all told one of the least altered areas to me. I'd long thought having level as a basis a good thing for skills, to prevent such embarassments as the level 20 character failing a simple comparatively simple jump check. Skills were more comprehensive in 3e though, you can expand them easy enough in 4e but that gets back to making stuff up as one goes along.

Oh and while the mage always having a spell is a problem, is the mage now never having a spell the solution to that?

And XP is and has always been in my experience a total DM crapshoot to begin with. I think we've all played a game where the DM has just chucked out arbtrary amounts of XP, including for completing quests or the like.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-08-17, 12:46 AM
In my opinion, pretty much any system can be used to run a serious campaign.

kwdblade
2008-08-17, 01:00 AM
So yeah with a good enough GM you can have any game be serious... but 4th ed is easier than 3.x becouse frankly there's less stuff to slog through so you can concentrate on actually playing/running the game.


Of course there is less stuff to "slog" through... it just came out. Wait a year and we'll see how much sloging everyone will be doing.

I tried running the first module, Shadowkeep or whatever, and I don't think a single one of my players took it seriously. It got so bad that after the waterfall battle, we just gave up. It was just silly. Maybe that was the module, but I felt foolish running it.

"Ho ho! My special power is to move ONE SQUARE! Beat that!"
"Oh yeah, well i'm going to hit you and HEAL! Muhahaha!"

Stupid.

I also found it hiliarous that the halfling rogue could push a 300 pound hobgoblin 15 feet just because he hit them with a dagger.

Helgraf
2008-08-17, 01:18 AM
I also found it hiliarous that the halfling rogue could push a 300 pound hobgoblin 15 feet just because he hit them with a dagger.

It's all in where and when you stick the metal bit in...

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-17, 01:21 AM
"Ho ho! My special power is to move ONE SQUARE! Beat that!"
"Oh yeah, well i'm going to hit you and HEAL! Muhahaha!"

Stupid.

I also found it hiliarous that the halfling rogue could push a 300 pound hobgoblin 15 feet just because he hit them with a dagger.

It's interesting that so many D&D players are having trouble immersing themselves in 4e. I mean, it has been a fairly common complaint in the early release days, but here's an actual example of it in action.

Have other people had this problem with 4e? Or any RPG? I've always just accepted the mechanics as they were, and focused on the story, personally.

EDIT:
Interesting responses so far. As an addendum, mind if I ask what other pen & paper systems you've played?

arguskos
2008-08-17, 01:23 AM
Have other people had this problem with 4e? Or any RPG? I've always just accepted the mechanics as they were, and focused on the story, personally.
I had the issue with 4e. To be fair, at first, I wasn't really trying too hard. As I relaxed and gave it a more honest effort, I still found that I wasn't enjoying myself. To me, it was a matter of how the game felt. Story can be told just fine in any system under the sun, but if it doesn't feel right, then out it goes. *shrug*

-argus

Crow
2008-08-17, 01:26 AM
Add me to those for whom 4e doesn't "feel" right. Sometimes it feels like the mechanics are divorced from the reality of the game world to some extent. While this is inevitable in any system, it seems more prominent now.

It's just a "feel" thing. I can't completely explain it.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-08-17, 01:45 AM
It's interesting that so many D&D players are having trouble immersing themselves in 4e. I mean, it has been a fairly common complaint in the early release days, but here's an actual example of it in action.



I have also found it really strange how so many D&D players (sterotypically very imaginative and intelligent) cannot visualize 4e abilities. Yet, give them a spell and now it makes sense all of a sudden? Why? Because magic doesn't need to be explained. Its secretly accepted as something that just happens because.

Go back, and think about the abilities for a second. If all of your players are making jokes about how stupid powers can be interpreted, then yes, your games will fail. But think for a second. Is the rogue pushing the hobgoblin with his dagger physically with brute strength? Or did the Hobgoblin jump back as the rogue acted out a series feinted slashes, only to be unexpectedly stabed in the gut as the rogue leaped foward? If you don't have an open mind, then don't expect to enjoy the system.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-17, 01:58 AM
I also found it hiliarous that the halfling rogue could push a 300 pound hobgoblin 15 feet just because he hit them with a dagger.

Hint: he's not actually shoving them 15 feet back physically. He's using feints and misdirection to control his enemy's movements, the way people do in combat.

If you describe things as "I HIT HIM WITH MY KNIFE AND PUSH HIM BACK 15 FEET" it'll be silly.
If I describe the 3E Fighter as "I KNOCK HIM OFF HIS FEET FOR THE SIXTH TIME IN A ROW AND STAB HIM IN THE GUT FOR THE THIRD TIME, LOL" it'll be silly, too.

Gavin Sage
2008-08-17, 02:16 AM
Go back, and think about the abilities for a second. If all of your players are making jokes about how stupid powers can be interpreted, then yes, your games will fail. But think for a second. Is the rogue pushing the hobgoblin with his dagger physically with brute strength? Or did the Hobgoblin jump back as the rogue acted out a series feinted slashes, only to be unexpectedly stabed in the gut as the rogue leaped foward? If you don't have an open mind, then don't expect to enjoy the system.

Here's the issue with that. While that makes sense to feint and control an enemy like that, does it it makes sense as mechanically presented. Are we supposing that all moving ablities rely somehow on perfect and universal psychology so that anyone can be moved. Maybe a hobgoblin is a decent example, but why should a Dragon move for a halfling with a dagger. Its like us moving for a mosquito instead of swating it.

Short version: Do creatures get a chance to mentally resist manipulation under common sense, and should they?

Crow
2008-08-17, 02:21 AM
Hint: he's not actually shoving them 15 feet back physically. He's using feints and misdirection to control his enemy's movements, the way people do in combat.

But he can only do it once per fight...or day...

Akisa
2008-08-17, 02:45 AM
Or how about a fanatic who would rather die then let the rogue get past him. Aside for tumbling or the fanatic's death that rogue shouldn't get by him if it's narrow area.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-17, 02:48 AM
Or how about a fanatic who would rather die then let the rogue get past him. Aside for tumbling or the fanatic's death that rogue shouldn't get by him if it's narrow area.

Rogue trips him up, hits him in a sensitive spot, etc.

That's an easy one - people are vulnerable and can be betrayed by their bodies.

EDIT: And, about "saves" - the "save" is the DC that the PC had to hit. Remember that, say Reflex, is used to represent the enemy's ability to dodge or twist out of the way. This is just another way of representing this feature instead of an opposed ability check.

Akisa
2008-08-17, 02:58 AM
ok that may work but 15ft is really streching it and what about non living things like golem and undead. And why doesn't the fanatic get a will save not move after the attack hit?

Covered In Bees
2008-08-17, 03:00 AM
But he can only do it once per fight...or day...

Didn't you play 2E? Abstract combat mechanics should be nothing new to you. Think of it like spending action points.

Random NPC
2008-08-17, 03:18 AM
My gaming sessions are serious business

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/b2/Slowpoke.gif

JaxGaret
2008-08-17, 03:26 AM
Every facet of my 4e campaign oozes seriousness to such a degree that it pervades every glorious moment of our gaming sessions.

Srsly guys. Srsly.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-17, 03:33 AM
My 4E campaign is a matter of LIFE AND DEATH. If a character dies, we stab the player.

If we don't TPK by the end, we will ritually kill and eat the DM.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-08-17, 03:39 AM
But he can only do it once per fight...or day...

Just like how a wizard can study a spell for days and days yet, if hes used it for the day, *Poof*, hes suddenly forgot it.

As for pushing things like dragons, I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that you cannot push something larger than 1 size catagory above you, although it doesn't really matter. Pushing that golem? He feints as if hes going ahead of the golem/undead, causing it to backpeddle and begin to strike. Only the rogue never moved, and the golem/undead now have a dagger in them. Same could be done with a dragon.

And if you really want to create a creature that would not get pushed around easily, maybe just give them immunity to it? Just a thought.

Kompera
2008-08-17, 04:24 AM
But he can only do it once per fight...or day...*sigh* Why does it seem to me as though most of the arguments against 4e mechanics can be summed up as follows: I've decided that I don't like them, so I refuse to apply the slightest bit of my own imagination to make them work for me. Instead, I'll trot out the most easily dispelled arguments against them and will refuse to see that with only the tiniest bit of imagination, such as that I use in every play session of any RPG, that the mechanics can be made to make perfect, plausible sense (in the context of "making sense" in a FRPG, that is).

-failure to suspend disbelief-
Once per encounter/day powers make no sense! Why can't the clever Rogue shift their opponent all the time, instead of only once per encounter or per day?
-try this-
The clever Rogue constantly looks for the opportunity to force his opponents into a tactically poor position. But those opportunities don't happen 100% of the time in any given six second time frame. Instead, the clever Rogue might manage to pull this off once in any given fight/days worth of fights.

Now really, was that so hard? Doesn't this sound reasonable, in the context of a battle of swords, spells, and wits as might be written in any given fantasy novel? Was it really necessary to call the once per encounter/day mechanic into question, rather than applying a bit of imagination and coming up with this or any number of other plausible explanations for the mechanic?

Wouldn't it be more improbable for this to be an at-will power? (cue the trotting out of any number of at-will powers along with the "No wai this could work all the time!" cries of suspension of disbelief breaking)

Talic
2008-08-17, 04:34 AM
-failure to suspend disbelief-
Once per encounter/day powers make no sense! Why can't the clever Rogue shift their opponent all the time, instead of only once per encounter or per day?
-try this-
The clever Rogue constantly looks for the opportunity to force his opponents into a tactically poor position. But those opportunities don't happen 100% of the time in any given six second time frame. Instead, the clever Rogue might manage to pull this off once in any given fight/days worth of fights.Now, if it's the rogue that's the driving force here (and it would be, if he chooses when it works, and when he's "looking unsuccessfully"... Well, when you choose when it works, it just doesn't have that feel. Honestly, magic can be explained that way (the caster needs time to recharge), but physical combat? Encounter powers make no sense if the player chooses when they activate. Because if he can only do it when the enemy leaves him an opportunity, then the ENEMY should be deciding on an action which triggers the ability, such as, "the rogue announces an action, and an opponent. If the opponent performs that action, then the rogue may shift him first." Now, it's more like the rogue looking for an opening, finding one, and acting on it. But limiting that to once per encounter? Done entirely for balance with other classes, and not because it makes sense. Because it doesn't.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-17, 04:39 AM
Done entirely for balance with other classes, and not because it makes sense. Because it doesn't.

Precisely.

Handwaving doesn't help things. You can cover up all the things that don't make sense in retrospect, but in the end it's clear that the game started as a set of technical rules for balance and had all the fluff tacked on afterwards. This is the exact opposite from how other RPGs are designed (i.e. start with a verisimilitudinous world and put in the rules to keep that world making sense), so it should come as no surprise that some people prefer it the other way.

Kompera
2008-08-17, 04:53 AM
Precisely.

Handwaving doesn't help things. You can cover up all the things that don't make sense in retrospect, but in the end it's clear that the game started as a set of technical rules for balance and had all the fluff tacked on afterwards. This is the exact opposite from how other RPGs are designed (i.e. start with a verisimilitudinous world and put in the rules to keep that world making sense), so it should come as no surprise that some people prefer it the other way.
Covering up? Ok, I'll bite. Tell me in imaginative, fantasy combat terms how it would be better for the Rogue to be able to shift their opponent 15 feet as an at-will power. Describe this in terms of how this is much more reasonable than having this ability be not usable at will.

It's you who are doing the handwaving here, not me. And you're right about one thing: Your handwaving doesn't help things.

Talic
2008-08-17, 05:02 AM
Covering up? Ok, I'll bite. Tell me in imaginative, fantasy combat terms how it would be better for the Rogue to be able to shift their opponent 15 feet as an at-will power. Describe this in terms of how this is much more reasonable than having this ability be not usable at will.

It's you who are doing the handwaving here, not me. And you're right about one thing: Your handwaving doesn't help things.

By their very nature, physical abilities are repeatable. Verisimilatude.
The Rogue's ability to move someone is a physical ability.

THEREFORE: It is repeatable.

Oh wait, it's not!

/Verisimilatude breaks

Bottom line, if the rogue is looking for an opening, and must wait for one to present itself before acting, then he should not choose when the ability is used, rather, whoever is leaving the opening should.

If the rogue chooses when the ability is used (as it is now), then it implies that the rogue controls when it happens, he creates the opportunity. If that is the case, and it's an entirely physical ability, then it makes sense that it should be repeatable.

But that's not balanced to the other classes, so it's not done.

Because balance was the core of this game, not common sense.

Jerthanis
2008-08-17, 05:12 AM
But limiting that to once per encounter? Done entirely for balance with other classes, and not because it makes sense. Because it doesn't.

It makes perfect sense to me, because in my limited experience in the arts martial, sometimes you see an opening and you take it, other times you create openings, and most of the time you can't get away with the same trick twice.

But we're really not getting away from a subjective argument of basically coming up with reasons to say it definitely makes sense or doesn't make sense based mostly on our own perspectives on the system and our relative dislike or liking of the system.

If I hated 4th edition I'd say, "When I took martial arts, I could always do hip-tosses, even if I had already done a hip-toss once that day/fight." and that'd make perfect sense to me.

My 4th edition game isn't serious... but our 3rd edition games weren't serious either. That is to say, everyone enjoys them and makes inane jokes all the time. We have a recurring NPC called, "Meat-on-stick guy", who sells Meat-on-stick to passersby. We're also seeking a gem that could end the world in the wrong hands and trying to trick a devil into leading us to it so we can smash it.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-17, 05:12 AM
Now, if it's the rogue that's the driving force here (and it would be, if he chooses when it works, and when he's "looking unsuccessfully"... Well, when you choose when it works, it just doesn't have that feel. Honestly, magic can be explained that way (the caster needs time to recharge), but physical combat?

Do you also have a problem with powers that are "reroll an attack/saving throw/X" and action points? The player chooses when to use those, too.

MartinHarper
2008-08-17, 05:16 AM
Bottom line, if the rogue is looking for an opening, and must wait for one to present itself before acting, then he should not choose when the ability is used, rather, whoever is leaving the opening should.

The player chooses that the ogre accidentally leaves an opening, and then the player chooses that the rogue takes advantage of the opening to move the ogre 15 feet backwards.

MartinHarper
2008-08-17, 05:42 AM
By their very nature, physical abilities are repeatable. Verisimilitude.

No, they're not. Example: I can sprint 100m. However, I cannot do that 1,000 times in a row and therefore sprint 1km. So there's another explanation of rogue encounter powers, if you don't want to give the rogue's player narrative control:

With anger flashing in his eyes, the halfing darts forward, picks up the hobgoblin, and hurls him backwards into the corner. As the hobgoblin's head cracks loudly on the dungeon wall, the halfling rubs his biceps ruefully.
"Ouch. Remind me not to try that again for a little while."

nagora
2008-08-17, 05:50 AM
Have other people had this problem with 4e? Or any RPG? I've always just accepted the mechanics as they were, and focused on the story, personally.
In any RPG, if you are focused on your character and the world and the mechanics step in and tell you that something you are imagining is wrong then there's always the chance that the result is unacceptable to you. Basically, if the mechanics don't jibe with the DM and player's view of the world then the mechanics are wrong (for them). That's what "rule 0" is all about.

If this keeps happening to your group then you're probably using the wrong system for that group or at least that campaign.

nagora
2008-08-17, 05:53 AM
Do you also have a problem with powers that are "reroll an attack/saving throw/X" and action points? The player chooses when to use those, too.
Some players dislike these sorts of things because they disrupt the flow of character time by effectively saying that what just happened didn't happen. My current group includes two people who simply refused to use action points on those grounds; I've used them in various games for years without problems with other players, though.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-17, 05:58 AM
Some players dislike these sorts of things because they disrupt the flow of character time by effectively saying that what just happened didn't happen. My current group includes two people who simply refused to use action points on those grounds; I've used them in various games for years without problems with other players, though.

Those players boggle my mind, and I'd love to see them forced to try Spirit of the Century or some other "narrativist" game.

Regardless, I think it's safe to say that most players are just fine with action points, reroll abilities, &etc, so they're a good reference point for daily martial abilities.

So are the 3E Barbarian's Rage, and the 2E Bard's morale-inspiring ability (which he can use once per day per bard level, despite the fact that it's completely nonmagical).

Kompera
2008-08-17, 06:02 AM
No, they're not. Example: I can sprint 100m. However, I cannot do that 1,000 times in a row and therefore sprint 1km. So there's another explanation of rogue encounter powers, if you don't want to give the rogue's player narrative control:

With anger flashing in his eyes, the halfing darts forward, picks up the hobgoblin, and hurls him backwards into the corner. As the hobgoblin's head cracks loudly on the dungeon wall, the halfling rubs his biceps ruefully.
"Ouch. Remind me not to try that again for a little while."
{scrubbed}

nagora
2008-08-17, 06:04 AM
Those players boggle my mind, and I'd love to see them forced to try Spirit of the Century or some other "narrativist" game.
I think that's exactly where the break-point is: the players in question are much more hard-core roleplayers than the rest of the group, including myself. As such they simply won't accept any narrativist elements at all. I personally don't see them as too bad if the players are in control of them, but these players draw the line in a different place.

Talic
2008-08-17, 06:09 AM
The player chooses that the ogre accidentally leaves an opening, and then the player chooses that the rogue takes advantage of the opening to move the ogre 15 feet backwards.
Now we have players choosing the actions of creatures. That is not intuitive.


No, they're not. Example: I can sprint 100m. However, I cannot do that 1,000 times in a row and therefore sprint 1km. So there's another explanation of rogue encounter powers, if you don't want to give the rogue's player narrative control:Sigh. Stretching the truth and applying bad parallels does not a good argument make. Sprinting is inherently a sustained action that is highly draining. Anything that can be accomplished in under 6 seconds is not such an action. Specifically martial maneuvers. In my somewhat developed study of the "arts martial", I've not seen one tactic that takes such a draining toll on the user of it.


With anger flashing in his eyes, the halfing darts forward, picks up the hobgoblin, and hurls him backwards into the corner. As the hobgoblin's head cracks loudly on the dungeon wall, the halfling rubs his biceps ruefully.
"Ouch. Remind me not to try that again for a little while."
Good imagery, not realistic. The majority of openings in combat take place from a flaw in defense, not a flaw in the attempted action.

Such flaws are not so easily correctable. You're trying to tell your body to change all your training and instinct instantly. It doesn't happen.

Generally, if someone is skilled enough to use leverage and toss someone into a wall, they'll be able to do it 10-15 times in a row, because it takes time to adapt.

I mean, look at a UFC fight. Those people spend weeks training, studying fight tapes, learning the enemy's moves... And then, in many of the fights, you still see one person performing the same kick, grapple, or slam, over and over. Because it's not about the action someone does. It's about them reading your intent wrong, and you capitalizing on it.

And if a fighter can do that once, he can usually do it repeatedly. No, encounter powers should not be used for anything that is not considered "exhausting effort".

Morty
2008-08-17, 06:23 AM
{Scrubbed}


Pot, meet kettle. To elaborate, you shouldn't accuse people of close-mindness after claiming that because they don't like something you like they're simply stubborn and incapable of understanding it properly. Even though Talic's post weren't really criticism, merely statements that yes, encounter-based martial powers are unrealistic. But then D&D 4ed is Serious Business.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-17, 06:28 AM
I think that's exactly where the break-point is: the players in question are much more hard-core roleplayers than the rest of the group, including myself. As such they simply won't accept any narrativist elements at all. I personally don't see them as too bad if the players are in control of them, but these players draw the line in a different place.

"Hard-core roleplayers... won't accept any narrativist elements." Wow, not something you usually hear. I see narrativism get linked with roleplaying a lot more than anything else.


Now we have players choosing the actions of creatures. That is not intuitive.
What? Sure it is. When a player makes the ogre reroll, he's choosing for the ogre to miss.
Players choose the actions of creatures, to that extent, whenever they describe combat at all. "The ogre jabs its club forward, and Jergan takes the blow on his shield, deflecting it up and to the side; Jergan steps into a bind, trying to wedge his leg between the ogre's and trip it up, but has to abandon it" for a failed trip attempt, say.

Or there's Wushu, in which case the player could casually narrate stabbing the ogre through one shoulder.


Good imagery, not realistic. The majority of openings in combat take place from a flaw in defense
No, it's not realistic. Yes, it is good imagery. It's dramatic, cinematic. Some folks see that as a plus.


And if a fighter can do that once, he can usually do it repeatedly. No, encounter powers should not be used for anything that is not considered "exhausting effort".
In D&D, if a fighter can do it once, he's just as likely to fail his next d20 roll and get tripped himself. It's not realistic.

nagora
2008-08-17, 06:42 AM
"Hard-core roleplayers... won't accept any narrativist elements." Wow, not something you usually hear. I see narrativism get linked with roleplaying a lot more than anything else.
Narrative is the opposite of role-play. The whole idea of role-playing is to take some characters and free them from the "author's" narrative. Narrative is what you find in a book where things work out the way they do in order to make a good story in the author's opinion. In a role-play PCs do things because that's what those characters would actually do. In an ideal world, of course.

Talic
2008-08-17, 06:44 AM
"The ogre jabs its club forward, and Jergan takes the blow on his shield, deflecting it up and to the side; Jergan steps into a bind, trying to wedge his leg between the ogre's and trip it up, but has to abandon it" for a failed trip attempt, say. Characters choose their actions. They don't choose the action of other creatures. When a character can decide when that epic shift effect works, and the monster's defenses are too great, he's saying on what rounds the monster is properly defending himself, and what rounds he isn't. That's more up to the monster's actions, doncha think?

No, it's not realistic. Yes, it is good imagery. It's dramatic, cinematic. Some folks see that as a plus.

In D&D, if a fighter can do it once, he's just as likely to fail his next d20 roll and get tripped himself. It's not realistic.
As long as you're conceding that there's little realism, little verisimilatude, and it's pretty much designed for people who don't like any realism in their world, and prefer it to play out like a bad action movie... Well, as long as you're conceding that, I do believe my point is well and truly made.

The game isn't made for realism. It's made for balance.

You just said that the game wasn't realistic. Which was my point from the get-go... The one that was disagreed upon.

I'm not sayin' that's good or bad. I AM saying it's true. Like it or not.

EDIT: As for the success/fail thing? Improper execution. But it's not decided by the character when it works. It's decided by randomness. Just as a trained fighter doesn't know before he throws the punch if it will be blocked or hit, so too does the D&D fighter not know. Because skill plays a part, and so does random factors.

Just like when ppl do it for realz.

Frownbear
2008-08-17, 06:54 AM
EDIT: As for the success/fail thing? Improper execution. But it's not decided by the character when it works. It's decided by randomness. Just as a trained fighter doesn't know before he throws the punch if it will be blocked or hit, so too does the D&D fighter not know. Because skill plays a part, and so does random factors.

Just like when ppl do it for realz.

Not to butt in (well, except I am), but... "random factors" don't normally play a part like a 1d20 distribution gives. I've always liked the "3d6" variant, in part because a flat probability makes realistic than a bell curve. 1d20 is as likely to get a 1 or a 20 as it is to get a 10 or 11, which doesn't match up.
In other words, it's all already unrealistic!


Also, I don't see why you'd say it plays out like a "bad" action movie. And I don't see what's wrong with describing a couple of the monster's beats and barries and such, either!

fractic
2008-08-17, 06:55 AM
Characters choose their actions. They don't choose the action of other creatures. When a character can decide when that epic shift effect works, and the monster's defenses are too great, he's saying on what rounds the monster is properly defending himself, and what rounds he isn't. That's more up to the monster's actions, doncha think?

Ah yes I see the light now! Let's roll a d% every turn for each possible power to see if the monsters leave openings against that particular power. Just give those hard daily powers very low chances of success.

Ow wait that's a bad idea because it slows the game down to a drag. The at-will/encounter/daily mechanic just simulates this without the drag.

Zeful
2008-08-17, 07:07 AM
As long as you're conceding that there's little realism, little verisimilatude, and it's pretty much designed for people who don't like any realism in their world, and prefer it to play out like a bad action movie... Well, as long as you're conceding that, I do believe my point is well and truly made.
I don't think so, you keep saying there is little realism or verismilitude in the game and I disagree. The martial per-encounter powers make sense as described. Tricks that take advantage of one enemies inattentiveness, relaxed guard or similar folly. As a result, success or failure, everyone's watching you a little closer, so they won't be caught off-guard by the same trick again. Yes these techniques are infinately repeatable, but they are not infinately effective. That seems to be the mistake made by many who complain about martial encounter-powers. They treat it like the other powers, once you use it it's gone, you have to wait for it to recharge. You can keep doing it, but what's the point? You can watch as most people tighten their guard and know it just isn't going to work again, no matter how able the body or willing the spirit.

MartinHarper
2008-08-17, 08:00 AM
Now we have players choosing the actions of creatures. That is not intuitive.

I find it intuitive, and so does the kid in the story on page 28 of the DMG. You don't find it intuitive. Oh well. I'd recommend putting the time in to understand it. Shared control of certain playing pieces is a feature of many games.


Characters choose their actions. They don't choose the action of other creatures.

Meanwhile, out-of-character, players choose the actions of their characters, and some of the actions of other creatures around their characters.

Gavin Sage
2008-08-17, 09:24 AM
Just like how a wizard can study a spell for days and days yet, if hes used it for the day, *Poof*, hes suddenly forgot it.


I would argue there's a difference between the words of hidden power so deep and fundamental that the mortal mind struggles to contain them in the first place... and mere bluffing and intimidation.


And if you really want to create a creature that would not get pushed around easily, maybe just give them immunity to it? Just a thought.

When it comes to the Move X squares types of ablities though... everyone should have immunity because exacting puppetry like that makes little sense.

Quite aside from those imtimidation shouldn't work on (undead, constructs, dragons, giants...) where the heck does all this speed come from. Its often forgotten but combat rounds are supposed to be discrete (and small) amounts of time in which you should only be able to move a finite amount. Spam a bunch of movement ablities together and how quick do we get people being mind screwed into being the Flash.

I'm just waiting for someone to put together an army of characters with ablities like this and non-magically break the speed of light or something.

Prophaniti
2008-08-17, 09:46 AM
Explanations of halflings tiring themselves by hulking out and tossing hobgoblins aside... Try to explain such a rogue using this shifting power on a golem. Go ahead. Let's mark 'em off here. No anatomy. There goes the 'hit a sensitive spot' interpretation. Huge and Heavy. Pick 'em up and toss 'em? Please. Next. Tripping them? See Huge and Heavy. (the rogue weighs, what, 60lbs?) No mind. Feinting is out. What else you got?

Bottom line, in 4e powers and their effects often have no plausible explanations in my experience. You have a choice here. Either
1) you accept that it has no decent explanation and that the power does what it does to balance the game (at which point you continue enjoying your balanced game, because that's what matters to you); Or
2) You do not accept this lack of in-game reasoning and switch to a system that places verisimilitude at a higher priority, because that's what matters to you.

Really, I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that verisimilitude is an important facet of 4e. Of course, some people don't need (or even want) verisimilitude in their game, and the lack of it does not harm immersion for them. Other people do, and the lack of it shatters their immersion, leaving it in a broken, weeping heap. Simply put, if such realism is important to your games, you may wish to pursue other systems (I recommend WFRP). At the very least, you'll end up homebrewing the crap out of 4e to make it tasteful to you.

Winged One
2008-08-17, 10:22 AM
Explanations of halflings tiring themselves by hulking out and tossing hobgoblins aside... Try to explain such a rogue using this shifting power on a golem. Go ahead. Let's mark 'em off here. No anatomy. There goes the 'hit a sensitive spot' interpretation. Huge and Heavy. Pick 'em up and toss 'em? Please. Next. Tripping them? See Huge and Heavy. (the rogue weighs, what, 60lbs?) No mind. Feinting is out. What else you got?
It's still got joints, doesn't it? And those joints support a lot of weight. See Huge and Heavy. If even a little bit of pressure goes on the joint in the right way, the golem will be hard pressed just to stay standing, let alone avoid stumbling where the rogue's player wants them to stumble. And any decent wizard probably knows that it's a good idea to create a golem so it automatically starts guarding against tactics that it's maker didn't anticipate.

fractic
2008-08-17, 10:24 AM
It's still got joints, doesn't it? And those joints support a lot of weight. See Huge and Heavy. If even a little bit of pressure goes on the joint in the right way, the golem will be hard pressed just to stay standing, let alone avoid stumbling where the rogue's player wants them to stumble. And any decent wizard probably knows that it's a good idea to create a golem so it automatically starts guarding against tactics that it's maker didn't anticipate.

Not that I fully agree with Prophaniti but that explanation might work for golems but how about oozes?

LibraryOgre
2008-08-17, 10:25 AM
Basically, a campaign is as serious as the DM and the players make it. The system used has little influence on that matter.

TOON.

It may be possible to run a serious game in a system where you don't die, but "Fall Down", are able to ignore gravity if you're stupid enough, and can have "Pants of Many Things", but the system DOES have an influence on how things play.

That said, I don't see any reason why 4e is unsuited to a serious campaign (except, in our case, the players themselves).

Winged One
2008-08-17, 10:31 AM
Do they even have oozes anymore? *checks MM* I guess so. While oozes themselves make a lot less sense than...well, anything, I think I've thought of a way. Oozes are so stupid that the rogue can fake a stumble and the ooze will opportunistically rush to try and eat him, but the rogue goes back to his original square before the ooze gets there, and now the ooze is in whatever square the player wants it in.

hamishspence
2008-08-17, 10:34 AM
I got the impression oozes were based on amoebae, slime molds, etc, scaled up. Star Trek gave us the 10000 mile long ooze. Than of course there is The Blob, and in the (rare) intelligent version, there was Next Generation's Armus (in looks, at least)

Prophaniti
2008-08-17, 10:37 AM
It's still got joints, doesn't it?Well, that depends on the golem, and how you interpret the magic holding it together. You certainly could say that the joints are still vulnerable, but it would be equally valid to say they're not. I don't recall seeing any rules on the subject (though the no anatomy/immune to criticals and sneak attacks kinda favors the second stance), so it would largely be up to the DM and how he wanted golems to work in the setting.

Do they even have oozes anymore? *checks MM* I guess so. While oozes themselves make a lot less sense than...well, anything, I think I've thought of a way. Oozes are so stupid that the rogue can fake a stumble and the ooze will opportunistically rush to try and eat him, but the rogue goes back to his original square before the ooze gets there, and now the ooze is in whatever square the player wants it in.
So, how is it that the rogue is moving significantly more distance on his turn than anyone else just because there's an ooze involved? Does he gain superspeed in the presence of oozes? Yeah, good try, but I don't buy that one either. See the second and third paragraphs of my last post.

Charm Caster
2008-08-17, 10:51 AM
How serious a game is comes down to the DM and the players.

Winged One
2008-08-17, 10:57 AM
Well, that depends on the golem, and how you interpret the magic holding it together. You certainly could say that the joints are still vulnerable, but it would be equally valid to say they're not. I don't recall seeing any rules on the subject (though the no anatomy/immune to criticals and sneak attacks kinda favors the second stance), so it would largely be up to the DM and how he wanted golems to work in the setting.
Constructs aren't immune to crits in 4e. Just to things that specifically target living creatures(and often, but not always, to disease and poison).

So, how is it that the rogue is moving significantly more distance on his turn than anyone else just because there's an ooze involved? Does he gain superspeed in the presence of oozes? Yeah, good try, but I don't buy that one either. See the second and third paragraphs of my last post.
Either the ooze's reflexes just suck that much and the rogue is the only one who knows how to take advantage of that fact, or he just throws a shuriken at the ground and the ooze, being stupid, thinks it's an oddly shaped flying animal or something.

Prophaniti
2008-08-17, 11:07 AM
Constructs aren't immune to crits in 4e. Just to things that specifically target living creatures(and often, but not always, to disease and poison).Well then, you've got a decent argument for it having joints vulnerable to precision strikes that somehow make it stumble exactly where you want it to and then stop stumbling with no serious or permanent damage or effect. Still up to the DM in the end, though.


Either the ooze's reflexes just suck that much and the rogue is the only one who knows how to take advantage of that fact, or he just throws a shuriken at the ground and the ooze, being stupid, thinks it's an oddly shaped flying animal or something.Don't buy those explanations either. If I were running 4e, though I've no idea what convoluted circumstances would lead to such an eventuality, I would certainly houserule oozes (and probably golems, too) to be immune to shifting powers. I'd also houserule bull rush back in. As I stated, if I did find myself in such a predicament, houserules and homebrewing are the only way I would keep my sanity working with 4e.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-17, 11:30 AM
No mind. Feinting is out.

Are you kidding me? Feinting would, if anything, be much easier against a mindless golem. You dart right, and the golem starts to smash you (automatically calculating, just as people do and as it must be capable of to react to anything around it, where you would connect with its smashy extremity) - so you throw yourself aside and go left instead. And so on. The golem, being mindless, is unable to process the ideas of "duplicity" or "hidden intention" or "changing your mind."

"Verisimilitude" and "D&D" have never gone together, and I've been playing it since "elf" was a class. "You can fire one arrow per minute. No, wait, now it's one arrow per 1.2 seconds. No, wait..." That's probably RuneQuest you're thinking of.

nagora
2008-08-17, 11:40 AM
Just like how a wizard can study a spell for days and days yet, if hes used it for the day, *Poof*, hes suddenly forgot it.
Just like how a guy can load a flintlock gun and then, after firing it, he suddenly can't fire it again until he's reloaded.

Was Vancian casting really explained so badly in 3e? I'm constantly amazed at how many people don't know what the justification for the spell-casting system is. Which is different from not liking the system, of course.

MartinHarper
2008-08-17, 11:44 AM
I'd also houserule bull rush back in.

4e has rules for bull rush. Perhaps you meant something else?

The rogue moves oozes by taking a mouthful from a small flask of acid, and then spraying it over the ooze. The ooze reacts instinctively and brainlessly, and moves away. Or by imitating the sound of an ooze's predator while slashing at it with a rapier. Or whatever. If neither the DM nor the rogue's player can think of a way that the rogue can get the ooze to move, then the rogue's player should use another power, or target a different creature.

What you've established is that 4e d&d is a poor fit for games that attempt to simulate realistic fantasy, where each player has narrative control over only their own character. That does not mean that it is not suitable for serious campaigns. Serious campaigns can be run in a heroic fantasy setting, and they can allow for shared narrative control of creatures.

nagora
2008-08-17, 11:49 AM
What you've established is that 4e d&d is a poor fit for games that attempt to simulate realistic fantasy, where each player has narrative control over only their own character. That does not mean that it is not suitable for serious campaigns. Serious campaigns can be run in a heroic fantasy setting, and they can allow for shared narrative control of creatures.
I don't see a connection between heroic fantasy and being able to control other creatures. Is that what you meant to imply?

Yakk
2008-08-17, 11:58 AM
I don't about 4e not being good for "serious" campaigns, but it doesn't seem like the best choice for a campaign where the players are supposed to start off "low-powered". Level 1 4e characters just have too much awesome about them for a campaign like that to work.

Meh -- that's trivial.

Start the characters with one at-will power, and one class feature, and a single healing surge (no second wind, no racial power, etc).

As they advance, hand out more powers and features, until they hit level 1 power.

Then go on from there.

Hmm. That could be fun to homebrew a system for.

Prophaniti
2008-08-17, 12:11 PM
Are you kidding me? Feinting would, if anything, be much easier against a mindless golem. You dart right, and the golem starts to smash you (automatically calculating, just as people do and as it must be capable of to react to anything around it, where you would connect with its smashy extremity) - so you throw yourself aside and go left instead. And so on. The golem, being mindless, is unable to process the ideas of "duplicity" or "hidden intention" or "changing your mind."So how does that result in the golem being moved 15 ft away from you in one round again?


"Verisimilitude" and "D&D" have never gone together, and I've been playing it since "elf" was a class. "You can fire one arrow per minute. No, wait, now it's one arrow per 1.2 seconds. No, wait..." That's probably RuneQuest you're thinking of.No, it's never been the ideal system for it, as far as I know there have always been systems that are more easily applied to such an approach. Having played 3.5 for some time now, however, it is entirely possible to maintain such "realism" and still use the system largely as-written, though sometimes difficult. Sliding stone golems around like chess pieces is merely one of the examples of how 4e is even worse at it than 3rd.

That does not mean that it is not suitable for serious campaigns. Serious campaigns can be run in a heroic fantasy setting, and they can allow for shared narrative control of creatures.You're right, they can be. Sorry, I haven't been speaking directly to the 'serious game', but rather more to the 'realistic game' which is what a serious game is to me. When ridiculous, inexplicable things start happening, I find it increasingly difficult to take it seriously. I realise for others a 'serious game' does not necessitate anything even resembling verisimilitude, but I must speak on the subject from my own perspective and experience.

Oh, and no, it wasn't bull rush I was referring to, sorry. There was a mechanic change/elimination they did to one of the things like that, maybe it was trip, that I really didn't like. For some reason it stuck in my head as bull rush. I'll have to glance through the books again to be certain, and since I never bought them, it may be a while 'til I can do that.

Was Vancian casting really explained so badly in 3e? I'm constantly amazed at how many people don't know what the justification for the spell-casting system is. Which is different from not liking the system, of course.I actually don't recall how the PHB actually explains the system. I do remember that, having started playing with 3rd ed., I did not learn of the explanation until a veteran of older editions told it to me. If it's in the 3.5 PHB, I don't know where.

Knaight
2008-08-17, 12:18 PM
You prepare spells by doing most of the words and actions and stuff before hand, leaving only the trigger.

Morty
2008-08-17, 12:21 PM
There is something about preparing spells meaning casting them, "holding them on" and "firing them off" somewhere in the SRD, but it's buried somewhere deep down. So yeah, as much as I like Vancian casting, 3.x could've done a better job explaining it.
What's funny, daily arcane powers are explained the same way in 4ed.

MartinHarper
2008-08-17, 12:30 PM
I don't see a connection between heroic fantasy and being able to control other creatures. Is that what you meant to imply?

Not really. I meant that there are typically two explanations possible for encounter-recharge and daily-recharge martial powers.
1) players have narrative control over other creatures, in that they can decide when a creature gives an opening to their character
2) the world runs on action movie logic / heroic fantasy logic, where powerful moves take a toll on the hero, and cannot be used at will.

If, like Talic, you reject both of these things, and care about such explanations, then I reckon 4e is probably not particularly suitable for you.


I realise for others a 'serious game' does not necessitate anything even resembling verisimilitude, but I must speak on the subject from my own perspective and experience.

For example, I consider chess and go to be serious games, but they're obviously not realistic at all. For me, a serious game is one that emphasises thought rather than comedy or luck.

Prophaniti
2008-08-17, 12:41 PM
For example, I consider chess and go to be serious games, but they're obviously not realistic at all. For me, a serious game is one that emphasises thought rather than comedy or luck.
Well, yes, but then when you sit down for a game of chess, there is no inherent expectation of realism, or even heroics (since there's no chance of a piece winning when it gets taken by another piece) . When you sit down to roleplay an actual person in a world filled with (ostensibly) actual people, there is at least some call for a degree of reality to the fantasy, even if it's only the heroic side it. Some people like more, and some less, but if there's none, it doesn't hold up well as anything other than a fun game with dice.

Crow
2008-08-17, 12:51 PM
Nice try, Martin. But you are up against the wall of "I refuse to accept any reasonable explanation, because my willful disbelief allows me to hate on 4e easier." No amount of reason or logic can prevail against a closed mind.

Note also that Talic was perfectly capable of posting that he continued his suspension of disbelief despite my similar explanation, but he managed to fail to respond to my challenge, despite quoting it in full.

You can lead a horse to water, indeed.

PS: 10 times in a row. :smallsmile:

I can understand encounter powers to some extent. Even the very shifty "limited openings" explantions. But I have yet to see a decent explanation for martial daily powers (and those who have been chiming in have willfully ignored them).

There are physical things you just can't really do twice in the short span of a D&D combat. I can deadlift my maximum weight once, but then I need a rest before I can do that again. But if I'm dancing around, trying not to get myself killed, I am not going to be able to go and deadlift my max again. This is an encounter power.

However, if I have adequet rest, I can lift that max weight probably as many times as I want. Even with as little as three minutes rest, I can do it again. If we expand this into the realm of other physical activities, I can think of no feat that if performed once, I would not be able to perform again that day (barring catastrophic injury).

wumpus
2008-08-17, 01:21 PM
Has it occurred to anyone that in all those design documents "serious campaign" was never a design goal? They seem to have deleted the bits about NPCs blinking out of existence after delivering their flavor line (or get bypassed by a properly railroaded skills challenge), but finding the NPC section of the DMG is a challenge (it's three pages long, btw).

This isn't to say you can't have a serious 4E campaign, just that once combat (or the skills challenge) is over, the DM is on his own. 4E is simply there to keep the characters pointed at the next fight to cover themselves in glory and is not remotely concerned with the rest of the world (it's busy revolving around the PCs, remember).

Knaight
2008-08-17, 01:33 PM
Because its supposed to mimic a story, not a world. That said, 3 pages is more than enough for NPCs. All the DM needs to know is that NPCs are the other people in the world, and should be played like people with motivations, personalities, professions, etc. The last thing we need is some arbitrary distribution of classes and levels in cities crap again. Role playing games are supposed to inspire creativity not hamper it, and all those city distribution tables told new DMs was that all cities should be more or less the same, and how to make them. It never occured to them to say a small trading town near a profitable gem mine might just have more money than the town size would indicate, where a large town might be poverty stricken, and there wouldn't be any expensive magic items for sale, or high level characters, because they left to go live somewhere better. 3.5 had way too much crap on distribution of NPCs, town size money limits, etc. and that didn't encourage creativity in new DMs.

Artanis
2008-08-17, 01:39 PM
I can understand encounter powers to some extent. Even the very shifty "limited openings" explantions. But I have yet to see a decent explanation for martial daily powers (and those who have been chiming in have willfully ignored them).
I have yet to see a decent explanation for wizards, dragons, zombies, and village-destroying kittens.

Jerthanis
2008-08-17, 01:41 PM
Narrative is the opposite of role-play. The whole idea of role-playing is to take some characters and free them from the "author's" narrative. Narrative is what you find in a book where things work out the way they do in order to make a good story in the author's opinion. In a role-play PCs do things because that's what those characters would actually do. In an ideal world, of course.

But you're just substituting a different narrative that you're arbitrarily deciding doesn't count as a narrative. Also, you describe only one narrow individualistic style of play as necessary to being a role playing experience. Most people I'd describe as hard core roleplayers are method actors who get so into their characters it affects their life outside the game, and they'll happily make use of abilities to subvert random chance to allow a game to flow in a direction that exposes that character to interesting and dramatic storytelling.

Honestly, to me it seems like the more narrative the player controls, the more the character can escape the bonds of "author" narrative. But perhaps I'm simply unable to grasp the distinction you draw between narrative and in-character action, because to me they're pretty much identical.

Gralamin
2008-08-17, 01:46 PM
I can understand encounter powers to some extent. Even the very shifty "limited openings" explantions. But I have yet to see a decent explanation for martial daily powers (and those who have been chiming in have willfully ignored them).

There are physical things you just can't really do twice in the short span of a D&D combat. I can deadlift my maximum weight once, but then I need a rest before I can do that again. But if I'm dancing around, trying not to get myself killed, I am not going to be able to go and deadlift my max again. This is an encounter power.

However, if I have adequet rest, I can lift that max weight probably as many times as I want. Even with as little as three minutes rest, I can do it again. If we expand this into the realm of other physical activities, I can think of no feat that if performed once, I would not be able to perform again that day (barring catastrophic injury).

Well, lets take a look at say... Own the Battlefield, a level 22 warlord ability. Its a martial power, and its a daily. What the power represents is a series of tactics the warlord has been putting into play throughout the encounter working without a hitch, causing the enemies to be right where he wants them. The reason he would not be able to do this again is simply because the chance of the tactics going off without a hitch again in the day is relativly low, probably due to the risky nature of such tactics. I think that is at least a reasonable explanation for a single martial power, and others can be explained in a similiar manner.
Fighter stances you could say are hard on the fighters body, or specific parts of his body, and without an extended rest, the fighter could risk permanent damage.

Part of what RPGs are are cooperative story-telling games. That means if a power fluff wise causes someone to show an opening and the character exploits it, its just the player using some of their right as being one of the story tellers.

Crow
2008-08-17, 01:47 PM
I have yet to see a decent explanation for wizards, dragons, zombies, and village-destroying kittens.

I wasn't aware that 4e had village-destroying kittens. Oh and way to dodge the point, by the way.

Crow
2008-08-17, 01:50 PM
Well, lets take a look at say... Own the Battlefield, a level 22 warlord ability. Its a martial power, and its a daily. What the power represents is a series of tactics the warlord has been putting into play throughout the encounter working without a hitch, causing the enemies to be right where he wants them. The reason he would not be able to do this again is simply because the chance of the tactics going off without a hitch again in the day is relativly low, probably due to the risky nature of such tactics. I think that is at least a reasonable explanation for a single martial power, and others can be explained in a similiar manner.
Fighter stances you could say are hard on the fighters body, or specific parts of his body, and without an extended rest, the fighter could risk permanent damage.



But by the same reasoning, there should be days where the opportunity presents itself multiple times during the day, and there should be days where it doesn't happen at all. The explanation doesn't hold up to scrutiny with blanket once per day. This doesn't bother some people, but others have a hard time with the "disconnecting" required for this to be plausible.

Some people don't want a "narrative" game, and like to react to the situation rather than create it.

The New Bruceski
2008-08-17, 01:50 PM
You prepare spells by doing most of the words and actions and stuff before hand, leaving only the trigger.

So Zelaznian casting, as his characters would "hang" spells on the Pattern or Logrus to have them available for use. (Mostly addressed in the Merlin of Amber series rather than Corwin, if I recall).

Gavin Sage
2008-08-17, 01:54 PM
I have yet to see a decent explanation for wizards, dragons, zombies, and village-destroying kittens.

Wizards: Scholars who intensive study has unlocked magical and arcane powers.

Dragons: Ancient creatures from the dawn of time possesing great towers.

Zombie: Corpses animated by some form of magic.

Village-Destroying Kittens: What happens when Fluffy is hanging around the Dire Tigers and isn't spayed.

Fighter Daily Powers:........................................... <-Fill in the Blank

What explains Fighters being only able to use a skill (by definition a skill since they have no magic) once a day? At all.

nagora
2008-08-17, 02:06 PM
Honestly, to me it seems like the more narrative the player controls, the more the character can escape the bonds of "author" narrative. But perhaps I'm simply unable to grasp the distinction you draw between narrative and in-character action, because to me they're pretty much identical.

Narrative is what makes a character in a novel turn right instead of left and thereby encounter a mugger etc. In an RPG, the player character chooses where to turn and may not meet the mugger. If the DM arranges that they do meet regardless then the player's ability to play the role is a sham - this is what we call "railroading".

Likewise, if the players go into the "fearsome and deadly troll-forest from whence no man has ever returned alive" and meet only level-appropriate foes, they have likewise had their freedom curtailed and the role-playing is hobbled.

Gralamin
2008-08-17, 02:07 PM
But by the same reasoning, there should be days where the opportunity presents itself multiple times during the day, and there should be days where it doesn't happen at all. The explanation doesn't hold up to scrutiny with blanket once per day. This doesn't bother some people, but others have a hard time with the "disconnecting" required for this to be plausible.

Some people don't want a "narrative" game, and like to react to the situation rather than create it.

Perhaps it does happen multiple times in a day sometimes, but not necessarily using the same power. If the goal of it is to move the opponent to where you want them, then the power itself is one mechanical representation of how to achieve that goal. The same tactics may play out by chance, just because of how the powers and enemy movements work. I don't really see it as a disconnect.

May I direct you to the 3.5 PHB Page 4, under "The D&D Game"

The D&D game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It's part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part dice rolling.
D&D is a system (and has been for a while) that encourages cooperative story telling, and thus by the core rules, the abilities relying on such a thing is completely acceptable. If you don't like the play style, then you are free to rule 0 it, but that is how the core rules work.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-08-17, 02:12 PM
Was Vancian casting really explained so badly in 3e? I'm constantly amazed at how many people don't know what the justification for the spell-casting system is. Which is different from not liking the system, of course.

No, it wasn't that bad in 3e. In fact, I was the one usually defending it to my friends. If you guys want to pound 4e till it breaks ("LOLOLOL WAT BOUT OOZE HUH> DO THAT LOLOLOL") then I'm going to point out the misinterpretations in 3e.

Edit: Oh, and yeah, just wanted to point out that 4e, 3e, 2e, etc, none of them are trying to replicate life as we live it. Its a game. You want to find flaws in a system? I'm sure you can do it, but I'm not sure why you would waste your time doing so, as there will always be someone on the internet ready to counter you, wether its valid or not, it doesnt matter. You can't win on the Internet.

Artanis
2008-08-17, 02:14 PM
Wizards: Scholars who intensive study has unlocked magical and arcane powers.

Dragons: Ancient creatures from the dawn of time possesing great towers.

Zombie: Corpses animated by some form of magic.

Village-Destroying Kittens: What happens when Fluffy is hanging around the Dire Tigers and isn't spayed.

Fighter Daily Powers:........................................... <-Fill in the Blank

What explains Fighters being only able to use a skill (by definition a skill since they have no magic) once a day? At all.
What explains it? The fact that the entire damn system is based around the impossible.

That's why I find these sorts of discussions asinine. It's ok for somebody to annihilate a city by waggling his fingers, but not ok for somebody to only be able to swing his sword a certain way once per day? It's ok for somebody to turn a rotting corpse into a magic-fueled harbinger of death by saying a few funny words, but it's not ok for somebody to have one trick that's hard to explain? It's ok for somebody to be a dragon, but not ok for that same dragon-person to be able to sucker somebody into moving into a vulnerable position?

{Scrubbed} "All abilities are impossible, but some are more impossible than others" is exactly what you guys are saying. YOU have decided that you hate 4e, so YOU have decided that anything you can get your hands on is too "unrealistic", and so YOU refuse to admit that the whole damn thing - 3e included - is just as bad.

Morty
2008-08-17, 02:34 PM
YOU have decided that you hate 4e, so YOU have decided that anything you can get your hands on is too "unrealistic", and so YOU refuse to admit that the whole damn thing - 3e included - is just as bad.

How can I learn those amazing psyhic powers that let you read the intentions of people posting on the forum? Or maybe it's just you overreacting and lashing out at people because they dare to criticize elements of a system you like. Yes, per encounter martial abilities aren't very realistic. It doesn't bother you and it doesn't bother me. It bothers some people. Does it mean they look for things about 4ed to irrationally hate? No.
I don't really know how does 4ed do it, but it somehow makes reasonable people needlessly antagonistic and about as open-minded as tightly locked safe.

Artanis
2008-08-17, 02:44 PM
How can I learn those amazing psyhic powers that let you read the intentions of people posting on the forum? Or maybe it's just you overreacting and lashing out at people because they dare to criticize elements of a system you like. Yes, per encounter martial abilities aren't very realistic. It doesn't bother you and it doesn't bother me. It bothers some people. Does it mean they look for things about 4ed to irrationally hate? No.
I'm sorry, I know what you're saying, but frankly, the level of doublethink shown by people like the one I was replying to looks downright irrational to me. In a system, no, an entire genre built on doing the impossible, saying that a system is bad because one more thing fits into that mold is beyond comprehension.

Morty
2008-08-17, 02:47 PM
I'm sorry, I know what you're saying, but frankly, the level of doublethink shown by people like the one I was replying to looks downright irrational to me. In a system, no, an entire genre built on doing the impossible, saying that a system is bad because one more thing fits into that mold is beyond comprehension.

I don't really remember anyone here saying that 4th edition is bad because this or that is too unrealistic and therefore bad. Sure, some of these people dislike whole 4ed, but for more reasons than just that. And it's possible to not have any problem with per encounter martial powers and not like 4ed, I'm an example.
Anyway, I'll repeat myself: I don't really understand how 4ed makes reasonable people needlessly antagonistic and about as open-minded as a tightly locked safe.

Akisa
2008-08-17, 02:50 PM
OK so these once a day powers are so tiring on the body that can be only done once day or risk permanent injury is a decent theory. Then how do you explain the fact the person can do encounter powers and at will powers all day that in theory should tire the body could be done all day then the fighter can still do the once a daily ability. Then wake up in the next morning and do the once a day power to end the encounter in the first round. Yet he still won't be able do the same power even though he exerted far less energy the previous day.

Akisa
2008-08-17, 03:03 PM
Yeah my problem with 4e is that there is no mechanical difference between martial abilities and spell casting so all the characters feel the same. It doesn't have to be Vatican spell casting but could something different from ToB style combat like spell points.

No barbarian, Druid, Bard or wizards (well aside from the renamed Sorcerer) in core. Classes are pigeon toed for certain archetypes, no multiclassing aside from feats. Heck if they combined Cleric and Paladin to a single class in core, it would've done wonders for me. Simply because your cleric could still be the holy warrior as cleric and not just a healer.

Gavin Sage
2008-08-17, 03:03 PM
What explains it? The fact that the entire damn system is based around the impossible.

Irrelevant. Within the established rules of the impossible world of D&D what does a Fighter's daily power represent. A basic attack represents swinging a weapon, expending a spell represents mumbling magic words to creat an effect. The impossiblity in our world is irrelevant, its what makes it possible in their world.


That's why I find these sorts of discussions asinine. It's ok for somebody to annihilate a city by waggling his fingers, but not ok for somebody to only be able to swing his sword a certain way once per day? It's ok for somebody to turn a rotting corpse into a magic-fueled harbinger of death by saying a few funny words, but it's not ok for somebody to have one trick that's hard to explain? It's ok for somebody to be a dragon, but not ok for that same dragon-person to be able to sucker somebody into moving into a vulnerable position?

Sure when there is an explanation for how a city is annhilated. If Captain Kirk blew up a Klingon ship simply snapping its fingers, people would be up and arms. If he did it by ordering the Enterprise to lauch a photon torpedo at the ship, we'd be fine. Both are impossible because none of it exists, but one provides a 'How it happened' along with a 'What happened' since people like more then one question answered

Attention to detail and self justification is a major separator of godmodding from good storytelling.


It's doublethink of the highest caliber. "All abilities are impossible, but some are more impossible than others" is exactly what you guys are saying. YOU have decided that you hate 4e, so YOU have decided that anything you can get your hands on is too "unrealistic", and so YOU refuse to admit that the whole damn thing - 3e included - is just as bad.

Indeed it is higherst caliber because "All abilities are impossible, but some are more impossible than others" is exactly right. And its a good thing too making that distinction, because willfully pretending something just happens is inherently shallow. Apparently wanting to dig deeper makes me a fascist.

And 3e did justify what it did, often badly or in ways that don't make sense but the attempt was made. You however don't even want to make the attempt.

I consider that the debate equivalent of sticking ones fingers into ones ears and screaming LA-LA-LA-LA.

Which since that is apparently what you want us to do you in effect concede there is no justification for the ablity, thus it is merely a game mechanic. D&D the video-game!

Siegel
2008-08-17, 03:16 PM
So. I have a world. In this world there is magic. Because of some cosmic laws magic exist but it can never never be used to make people/things/x/y fly.

So everything that is not 'normal' can be descriped as "A Mage did it" "It works because it's magic" as long as there is no flying intended.

Do i got this right ?


So why can i say "In this world, because of some cosmic laws, normal guts and musclework can archieve awesome thinks like slowing a Iron Golem too."

Then we have world where the 4E fighter is possibyl. That is not a common calactic law in fantasy (or yes it is but people ignore Conan and Boewulf and stuff) but it is for a 4E world. When you say cosmic magic law = awesome magic then you have to accept a cosmic sword law, don't you ?

Knaight
2008-08-17, 03:25 PM
Narrative is what makes a character in a novel turn right instead of left and thereby encounter a mugger etc. In an RPG, the player character chooses where to turn and may not meet the mugger. If the DM arranges that they do meet regardless then the player's ability to play the role is a sham - this is what we call "railroading".

Likewise, if the players go into the "fearsome and deadly troll-forest from whence no man has ever returned alive" and meet only level-appropriate foes, they have likewise had their freedom curtailed and the role-playing is hobbled.

You clearly have never played a narrative game. Using your examples, in a normal game they would turn right instead of left, and thereby encounter a mugger. In a narrative game, the same thing might happen, at which point the player would use whatever resource they use to slightly control the narrative, and they might declare that the mugger is an old friend from their past life as a criminal(if they have underworld contacts), or that the mugger is a relative(if they come from a big family). As for the fearsome and deadly troll-forest, in a narrative game a player might spend some of whatever resource they use to control the narrative and declare that the trolls are old, and weak because nobody has been in the forest, and that they might be able to actually defeat them. Or a character might know a secret path through the forest, because an uncle he admired was a storyteller and this was in a legend somewhere. In both cases the DM can either veto it, or have it not work out as expected. So the mugger might not be your cousin, or your cousin may have secretly hated you and is going to relish the opportunity. The secret path might just not be there, or you heard the story, but there are other forest dwellers that know about the secret path, and you get to run into them instead of the trolls.

Akisa
2008-08-17, 03:52 PM
Or the troll have recently discovered the secret path?

FdL
2008-08-17, 04:09 PM
I pretty much think that ANY criticism to 4e in terms of believability can apply to 3.x too. Because yeah, pretty much it's a one way road. When you start working against the game, the game won't


I have also found it really strange how so many D&D players (sterotypically very imaginative and intelligent) cannot visualize 4e abilities. Yet, give them a spell and now it makes sense all of a sudden? Why? Because magic doesn't need to be explained. Its secretly accepted as something that just happens because.

[...]

If you don't have an open mind, then don't expect to enjoy the system.

I agree with the view expressed in this post.


*sigh* Why does it seem to me as though most of the arguments against 4e mechanics can be summed up as follows: I've decided that I don't like them, so I refuse to apply the slightest bit of my own imagination to make them work for me. Instead, I'll trot out the most easily dispelled arguments against them and will refuse to see that with only the tiniest bit of imagination, such as that I use in every play session of any RPG, that the mechanics can be made to make perfect, plausible sense (in the context of "making sense" in a FRPG, that is).

I strongly agree with this too.

For me, most critics to 4e are just excuses for hiding what is in truth a reaction to the very obvious fact that it's a new system. Most people are reluctant to change. The "It doesn't feel right" argument is a proof of this. And from that perspective, you're just "working against the system" in terms of suspension of disbelief. You'll never allow yourself to like something you use your prejudices against like a shield (or as a blindfold).


Characters choose their actions. They don't choose the action of other creatures. When a character can decide when that epic shift effect works, and the monster's defenses are too great, he's saying on what rounds the monster is properly defending himself, and what rounds he isn't. That's more up to the monster's actions, doncha think?

Well, what about hitting a monster with your sword? Something as basic as that. Aren't you saying what the monster is doing, when you decide that your sword hits him because he couldn't deflect or intercept or avoid the blow?
I think you're putting too much weight on something that is an inherent part of D&D roleplaying, that is, collaborative, interactive narration of heroic events.

Morty
2008-08-17, 04:13 PM
For me, most critics to 4e are just excuses for hiding what is in truth a reaction to the very obvious fact that it's a new system. Most people are reluctant to change. The "It doesn't feel right" argument is a proof of this. And from that perspective, you're just "working against the system" in terms of suspension of disbelief. You'll never allow yourself to like something you use your prejudices against like a shield (or as a blindfold).


I'm honestly amazed every time I see such an opinion. Where do people get those ideas? Is it so hard to belive others don't like 4ed for the reasons they list that you have to make up other reasons that have absolutely no basis in thruth? And then you accuse others of not having an open mind. I could go around saying that all 4ed supporters use their arguments to hide the fact that they like it only because it's new, flashy and simple. But I don't, as it'd be an obvious unthruth and I'd be talking nonsense as an excuse to act condescendingly.

nagora
2008-08-17, 04:18 PM
You clearly have never played a narrative game. Using your examples, in a normal game they would turn right instead of left, and thereby encounter a mugger. In a narrative game, the same thing might happen, at which point the player would use whatever resource they use to slightly control the narrative, and they might declare that the mugger is an old friend from their past life as a criminal(if they have underworld contacts), or that the mugger is a relative(if they come from a big family). As for the fearsome and deadly troll-forest, in a narrative game a player might spend some of whatever resource they use to control the narrative and declare that the trolls are old, and weak because nobody has been in the forest, and that they might be able to actually defeat them. Or a character might know a secret path through the forest, because an uncle he admired was a storyteller and this was in a legend somewhere. In both cases the DM can either veto it, or have it not work out as expected. So the mugger might not be your cousin, or your cousin may have secretly hated you and is going to relish the opportunity. The secret path might just not be there, or you heard the story, but there are other forest dwellers that know about the secret path, and you get to run into them instead of the trolls.
Fine, but then the world is an illusion and you're simply meta-gaming - in fact it becomes like a card game "I play 'mugger'" "OK, I play 'old friend'" "OK, I play 'mistaken identity'" "Damn! I'm out of cards; I'll have to fight him".

I dislike things that get in between me and the character's world like that, although not as much as some people do. I'd rather that both PCs and NPCs were making their own decisions for their own ends, both as a player and as DM. It makes the experience richer, IMO.

Frownbear
2008-08-17, 04:22 PM
I'm honestly amazed every time I see such an opinion. Where do people get those ideas? Is it so hard to belive others don't like 4ed for the reasons they list that you have to make up other reasons that have absolutely no basis in thruth? And then you accuse others of not having an open mind. I could go around saying that all 4ed supporters use their arguments to hide the fact that they like it only because it's new, flashy and simple. But I don't, as it'd be an obvious unthruth and I'd be talking nonsense as an excuse to act condescendingly.

You know, you have a point, but at the same time you hear the same basic arguments and cries with every new edition of anything. And not even new editions, you heard the same stuff about Tome of Battle.

FdL
2008-08-17, 04:23 PM
I'm honestly amazed every time I see such an opinion. Where do people get those ideas? Is it so hard to belive others don't like 4ed for the reasons they list that you have to make up other reasons that have absolutely no basis in thruth? And then you accuse others of not having an open mind. I could go around saying that all 4ed supporters use their arguments to hide the fact that they like it only because it's new, flashy and simple. But I don't, as it'd be an obvious unthruth and I'd be talking nonsense as an excuse to act condescendingly.

Well, I did use the word "most", not "all", when referring to e detractors.

Even if I hadn't read this kind of stuff to death everywhere, I could get enough basis for that from this very thread alone.

Being it "new, flashy and simple" are actually just some of the reasons I like 4e myself, actually.

Morty
2008-08-17, 04:24 PM
You know, you have a point, but at the same time you hear the same basic arguments and cries with every new edition of anything. And not even new editions, you heard the same stuff about Tome of Battle.

I wouldn't know, when 3ed came out, my only contact with D&D were Black Isle's games. Anyway, even though many people scorn new edition because they're new, dismissing the majority of the critics as "reluctant to change" is preety low.


Well, I did use the word "most", not "all", when referring to e detractors.

And it's still too much. How can you know "most" of 4ed critics are simply reluctant to change? Because some people on one forum seem to -but not necessarily do- feel that way?


Even if I hadn't read this kind of stuff to death everywhere, I could get enough basis for that from this very thread alone.

Could you? All I've seen was people claiming that some aspects of 4ed are unrealistic.


Being it "new, flashy and simple" are actually just some of the reasons I like 4e myself, actually.

So it'd be justified in claiming that 4ed lacks any real merits and most people like it because it's new and flashy? After all, I've seen a guy on the forum saying that.

FdL
2008-08-17, 04:30 PM
Anyway, even though many people scorn new edition because they're new, dismissing the majority of the critics as "reluctant to change" is preety low.




And it's still too much. How can you know "most" of 4ed critics are simply reluctant to change? Because some people on one forum seem to -but not necessary do- feel that way?


It's my honest interpretation of the opinions and attitudes I have been exposed to.



Could you? All I've seen was people claiming that some aspects of 4ed are unrealistic.

Yeah, I'm sorry that you don't agree but this is what I get.



So it'd be justified in claiming that 4ed lacks any real merits and most people like it because it's new and flashy? After all, I've seen a guy on the forum saying that.

Well you're entitled to base your opinion on that.

Knaight
2008-08-17, 04:38 PM
Fine, but then the world is an illusion and you're simply meta-gaming - in fact it becomes like a card game "I play 'mugger'" "OK, I play 'old friend'" "OK, I play 'mistaken identity'" "Damn! I'm out of cards; I'll have to fight him".

I dislike things that get in between me and the character's world like that, although not as much as some people do. I'd rather that both PCs and NPCs were making their own decisions for their own ends, both as a player and as DM. It makes the experience richer, IMO.

This allows narrative control, to make the story more collaborative. The GM can always veto, and in many cases it enriches the story and better attaches the character. It is in the affecting of minor details of the world that the players characters begin to fit in with it. Through this modification of the story in a controlled environment, the characters stories come to life. The mugger example would usually just be either combat or fleeing, depending on genre and character. Roleplaying your characters concern of the descent of one of their family, and trying to bring them back to the high road and out of the situation that caused them to fall is far more interesting. But if the mugger was already important to the story, then this would be disallowed, although most of the time it could be circumvented easily enough.

Rather than getting between the character and their past, it enriches their past, using a metagame concept(in many cases also used for stuff like re-rolls), to bring the character to life. And as for the card game, the GM always has the veto. The GM can say there is a mugger, and the PC can blow some points to claim its a relative, but the GM can just say no at this point. Again which would you rather have in your game, someone fighting a mugger they happen across, or someone finding a cousin or childhood friend who has fallen to mugging and burglary by necessity, and helping them come out of that rut while rediscovering their friendship?

Morty
2008-08-17, 04:40 PM
It's my honest interpretation of the opinions and attitudes I have been exposed to.

Maybe it's honest, but it's also untrue.


Yeah, I'm sorry that you don't agree but this is what I get.

Then perhaps you should apply your demands for having an open mind to youself and think "maybe those people's perception of the system are simply completely different than mine".


Well you're entitled to base your opinion on that.

Am I? Well, all my life I've been thinking that basing your opinion on what some people on the forum has posted is unfit for a serious discussion. Which is why I try not to do it.

Prophaniti
2008-08-17, 04:44 PM
So. I have a world. In this world there is magic. Because of some cosmic laws magic exist but it can never never be used to make people/things/x/y fly.

So everything that is not 'normal' can be descriped as "A Mage did it" "It works because it's magic" as long as there is no flying intended.

Do i got this right ?


So why can i say "In this world, because of some cosmic laws, normal guts and musclework can archieve awesome thinks like slowing a Iron Golem too."

Then we have world where the 4E fighter is possibyl. That is not a common calactic law in fantasy (or yes it is but people ignore Conan and Boewulf and stuff) but it is for a 4E world. When you say cosmic magic law = awesome magic then you have to accept a cosmic sword law, don't you ?

Didn't you post exactly this in another thread? I believe I addressed it there, and don't recall a response. Shall I dig it up and quote my explanation there? It's certainly just as valid in this thread.

Edit: Here we go, my response, spoilered for space.
Edit 2: Thought about it, and decided not to break rules by cross-thread discussions. I'll pretend this is the first time I've seen this post. Here's my response:
Fantasy settings do accept some impossible/nonexistant things, sort of by definition. That does not mean everything impossible/nonexistant must be tolerated in a given setting. If you're playing a game set in Tolkien's works, Trolls turn to stone in daylight. If you're in Faerun, they can walk around in the sun all day long and it won't harm them. Likewise, if you're reading Beowulf, a guy with a sword, if sufficiently heroic (and with some demonic pacts) can be nigh-invincible. If you're running ASoIaF, G.R.R. Martin's amazing work, a guy with a sword is NOT going to be able to defeat armies or split castle walls in a stroke.

It is an equal choice, a matter of taste, really, to have your fantasy setting operate on the same rules as the real world, with magic being the sole exception. Therefore, in such a setting, if something clearly impossible happens and magic is not present, it breaks immersion, whereas if the same thing happened and magic was responsible, it does not.

Really, just because you accept magic it does not follow that you must accept violations of common sense and physics by anything else.

Someone's earlier example about Kirk photon-torpedoeing a planet sums it up nicely. We accept, when watching Star Trek, that photon-torpedoes exist and explode. That does not mean we must accept similar behavior from a finger-snap. Likewise, if we accept magic exists and can destroy a being with a few words or gestures, it does not mean we must accept similar capabilities from a bodybuilder with a sword.

I hope someone gets this, I really don't know how I could explain it any more clearly.

Artanis
2008-08-17, 05:31 PM
Irrelevant. Within the established rules of the impossible world of D&D what does a Fighter's daily power represent. A basic attack represents swinging a weapon, expending a spell represents mumbling magic words to creat an effect. The impossiblity in our world is irrelevant, its what makes it possible in their world.
The PHB basically says that abilities with a Martial power source come from the character's extensive training and incredible physical abilities.

So the Fighter doesn't use magic. So what? There's magic all around him. There's magic to help train. There's magic foes to spar against. There's magic enemies to learn how to slay.

You're willing to accept the existence and power of Wizards, but you absolutely refuse to accept that sword-swingers might have, I don't know, had a couple lessons on ways to deal with them?


Sure when there is an explanation for how a city is annhilated. If Captain Kirk blew up a Klingon ship simply snapping its fingers, people would be up and arms. If he did it by ordering the Enterprise to lauch a photon torpedo at the ship, we'd be fine. Both are impossible because none of it exists, but one provides a 'How it happened' along with a 'What happened' since people like more then one question answered

Attention to detail and self justification is a major separator of godmodding from good storytelling.
The Enterprise's shields are starting to fail under the Bird of Prey's assault. It is no match for Kirk's vessel in a stand-up fight, but the Enterprise can't get it into that fight. The Klingons are content to stay cloaked, only becoming visible long enough to fire a shot, then go back to cloaked before the Enterprise's weapons can lock on.

But Kirk is no fool, and he's handled Klingons before. He manuvers the ship skillfully and carefully, drawing the Bird of Prey in, drawing it, herding it, making it go to a certain spot, next to a derelect old freighter.

What the Klingons don't know is that Scotty has rigged that freighter with an explosive using a scratch-built device and a pound of antimatter, set up to release a wave of energy into the surrounding space. It will destroy the freighter, and won't work on another Bird of Prey should it jump the Enterprise before they can find another place to rig up with a trap, which would take another day or so. But at least this time, Kirk has an ace up his sleeve.

The freighter explodes, knocking the Klingons out of cloak, making them perfectly visible. They suddenly realize that they aren't safe, aren't where they want to be, well away from the Enterprise's guns. Instead, they are right where Kirk wants them: exposed, vulnerable, and entirely too close to the Enterprise's weapons.

Man, you're right, that WOULD be awesome.

It also sounds rather familiar...



Indeed it is higherst caliber because "All abilities are impossible, but some are more impossible than others" is exactly right. And its a good thing too making that distinction, because willfully pretending something just happens is inherently shallow. Apparently wanting to dig deeper makes me a fascist.

And 3e did justify what it did, often badly or in ways that don't make sense but the attempt was made. You however don't even want to make the attempt.

I consider that the debate equivalent of sticking ones fingers into ones ears and screaming LA-LA-LA-LA.

Which since that is apparently what you want us to do you in effect concede there is no justification for the ablity, thus it is merely a game mechanic. D&D the video-game!
{Scrubbed}

You accuse me of saying that digging deeper would be bad, when all you've done is balk at the thought that there might be something deeper to dig at. You're the one saying that there isn't any way this could be happening because it isn't magic, and refuse to admit that maybe, just maybe, there is some way it could be explained.

You accuse me of not wanting to make the attempt to explain it, when you're the one who argues that it's impossible to explain it. I want to look for ways to explain it. You, on the other hand, seem to be quite offended by the mere concept that an explanation is even possible. Anywhere. Ever.

You accuse me of wanting to think that there's no justification, when you're the one who's been arguing that no such justification is or ever will be possible.

MartinHarper
2008-08-17, 05:32 PM
When you sit down to roleplay an actual person in a world filled with (ostensibly) actual people, there is at least some call for a degree of reality to the fantasy, even if it's only the heroic side it.

I think there is a call for the game to do what it says on the tin. So if it is supposed to model the real world, it should do that. If it is supposed to tell stories in a world of heroic fantasy, it should do that. I think 4e works to tell stories in a world of heroic fantasy, so I'm happy that it can be a serious game on that basis.


By the same reasoning, there should be days where the opportunity presents itself multiple times during the day, and there should be days where it doesn't happen at all.

The latter occurs on days when the character doesn't use his daily power. The former is sufficiently unlikely that it doesn't happen in normal play.


Within the established rules of the impossible world of D&D what does a Fighter's daily power represent?

That's up to the player and the DM. Here are some possibilities:
1) powers that exert a significant physical or mental toll on the Fighter. He uses the power, but it leaves him weakened, unable to repeat his feat until he has an extended rest.
2) powers that require a number of circumstances coming together in the right way, that only happen once a day, or less.
3) powers that the fighter will only use on 'worthy' opponents.
4) powers that are, unknown to the fighter, partially granted by magic, or a magic item, or some other arcane power source.
5) powers that rely on an opponent providing the perfect opportunity - an opportunity so rare that it only happens at most once per day.
6) powers that rarely succeed. The Fighter might make it work once a day, but normally he will fail and end up missing or doing only normal damage.
7) powers that the Fighter guards as a close secret. He does not do them too frequently, afraid that others will learn to copy them, and use them for evil ends.
8) powers that are, unknown to the fighter, partially granted to him by his patron god, or a demon, or some other external entity.

Alternatively, they might be daily powers because of movie logic, or the players might not even care. None of this prevents 4e being used for serious campaigns.

nagora
2008-08-17, 05:32 PM
But if the mugger was already important to the story
I'm off to bed so I'm not going to say much now other than to clarify that I'm basically objecting to there being a story. Life doesn't have a story (except in retrospect), so I don't see why a pretend life should. Once I (the player) take my eye off the ball to worry about overall story arcs I'm distancing myself from the character as a person and not as, well, a character in a story.

MartinHarper
2008-08-17, 05:38 PM
I'm off to bed so I'm not going to say much now other than to clarify that I'm basically objecting to there being a story. Life doesn't have a story (except in retrospect), so I don't see why a pretend life should.

What do you think about movies?

Jayabalard
2008-08-17, 05:56 PM
You're willing to accept the existence and power of Wizards, but you absolutely refuse to accept that sword-swingers might have, I don't know, had a couple lessons on ways to deal with them?The place where people tend to balk is where they start doing magical things through awesomeness rather than by using magic.

I don't have any problem with them having a couple of lessons on how to deal with wizards as long as it's: "stick a sword in them" or something similarly realistic.


What do you think about movies?I like them, but don't think that they have any relevance to a roleplaying discussion any more than books do.

arguskos
2008-08-17, 06:01 PM
What do you think about movies?
I think that as a medium that doesn't require player input, story is expected. In a medium that has player input, such as, say, an RPG, story is not necessarily expected.

Just my 2cp.

-argus

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-17, 06:17 PM
Here's a fun experiment: why not make everything "magic?"

Seems to me, many people don't like the idea of "normal" people doing extraordinary things. Well, why not just say that adventurers aren't "normal" people at all.

Fluff!
Every adventurer has some sort of vital spark that they can use to do extraordinary deeds - normal people may have this spark to some degree, but never as strongly as adventurers. People with a greater-than-normal spark are drawn by destiny to shape the world around them; typically, this is through adventuring, though some others become great kings or scholars instead.

Arcane Power Source uses this Spark to reach out to weird forces in the universe. Some channel the Cosmic All through wizardry, while others reach out to powerful entities and form Pacts. Divine Power Source users reach out to the Gods themselves, and form a powerful bond that grants them great power. Martial Power Source users, finally, reach out to nothing, but reach inwards instead. By mustering this internal fortitude they can achieve dazzling feats of swordplay, twist the forces of chance itself, and renew and inspire the Spark in others.

However, the Spark is not limitless. While it can grow as the adventurers develop in skills and advance their destinies, it is the fuel upon which their exploits are run. Aside from the obvious powers, it also is what keeps people alive, and if the Spark grows too dim, it may snuff out, and leave the body, perhaps for good. Fortunately, rest is often enough to rekindle this Spark, should it remain in the body.

I'll call this the Spark Fluff. Not only does it neatly explain why powers are limited (every power drains the Spark in a specific way and for a specific amount), it also solves Healing Surges (the rudimentary Vital Spark) and why adventurers are different from everyone else.

Now, with this fluff in mind, who still rejects 4e as "unbelievable" and why?

Prophaniti
2008-08-17, 06:22 PM
What do you think about movies?
Not that I mean to speak for him, but from what he's saying, I would gather that he thinks movies are fine to watch, but he has no desire to play a game (especially not a RPG) based on a movie. I would agree, mostly. Part of why I play D&D and other RPGs is escapism. That requires the world feel real to me, with the exception of whatever fantastic parameters are accepted at the outset. Which in turn requires the players, and to some extent even myself as the DM, be unaware of any 'overarching story' beyond the immediate. Yes, my 'immediate' is further out as a DM, from necessity, but still not all-encompassing. Stories form in hindsight in most of my games, and are the better for it.

*A decent idea*I would agree that a system so fluffed would not bother me as much when people with swords to fantastic things, as it provides an explanation well within the parameters of the willing suspension of disbelief I put forward when I started playing. The point has been that in 4e, by default, many of the fantastic powers from supposedly mundane (meaning non-magical) characters have no such explanation. They do what they do simply for purposes of game balance, and no thought or care is given for in-universe explanation or justification. That leads to some difficulties for those of us who like/need such explanations and justifications.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-17, 06:31 PM
I would agree that a system so fluffed would not bother me as much when people with swords to fantastic things, as it provides an explanation well within the parameters of the willing suspension of disbelief I put forward when I started playing. The point has been that in 4e, by default, many of the fantastic powers from supposedly mundane (meaning non-magical) characters have no such explanation. They do what they do simply for purposes of game balance, and no thought or care is given for in-universe explanation or justification. That leads to some difficulties for those of us who like/need such explanations and justifications.

Good! Then I highly recommend using it. It alters none of the in-game rules, does not even affect the cosmology ("Sparks" are the same as souls, as you may have noticed :smalltongue:) and doesn't even contradict the fluff that is inside the PHB.

Let me know if you like 4e better, after trying that out.

Roland St. Jude
2008-08-17, 06:37 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't flame other posters. If you don't have something civil to say, go eat a sandwich instead of posting.

Prophaniti
2008-08-17, 06:43 PM
Good! Then I highly recommend using it. It alters none of the in-game rules, does not even affect the cosmology ("Sparks" are the same as souls, as you may have noticed :smalltongue:) and doesn't even contradict the fluff that is inside the PHB.

Let me know if you like 4e better, after trying that out.
Might do, might do. 'Course, it'll be a bit before we play another 4e game, and I had other issues with it, but at least that part won't hurt my immersion as much as it did the first time. It doesn't leave the world quite as 'real' as the ones I prefer, but it can be fun to play in a more inherently 'fantastic' one from time to time.

mmmm... sandwiches...

Kompera
2008-08-17, 06:50 PM
Pot, meet kettle. To elaborate, you shouldn't accuse people of close-mindness after claiming that because they don't like something you like they're simply stubborn and incapable of understanding it properly. Even though Talic's post weren't really criticism, merely statements that yes, encounter-based martial powers are unrealistic. But then D&D 4ed is Serious Business.
Except it's not pot meet kettle. When the subject is about open mindedness, it's only the people who refuse to be open minded who can be called out for it. When my philosophy is one of inclusiveness, and my debate partner's philosophy is one of exclusiveness, then it's clear that it is my debate partner who is being closed minded and not myself. There is no hypocrisy in this position, it is simple fact.

Several examples were given by several people for how encounter based martial powers could be justified within the framework of the FRPG. Talic refuses to accept any of them. So here you have several people saying "Hey, it really can be justified, and he's a few ways it works.", and on the other side you've got "No, no, that's impossible." So please don't try to paint both sides as being closed minded (i.e. pot, meet kettle) because the facts do not support that viewpoint at all.

MartinHarper
2008-08-17, 06:55 PM
The point has been that in 4e, by default, many of the fantastic powers from supposedly mundane (meaning non-magical) characters have no such explanation. They do what they do simply for purposes of game balance, and no thought or care is given for in-universe explanation or justification. That leads to some difficulties for those of us who like/need such explanations and justifications.

Yeah - 4e pretty much requires the players, and the DM, to create their own fluff. The little fluff that's present in the books can be a starting point and an inspiration, but can be freely changed and leaves many questions unanswered. It's not just the Fighter, either: the books don't explain why any class has daily powers. Why can't the Wizard create an Acid Arrow whenever he feels like? Why will the Cleric's deity only Bless his party once a day? The player's handbook doesn't tell me.

Obviously some people like that, and some people don't. However, I don't see that player-generated fluff is inherently less serious than fluff handed down by the game designers, so I don't think this stops anyone running a serious campaign in 4e.

Charity
2008-08-17, 06:57 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't flame other posters. If you don't have something civil to say, go eat a sandwich instead of posting.

Have you seen how much weight I'm putting on?

Prophaniti I have played many systems, I have yet to see one that is even remotely 'realistic' if examined in any depth.

The things that I find effect 'immersion' most detrimentally are those times where the mechanics of the game are counter intuative or too complex to recall and thus don't weave into the flow so to speak.

Akisa
2008-08-17, 06:59 PM
Except it's not pot meet kettle. When the subject is about open mindedness, it's only the people who refuse to be open minded who can be called out for it. When my philosophy is one of inclusiveness, and my debate partner's philosophy is one of exclusiveness, then it's clear that it is my debate partner who is being closed minded and not myself. There is no hypocrisy in this position, it is simple fact.

Several examples were given by several people for how encounter based martial powers could be justified within the framework of the FRPG. Talic refuses to accept any of them. So here you have several people saying "Hey, it really can be justified, and he's a few ways it works.", and on the other side you've got "No, no, that's impossible." So please don't try to paint both sides as being closed minded (i.e. pot, meet kettle) because the facts do not support that viewpoint at all.

Except the only plausible reason given is the spark thing by Oracle Hunter, which is in essence everyone has some sort magical abilities.

MartinHarper
2008-08-17, 07:07 PM
The only plausible reason given is the spark thing by Oracle Hunter.

Well, apparently it's the only reason that you find plausible. Personally, I find all eight reasons that I gave for daily powers to be plausible. Out of interest, what makes them implausible to you?

Prophaniti
2008-08-17, 07:13 PM
The things that I find effect 'immersion' most detrimentally are those times where the mechanics of the game are counter intuative or too complex to recall and thus don't weave into the flow so to speak.
True. Good examples (to me) of that would be: Drowning healing in 3.5, and the overabundance of pushing, pulling, and sliding in 4e. Obviously, the first is universal in 3.5, while the second is more situational, meaning it isn't always the case. But, I've not played 4e enough to have noticed any mechanics that are universally counter-intuitive, and even drowning healing was something that we didn't know about until I read it here. I'd say the healing surges mechanic is counter intuitive to me, and it is, but then we'd have the torrent of "HP is an abstraction! An abstraction, I say! You're doing it wrong!" that usually follows such a statement. For those interested, here's my rebuttal:I'm aware that HP is an abstraction in D&D, and I've rarely had a problem with that. I simply feel that the self-healing of 4e stretches the abstract too far for me, and becomes annoying to deal with or satisfactorily describe.On complex mechanics, though, I don't have much to say. I've never found the grappling rules in 3.5 to be that challenging to understand or use, even though people both here on the boards and in my own group do. Rules have to get pretty complex to start bothering me. In fact, I specifically want my group to playtest some of my homebrew work, not to gauge balance, but to check complexity and ease of understanding, and to have them help me find ways to simplify it. My usual tact for changing a rule to make more sense to me is to make it more complex. Works great for me, but I've made my players go cross-eyed before with it, and that's not my aim.

In the end, though, while I aknowledge that complexity can be detrimental, I find oversimplification to be much worse to me, personally.

Prophaniti
2008-08-17, 07:25 PM
As requested, here's my response to your ad hoc list of explanations.
That's up to the player and the DM. Here are some possibilities:
1) powers that exert a significant physical or mental toll on the Fighter. He uses the power, but it leaves him weakened, unable to repeat his feat until he has an extended rest.
2) powers that require a number of circumstances coming together in the right way, that only happen once a day, or less.
3) powers that the fighter will only use on 'worthy' opponents.
4) powers that are, unknown to the fighter, partially granted by magic, or a magic item, or some other arcane power source.
5) powers that rely on an opponent providing the perfect opportunity - an opportunity so rare that it only happens at most once per day.
6) powers that rarely succeed. The Fighter might make it work once a day, but normally he will fail and end up missing or doing only normal damage.
7) powers that the Fighter guards as a close secret. He does not do them too frequently, afraid that others will learn to copy them, and use them for evil ends.
8) powers that are, unknown to the fighter, partially granted to him by his patron god, or a demon, or some other external entity.
My views on these explanations:
1)If using the power weakens him, how is it that it weakens him exactly enough to prevent its further use, but not enough to limit him in any other way?
2)Plausible. When dealing with statistics, however, you can see surprising things. Under this explanation, it should be at least a remote possibility to perform the manuever more than once a day, or less than once a day.
3)Ok, so he just used it on the 'worthy' orc shaman. Then, the chief steps out and challenges him. Why is the chief less 'worthy'? What happens when the fighter encounters a long line of knights, each more 'worthy' than the last.
4)See, this one actually works in a setting that accepts the existance of magic, especially in a setting where magic is abundant. This is quite along the lines of Oracle_Hunter's idea.
5)This one falls apart once you examine what constitutes a 'perfect opportunity'. So long as that remains undefined, it might work.
6)Probably the best explanation in the lot. Although, if it's so difficult, why can't the fighter practice or train to make the trick more reliable?
7)A decent one, though it begs the question of where the fighter learned it, and if it's such a closely guarded secret, why do so many other fighters of his level know the same secret?
8)Again, much like Oracle_Hunter's idea, though from an external source instead of an internal one. Using this one, 4, or Oracle's idea, however, kills the character concept of the Badass Normal, since everyone is inherently magic in this world. And remember, if everyone's magic, no one is.

Overall, for most of them, the best word I could use is 'contrived'.

EDIT: Crap, sorry for the Double Post. I really thought I'd taken long enough for someone else to post. Though I should have remembered today is Sunday, and the boards are slower than normal. Sorry.

Jayabalard
2008-08-17, 07:26 PM
Now, with this fluff in mind, who still rejects 4e as "unbelievable" and why?I don't find it unbelievable, but I also don't have the least bit of interest in a game with that fluff as it's background. I'd like to play batman, and I'm even willing to play Jimmy Olsen, but I have no interest in playing Superman.

Knaight
2008-08-17, 08:29 PM
I'm off to bed so I'm not going to say much now other than to clarify that I'm basically objecting to there being a story. Life doesn't have a story (except in retrospect)
Exactly. But sometimes its easier to predict. Someone running into the shady parts of town and encountering a mugger is one thing. Someone killing of major members of the underworld and enhancing the guard force, then running into a mugger is entirely different. In that second case said mugger probably has a reward for killing them or bringing them in, and is a significantly more shady character, so saying its a relative doesn't work in this case. This guy either isn't or just doesn't care. Hence that second guy being more important to the story, the story isn't there except in retrospect, but its painfully obvious which is more important from the GM perspective at this time.

Crow
2008-08-17, 09:36 PM
The latter occurs on days when the character doesn't use his daily power. The former is sufficiently unlikely that it doesn't happen in normal play.

The problem is that the only reason the character didn't use the power was because he chose not to (or never got in a fight). He could have used it at any time he wished. As for having it happen more than once per day, stranger things have happened. How can circumstances need to be so perfect that it can only happen once per day, but at the same time happen every single day (in the context of a fighter engaging in multiple combats)?

The only situations where your explanation holds water is in the situations where a power really does require specific circumstances to occur, such as "an ally is reduced to 0 or fewer hitpoints".

Jerthanis
2008-08-17, 09:47 PM
I'm off to bed so I'm not going to say much now other than to clarify that I'm basically objecting to there being a story. Life doesn't have a story (except in retrospect), so I don't see why a pretend life should. Once I (the player) take my eye off the ball to worry about overall story arcs I'm distancing myself from the character as a person and not as, well, a character in a story.

I have a feeling you stopped talking about use of encounter and daily powers that affect metagame concepts and narrative control of the in-game events by players a long time ago, and started talking about something that has little bearing on rules, and is very much an internal group mechanics choice.

When it comes to the powers of Elven Accuracy and Halfling Luck, those powers don't represent mystical do-overs, like some kind of Sands of Time rewind button... they represent Elves being good at hitting targets and Halflings being lucky. The degree that that extra skill and that extra luck has on the world's in-game effects is exactly proportional to the percentage chance change from having the opportunity to reroll the die roll. This is how metagame mechanics work to be out of character decisions not affected by in-character desire. Giving narrative power to the players over how their powers activate, and ceeding the power to narrate how the enemy reacts to it can allow for any number of descriptions of a character's personality.

And if you're fighting without exposing a part of a character's personality, why are you wasting your time with it?

I just got back from running a game today where, when planning for the session I said, "one of my players is playing a guy famous for being a powerful martial artist, I'm going to have a rival challenge him to a duel because I know my player will enjoy that". The rival martial artist didn't exist until I decided it would be cool for one to exist. Once that was decided, the PC martial artist was definitely going to meet him, or else why did I bother deciding he existed? Is that railroading to provide NPCs in ways that I know will interact with the PCs in ways that will be interesting to all involved, or do I need to do a double-blind style game where I script every situation and NPC before I know what characters the players are playing, and then set them free to swim forever in my giant sandbox? Where does the narrative end for you and the roleplaying begin, if never the two shall meet? If I make a game that isn't pleasing to my players, because none of the NPCs interact meaningfully, and their characters can't find purpose within my world... what do I do then if in order to be a valid role playing experience I can't script NPCs or situations to the player characters?

If I'm mischaracterizing your statements, I'm sorry. I'm honestly trying to understand our differences, because to me, Role Playing is 100% the Narrative.

Knaight
2008-08-17, 10:14 PM
Yes, that was kind of off topic. Its part of a side conversation that seems to be mostly between Nagora and I, with Matthew occasionally contributing. It does have relation though, and honestly I'm finding it really interesting.

Kompera
2008-08-17, 10:28 PM
II'm aware that HP is an abstraction in D&D, and I've rarely had a problem with that. I simply feel that the self-healing of 4e stretches the abstract too far for me, and becomes annoying to deal with or satisfactorily describe.
And again I say that with a little open-mindedness and imagination that what you are labeling "self healing", and to be fair the 4e rules do call it this much to their detriment, can be easily justified as a "second wind", a "heroic surge", or any number of imaginative things which I think you'll find echoed in almost all fiction. Since HP are abstract, it doesn't have to be clerical or regenerative 'healing' which restores this abstraction. I wish that the authors of 4e had taken a different tact with healing surges which better represented them as being just as abstract as the HP of every prior edition of D&D. But they did not seize this opportunity, and instead represented healing surges as healing. A poor choice of words, but not impossible to work around conceptually.

The New Bruceski
2008-08-17, 10:38 PM
So so bring this back to the original topic, it seems to me that the consensus is 4e is no more or less conducive to "serious" campaigns than any other edition, given the vagueness of the word "serious."

darkzucchini
2008-08-17, 10:49 PM
Just jumping in here to state my point of view without fully ready all 5 pages of argument, one of which may have already forwarded my idea on the topic.

The way I see things, you can have a perfectly serious 4e game, you may even be able to have a terrifying 4e game, or a 4e game where you feel that the odds are against you. All of that is in the realm of the DM and the players.

However, (and to put my biases out in the open, I am one the people that I will be talking about here in a second) for some people a cool story and great roleplaying isn't enough for them. Some players like to feel immersed in a world and the only way that they can feel immersed is to have rules that compliment the way that the world operates. 3e tried to go for this method and the success of the attempt is up for debate (the infamous drowning rules make no sense and I am not a big fan of Vancian spell casting, but I think they did a fairly good job over all). 4e, on the other handed, moved away from justifying game rules with worldly explanations, instead going for rules that work well together and create an internally consistent and balanced system.

In my opinion, this means 4e can be run in one of two ways:

1. You can separate rules from the world that the characters play in. It doesn't matter that a fighter can only use a certain ability once per day. There is no need to justify it for it is the story and roleplaying that really matters and the rules are just there to make a fun game. This may work for plenty of people, but, personally, it breaks my immersion, as so many other people have already stated.

2. You create a justification for the rules. MartinHarper and Oracle_Hunter have both posted different justifications for the 4e rules. This may work in their games, but to me, as Prophaniti put, a lot of the ideas feel contrived to me and would not work for my personal vision of D&D.

None of this means that you cannot have a perfectly serious game in 4e, you most certainly can, if the DM and players can either separate the rules from the world or agree upon a justification for the rules. However, the 4e system is not very accepting of those who do not like an unjustifiable world and super heroes for D&D characters.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-17, 10:49 PM
So so bring this back to the original topic, it seems to me that the consensus is 4e is no more or less conducive to "serious" campaigns than any other edition, given the vagueness of the word "serious."

OK! Next question: is 4e for "hard-core" gamers?

Wait, what? We already did that one? Then how about for "elite" gamers? No? Um... "is 4e gamist?" What? Again? :smalltongue:

EDIT:

However, the 4e system is not very accepting of those who do not like an unjustifiable world and super heroes for D&D characters.

Furthermore, the 3e is system is not very accepting of those who do not like an unjustifiable world and super heroes for D&D characters.

What? I think that having a world where magic is cheap enough for everything to be a Tippy Society, but it isn't, and where a 2nd level Rogue can be engulfed in flames without any magic or anything, and be completely unharmed.

This is not to single you out specifically, but come on, "unjustifiable world" and "super heroes" are empty phrases. Ultimately, people reject the logic of 4e because they don't want the game world to work that way. People can, and do, justify every single game mechanic ever created, and one man's "super power" is another's "being heroic."

Extended rant
I have to say, in all honestly, that I've never even heard of this phenomenon for any other RPG - people usually say "meh, the system is clunky" or "it's designed for a game I don't want to play" because both of those get to the root of "I don't think this system will be fun for me."

But "unbelievable?" Come on, you're pretending to be a wizard whose brain is compartmentalized like a missile silo, and is friends with a dude who turns into bear and then chants like a human and then begins hurling orbs of fire that appear in his paws without being burned! That is unbelievable, because it's impossible and absurd, yet people accept that reality because they are "playing make-believe" and that is the name of the game.

Heck, when it came to marital exploits all I had to say was "magic did it" and suddenly all the doubters accepted that because "it made sense." The only objections were "well, I don't want to play a gameworld like that" which is fine, but acting like you can't believe in such a world when you're happy being a half-dragon or some sort of magical-mechanical construct? I just can't see it!

Hmph. Anyhow, this is why people have been flipping out about people claiming they can't "believe" in 4e. You are playing a hobby that is all about pretending the absurd makes sense, and suddenly you can't pretend to believe this one more thing? This is a case of Arbitrary Skepticism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArbitrarySkepticism) if I've ever seen one.

The truth seems to be that some people just don't like the way 4e plays. That's fine but for goodness sake, it can't be because they "just don't believe" in Healing Surges, but they do believe in Roguespace :smallannoyed:

Andras
2008-08-17, 11:32 PM
Here's a fun experiment: why not make everything "magic?"

Seems to me, many people don't like the idea of "normal" people doing extraordinary things. Well, why not just say that adventurers aren't "normal" people at all.

Fluff!
Every adventurer has some sort of vital spark that they can use to do extraordinary deeds - normal people may have this spark to some degree, but never as strongly as adventurers. People with a greater-than-normal spark are drawn by destiny to shape the world around them; typically, this is through adventuring, though some others become great kings or scholars instead.

Arcane Power Source uses this Spark to reach out to weird forces in the universe. Some channel the Cosmic All through wizardry, while others reach out to powerful entities and form Pacts. Divine Power Source users reach out to the Gods themselves, and form a powerful bond that grants them great power. Martial Power Source users, finally, reach out to nothing, but reach inwards instead. By mustering this internal fortitude they can achieve dazzling feats of swordplay, twist the forces of chance itself, and renew and inspire the Spark in others.

However, the Spark is not limitless. While it can grow as the adventurers develop in skills and advance their destinies, it is the fuel upon which their exploits are run. Aside from the obvious powers, it also is what keeps people alive, and if the Spark grows too dim, it may snuff out, and leave the body, perhaps for good. Fortunately, rest is often enough to rekindle this Spark, should it remain in the body.

I'll call this the Spark Fluff. Not only does it neatly explain why powers are limited (every power drains the Spark in a specific way and for a specific amount), it also solves Healing Surges (the rudimentary Vital Spark) and why adventurers are different from everyone else.

Now, with this fluff in mind, who still rejects 4e as "unbelievable" and why?

This is a much, much better way to go about explaining 4E's power system to people. I'm not a fan, personally (it sounds like a superhero game, I prefer adventurers to be more in-reach by normal people than typical D&D fluff) but it's better than "He's just a really good sword-swinger so he can do all this stuff, but once per day or encounter".

Ultimately, I think the debate revolves around disassociated mechanics and whether or not you mind them. I do, personally.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-17, 11:34 PM
Ultimately, I think the debate revolves around disassociated mechanics and whether or not you mind them. I do, personally.

:smallsigh: and what do you mean by that? And how is HP, Spells-per-Day, or all that jazz not a "disassociated mechanic."

Talic
2008-08-17, 11:39 PM
HP are. They were included for simplicity, rather than accuracy.

However, Spells per day, that's not disassociated. In order for such a mechanic to be disassociated, there would have to be an established method of doing magic IRL that is commonly accepted.

As there isn't, and the concept of magic is totally dissimilar in and of itself, the methods by which they are employed are neither associated nor disassociated.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-17, 11:47 PM
However, Spells per day, that's not disassociated. In order for such a mechanic to be disassociated, there would have to be an established method of doing magic IRL that is commonly accepted.

As there isn't, and the concept of magic is totally dissimilar in and of itself, the methods by which they are employed are neither associated nor disassociated.

So... what makes something disassociated? Being really strong doesn't seem like it should make you more accurate with a sword, for example.

And why should you get better at hitting things because you learned more spells? Isn't "experience" a disassociated mechanic too?

I guess it's hard for me not to see this as another smoke & mirrors situation. It's not that people dislike "disassociated mechanics" it's that they dislike these specific mechanics - because it doesn't play how they'd like it to.

Kompera
2008-08-17, 11:50 PM
So so bring this back to the original topic, it seems to me that the consensus is 4e is no more or less conducive to "serious" campaigns than any other edition, given the vagueness of the word "serious."
That is my opinion. I don't find 4e either more or less silly or serious than any other version of D&D.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-17, 11:52 PM
That is my opinion. I don't find 4e either more or less silly or serious than any other version of D&D.

I think 4e is much less silly than Spelljamer, personally.

Giant Space Hamsters? The Giff? :smalltongue:

Kompera
2008-08-18, 12:04 AM
I think 4e is much less silly than Spelljamer, personally.

Giant Space Hamsters? The Giff? :smalltongue:
Is Spelljammer an edition of D&D? I thought it was a campaign setting, but I will admit that other than enjoying a few short fiction pieces in Dragon Magazine about Spelljammer that I don't have much exposure to it.

D&D any edition is much more serious than Ghostbusters, which I played in college with much hilarity abounding. Someone had to take the skill of 'driver', so I volunteered. Whenever asked how I was going to get from our base to any other point, rather than "Left on Main and uptown" my reply was always "Recklessly!"

D&D any edition is potentially less serious than TORG, which my group played much more gritty than we ever have played D&D.

darkzucchini
2008-08-18, 12:53 AM
EDIT:


Furthermore, the 3e is system is not very accepting of those who do not like an unjustifiable world and super heroes for D&D characters.

What? I think that having a world where magic is cheap enough for everything to be a Tippy Society, but it isn't, and where a 2nd level Rogue can be engulfed in flames without any magic or anything, and be completely unharmed.

This is not to single you out specifically, but come on, "unjustifiable world" and "super heroes" are empty phrases. Ultimately, people reject the logic of 4e because they don't want the game world to work that way. People can, and do, justify every single game mechanic ever created, and one man's "super power" is another's "being heroic."

Extended rant
I have to say, in all honestly, that I've never even heard of this phenomenon for any other RPG - people usually say "meh, the system is clunky" or "it's designed for a game I don't want to play" because both of those get to the root of "I don't think this system will be fun for me."

But "unbelievable?" Come on, you're pretending to be a wizard whose brain is compartmentalized like a missile silo, and is friends with a dude who turns into bear and then chants like a human and then begins hurling orbs of fire that appear in his paws without being burned! That is unbelievable, because it's impossible and absurd, yet people accept that reality because they are "playing make-believe" and that is the name of the game.

Heck, when it came to marital exploits all I had to say was "magic did it" and suddenly all the doubters accepted that because "it made sense." The only objections were "well, I don't want to play a gameworld like that" which is fine, but acting like you can't believe in such a world when you're happy being a half-dragon or some sort of magical-mechanical construct? I just can't see it!

A lot of what you are describing here is not bound up in the mechanics of 3e but rather in the fluff. Or if it is in the mechanics it is not a central thread to the rules that would unravel the system if undone.

To go through your examples one by one:

In my world, magic items are not cheap. A commoner makes between 1 silver a day and 1 silver a week, so most magic items would be out of the price range. I also don't tend to have magic items up for market, there just aren't that many people willing to sacrifice their life for a bit of money these days. Beside, my campaign world isn't crawling with high level magic users.

Fireball I always have considered to be more of an instantaneous blast of flame and not a ball of napalm. If you are quick enough of to cover up, you can avoid being hurt from a hot blast with little force and no shrapnel.

You may notice in post that I use 'unjustifiable worlds' for those in which there is little to no attempt to connect the rules to the world, which may be fine for some people but not for me.

I don't like spell level slots either. I tend to go for the spell point variant which is much smoother in my opinion.

I'm not sure what is so hard about saying that the fireball hovers in an orb of condensed flame above the caster's hand/paw. Or that the magical flames are inert and non-lethal until the spell is finished and the fireball thrown. All of this is just flavor.

I agree that is all dependent on the type of game that you want to play, but I know that for myself and a lot of other people, we are dawn to D&D because we want to make believe in a world were magic is powerful and rare and capable of just about anything. Making everyone magical makes magic feel less magical to me, and if I really wanted my heroes to be supernaturally more powerful than the rest of humanity, no matter if they are a caster or a mundane class, I would simply slap a template on them.


Hmph. Anyhow, this is why people have been flipping out about people claiming they can't "believe" in 4e. You are playing a hobby that is all about pretending the absurd makes sense, and suddenly you can't pretend to believe this one more thing? This is a case of Arbitrary Skepticism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArbitrarySkepticism) if I've ever seen one.

The truth seems to be that some people just don't like the way 4e plays. That's fine but for goodness sake, it can't be because they "just don't believe" in Healing Surges, but they do believe in Roguespace :smallannoyed:

I don't think that you are really looking at what I said in my post. I am fine with make believe, I am a roleplayer after all. I am saying that 4e makes it hard to believe in the world that I want to play in (powerful, rare magic, PCs are the same as NPCs, just with the spot light focused on them, mundane characters can keep on using their powers over and over again). You can perfectly well make a setting that justifies the 4e rules, I just haven't seen any justification that I would want to play in as a serious campaign.


So... what makes something disassociated? Being really strong doesn't seem like it should make you more accurate with a sword, for example.

To be fair, being strong really does help you hit in combat. I know, I LARP and I used to fence. I am considered a good combatant with a sword but I could be much better if I had more upper body strength. Without a decent strength, your wrist sags, you can't move your blade as quickly, you don't have as much control over your movement once the weight of the weapon starts getting to you, your enemy has an easier time pushing your blade aside. Strength also represents your ability to hack through thick armor and dragon hide, though the system doesn't work perfectly well as you get the same bonus against the unarmed as you do against the heavily armored.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-18, 01:38 AM
In my world, magic items are not cheap. A commoner makes between 1 silver a day and 1 silver a week, so most magic items would be out of the price range. I also don't tend to have magic items up for market, there just aren't that many people willing to sacrifice their life for a bit of money these days. Beside, my campaign world isn't crawling with high level magic users.

Fireball I always have considered to be more of an instantaneous blast of flame and not a ball of napalm. If you are quick enough of to cover up, you can avoid being hurt from a hot blast with little force and no shrapnel.

You may notice in post that I use 'unjustifiable worlds' for those in which there is little to no attempt to connect the rules to the world, which may be fine for some people but not for me.

So... it's "unjustifiable" when the PHB isn't brimming with fluff, but not "unjustifiable" when you make up your own fluff to justify the rules in 3e? :smallannoyed:

Honestly, doesn't that sound a little weird to you? I suppose not, or you wouldn't have said it, but really?

Anyhow, I know I'm not convincing anyone, since this is, as I noted before, a matter of personal preference. It's just annoying to hear people easily justify absurd mechanics they are familiar with, and yet they find it difficult to accept any justification for equally absurd mechanics which they are not familiar with.

arguskos
2008-08-18, 01:49 AM
Is Spelljammer an edition of D&D? I thought it was a campaign setting, but I will admit that other than enjoying a few short fiction pieces in Dragon Magazine about Spelljammer that I don't have much exposure to it.
It was a campaign setting for AD&D. It was also very silly. Giant Space Hamsters that drive gnome waterwheel ships through space. The Pirates of Gith who speak.... Pirates of Gith. The Giff, anthropomorphic hippos with guns. *sigh* :smallamused:

-argus

Deepblue706
2008-08-18, 01:53 AM
4E is definitely not for serious campaigns. For that, the only suitable system is FATAL. Or Hackmaster.

Talic
2008-08-18, 02:09 AM
So... what makes something disassociated? Being really strong doesn't seem like it should make you more accurate with a sword, for example. Strength correlates directly to the speed at which you can accelerate a weapon. This makes strength able to mitigate the ability to dodge, to some extent.

And why should you get better at hitting things because you learned more spells? Isn't "experience" a disassociated mechanic too?Experience is a disassociated mechanics as well, used for simplicity in measuring how quickly players become seasoned.

Levels are an associated mechanic, just not perfectly so. It does assume that everyone, as they become more trained, devotes at least some time to being more accurate in attacks, more knowledgeable in skills, more able to use special abilities, and better able to withstand hits. There's no allowance for someone to focus in individual areas, to the exclusion of others. Mutants and Masterminds, oddly enough, does a better job with the level system.

I guess it's hard for me not to see this as another smoke & mirrors situation. It's not that people dislike "disassociated mechanics" it's that they dislike these specific mechanics - because it doesn't play how they'd like it to.
There is a difference between lack of verisimilatude because the alternative would be very time consuming (HP versus injury location tables) or very ill defined (experience and leveling) and lack of verisimilatude for no good reason.

Colmarr
2008-08-18, 02:14 AM
Strength correlates directly to the speed at which you can accelerate a weapon. This makes strength able to mitigate the ability to dodge, to some extent.

And yet I have personally met bodybuilders who cannot play golf because their bulging muscles impair their swing. If 3e were as "common sense" as it's supporters claim, why does it require you to choose Str or Dex as your attack attribute. Why not combine or average the two?


There is a difference between lack of verisimilatude because the alternative would be very time consuming (HP versus injury location tables) or very ill defined (experience and leveling) and lack of verisimilatude for no good reason.

Funny. Here's me thinking that one of the main advantages of 4e was that it's less time-consuming than statting 3e NPCs and less ill-defined than 3e spells like Grease or Zone of Truth...

Ultimately, I think Oracle Hunter is spot on.

mangosta71
2008-08-18, 02:18 AM
Funny. Here's me thinking that one of the main advantages of 4e was that it's less time-consuming than statting 3e NPCs and less ill-defined than 3e spells like Grease or Zone of Truth...

I recall spending hours drawing up NPCs in 3.5. Big part of the reason I only ever DMed once.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-18, 02:19 AM
Funny. Here's me thinking that one of the main advantages of 4e was that it's less time-consuming than statting 3e NPCs and less ill-defined than 3e spells like Grease or Zone of Truth...

QFT - or is making things run more smoothly no longer a "reason" for disassociated mechanics? :smalltongue:

Colmarr
2008-08-18, 02:20 AM
I recall spending hours drawing up NPCs in 3.5. Big part of the reason I only ever DMed once.

Oh, so can I. I actually enjoyed it when I was doing it in a relaxed environment ("Hey, I wonder what a 7th level Lhosk Druid would be like?"), but when I needed to fill a 10th level dungeon for my PCs, I didn't appreciate it one little bit.

EDIT: I should probably clarify my position on the 4e/3e spectrum. I generally loved low-level 3e (1st to 3rd) as both a player and a DM. I generally loved playing mid-level D&D as a player and a DM, but I hated preparing home-brew mid-level content as a DM. There's a reason those "post your NPC" wikis appeared, and it wasn't because DMs were short on ideas.

Overall, I am currently more on the side of 4e than 3e. However, I've yet to progress a 4e character beyond 2nd level, so my experience of higher levels is entirely theoretical. If/when my group gets there, I may decide that I liked 3e better after all. But based on my experience so far, and what my DM tells me about his 4e prep, I doubt it.

Deepblue706
2008-08-18, 02:23 AM
I recall spending hours drawing up NPCs in 3.5. Big part of the reason I only ever DMed once.

Really? I usually make NPCs in about 12 seconds. Although I admit, important adventuring companions will take a little more time.

Talic
2008-08-18, 02:24 AM
Really? I usually make NPCs in about 12 seconds.

For most npc's, I agree. Major ones, they take a bit more time.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-18, 02:26 AM
Really? I usually make NPCs in about 12 seconds.

Huh, that must be the case for everyone then :smalltongue:

Not sure where you were going there, but yeah, it takes a lot longer to stat out an NPC (with class levels and such!) in 3e than it does in 4e. Of note is how much of that 3e detail is wasted - so yeah, you could just ignore most of it I suppose, but in 4e, we don't have to ignore the rules to play the game :smallbiggrin:

OK, a little to giddy there, but yeah.

EDIT: Full disclosure time, I guess?
I'm running a 4e game now after running 3e and 2e for years (among other systems) and it is, by far, the easiest to run of any that I've played. Yes, that includes the narrative systems I've played! The mechanics are just so smooth and sensible (mechanically, at least) that aside from learning them, I've not had to homebrew around them yet. Well, aside from Stealth and Skill Challenges, but the fixes put up in the Errata work pretty well.

And no, I don't think less of anyone who likes to play 3e - you should play what you like. However, I hear a lot of arguments which are just wrong about 4e, and as we all know, no one can sleep while there's someone wrong on the Internet (http://xkcd.com/386/) :smalltongue:

Some of my favorites:
1) 4e is bad for roleplaying
2) 4e's rules can never make sense (a wide variety of flavors here)
3) 4e doesn't let me play a Dragon Cyber-samurai from Alternate Mars, therefore it is bad (many flavors there too)

If I seem over-zealous, it's not you, it's me. I don't expect to change your mind, but I hope that my arguments are more convincing for people who are sitting on the fence about trying 4e.

Colmarr
2008-08-18, 02:28 AM
For most npc's, I agree. Major ones, they take a bit more time.

I'm sorry, but this argument is disingenuous.

No 3e NPC (with the exception of perhaps a 1st level human commoner) could be RAW prepared in that time. The only way to do so is to ignore the aspects of creation that you don't want to bother with.

However, in doing so, you are effectively adopting 4e's approach, which debunks your rejection of that aspect of 4e (assuming you do reject it).

Deepblue706
2008-08-18, 02:29 AM
Huh, that must be the case for everyone then :smalltongue:

Who said that?



Not sure where you were going there, but yeah, it takes a lot longer to stat out an NPC (with class levels and such!) in 3e than it does in 4e. Of note is how much of that 3e detail is wasted - so yeah, you could just ignore most of it I suppose, but in 4e, we don't have to ignore the rules to play the game :smallbiggrin:

Wait, when was it ever said you HAD to use classes for NPCs? I'm pretty sure the DMG just kinda said "use these if you want more detail", in regards to NPC classes. Besides, it's not hard if you want to. Use average HP. Give good stats where you want them. Choose skills to max in. Viola.

Talic
2008-08-18, 02:32 AM
And yet I have personally met bodybuilders who cannot play golf because their bulging muscles impair their swing. If 3e were as "common sense" as it's supporters claim, why does it require you to choose Str or Dex as your attack attribute. Why not combine or average the two?The idea has merit. But the aspects used do have bearing, and thus, a degree of verisimilatude. The "averaging mechanic" has promise, though, at the risk of making every combat class in the game more MAD. On the bright side, the fighter just got brought closer to the monk. On the down side, mages are still OP.

Funny. Here's me thinking that one of the main advantages of 4e was that it's less time-consuming than statting 3e NPCs and less ill-defined than 3e spells like Grease or Zone of Truth...
Statting NPC's? Aside from the fact that there's a plethora of resources for sample characters (DMG and MM have many), and the option to change that... It has little to do with what we're discussing here.
As for definition? While it's in the advantages of a game to bend reality a bit to keep things fun, "defining things well" has never really been seen as accomplishing that.

While I'm not disputing that Mirriam and Webster were an absolute BLAST at the frat house, I don't think that detracting from realism for definitions enhances the fun of a RPG.

Colmarr
2008-08-18, 02:40 AM
The idea has merit. But the aspects used do have bearing, and thus, a degree of verisimilatude. The "averaging mechanic" has promise, though, at the risk of making every combat class in the game more MAD. On the bright side, the fighter just got brought closer to the monk. On the down side, mages are still OP.

You miss my point. In post X, you defended Strength as associated with attack accuracy. My post was pointing out the shortfalls of that reasoning.


Statting NPC's? Aside from the fact that there's a plethora of resources for sample characters (DMG and MM have many), and the option to change that... It has little to do with what we're discussing here.

How so? You specifically said that:


There is a difference between lack of verisimilatude because the alternative would be very time consuming (HP versus injury location tables) or very ill defined (experience and leveling) and lack of verisimilatude for no good reason.

Speed of DM prep is clearly relevant to "the alternative would be very time consuming".


As for definition? While it's in the advantages of a game to bend reality a bit to keep things fun, "defining things well" has never really been seen as accomplishing that.

Again you miss my point. You referred to lack of verrisimilitude because the alternative would be "ill-defined". I gave two examples of 3e lacking definition and possibly explaining why 4e has gone the route it has. Although in hindsight I suspect you were referring to a different type of "definition".

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-18, 02:42 AM
Statting NPC's? Aside from the fact that there's a plethora of resources for sample characters (DMG and MM have many), and the option to change that... It has little to do with what we're discussing here.
As for definition? While it's in the advantages of a game to bend reality a bit to keep things fun, "defining things well" has never really been seen as accomplishing that.

The fact remains - the changes to the rules in 4e actually do make the game run much faster & smoother. Is that still a good reason for disassociated mechanics?


Wait, when was it ever said you HAD to use classes for NPCs? I'm pretty sure the DMG just kinda said "use these if you want more detail", in regards to NPC classes. Besides, it's not hard if you want to. Use average HP. Give good stats where you want them. Choose skills to max in. Viola.

What about NPCs that people fought? And what was a "good" stat level?

As I said before, if you played 3e by the rules, it took forever. If you got good enough at ignoring the rules, the game became much better. How does that square with the vaunted "NPCs and PCs play by the same rules" arguments floating around, if you just threw NPCs together and hoped that they turned out OK, mechanically?

nagora
2008-08-18, 05:16 AM
I have a feeling you stopped talking about use of encounter and daily powers that affect metagame concepts and narrative control of the in-game events by players a long time ago, and started talking about something that has little bearing on rules, and is very much an internal group mechanics choice.
No, I think I'm right on-topic here. 4e has several new mechanics which enforce narrative: for example minions, marking, some aspects of the daily powers, and the whole level-appropriate gubbins. These specifically change the nature of the game world from a role-playing one to a story-telling one (well, they move it in that direction). So this is about whether a serious campaign can be run, where "serious campaign" means to me "one where the players can role-play fully".


I just got back from running a game today where, when planning for the session I said, "one of my players is playing a guy famous for being a powerful martial artist, I'm going to have a rival challenge him to a duel because I know my player will enjoy that". The rival martial artist didn't exist until I decided it would be cool for one to exist. Once that was decided, the PC martial artist was definitely going to meet him, or else why did I bother deciding he existed? Is that railroading to provide NPCs in ways that I know will interact with the PCs in ways that will be interesting to all involved, or do I need to do a double-blind style game where I script every situation and NPC before I know what characters the players are playing, and then set them free to swim forever in my giant sandbox? Where does the narrative end for you and the roleplaying begin, if never the two shall meet?
Narrative should meet roleplaying at the ends as it were: the DM clearly sets up situations, as in your example, before play starts whether on a session-by-session basis or at the start of a campaign. Often, if you play seasons or mothly pauses in between sessions, narrative comes in during the pauses between adventures ("While you were all healing up from the battle the old King died and now his daughter is Queen").

What is railroading is, to take your example, when the PC takes steps to avoid something and you make it happen simply because you think it'll be a great story (or because you have nothing else planned). With action points players can now be guilty of this too. Narrative is all about pushing towards a planned end-point. That's fine if an NPC with a reason is doing the pushing; I dislike it if the pushing is being done either by players (not player characters) or the DM (not NPCs).


If I'm mischaracterizing your statements, I'm sorry. I'm honestly trying to understand our differences, because to me, Role Playing is 100% the Narrative.
I think the problem here is the definition of "narrative". I've tried to explain exactly what I mean in a couple of posts and again here but I'll try to clarify further, with particular reference to 4e:

If I see on the news that an embassy has been taken over by terrorists, I don't think "I better get my coat and sort that out", I await news that someone else with special training has done it. The reason I don't go and sort it out myself is that I know such people exist and I know that the terrorists are likely to be dangerous.

In 4e, what is expected to happen is that I can put my coat on and go down with a group of friends and sort it out. Unlike 1e, I know that the world will warp to give me a decent chance to resolving any crisis I turn my hand to because I'm important by definition. To put it another way, the narrative of the world is centered on me and my friends to such an extent that everyone else is robbed of their free-will and identity, and even of their independant existance.

In 1e, my character could try to sort the crisis out if he were high enough level, or as cunning as a fox with two tails. But a first level character would be foolish if, for example, he walked into a troll's den to rescue a priest or something similar. Like me watching the embassy on the news, he would be aware that trolls are more dangerous then he is. Does his 4e analogue have the same knowledge?

Also, in 1e, my 13th level fighter knows that when danger calls, he's often the man for the job. But, opps! HIS world has warped in 4e to make his increase in skill and training essentially worthless - the troll will be tougher to compensate.

For me this sort of thing is all "narrative" - the world is all about the central characters and the group is playing out their story. That sounds like a book or a movie, but I want to play people, not movie stars. Or at least, I want to play someone who makes themselves into a star by their own actions and efforts rather than have it handed to them on a plate because "it makes a better story that way".

I've played story-telling games (and designed some too - about 25 years ago we were playing the card-laying story game with tarot cards) and they're fun, but the focus is moved onto the story rather than the characters and that takes away the role-playing aspect for me.

Thurbane
2008-08-18, 05:21 AM
So. I have a world. In this world there is magic. Because of some cosmic laws magic exist but it can never never be used to make people/things/x/y fly.

So everything that is not 'normal' can be descriped as "A Mage did it" "It works because it's magic" as long as there is no flying intended.

Do i got this right ?


So why can i say "In this world, because of some cosmic laws, normal guts and musclework can archieve awesome thinks like slowing a Iron Golem too."

Then we have world where the 4E fighter is possibyl. That is not a common calactic law in fantasy (or yes it is but people ignore Conan and Boewulf and stuff) but it is for a 4E world. When you say cosmic magic law = awesome magic then you have to accept a cosmic sword law, don't you ?
Dejavu? Didn't you post this, verbatim, in another thread?

Oslecamo
2008-08-18, 05:48 AM
I think the right question for thisthread would be:

"[4E] Not for very complex campaigns?"

Because, well, despite it's strenghts, 4e is still a world where I can't get an army of followers, or tame a purple wurm to be my mount, or get myself an animated airship and ram the BBEG's castle with it, or some other really complicated rule utilization wich ends up in a crazy and self rewarding result.

Now you could argue that most of those things are broken, and well, probably they are, but still, one of the things that atracted me and a lot of people in 3.X, is that, more than any other system, it rewards players for complex thinking.

Now if you want to tell a story where the players are the heros, 4e is just fine, but if I want a world full of possibilities where the players are rewarded for smart thinking and world interaction, then I will go with 3e, even if it means we end up with the nine hells 3rd army of demons on our tail because we riped another hole in reality.

It's all a matter of taste really. Some players prefer their heros to glow like a thousand suns from the begginning of the game and kung fu being the ultimate art evar. Some players prefer a world where cats are a serious threat and those who don't get some kind of magic help as soon as possible are dead meat.

Frownbear
2008-08-18, 05:51 AM
I think the right question for thisthread would be:

"[4E] Not for very complex campaigns?"

Because, well, despite it's strenghts, 4e is still a world where I can't get an army of followers,
What stops you? I think you mean "I don't get an army of followers by taking one feat which isn't even in the PHB."


or tame a purple wurm to be my mount,
How could you do this in 3.5?


or get myself an animated airship and ram the BBEG's castle with it
Funnily enough, they showed off the rules for an airship in the Adventurer's Vault preview. 3.5 core doesn't have airships, though!

The New Bruceski
2008-08-18, 07:38 AM
We got an army of followers in 4e just last week. Trailing a hobgoblin war party we pulled together groups of refugees, negotiated with some bandits that we had a common problem to handle, and then allied with an elven scouting party. Working together we managed to raid their supplies and get the materials for a portal to the city the Hobs were marching on, so we could warn them of the attack.

Frownbear
2008-08-18, 07:49 AM
We got an army of followers in 4e just last week. Trailing a hobgoblin war party we pulled together groups of refugees, negotiated with some bandits that we had a common problem to handle, and then allied with an elven scouting party. Working together we managed to raid their supplies and get the materials for a portal to the city the Hobs were marching on, so we could warn them of the attack.

Almost as though you don't need a feat (or a class feature like in AD&D) for that!

kjones
2008-08-18, 12:46 PM
If I see on the news that an embassy has been taken over by terrorists, I don't think "I better get my coat and sort that out", I await news that someone else with special training has done it. The reason I don't go and sort it out myself is that I know such people exist and I know that the terrorists are likely to be dangerous.

In 4e, what is expected to happen is that I can put my coat on and go down with a group of friends and sort it out. Unlike 1e, I know that the world will warp to give me a decent chance to resolving any crisis I turn my hand to because I'm important by definition. To put it another way, the narrative of the world is centered on me and my friends to such an extent that everyone else is robbed of their free-will and identity, and even of their independant existance.

In 1e, my character could try to sort the crisis out if he were high enough level, or as cunning as a fox with two tails. But a first level character would be foolish if, for example, he walked into a troll's den to rescue a priest or something similar. Like me watching the embassy on the news, he would be aware that trolls are more dangerous then he is. Does his 4e analogue have the same knowledge?

Also, in 1e, my 13th level fighter knows that when danger calls, he's often the man for the job. But, opps! HIS world has warped in 4e to make his increase in skill and training essentially worthless - the troll will be tougher to compensate.


I'm not sure if I understand how this is a product of the different editions. I can send up a 4th edition adventuring party up against level-inappropriate encounters just as easily as I can send my party of 1st level, 1st edition PCs up against a red dragon. 4th edition just makes it easier to understand what your players should be fighting if they want to, you know, have a good time and not die arbitrarily.

I can design a world where the encounters will scale to the power of the party wherever they go, or I can design a world where the power of the encounters is absolute regardless of the party. But I can do either of these things in both editions.

Deepblue706
2008-08-18, 12:47 PM
What about NPCs that people fought? And what was a "good" stat level?

That depends entirely on the stat level of the party members. I usually use point buy, or at least record the effective values, so that I can usually determine what's most appropriate with ease. Oftentimes the Warrior array suffices for pretty much anything unimportant. Elite array for more vital NPCs and tougher fights. Higher if the PCs are particularly high (like, over 32 point buy). Skills selected via the "quick play" method introduced in the PHB for classes. As in, choose some, they're automatically maxed for you. Just use them. The rest is exchanging levels for CR values (and I'll say this now so nobody goes ahead and makes more assumptions: I don't do it 1:1). If they have spells, they're rolled randomly, unless I feel a particular spell is cool to have.



As I said before, if you played 3e by the rules, it took forever. If you got good enough at ignoring the rules, the game became much better. How does that square with the vaunted "NPCs and PCs play by the same rules" arguments floating around, if you just threw NPCs together and hoped that they turned out OK, mechanically?

What makes you think I said I supported the idea that NPCs and PCs should play by the same rules? What I was saying is that it doesn't take me a long time to make NPCs using the rules. I may be countering anecdotes with nothing more than my own, but I wasn't trying to argue any point other than "it's soo soo long" isn't an argument unless you start talking about why (honestly, I didn't see any particulars being discussed. If I merely missed them, then I suppose I'll move along).

Obviously, I'm not using the MM and CR values or point buy or anything measure how powerful NPCs are, doing entirely everything upon whim, right? So, please, enlighten me as to how it inherently takes "forever", and the only way to proceed in a timely fashion is to completely ignore absolutely necessary rules that are bound to the balance of the game.

Prophaniti
2008-08-18, 12:51 PM
Dejavu? Didn't you post this, verbatim, in another thread?That he did, and hasn't answered my responses in either thread. Might've been a fun tangent, but oh well.

Almost as though you don't need a feat (or a class feature like in AD&D) for that!The mechanics for followers are there, like all the other mechanics, to provide tools, aids, and guidelines for arbitrating a character's actions. Of course you don't need them, in the same sense you don't need any mechanics. As the Giant said,
I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.Really, this concept can be applied to almost everything we've been discussing, including the lack of decent explanations for the way powers work.

I personally don't use the 3.5 rules for leadership much, and when I do it's certainly not verbatim. They are, however, good guidelines to build off. I don't know if 4e has any, I never looked much through the DMG, and we didn't play to a high enough level for it to matter. If it doesn't, though, I think that is definitely a shortcoming, though likely one that will be addressed in future releases.

MartinHarper
2008-08-18, 01:02 PM
If using the power weakens him, how is it that it weakens him exactly enough to prevent its further use, but not enough to limit him in any other way?

It is a very specific level of tired (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=615)?
It's an abstraction, like hit points and such. I think it's an abstraction of a plausible idea, which is enough for me. Similarly, the 3e wizard takes an hour in the morning to prepare/memorise his spells, every morning, no matter how powerful he is, or how many spells he can cast. Never 59 minutes. Never 61 minutes. Nobody wants to roll multiple percentile dice on the "spell preparation time by caster level and spell level" table every morning, even if that might be more realistic.


it should be at least a remote possibility to perform the manuever more than once a day, or less than once a day.

The former occurs when the DM says "your daily powers recharge" halfway through the day, and the latter occurs when the player chooses not to use the power that day, and during downtime.


If it's so difficult, why can't the fighter practice or train to make the trick more reliable?

Because in the D&D world you become more powerful by overcoming challenges and gaining experience points, not by practicing or training. This is obviously completely unrealistic, and it's a feature of both 3e and 4e.


If it's such a closely guarded secret, why do so many other fighters of his level know the same secret?

They don't. Other fighters will be NPCs, or monsters, not PCs, and there's no reason for them to know the same secret. Even if they do have the same mechanical power, it might not be based on the fighter's secret.


The problem is that the only reason the character didn't use the power was because he chose not to.

The only reason the character didn't use the power was because the player chose not to. The character may or may not have had a choice, depending on how the player (and the player's group) chooses to do the fluff.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-18, 03:33 PM
Obviously, I'm not using the MM and CR values or point buy or anything measure how powerful NPCs are, doing entirely everything upon whim, right? So, please, enlighten me as to how it inherently takes "forever", and the only way to proceed in a timely fashion is to completely ignore absolutely necessary rules that are bound to the balance of the game.

Not "forever" but far too long.

Your Calculations

That depends entirely on the stat level of the party members. I usually use point buy, or at least record the effective values, so that I can usually determine what's most appropriate with ease. Oftentimes the Warrior array suffices for pretty much anything unimportant. Elite array for more vital NPCs and tougher fights. Higher if the PCs are particularly high (like, over 32 point buy). Skills selected via the "quick play" method introduced in the PHB for classes. As in, choose some, they're automatically maxed for you. Just use them. The rest is exchanging levels for CR values (and I'll say this now so nobody goes ahead and makes more assumptions: I don't do it 1:1). If they have spells, they're rolled randomly, unless I feel a particular spell is cool to have.

Look at all the calculations you made in that last post (above), and even then you end up using random rolls for spells (:smalleek: I bet you don't have many BBEG casters) and then fudge stuff all over the place.

In 4e, at worst, I:
1) Choose encounter level (noting the listed XP total)
2) Choose race and class (checking MM and the templates in DMG)
3) Set attributes from the Standard Array
4) Write down HP and Healing Surges (fixed and listed, right there)
5) Calculate Defenses (one table - right there)
6) Choose one At-Will, one Encounter, one Utility and one Daily power (from the appropriate class list - longest step!)
7) Pick two skills to train
8) Choose equipment
9) Calculate attack bonuses
10) Put in the oven, and bake for 30 minutes at 400 degrees Fahrenheit :smalltongue:

And that checklist works for every NPC I have to stat. No randomizing options they may not use, not hunting through books for feats, just that.

And that's what I use if I don't think any of the MM entries work for it! It is just a simpler system. Plus, I find that it doesn't create the sort of uncertainty that homebrewing usually entails - make something with this checklist, and it's not going to explode the adventure.

Also: I apologize if it sounded like I was poking you with a stick back there. Cut away all the bluster, and the above is what I'm talking about - 4e just has a simpler, more robust, and easier-to-use system for NPC generation than 3e, and it takes less time to make any NPC to full satisfaction.

nagora
2008-08-18, 05:55 PM
I'm not sure if I understand how this is a product of the different editions. I can send up a 4th edition adventuring party up against level-inappropriate encounters just as easily as I can send my party of 1st level, 1st edition PCs up against a red dragon.
I guess one of us has not understood the rules about making individual monsters (eg, kobolds) stronger to match the increasing power of the party.


4th edition just makes it easier to understand what your players should be fighting if they want to, you know, have a good time and not die arbitrarily.
If the players choose to do it then it's not arbitrary.


I can design a world where the encounters will scale to the power of the party wherever they go, or I can design a world where the power of the encounters is absolute regardless of the party. But I can do either of these things in both editions.
I'm not talking about encounters per se, I'm talking about opponents (such as minions) who have no inherent power level - they're just "party strength times some coefficient" or "1hp in this situation, 30 in another, 100 in a third". This is what make a 4e campaign sound like a trip to the local amusment arcade to shoot at cardboard targets instead of a game where you play real people in a real world.

Prophaniti
2008-08-18, 06:05 PM
It is a very specific level of tired (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=615)?
It's an abstraction, like hit points and such. I think it's an abstraction of a plausible idea, which is enough for me. Similarly, the 3e wizard takes an hour in the morning to prepare/memorise his spells, every morning, no matter how powerful he is, or how many spells he can cast. Never 59 minutes. Never 61 minutes. Nobody wants to roll multiple percentile dice on the "spell preparation time by caster level and spell level" table every morning, even if that might be more realistic.See, the point of that comic, aside from the funnies which were many, was to poke fun at railroading, and the ridiculous lengths many DMs would go to for it. Such a specific level of tiredness, when used by the system or the DM to explain the actions/inactions or a character, is most definitely railroading. As for the spellcasters, that's no different than the part saying humans need eight hours of sleep to be fully rested. It's a generalization. Yes, the daily recovery time for these powers is also a generalization, the topic is why they can only use them once a day, not whether it's exactly 24 hours.


The former occurs when the DM says "your daily powers recharge" halfway through the day, and the latter occurs when the player chooses not to use the power that day, and during downtime.DM saying that is altering RAW, and thus not fully applicable to this discussion. That one "O" fallacy, or whatever.


Because in the D&D world you become more powerful by overcoming challenges and gaining experience points, not by practicing or training. This is obviously completely unrealistic, and it's a feature of both 3e and 4e.Good dodge. You're focusing on the wrong part of my question, I'll reword it: If this is the explanation [difficulty], why can't the fighter spend experience points to make the maneuver more reliable?


They don't. Other fighters will be NPCs, or monsters, not PCs, and there's no reason for them to know the same secret. Even if they do have the same mechanical power, it might not be based on the fighter's secret.Oh, so they know some other ancient technique that causes everyone (that's an enemy) to approach them so they can hit them all at once. That makes more sense. If the end result is the same, any flavor about 'ancient sectrets' becomes meaningless, especially when monsters or NPCs do the same thing much more often than the fighter. What's the risk of giving away the secret if others do the same thing with a different colored ribbon?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-18, 06:21 PM
Good dodge. You're focusing on the wrong part of my question, I'll reword it: If this is the explanation [difficulty], why can't the fighter spend experience points to make the maneuver more reliable?

Because you can't "spend" experience points on anything in 4e? :smallconfused:

Here's another one for you: in 3e, why can't I spend skill points to improve my BAB? These are nonsensical questions - the system in place has a variety of counters and numbers and so forth that are related to each other by the rules.

Prophaniti
2008-08-18, 06:37 PM
Because you can't "spend" experience points on anything in 4e? :smallconfused:

Here's another one for you: in 3e, why can't I spend skill points to improve my BAB? These are nonsensical questions - the system in place has a variety of counters and numbers and so forth that are related to each other by the rules.Ok, what we're talking about here are possible explanations for why a martial character can't do a fancy sword trick more than once a day, in case you missed that. One explanation Harper put forward was the idea that the maneuver is particularly difficult to pull off, and therefore generally only rarely successful. My counter was, if difficulty is the explanation, why can they not improve their skill at it in one fashion or another. Experience points only came into the discussion because Harper dodged the counter by stating that training doesn't improve anything in D&D. Obviously, experience is not directly spent in D&D, instead simply increasing levels. So, I'll reword it a third time, in hopes of an honest and direct answer:

If difficulty is the explanation, why does the fighter not become more proficient at it as his level increases, when he becomes more proficient at all his other abilities, such as skills and BAB?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-18, 06:44 PM
If difficulty is the explanation, why does the fighter not become more proficient at it as his level increases, when he becomes more proficient at all his other abilities, such as skills and BAB?

Oh, use my Vital Spark fluff from back a few pages. There, all done. Your response?

EDIT:
Post linked here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4731094&highlight=vital+spark#post4731094)

fractic
2008-08-18, 06:45 PM
How about this explanation?

A martial character in combat is swinging his weapon his weapon continously, some times this results in pushing his foe back 15 feet, at other times it results in a solid hit that stuns him and at other times it results in assaulting all around him. With a magical character you could say "Now the character is casting this spell" in character. But with this martial character you can't really break up his moves into tricks (powers) in character. The character will never notice that he can only pull a trick off only once every day.

This way the powers for martial characters are pure OoC abstractions like full attakcs and charges from 3e.

Prophaniti
2008-08-18, 07:20 PM
Oh, use my Vital Spark fluff from back a few pages. There, all done. Your response?
To that one? What if I don't want to play in a world where some innate magical happenstance determines who rises to power and prominence and who doesn't? It sounds like those arguments of certain social deviances (murdering people) being caused merely by faulty genetics. I can just see the trial. "I'm really sorry I raided your families tomb, disturbed their rest, and looted their valuables. I have the Spark. I couldn't help myself. I heard there was a lich there..."

Acutally it's not all that bad, I'm probably poking it harder than it deserves. It just wouldn't apply to many of the settings I run.

How about this explanation? *snip*Not bad, actually, compared to some of the other... efforts... at explanation. Problem is, I don't always want to completely detach mechanics from gameplay, my usual preference is to match them as closely as is practical. So, while it may work for some, and I'll probably use something similar myself the next time I play 4e, I just wish it wasn't necessary. Also, doesn't that bring up the "different mechanics for different classes are bad" thing? If the wizards powers represent specific spells, why don't other classes powers represent specific actions, rather than happenstance?

One last point; In what way was a charge a "pure OoC abstraction" in 3e? It seemed quite clear and realistic to me. It represented them charging their foe.

Jayabalard
2008-08-18, 07:21 PM
This way the powers for martial characters are pure OoC abstractions like full attakcs and charges from 3e.Charging is far from pure ooc, and while full attack has more of an ooc component than charging does, it's still not pure ooc either.

In any case, having a bunch of pure ooc mechanics doesn't really help the people who have trouble considering per day martial abilities believable... since that's a big part of the problem.

fractic
2008-08-18, 07:27 PM
One last point; In what way was a charge a "pure OoC abstraction" in 3e? It seemed quite clear and realistic to me. It represented them charging their foe.

Maybe charge was a bad example, I just chose it because it's kinda powery if you know what I mean. But the following description makes perfect sense but is mechanically impossible in 3.5

As weird black tentacles created by the party wizard grab the ogre the fighter makes a mighty swing putting his weight behind it. Just a few seconds later another ogre walks past the fighter leaving the slightest opening allowing the fighter to make a quick stab at it.

3.5 mechanics force the fighter to power attack on the AoO aswell. I'll admid that the encounter/daily power mechanics does make these kind of situations more common in 4e.

Deepblue706
2008-08-18, 07:50 PM
In 4e, at worst, I:
1) Choose encounter level (noting the listed XP total)
2) Choose race and class (checking MM and the templates in DMG)
3) Set attributes from the Standard Array
4) Write down HP and Healing Surges (fixed and listed, right there)
5) Calculate Defenses (one table - right there)
6) Choose one At-Will, one Encounter, one Utility and one Daily power (from the appropriate class list - longest step!)
7) Pick two skills to train
8) Choose equipment
9) Calculate attack bonuses
10) Put in the oven, and bake for 30 minutes at 400 degrees Fahrenheit :smalltongue:

And that checklist works for every NPC I have to stat. No randomizing options they may not use, not hunting through books for feats, just that.

Wait, are you now presuming I don't have a checklist? Just because I didn't list my method in the most explicit of ways does not make it less formal or reliable. And um, by the way: what you're describing is pretty much what I do already for 3E. There are maybe one or two more areas that need slightly more detail. 4E saves me a handful of minutes per hour spent in the building process of games - which I deem negligible.

But in any case, I was never making a comparison between 4E and 3E. It appears you've presumed that I was taking a side, because I happened to show surprise at someone specifically saying it took "forever" to make NPCs (that was a word used to describe it) in 3E. 4E is quicker. I never argued against that. I just don't think 3E is really all-that-bad.



Also: I apologize if it sounded like I was poking you with a stick back there. Cut away all the bluster, and the above is what I'm talking about - 4e just has a simpler, more robust, and easier-to-use system for NPC generation than 3e, and it takes less time to make any NPC to full satisfaction.

Yes, it is certainly an easier system. I've only been trying to say that 3E isn't that difficult to use, much like people who play even earlier editions will claim THAC0 isn't difficult to use. Seeing that a few people in this discussion claim to have had trouble making NPCs, perhaps the easier method is warranted. But really, I thought there were other flaws in 3E that should have caused greater concern. I see things at this level completely dismissable.

Jayabalard
2008-08-18, 07:53 PM
like people who play even earlier editions will claim THAC0 isn't difficult to use. Wait, some people think that THAC0 is difficult to use??!?

Deepblue706
2008-08-18, 07:54 PM
Wait, some people think that THAC0 is difficult to use??!?

I've heard it from a few folks, yes...

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-18, 08:44 PM
To that one? What if I don't want to play in a world where some innate magical happenstance determines who rises to power and prominence and who doesn't? It sounds like those arguments of certain social deviances (murdering people) being caused merely by faulty genetics. I can just see the trial. "I'm really sorry I raided your families tomb, disturbed their rest, and looted their valuables. I have the Spark. I couldn't help myself. I heard there was a lich there..."

Then you may not want to play in a world with Destiny, or Gods, or.. well, magic. Most heroic fantasy settings insist that the heroes are "special" for some reason or another, and D&D, generally speaking, has long held that the PCs are, in fact "more special" than other people.

I bet you'll respond "when I play D&D, there is no fate, gods don't select champions, and anyone can use magic" or something, no? Otherwise, I believe you may be up a creek :smallwink:

Anyhow, I like throwing this argument out. Half the people who object to 4e being "unbelievable" seem to be mollified as soon as I say "magic did it" and the other half says "sure, but I don't want to be a hero... I mean superhero." Where people got the idea that D&D is "realistic" I'll never know - about as good as you can get is one of Nakora's 1e campaigns, to hear him say it :smalltongue:

Prophaniti
2008-08-18, 09:02 PM
Then you may not want to play in a world with Destiny, or Gods, or.. well, magic. Most heroic fantasy settings insist that the heroes are "special" for some reason or another, and D&D, generally speaking, has long held that the PCs are, in fact "more special" than other people.

I bet you'll respond "when I play D&D, there is no fate, gods don't select champions, and anyone can use magic" or something, no? Otherwise, I believe you may be up a creek :smallwink:

Anyhow, I like throwing this argument out. Half the people who object to 4e being "unbelievable" seem to be mollified as soon as I say "magic did it" and the other half says "sure, but I don't want to be a hero... I mean superhero." Where people got the idea that D&D is "realistic" I'll never know - about as good as you can get is one of Nakora's 1e campaigns, to hear him say it :smalltongue:
Actually, I've DM'd and played in a number of settings, some of which do indeed have fate, gods, etc. In those settings, if I were to use 4e, then your explanation would work ok.

I also run settings where fate is not the reason the characters are out adventuring, settings where the gods are not interventionist, and settings where magic is very rare and hard to aquire.

My current setting, the one I'm working on right now, only the first part is true. There's no such thing as fate in that setting. People are what they make of themselves. There are gods, and some of them do like meddling, though 'champion of such-and-such' is usually a self-proclaimed title. The gods are aloof and disdainful of mortals, with a few notable exceptions. Magic can be common, but is not universal by any means.

Incidentally, though there are a few settings I think 4e would work pretty well for, some even better than 3.5, I would never use it for this one by choice. I've considered using 3.5 for it, but in the interests of trying new things and the fact that I've recently fallen head-over-heels for systems that don't use levels, I'll be using heavily modified WFRP rules for it.

In my experience, especially while working on this project, I've found just how heavily game mechanics can impact the setting. Realism aside, if your mechanics don't relate very closely to what's supposed to be happening in the setting, it gets very confusing and annoying. That is why I don't think 4e would work well with many of the settings I like, because the mechanics simply don't mesh up with in-game occurance, the disparity too glaring for me to bother trying to reconcile.

This is a seperate (though related) issue from the mechanics not meshing with what the real world is like. I hold both about equally important, btw.

darkzucchini
2008-08-18, 09:50 PM
So... it's "unjustifiable" when the PHB isn't brimming with fluff, but not "unjustifiable" when you make up your own fluff to justify the rules in 3e? :smallannoyed:

Honestly, doesn't that sound a little weird to you? I suppose not, or you wouldn't have said it, but really?

No, I am saying that the rules in 3e made more sense from a realistic stand point (albite with magic and monsters added into the world) than many of the central rules of 4e. There is nothing that says magic and magic items must be common place in 3e. There is nothing that says magic and magic items need to be common place in 4e. That is all setting related fluff and is up to the discretion of the DM.

However, there are some important core rules in 4e that I find hard to justify in a somewhat realistic setting, such as forgetting old spells and maneuvers in order to replace them with new ones. Or only being able to use some abilities once per day or once per encounter. Hence the two different ways of coping with this disconnect. Either ignore it and get on with playing the game, or make up an explanation to justify the rule. A lot of these rules don't make a great deal of sense from a realistic stand point yet the books do not give a explanation for why they are the way they are. That is not to say that this is the ultimate evil, it just gives little room for a realistic setting.

3e was not impervious to such disconnects either (see Drowning rules) but in the case of the earlier addition such disconnects were most often obscure rules that could easily be done away with rather than a central pillar of the game system.


Then you may not want to play in a world with Destiny, or Gods, or.. well, magic. Most heroic fantasy settings insist that the heroes are "special" for some reason or another, and D&D, generally speaking, has long held that the PCs are, in fact "more special" than other people.

I bet you'll respond "when I play D&D, there is no fate, gods don't select champions, and anyone can use magic" or something, no? Otherwise, I believe you may be up a creek

Anyhow, I like throwing this argument out. Half the people who object to 4e being "unbelievable" seem to be mollified as soon as I say "magic did it" and the other half says "sure, but I don't want to be a hero... I mean superhero." Where people got the idea that D&D is "realistic" I'll never know - about as good as you can get is one of Nakora's 1e campaigns, to hear him say it

At risk being an unwelcome guest intruding on Prophaniti and your discussion, I believe that there is a rather large portion of the D&D playing population that does not want their characters to be all that different from the NPCs that they interact with. They would rather see the world as full flushed out, with their characters going largely unnoticed (at least in the beginning), the spot light focused on them to reveal their story but without the world revolving around them. As a note, either method may be used in 3rd or 4th edition, but characters in 4e have a distinctly heroic feel to them at first level where as a 1st level 3e character treads a thin line between being a heroic character and beings a 1st level commoner and can be easily shifted into either group.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-18, 10:16 PM
Well, no denying that characters in 4e are heroic - it's rather the point.

But now I'm curious. If people like their 1st level PCs to be commoners with swords, then what sort of adventures do they go on? In all honestly, finding good things for 1st level characters to do has been a problem in D&D since 2e, since pretty much anything can kill them. In 3e, for example, if you were a "mundane" class (Fighters & Rogues are about it, to be honest) then even fighting a handful of goblins was more likely to end up having you dead or in retreat. Heck, in 2e if you were a 1st level wizard, you probably should have just stayed home!

Now, I've always liked low level characters, but it wasn't because they weren't heroic. It was because they didn't run around with trunks of magic items - and in 2e and 3e, you really needed those magical items to compete at medium levels. I didn't like my characters needing magic to do heroic things; in fact, that's one reason why I switched over to 3e - feats allowed characters to do heroic things without the toys. High level 3e play was an abomination to me for this reason.

But 4e? Now the characters themselves, and not their stuff, is what is special.

So, that's my take: how about you? Why do you like non-heroic characters, and doesn't it bother you when they level 5 and start entering prestige classes and become unto tiny gods?

Thurbane
2008-08-18, 10:19 PM
Here's a fun experiment: why not make everything "magic?"

Seems to me, many people don't like the idea of "normal" people doing extraordinary things. Well, why not just say that adventurers aren't "normal" people at all.

Fluff!
Every adventurer has some sort of vital spark that they can use to do extraordinary deeds - normal people may have this spark to some degree, but never as strongly as adventurers. People with a greater-than-normal spark are drawn by destiny to shape the world around them; typically, this is through adventuring, though some others become great kings or scholars instead.

Arcane Power Source uses this Spark to reach out to weird forces in the universe. Some channel the Cosmic All through wizardry, while others reach out to powerful entities and form Pacts. Divine Power Source users reach out to the Gods themselves, and form a powerful bond that grants them great power. Martial Power Source users, finally, reach out to nothing, but reach inwards instead. By mustering this internal fortitude they can achieve dazzling feats of swordplay, twist the forces of chance itself, and renew and inspire the Spark in others.

However, the Spark is not limitless. While it can grow as the adventurers develop in skills and advance their destinies, it is the fuel upon which their exploits are run. Aside from the obvious powers, it also is what keeps people alive, and if the Spark grows too dim, it may snuff out, and leave the body, perhaps for good. Fortunately, rest is often enough to rekindle this Spark, should it remain in the body.

I'll call this the Spark Fluff. Not only does it neatly explain why powers are limited (every power drains the Spark in a specific way and for a specific amount), it also solves Healing Surges (the rudimentary Vital Spark) and why adventurers are different from everyone else.

Now, with this fluff in mind, who still rejects 4e as "unbelievable" and why?
This is actually very good fluff.

But isn't it awfully like The Force? Or magic, for that matter? Not that there is anything wrong with either of these, anyhow.


But now I'm curious. If people like their 1st level PCs to be commoners with swords, then what sort of adventures do they go on?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/618QNG6JM6L._SL500_AA240_.jpg (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11942.phtml)


Wait, some people think that THAC0 is difficult to use??!?
Apparently so. I used THAC0 for a couple of decades, and after initially learning it for about 5 minutes, never found it especially difficult. I will say that the 3E system is more intuitive, though...

Colmarr
2008-08-18, 10:23 PM
However, there are some important core rules in 4e that I find hard to justify in a somewhat realistic setting, such as forgetting old spells and maneuvers in order to replace them with new ones. Or only being able to use some abilities once per day or once per encounter.

At the risk of sounding argumentative, aren't bards in 3/.5e allowed to do the former (replace spells) and don't all spellcasters in 3/.5e do the latter (use abilities once per day)? Hell, even if you dismiss spellcasters as magic, 3/.5e barabarians can only rage a certain number of times per day.

Neither edition is more realistic than the other. You (to my eyes seem to) simply prefer the "real" that 3/.5e offers more than the "real" that 4e offers.

arguskos
2008-08-18, 10:28 PM
So, that's my take: how about you? Why do you like non-heroic characters
Admittedly, I agree with you: I like the growth of characters and their powers, seeing them change and evolve as they grow in might. However, in order to grow into a force to be reckoned with, you have to start at the bottom of the tree. When you are starting out, everything is dangerous, and every victory is hard-fought and well earned. It makes killing that goblin chieftain THAT much more awesome: because you EARNED it, with every single bead of sweat and drop of blood, that victory is yours.

In 4e (for me anyhow), that sense of risk is diminish somewhat. I never felt like I was in danger, or at risk. When we triumphed, it didn't feel like I earned it with the sweat of my brow and the blood of my veins. I'll not deny that cool stuff happened, and it was awesome at times, but it wasn't the feel I wanted.


doesn't it bother you when they level 5 and start entering prestige classes and become unto tiny gods
I never view characters as being "unto tiny gods" at level 5. In fact, I always run games in which PC's (though powerful) are not the kings of the castle. There is ALWAYS a bigger fish, so to speak, someone that can challenge the players, someone that is bigger, better, etc. Given, this requires a little intelligence on my part (to curb rampant rules abuse), but frankly, I've nothing against powerful characters. As long as they EARN that power and their characters feel that they fought through Hell and back (so to say) to become who they are. I rarely start games higher than level 2, and never higher than level 5.

Given, much of the above is rife with DM playstyle, house rules, and the like. However, given the question, it's pretty hard to avoid that, since it comes down to "how do you like to play?"

Hope that gives you a little food for thought, and hope you don't mind me just leaping in here. :smallredface:

-argus

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-18, 10:29 PM
This is actually very good fluff.

But isn't it awfully like The Force? Or magic, for that matter? Not that there is anything wrong with either of these, anyhow.

Heh, it is exactly magic; I made it up as a thought experiment. See, I don't have any trouble accepting the internal mechanics of a system because, when I play a game, I play by its rules. If damage is a counted as a five-step wound system, or a wound-level-bar or HP, that's fine by me - it's just a rule of the game.

However, lots of people seem to have trouble with doing this with 4e. I cannot understand it myself, but one thing I heard was that "they shouldn't be able to do that without magic." Well then, I thought, why not write up a nice, simple Magic Feather (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicFeather) to let these people believe in 4e, and actually give the darn game a chance.

This fluff has 0 consequences for in-game cosmology (sparks are just souls, y'know) and can fluff every single "disassociated" mechanic in the game. "HP" is just a function of your "vital spark," "experience," represents the growth of your spark by following your Destiny, and the Death Save mechanic represents your spark at its lowest ebb. It's good for everything, because it means nothing in a swords-and-sorcery world. In fact, this fluff works for every single edition of D&D ever made!

EDIT: Also, touche with the "0th level campaign" :smallbiggrin:


In 4e (for me anyhow), that sense of risk is diminish somewhat. I never felt like I was in danger, or at risk. When we triumphed, it didn't feel like I earned it with the sweat of my brow and the blood of my veins. I'll not deny that cool stuff happened, and it was awesome at times, but it wasn't the feel I wanted.

This is a common complaint, but I think it might have to do with how people are building their encounters. In 3e, it was very easy to go off the deep-end using the CR system, and resulting in a TPK so people became very cautious with it. I suspect that, when they switched over to 4e, they just send equal EL encounters over and over again. This is wrong.

In the DMG it says that =EL encounters are not going to be a problem for fully-rested individuals. If you want to make a challenge, you need to make EL +1 or +2, and save the EL +3 for those really, really dangerous encounters. Additionally, you shouldn't just send squads of Brutes at your PCs - you should mix it up, using the Monster Roles described in the DMG to craft your encounters. My PCs, certainly, have never felt that life was "easy" for them, even when they were fighting 1 Goblin Warrior, 2 Goblin Blackblades, and 4 Goblin Cutters - mere goblins! In fact, they were surprised at how tough the goblins were, compared to their 3e versions.

Believe it or not, the DMG actually does tell you something useful about designing an adventure this time around. Give 4e a try again, following the instructions in the DMG this time, and let me know if the encounters still seemed "easy" :smallamused:

arguskos
2008-08-18, 11:05 PM
As a note, we played 3 sessions. I was a player in each one. Our DM took our feedback, and asked us what he could do to make things better. Our biggest complaint was "it wasn't challenging enough."

So, he made it harder. And, it was tough. However, my complaint wasn't that it wasn't HARD enough, just that I was never in REAL danger. The feel ranged from "easy" to "omg, we're all doomed", and this is with the DM designing encounters as the DMG specified! We all gave it our best, and I'm willing to admit it might have been that the DM was still getting used to the system, but he is an experienced DM with several systems under his belt, so I don't give too much credence to that idea. My complaint is that I never felt like I was in danger, and I was a Wizard! I SHOULD be screwed if I hit combat, but I never felt like it, even when I did get tossed into the combat arena. I was always able to survive with little more than a few nicks here or there. The Fighter in the party complained of the same thing, even going so far as to joke, "Aren't I SUPPOSED to be taking damage?"

As I said, it seems like 4e is just not quite as "tough, but not quite overwhelming" as I want my game to be. It's very much a flavor thing. 4e's mechanics, though not to my taste, are pretty tough to decry as being "sub-par" or "crappy." The rules are simply different, and not to my taste.

-argus

darkzucchini
2008-08-18, 11:11 PM
Well, no denying that characters in 4e are heroic - it's rather the point.

I will take that to mean the point of 4e and not D&D in general. Gaining levels from level1 in a 3e game is very rewarding to me as I get to move from being a more common individual to someone who is more heroic.


But now I'm curious. If people like their 1st level PCs to be commoners with swords, then what sort of adventures do they go on? In all honestly, finding good things for 1st level characters to do has been a problem in D&D since 2e, since pretty much anything can kill them. In 3e, for example, if you were a "mundane" class (Fighters & Rogues are about it, to be honest) then even fighting a handful of goblins was more likely to end up having you dead or in retreat. Heck, in 2e if you were a 1st level wizard, you probably should have just stayed home!

Your imagination is really the limit on this one. In a past campaign that I DMed, the PCs set out from their rural village in order to travel to the nearest city to try to find the cure for a disease that had come down upon their town. Once they had reached the city, they found out that the plague was much more wide spread than they had realized and were swept up in the effort to find a way to stop the spread of the plague.

You could have a game of political intrigue. 1st level PCs can can take down guards with some tactics and planning. You could clean out the rat infested sewers for the local Council of Health and Public Safety.

There is nothing wrong with retreating and I find that I loose interest in a game if there is not that risk of dieing. I remember fondly an encounter in a game a couple of years ago, where I was playing a 5th level half-orc Druid/Rogue and our party had just retrieved an artifact from an ancient temple. Upon reaching the outside of the temple we were confronted with a rival who also wanted the artifact and his 10 to 12 hired thugs (ala beginning of Indiana Jones and the Lost Arch). Before we had a chance to react, our Barbarian and tank was drop by a half dozen crossbow bolts and I, being next in initiative order, dropped my spear and surrendered and was quickly followed the rest of the PCs (this was not the way the DM thought the encounter was going to go). Instead of griping about an overpowered encounter or even bad luck, I felt that it was really a great and memorable moment from that campaign. Sometimes its nice to loose every once in a while so winning doesn't seem assured.


Now, I've always liked low level characters, but it wasn't because they weren't heroic. It was because they didn't run around with trunks of magic items - and in 2e and 3e, you really needed those magical items to compete at medium levels. I didn't like my characters needing magic to do heroic things; in fact, that's one reason why I switched over to 3e - feats allowed characters to do heroic things without the toys. High level 3e play was an abomination to me for this reason.


But 4e? Now the characters themselves, and not their stuff, is what is special.

Nonsense, I am very stingy with magical items in the games I DM, and while a PC may die now and again (mostly from drowning) or the party may be forced to beat a hasty retreat, my PCs are able to overcome most encounters without being decked out in top end gear. The way I see it, 4e hardly alleviated the need for magic items. While you may have special attacks to begin with, you need those extra +s to hit as much as ever before, if not more so now.


So, that's my take: how about you? Why do you like non-heroic characters, and doesn't it bother you when they level 5 and start entering prestige classes and become unto tiny gods?

I like that success seems less assured for nonheroic characters. I like the build up from nonheroic to heroic. I like the feeling that you are also at risk, that crit arrow can take you out of the fight and instantly change the encounter from trying to kill the enemy to getting to the body and healing or bandaging it. I like roleplaying a nobody. Eventually characters can become cumbersome at high levels, but I have never found that they become godlike in their power even at high levels.


At the risk of sounding argumentative, aren't bards in 3/.5e allowed to do the former (replace spells) and don't all spellcasters in 3/.5e do the latter (use abilities once per day)? Hell, even if you dismiss spellcasters as magic, 3/.5e barabarians can only rage a certain number of times per day.

Neither edition is more realistic than the other. You (to my eyes seem to) simply prefer the "real" that 3/.5e offers more than the "real" that 4e offers.

Yes, bards and sorcerers are were allowed to switch out spells once they level up. I was never a big fan of this rule and would have outlawed in my game except for the fact that I have never had a Sorcerer in a group that I have DMed for and none of the Bards ever felt a need to switch their spells around. Rages/smites/ect. have also bothered me to some extent for the reason that you mention and I have been working on a homebrew method for those abilities that would be very complicated to get into, besides, everyone would say that homebrew has no place in such a discussion, which I would strongly disagree with. The thing is, the barbarian rage is a very small part of 3e where as the power system is a very large part of 4e. It is thus easier to ignore or to refluff the barbarian rage than to do the same for the power system.

I feel the 3e did a lot for realism in D&D in my opinion, while I have yet to see the realism that is present in 4e. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me on the realistic aspects of 4e?

Colmarr
2008-08-19, 12:11 AM
The thing is, the barbarian rage is a very small part of 3e where as the power system is a very large part of 4e. It is thus easier to ignore or to refluff the barbarian rage than to do the same for the power system.

I feel the 3e did a lot for realism in D&D in my opinion, while I have yet to see the realism that is present in 4e. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me on the realistic aspects of 4e?

The first thing to realise here is that you don't need to ignore or refluff "the power system". Assuming you cannot accept 4e's way of doing things, you need to ignore only the non-divine, non-arcane power system. Advocating 3e is inherently an endorsement of a power system that depends on limited uses of a power over a given period of time because every spellcaster in the game uses such a system.

Putting that issue aside, I assume you take umbrage at the fact that martial characters have limited use powers. I take you at your word that you objected to barbarian rage in 3.5e.

I can understand why you have a problem with that, but it's ultimately a personal choice. I can easily accept that a fighter can only be "in the zone" required to pull off a particular manoeuvre once per day or per encounter, or that he's only strong enough to do it once per day, or that he tries it every round and the one time he "uses" the power is the time it works, or Oracle_Hunter's Spark theory, and possibly many others.

There are so many "unrealistic" things in D&D that aren't "magic" that I find it frankly a little silly to draw the line at how often a fighter can use Comeback Strike.

Eg. reptilian flying cats that breathe fire (a.k.a. dragons);
a sentient creature that consists entirely of a round ball with 11 eyes (a.k.a. beholder, whose flight is non-magical);
falling 1 mile and surviving;
someone jumping up and down and quadrupling the damage they do with a hit (Leap Attack);
a 3'5" humanoid having the same strength as a 6'2" humanoid (halfling v orc);
a rogue being able to sneak attack a creature whose vital organs they can't possibly reach;
a spiked chain wielder being able to trip 20 people in 6 seconds;
the list is virtually endless

As for your request that I point out the realism in 4e, I admit that 4e is even less like "real life" than 3.5e was. But no one really wants to play "real life". If they did, they wouldn't be gamers. If you feel that 4e is a little too "action-hero" for your tastes, then it's fine to think that. But the point that Oracle_Hunter is making, and with which I agree, is that many of the people complaining about the lack of realism in 4e are in fact either unable or unwilling to admit that what they are really upset by is a minor change in tone.

Crow
2008-08-19, 12:36 AM
The only reason the character didn't use the power was because the player chose not to. The character may or may not have had a choice, depending on how the player (and the player's group) chooses to do the fluff.

I am quite sure you knew precisely what I was saying, but chose to formulate your answer in such a way as to dodge the meaning. In any case, the player could have chosen to use the power at any time they wished. As I said in the post you quoted;


The only situations where your explanation holds water is in the situations where a power really does require specific circumstances to occur, such as "an ally is reduced to 0 or fewer hitpoints".

Now for the part of my post which you completely ignored;


The problem is that the only reason the character (edit: player) didn't use the power was because he chose not to (or never got in a fight). He could have used it at any time he wished. As for having it happen more than once per day, stranger things have happened. How can circumstances need to be so perfect that it can only happen once per day, but at the same time happen every single day (in the context of a fighter engaging in multiple combats)?

Clearly, the "situational" argument for daily powers (DAILY POWERS) is a little weak. Encounter powers for martial characters are easier to explain (physically taxing, or "he won't fall for that twice") and still remain plausible. Daily powers are really difficult to fluff in a believable way.

Helgraf
2008-08-19, 12:46 AM
Clearly, the "situational" argument for daily powers (DAILY POWERS) is a little weak. Encounter powers for martial characters are easier to explain (physically taxing, or "he won't fall for that twice") and still remain plausible. Daily powers are really difficult to fluff in a believable way.

Daily powers could easily represent techniques that take something from your body that can only be replaced with an extended rest - something that (until you reach epic) cannot be replaced and is vital to the functioning of the power. Now, this leaves the issue of multiple dailies and the fact that you're not allowed to use, say, the level 1 daily 3 times, and are instead restricted to the level 1 daily once, the level 5 daily once, the level 9 daily once, but it still gives you something to work with.

mangosta71
2008-08-19, 01:07 AM
Really, the difference is that now everybody has abilities that they're limited to using once per day, where before only casters had to deal with it. The daily powers given to everyone make the classes more balanced than before. Note: not perfectly balanced, but it's closer than it has ever been in the past.

Crow
2008-08-19, 01:56 AM
Daily powers could easily represent techniques that take something from your body that can only be replaced with an extended rest - something that (until you reach epic) cannot be replaced and is vital to the functioning of the power. Now, this leaves the issue of multiple dailies and the fact that you're not allowed to use, say, the level 1 daily 3 times, and are instead restricted to the level 1 daily once, the level 5 daily once, the level 9 daily once, but it still gives you something to work with.

Well as I said earlier, almost any trained physical feat your body is capable of can be repeated with a short to moderate rest, barring tasks which actually cause injury to your body which would make you incapable of performing the task. This works well for encounter powers.

And as you said, there is the issue of being able to perform multiple dailies which makes them difficult to explain.

Skyserpent
2008-08-19, 02:12 AM
Well as I said earlier, almost any trained physical feat your body is capable of can be repeated with a short to moderate rest, barring tasks which actually cause injury to your body which would make you incapable of performing the task. This works well for encounter powers.

And as you said, there is the issue of being able to perform multiple dailies which makes them difficult to explain.

If we were to go the full on "Anime" route we could totally shoehorn this into things like "Chakra" or "Chi" but those are kind of going straight into the "Ki" Power source aren't they?

Honestly, if someone figures out a really realistic way of representing this my mind will be thoroughly blown.

Helgraf
2008-08-19, 03:04 AM
Well as I said earlier, almost any trained physical feat your body is capable of can be repeated with a short to moderate rest, barring tasks which actually cause injury to your body which would make you incapable of performing the task. This works well for encounter powers.

And as you said, there is the issue of being able to perform multiple dailies which makes them difficult to explain.

Hmmm. Incarnum gives me an idea to steal that could work here. Take the idea of chakra points/melds, rename them reserves

At 1st level, you have one reserve - this is a sort of wellspring of power or adrenaline or total focus. It is through the dedication of your training that you are able to tap into this reserve and find the focus / zen / nothingness that permits you to perform a truly advanced technique - however, your control of this ability is limited - once unleashed, your body can no longer sustain that moment of greatness neither magical healing, nor simple bandaging, herbs or motivational talk can recover this for you - only a prolonged rest allows your body to recover sufficently to find that fleeting greatness again.

At 5th level, you have come far; it is entirely likely you have learned techniques similiar to your crowning ability, and well enough to be able to use them without having to call upon that supreme effort of will. But your constant pursuit of martial discipline / state of perfect balance / immersion in perfect fury has unlocked a second wellspring within you; this one is noticeably stronger - more difficult to control, which is why you have not been able to submerge yourself into it as you had the first; but your continuing practice has finally paid off, and you have learned how to draw upon it as well; a hero's specialized maneuver that so long eluded you has now come into your grasp.

And the cycle repeats itself, as you approach 9th level; your special techniques expand [encounter powers], you dabble in more esoteric styles [utility powers], and finally, you unlock your third reserve, mastering or creating a technique that rivals that of one of the great heroes, one whose complex nature requires you to offer total commitment to bring it to fruition against your enemies.

After this point, your focus has become deep enough to achieve true specialization, whether through devoted focus [paragon path] or expanded knowledge [pp multiclassing]. Your studies have brought you full circle, for though you can feel another wellspring of power, one related to the path of your focus, it eludes you; however, you begin to acquire deeper understanding of these reserves within you; discover flaws in your prior techniques that lead to further insight, coupled with learning and ever harder training. The culmination of these efforts is your discovery of two superior techniques that replace those older, earlier - and to one of your expanded ability - sadly inferior uses of your own natural reserves. [15th and 19th level daily power replacements, respectively] As you reach the pinnacle of your specialized path, you unlock a fourth and final reserve, one whose nature is intimiately shaped by your choice of dedication and which will remain with you for the rest of your career. [20th level paragon daily]. Your combat prowess is legendary now; lesser heroes may well attempt to replicate your techniques in their own attempts at martial mastery.

The final journey before the end. You have become a legend among legends. Your knowledge of combat techniques is without or nearly without peer, having been refined through countless battlefields, countless hours of training, study, immersion. You know the power of your reserves intimately, and can glimpse within them two techniques of almost sublime perfection. [25th and 29th level daily power replacements]. You have come far, so far that few, if indeed any, have blazed this road before you. Now, the limit you come against is not one of flawed understanding - the world itself is quickly becoming too limiting for your comprehension and mastery [Post 30th level retirement quest].

Knaight
2008-08-19, 07:57 AM
Or it could just represent almost always going for the daily powers, but most of the time it gets screwed up, at least partially, and when you finally get it, you probably won't be able to be that lucky again. That said, there are abilities which are going to let you do the move again, and due to them being reliable most of the time, this works.

Roderick_BR
2008-08-19, 08:17 AM
Basically, a campaign is as serious as the DM and the players make it. The system used has little influence on that matter.

Agreed. My group never played a serious campaign, and they played from 1st ed to 3.5.

Also: Why so serious?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-19, 02:56 PM
Also: Why so serious?

Because RPGs are Serious Business (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeriousBusiness). :smalltongue:

Also:

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e100/Dhavaer/1168382483-1168292855537456.jpg

nagora
2008-08-19, 03:03 PM
Because RPGs are Serious Business (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeriousBusiness). :smalltongue:

Also:
Bah! Real cats acknowledge only Rexfelis the Cat Lord!

MartinHarper
2008-08-19, 03:17 PM
I guess one of us has not understood the rules about making individual monsters (eg, kobolds) stronger to match the increasing power of the party.

Those rules are for modelling stronger and weaker monsters, not necessarily for matching the party. I can make level 20 kobolds in 3e, and it's the same deal.


Yes, the daily recovery time for these powers is also a generalization, the topic is why they can only use them once a day, not whether it's exactly 24 hours.

My argument is that only using daily powers at most once is also a generalisation, no worse than the 6hr recharge required.


If difficulty is the explanation, why does the fighter not become more proficient at it as his level increases, when he becomes more proficient at all his other abilities, such as skills and BAB?

He can: as he levels up, he can get an encounter power that does the same thing, and is effective as, his old daily power. Alternatively, maybe as he levels up, he becomes better at the daily power, but uses it less often, since he now has other cool tricks to try. Alternatively, he doesn't become better at the daily power, because instead he's practising his new tricks.


The player could have chosen to use the power at any time they wished.

Absolutely. However, the character doesn't know that. I play d&d and I eat crisps. There are no crisps in the campaign world. I play d&d and I choose when my character uses his daily power. There is no choice in the campaign world (depending on fluff). Neither my choice, nor my crisps, make the game unrealistic.

darkzucchini
2008-08-19, 03:51 PM
The first thing to realise here is that you don't need to ignore or refluff "the power system". Assuming you cannot accept 4e's way of doing things, you need to ignore only the non-divine, non-arcane power system. Advocating 3e is inherently an endorsement of a power system that depends on limited uses of a power over a given period of time because every spellcaster in the game uses such a system.

I would really rather not have to ignore the fact that a good chunk of the rules are not explained in a way that is not consistent with reality and cannot be refluffed to be consistent with reality. I actually have no problem with system for limited uses of power, especially for magic (another reason that I don't like 4e but is not important to the debate since you can explain magic anyway you want) and am not totally opposed to it for some more mundane abilities. I have supported 3e to some extend, but don't confuse that with a ring endorsement of all things 3e. I have said many times that there are aspects of the game that I do not like and have tried to homebrew out of the system (for example, I don't like Vancian spell casting, it doesn't make sense to me that you forget a spell once you have cast it so I like a more spontaneous spell point system).


Putting that issue aside, I assume you take umbrage at the fact that martial characters have limited use powers. I take you at your word that you objected to barbarian rage in 3.5e.

My homebrew system uses a stat similar to hit points called Mental Fatigue Points that some abilities (spells, smite, rage) take away from you mental fatigue score, which is replenished once you have an 8 hour rest. Fighter special abilities and the special abilities of most other mundane classes do not use mental fatigue but can either only use certain abilities in the right circumstance (such as when they are being charged) or receives a penalty of some sort (usually a decrease in bonus damage) in exchange for performing something special.


I can understand why you have a problem with that, but it's ultimately a personal choice. I can easily accept that a fighter can only be "in the zone" required to pull off a particular maneuver once per day or per encounter, or that he's only strong enough to do it once per day, or that he tries it every round and the one time he "uses" the power is the time it works, or Oracle_Hunter's Spark theory, and possibly many others.

Or that he forgets how to use old maneuvers when he learns new ones. Or that he can push a dragon 15ft. without making an opposed strength check. Its just really annoying to me to have to either ignore the absurdness of a lot of the rules or make up fluff to justify those absurdities.


There are so many "unrealistic" things in D&D that aren't "magic" that I find it frankly a little silly to draw the line at how often a fighter can use Comeback Strike.

Eg. reptilian flying cats that breathe fire (a.k.a. dragons);

Dragons are magical beasts, their breath weapon being supernatural. And have had flying lizards in the past, though not on the same scale.


a sentient creature that consists entirely of a round ball with 11 eyes (a.k.a. beholder, whose flight is non-magical);

I believe that there is a case for creatures holding lighter than water gases within themselves to rise within a watery environment. I am not familiar with any that do this in a non-watery environment but it is not such a stretch.


falling 1 mile and surviving;

Yeah, falling damage is pretty pathetic at high levels, and though people have been known to survive falls of over a mile it is very, very rare. I like to use exponentially increasing falling damage, 1d6 at 10 ft, 3d6 at 20, 6d6 at 30, and topping off at 210d6 at 200 ft.


someone jumping up and down and quadrupling the damage they do with a hit (Leap Attack);

If you characterize it like that, then yeah, its sounds rather goofy. But if it is a guy leaping at an opponent and thrusting his blade lengthwise through his opponent, that doesn't sound so ridiculous and does sound like it would do a lot of damage.


a 3'5" humanoid having the same strength as a 6'2" humanoid (halfling v orc);

I'm a tall guy (6'3") and I have met some midgets that I bet could beat me in an arm wrestling contest. They still probably couldn't carry as much as I could do to the awkwardness of the load.


a rogue being able to sneak attack a creature whose vital organs they can't possibly reach;

I don't see why sneak attack has to be against vital organs. In fact, if the target survives the attack I would consider it rather odd that their vital organs had been attacked. A rogue just knows how to maximize their damage when they can slip by the guard of their opponent.


a spiked chain wielder being able to trip 20 people in 6 seconds;
the list is virtually endless

Are you sure you aren't exaggerating? Not even a little? I have never seen a spiked chain wielder trip that many people in a turn.


As for your request that I point out the realism in 4e, I admit that 4e is even less like "real life" than 3.5e was. But no one really wants to play "real life". If they did, they wouldn't be gamers. If you feel that 4e is a little too "action-hero" for your tastes, then it's fine to think that. But the point that Oracle_Hunter is making, and with which I agree, is that many of the people complaining about the lack of realism in 4e are in fact either unable or unwilling to admit that what they are really upset by is a minor change in tone.

But people often want to play in a game that isn't too far from real life. This difference between 3e and 4e is a change in tone, but I disagree that it is a minor one. The change in tone is significant enough to have divided the gaming world against each other, and it isn't just a change in tone of the core fluff provided, but a change in tone through the rules of the game, making it a much more difficult thing to remedy.

TwystidMynd
2008-08-19, 04:01 PM
A round in D&D is supposed to model a discrete amount of time. In 3.5, it's stated to be 6 seconds. In 4e, it's probably about that long.

Regardless of the increment, it's a total abstraction. A person standing toe-to-toe with an ogre wailing on him isn't going to swing his sword once every time increment.

If that increment is small enough to model how quickly a person can swing a sword, then the abstraction falls apart when you consider that someone can move 30 feet in that time increment.
It also falls apart when you consider that someone can thrust with a foil more times per minute than the same person can swing a 2H axe, but in D&D it's abstracted to be the same... so it all breaks.

If that increment is large enough to model the maximum amount of time it can take to move 120 feet (4x movement speed for a medium character: a run executed by an untrained runner) while in the middle of battle, then the model falls apart if you assume that a Swashbuckler can only make one swing with his short sword in that period of time.

So obviously, there is some level of abstraction in combat. The characters aren't standing - feet firmly planted - in one square unless they move. They are moving from side to side, dodging blows, and parrying attacks, and riposting the entire time. For an axe-wielding barbarian, perhaps he gets two meaningful swings in the time it takes for a "round" to complete, and during that time he has a chance to deal up to [1d12+str] damage. For a French Fencer, he may make 10 different thrusts, each of which connecting and drawing blood, but summing up to a total of [1d6+str] damage.

My point is that this is a pretty big abstraction. Hit points are another pretty big abstraction; a system that I don't think anyone believes models real life realistically, but a system which has been in use for years by many game systems. To me, this means that many people view the Hit Point system as an acceptable abstraction... one that doesn't model real life precisely, but models it well enough to make playing the game easy but still believable.

The existence of magic, a predator-dominated ecosystem, creatures that live for millenia coexisting with creatures that die by the time they themselves have matured, and various other parts of the iconic D&D world are all things that we've abstracted away and learned to gloss over because we can accept that *somehow* these things work, but it's just too complicated to figure out the rules by which they do so.

For some reason, I see a common theme of some people willing to abide by all of the abstractions I just listed, but have a hang-up as soon as they start thinking about things that a Rogue or Fighter can do. I don't understand where this hang-up comes from, but I recognize that some people have it. Personally, I simply believe that, while I cannot create a rule system that encompasses and explains every action possible in a mathematical formula, I can imagine that *somehow* these actions are possible. To me, that's enough for me to successfully abstract away all of the "But how would that work?!" questions that crop up.

In my 4e campaigns, even Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, and Warlords have some sort of magic spark. They aren't trained, so they don't always know exactly how they do the things they do, but they know that sometimes it works. Sometimes the Rogue just needs to distract the badguy so badly that an illusory shade of the Rogue pops out of her and causes the badguy to go chasing [Cha] squares away before the illusion winks out of existence, and the monster realizes the Rogue is in the same square he left her. Sometimes the Warlord sees the party's Warlock begin to falter, and shouts some words of encouragement which, unbeknownst to either of them, harness some of the arcane essence in the environment and reinvigorate the Warlock.

It's D&D... the only reason something couldn't happen is because you can't imagine it happening.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-19, 04:41 PM
It's D&D... the only reason something couldn't happen is because you can't imagine it happening.

QFT

As an addendum, the main complaint seems to be that 4e is a bridge too far. It appears that there is a "sweet spot" of unbelievability that encompasses 3e, but not 4e.

For whatever reason, people easily believe dragons, magic, doing extra damage for moving (Scout), being able to "sneak attack" undead without using magic (feat), wielding two Greatswords at once (Monkey Grip), earning substantial amounts of gold every week by being a good enough Farmer (Profession Skill), and that you could fool magic items as to your race, class, or how smart you were if you tried hard enough (Use Magic Device).

However, believing that you can make someone take a step back when you swing a sword at them? Or that people who aren't using magic can't do the same thing all the time? Inconceivable!

It's Arbitrary Skepticism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArbitrarySkepticism), as I see it. The best is the "it's believable that wizards can only remember how to cast a set number of spells per day (Vancian Casting), but it's unbelievable that they can only remember how to cast a set number of spells per level (4e)." :smallamused:

Prophaniti
2008-08-19, 05:24 PM
As an addendum, the main complaint seems to be that 4e is a bridge too far. It appears that there is a "sweet spot" of unbelievability that encompasses 3e, but not 4e.There is indeed a cut-off point of believability. It's different for everyone, but people that lack it entirely are quite rare. For some of us, that cut-off falls over restricting the maneuvers of a swordsman to an arbitrary timeline without a suitable explanation. That's the important part, that they did not even try to come up with a reason for it, beyond meta-gaming. As I've said, some of the explanations people have come up with on this thread are actually pretty decent (though others are worse than no explanation). The complaint is that we need to supply them, and that WotC created this mechanic that is so completely OOC-based and did not even attempt to justify the rules in-universe.

For whatever reason, people easily believe dragons, magic, doing extra damage for moving (Scout), being able to "sneak attack" undead without using magic (feat), wielding two Greatswords at once (Monkey Grip), earning substantial amounts of gold every week by being a good enough Farmer (Profession Skill), and that you could fool magic items as to your race, class, or how smart you were if you tried hard enough (Use Magic Device).

However, believing that you can make someone take a step back when you swing a sword at them? Or that people who aren't using magic can't do the same thing all the time? Inconceivable!First of all, I'll say this again: Accepting/believing in magic or dragons in a setting DOES NOT mean one must also accept Implausible Fencing Powers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ImplausibleFencingPowers) or other such wankery, especially from people who are ostensibly non-magical. Saying that one must is a perfect example of If Jesus then Aliens (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IfJesusThenAliens), or False Dichotomy.

Secondly, you pick some of the more ridiculous examples from 3.5 (most of which I have incidentally houseruled) and yet load your 4e arguments to sound perfectly reasonable. Well done. The complaint is NOT that you make someone step back when you swing a sword at them, it is that you make them step back 15ft, a pretty fair distance in a fight (personal experience here). This by itself is not so bad, and could conceivably be explained, but when the same thing is done to creatures much larger and heavier than the fighter without any tests or checks, and even to ones that lack self-preservation instincts or minds, it starts to look a lot more ridiculous. Likewise, the complaint is NOT that the martial character can't do the same thing all the time, but that he can't perform his best trick more than once in a substantial period of time, even if he's had rest or healing. That too starts to look ridiculous after a while.


It's Arbitrary Skepticism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArbitrarySkepticism), as I see it. The best is the "it's believable that wizards can only remember how to cast a set number of spells per day (Vancian Casting), but it's unbelievable that they can only remember how to cast a set number of spells per level (4e)." :smallamused:This one is actually not so bad when applied to wizards, since it hinges on magic and you can make magic do whatever the hell you want. This one, like most of the other complaints, gets ridiculous when applied to non-magical abilities. Why in the hell do these characters suffer selective amnesia when the level up? Once again, WotC delivers a game mechanic and makes no attempt to reconcile it with either the in-game world or reality. And once again, I lament that they put so much emphasis on the G in RPG, to the detriment of all else.

Frownbear
2008-08-19, 05:35 PM
Swapping feats/spells out is Retcon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RetCon)ning things. The character doesn't just forget one thing and learn the other. He's "had it all along".

Prophaniti
2008-08-19, 05:40 PM
Swapping feats/spells out is Retcon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RetCon)ning things. The character doesn't just forget one thing and learn the other. He's "had it all along".
:smallconfused: How the hell is that an explanation for the 4e level up process? We're talking about how, when a character hits certain levels, he 'forgets' an old power and picks up a new one of higher level. Often the powers have at least similar effects, from what I've seen, but this is not always the case. What are you saying, that every time that happens it's a retcon and they actually had the new power the whole time? That's even worse than the pure meta-gaming option to me...

Colmarr
2008-08-19, 05:49 PM
The complaint is that we need to supply them, and that WotC created this mechanic that is so completely OOC-based and did not even attempt to justify the rules in-universe.

This really is at the core of the debate about 4e's believability. The opponents of 4e say that the rules should reflect the physics of the world. Proponents of 4e don't agree.

There's ample evidence that 4e adopts a position for non-magical combat that the rules describe the outcome of an event, not the method by which it occurs or even the intent of the participants. The first and perhaps best example is the Elven Accuracy and Second Chance racial powers. Out-of-game there's a second roll but in-game the reroll just reflects the added accuracy or evasiveness of the combatants.

I view martial manouevres the same way. The fighter may be trying to Passing Strike every round. Sometimes he doesn't quite get the result that he wants but is able to take advantage of an opening and a Tide of Iron results. And sometimes his enemies fall for the gambit and he gets that Passing Strike off after all.

The rules represent the results, not the method. IMHO.


First of all, I'll say this again: Accepting/believing in magic or dragons in a setting DOES NOT mean one must also accept Implausible Fencing Powers or other such wankery, especially from people who are ostensibly non-magical. Saying that one must is a perfect example of If Jesus then Aliens, or False Dichotomy.

No one ever "must accept" anything, but it is valid to point out the semi-hypocrisy of accepting some "unreal" aspects of one edition, but railing against "unreal" aspects of the next edition.


The complaint is NOT that you make someone step back when you swing a sword at them,

While on the topic of loading arguments - Now you choose to ignore the abstract nature of a combat round and attack rolls?

Tangent. Spoilered to avoid de-railing:

it is that you make them step back 15ft, a pretty fair distance in a fight (personal experience here). This by itself is not so bad, and could conceivably be explained, but when the same thing is done to creatures much larger and heavier than the fighter without any tests or checks, and even to ones that lack self-preservation instincts or minds, it starts to look a lot more ridiculous.

I'm curious about this. I don't have access to the MM, so which 4e creatures would you say "lack self-preservation instincts or minds"?


Once again, WotC delivers a game mechanic and makes no attempt to reconcile it with either the in-game world or reality. And once again, I lament that they put so much emphasis on the G in RPG, to the detriment of all else.

D&D has always been about the mechanics, and it has rarely if ever reflected real-world physics, either in relation to magic or mundane combat.

Prophaniti
2008-08-19, 06:08 PM
The rules represent the results, not the method. IMHO.Your first part here is very well said. I still disagree, and do not entirely accept this view of what the rules are for, but it is certainly a valid and logical approach.


No one ever "must accept" anything, but it is valid to point out the semi-hypocrisy of accepting some "unreal" aspects of one edition, but railing against "unreal" aspects of the next edition.Who said I accepted all the "unreal" aspects of the last edition? As I said above, I've houseruled changes to nearly everything Oracle mentioned on one level or another. I've never claimed 3.5 was the pinnacle of RPG perfection.


While on the topic of loading arguments - Now you choose to ignore the abstract nature of a combat round and attack rolls?Sorry, I'm not following you here... How did I do that? with the line "moving them back by swinging a sword"? That's Oracle's line, not mine.

Tangent. Spoilered to avoid de-railing:


I'm curious about this. I don't have access to the MM, so which 4e creatures would you say "lack self-preservation instincts or minds"? Mindless undead, oozes, golems. There are probably others, but those are the ones that jump to mind immediately.


D&D has always been about the mechanics, and it has rarely if ever reflected real-world physics, either in relation to magic or mundane combat.Thing is, I'm not just discussing real-world here. My point is that the mechanics don't mesh (at all, not just only a little) with either in-universe perspective or real-world perspective. As I've said earlier, I like my rules to mesh with real-world as closely as is practical, but even moreso, I want them to mesh with what's actually happening in the game universe. Both are about equally important to me, but if I was forced to choos one, I'd take in-universe.

Colmarr
2008-08-19, 06:14 PM
I would really rather not have to ignore the fact that a good chunk of the rules are not explained in a way that is not consistent with reality and cannot be refluffed to be consistent with reality.

Which ultimately is a fluff choice for you as DM or player. You want your D&D world to reflect our real world. It's equally valid to accept that the D&D world allows for feats of superhuman skill, strength, agility etc ala Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Die Hard, or any one of a myriad of other "mythologies", each of which grant extraordinary abilities to non-magic creatures (including humans).


My homebrew system uses a stat similar to hit points called Mental Fatigue Points that some abilities (spells, smite, rage) take away from you mental fatigue score, which is replenished once you have an 8 hour rest. Fighter special abilities and the special abilities of most other mundane classes do not use mental fatigue but can either only use certain abilities in the right circumstance (such as when they are being charged) or receives a penalty of some sort (usually a decrease in bonus damage) in exchange for performing something special.

It seems to me that with every post, your list of house rules grows. With all due respect, you seem to be playing more a d20 homebrew than you are playing 3e.


Or that he forgets how to use old maneuvers when he learns new ones.

There are many skills in "real life" that you forget through lack of use. I certainly can't do trigonometry like I could in high school. Why would precision sword work be any different?


Or that he can push a dragon 15ft. without making an opposed strength check.

Who said he physically pushes the dragon?


Its just really annoying to me to have to either ignore the absurdness of a lot of the rules or make up fluff to justify those absurdities.

Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder. There is no more absurdity in 4e than 3e, just different types of absurdity. For example, if 3e's physics are so "real", how is it that a 1 ton armoured lizard can fly without magical assistance (specifically, I'm referring here to the fact that a dragon's flight is not supernatural or a spell-like ability)? Obviously there's something "different" about D&D's physics, but 3e only allows that difference to affect some parts of the game world. To me, "humans are normal but they haven't been wiped out by all the super-tough orcs, flying armoured lizards and roaming corpses that feast on souls" is even more absurd than a 4e world where some humans have extraordinary capabilties (and thus go some way to explaining the survival of their species).


I believe that there is a case for creatures holding lighter than water gases within themselves to rise within a watery environment. I am not familiar with any that do this in a non-watery environment but it is not such a stretch.

And again we come back to accepting some stretches but not others.


If you characterize it like that, then yeah, its sounds rather goofy. But if it is a guy leaping at an opponent and thrusting his blade lengthwise through his opponent, that doesn't sound so ridiculous and does sound like it would do a lot of damage.

4x damage?! Again, I say tomato you say tomAto.


I don't see why sneak attack has to be against vital organs. In fact, if the target survives the attack I would consider it rather odd that their vital organs had been attacked. A rogue just knows how to maximize their damage when they can slip by the guard of their opponent.

And how exactly do you do extra damage against the Tarrasque's big toe?


Are you sure you aren't exaggerating? Not even a little? I have never seen a spiked chain wielder trip that many people in a turn.

Nor have I in play, but it is physically possible within the 3e rules. Specifically through the reach of the chain and the whirlwind attack feat. Perhaps I should rephrase: "Spiked chain wielder attempting to trip 20 opponents in 6 seconds". The absurdity remains.


The change in tone is significant enough to have divided the gaming world against each other, and it isn't just a change in tone of the core fluff provided, but a change in tone through the rules of the game, making it a much more difficult thing to remedy.

I'm not entirely convinced that this whole debate is based around tone. I think practical realities play a part. I hated the amount of work involved in DMing 3e, so I look favourably on 4e and am happy to do some work to explain or hand-wave the bits that trouble me. Conversely, others dislike that the new editions came so "soon", or that they have "wasted" their 3e money, or they feel abandoned by WotC, or any of a myriad other things, and that disposes them to dislike 4e and in turn they focus on the things they don't like.

For the odd person who really truly sits in the middle (which probably precludes people passionate enough to be posting on forums), we come back to the issue of where they draw their "absurdity-line". If they're willing to come as far as playing D&D at all, I don't see how they can objectively justify drawing it between the 3e and 4e mechanics.

As I've said before, I don't begrudge anyone for thinking 4e is not the edition for them. I don't disagree that it has more of an action-movie feel to it than 3e did (in fact that realisation goes 99% of the way to explaining all of the 4e mechanics*) But I do find it strange that many people cannot simply say "This is not the feel I want for my game" and feel compelled to try to justify it by pointing to 'flaws' in 4e.

*Examples: Jade Fox didn't poison dart everyone she met in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (even when outnumbered 3-1 , Arnie didn't build spike traps every time he moved in Predator, Guile didn't spam Hadouken in Street Fighter etc.

Knaight
2008-08-19, 06:28 PM
Tons of people sit in the middle. I'm actually one of them, because, well, D&D isn't my primary game. I've played both third and fourth edition, and its not like it was some great switch, since neither were ever my primary games. Most people who have tried both games, neither of which were primary games, fall into this category.

Colmarr
2008-08-19, 06:33 PM
Tons of people sit in the middle. I'm actually one of them, because, well, D&D isn't my primary game. I've played both third and fourth edition, and its not like it was some great switch, since neither were ever my primary games. Most people who have tried both games, neither of which were primary games, fall into this category.

To some extent you prove my point. While Prophaniti and darkzucchini and Oracle_Hunter and I (who are all clearly emotionally invested in D&D)rant and rave, you calmly drop in a quiet post and then let us get back to our brawl :smallsmile:

Prophaniti
2008-08-19, 06:43 PM
I don't know if I would describe myself as emotionally invested... I'm just opinionated, stuck at work, and bored. Discussing, even ranting, about things I like or dislike is a welcome relief. If I were on my own time, I'd probably be doing something else. At the very least, I'd only post a handful of times a day, instead of almost constantly... I just literally have nothing better to do with my time right now, being stuck here 'til my shift ends.:smallsmile:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-19, 07:13 PM
I don't know if I'm "emotionally invested" either (though a few posts last night may say otherwise :smallredface:) but I do like to know how deep people's justifications go.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how 3e or "D&D" was the standard for RPGs and how 4e makes it less of a standard. Also, the definition of a RPG and how 4e is less of an RPG. Come on, folks, it's an honest question!

Colmarr
2008-08-19, 07:20 PM
I don't know if I'm "emotionally invested" either


I don't know if I would describe myself as emotionally invested...

The first step in dealing with your problem is admitting you have a problem :smallbiggrin:

tyckspoon
2008-08-19, 07:23 PM
Oh, and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how 3e or "D&D" was the standard for RPGs and how 4e makes it less of a standard. Also, the definition of a RPG and how 4e is less of an RPG. Come on, folks, it's an honest question!

The second is a complicated and, IMO, unanswerable question, but the answer for the first has to be marketshare. D&D has the largest player base, the deepest history, and the greatest media presence. D&D is largely synonymous with pen-and-paper RPGs for the non-gaming populace.. at least when they aren't going on misinformation about White Wolf games instead (ie, 'That game where you pretend to bite each other.') That says nothing about its qualities, of course; it's just the standard product in the RPG market, in much the same way that Coke is the standard cola.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-19, 07:24 PM
The first step in dealing with your problem is admitting you have a problem :smallbiggrin:

Than I'll admit I'm emotionally invested in fun. I gotta have it!

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-19, 07:29 PM
The second is a complicated and, IMO, unanswerable question, but the answer for the first has to be marketshare. D&D has the largest player base, the deepest history, and the greatest media presence. D&D is largely synonymous with pen-and-paper RPGs for the non-gaming populace.. at least when they aren't going on misinformation about White Wolf games instead (ie, 'That game where you pretend to bite each other.') That says nothing about its qualities, of course; it's just the standard product in the RPG market, in much the same way that Coke is the standard cola.

That's fair. I feel a little silly because I actually asked that question in response to someone claiming that "D&D was the RPG standard and now 4e isn't" on a different thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73469&page=31).

So... forget I asked it? :smallredface:

Prophaniti
2008-08-19, 07:49 PM
I don't know if I'm "emotionally invested" either (though a few posts last night may say otherwise :smallredface:) but I do like to know how deep people's justifications go.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how 3e or "D&D" was the standard for RPGs and how 4e makes it less of a standard. Also, the definition of a RPG and how 4e is less of an RPG. Come on, folks, it's an honest question!
Ok, on the first point: What do you think the most common first thought is when you shout "Roleplaying Game"? Among those who know the term, at least, it will be "D&D" hands down. It has been since it's inception, and remains to this day, iconic in the gaming community. Even those I know who don't play it, who hate it, who think other systems are much better, they still all know about it. The same is not true of most other tabletop RPG systems, from GURPS to White Wolf, they just don't have the fame and recognition that the name D&D evokes. Even still, for many people, myself included, D&D was the very first tabletop roleplaying game they ever experienced.

Bottom line: through brand recognition alone, ignoring all other factors, D&D is still the 'Standard' for RPGs.

As for the second point... the definition of an RPG is simply a game where people assume roles and act within them. The exent of the acting, the way it is realized or applied... All of this is mutable. Because of this broad definition, it si certainly possible to roleplay just about anything, as has been discussed. The difference, the point of all these systems, is a structured game designed specifically for the purpose of roleplaying. It is the design emphasis, to me, that determines the 'degree' of a roleplaying game, or rather just how much of a RPG it is.

If the design emphasis is on creating a character (note this is not to be confused with character optomization, but rather refers to the creation of the personality, background, etc. that are used in actually assuming the role of the character), or on interaction (both violent and otherwise), or on the intricacies of the setting and how you fit into it... then, to me, it would be a system designed as a roleplaying game.

If the design is focused on other things, character optomization, combat and combat balance, etc., then to me it would be less of a roleplaying game and more another kind of game with some roleplaying elements.

Yes, according to these criteria, I don't hold 3.5 to be a shining example of RPGdom. It's ok, needs some work. I wouldn't call it terrible. Neither would I call 4e terrible. I simply see where the design emphasis is in 4e, both from my observations and from the dev's own admissions and statements. This is what causes me to call it 'less' of a RPG than 3.5, though the difference is not great.

Another note: My criteria for a RPG has nothing to do with whether or not the rules work, or whether the setting is appealing to me. It simply shows where the focus and effort went when the system was being made.

I don't believe anyone can claim with a straight face and a clear concience that 4e was NOT designed almost exclusively from a combat/combat balance perspective. To me, this makes it 'less' of a roleplaying game.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-19, 08:06 PM
I don't believe anyone can claim with a straight face and a clear concience that 4e was NOT designed almost exclusively from a combat/combat balance perspective. To me, this makes it 'less' of a roleplaying game.

Skill Challenges? Quest XP? These were major innovations in D&D and are designed exclusively for non-combat encounters. Yes, 4e is a combat-focused RPG but it is not Warhammer RPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_Fantasy_Roleplay).

4e is not "almost exclusively" about combat, let alone to the degree that RP is marginalized, or even reduced.

Oh, and before you say "but everyone did Quest XP before" I'll say "yes, but the system didn't give it more than a cursory glance." It would seem to me that a system that took the time to address RP as a part of the overall system would have spent more time on RP than one which did not.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-08-19, 08:09 PM
Nothing is stopping you from RP'ing just as good as you might have done in 3e. 4e = better combat IMO, that doesnt mean that it needs to have worse RP. Only you can limit yourself on the RP you bring to the table.

Prophaniti
2008-08-19, 08:40 PM
Skill Challenges? Quest XP? These were major innovations in D&D and are designed exclusively for non-combat encounters. Yes, 4e is a combat-focused RPG but it is not Warhammer RPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_Fantasy_Roleplay).
Are you implying that WFRP is more combat-oriented than 4e? Have you even read the manual for that one? Yes, it's a dark setting, where death is all around and there are no shortages of people willing to stick pointy things into you. What you're missing is that because the system echoes this darkness and brutality, combat is extremely deadly. Not quite as deadly as, say, Call of Cthulu, but certainly much more so than any edition of D&D with the possible exception of 1st. This greatly increases the risk inherent in any combat, which almost forces the group to roleplay more and seek either non-violent or at least clever solutions to problems. We're talking about a system where the fight with the BBEG can end in a single round because the party was really twitchy and all holding loaded ranged weapons.

There is a lot more material in the manual about the setting, about the places and people, about the atmosphere, etc., than there is about combat. It seems clear to me that the designers focused intensly on the roleplaying aspect of it, which only makes sense because they've already got an extremely popular wargame, so what would they benefit from making another?

Indeed, I've heard from multiple people that WFRP has modules that are shining examples of games focused more on political intrigue and plot than on combat.

Hell, I used this system (in its WH40k incarnation, Dark Heresy) to help bring my group out of a long-standing hack'n'slash funk we'd fallen into, to increase their willingness and skill at RPing.

This is in direct contrast to a system where the assumed answer is 'kick in the door and kill everyone'. Yes, 3.5 is just as guilty in this regard. The difference is that 4e makes everyone even more awesome, more capable in combat, and nearly every ability and advancement the character can aquire (especially thanks to the condensation of skills) is expressly for combat.

As for the other point... Once again, my limited knowledge of the 4e manuals halts me. Tell me, in what way did 4e give more than a 'cursory glance' to quest xp? Don't bother trying to sell me skill challenges, I've ranted enough about those today.


Nothing is stopping you from RP'ing just as good as you might have done in 3e. 4e = better combat IMO, that doesnt mean that it needs to have worse RP. Only you can limit yourself on the RP you bring to the table.I agree completely. I've mostly been harping on the focus of the edition, and the fact that most other aspects of the system, and tools that might have been created or improved upon, were ignored in favor of pure combat balance.

EDIT: I'm off work, and not likely to be online much tonight, so I'll see you all in the morning. Looking forward to further debate!

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-19, 08:56 PM
As for the other point... Once again, my limited knowledge of the 4e manuals halts me. Tell me, in what way did 4e give more than a 'cursory glance' to quest xp? Don't bother trying to sell me skill challenges, I've ranted enough about those today.

Looks like they changed Warhammer FRP since I last played it. My apologies.

As for Quest XP: that would be DMG 122, which provides a table for granting Quest XP, and DMG 102 which seeks to systematize the idea of "quests" within a campaign. Perhaps it's a little fiddly for experienced DMs, but it's a godsend for novice DMs.

But Skill Challenges? I mean, I appreciate that you don't like them, but for goodness sake they devoted time to developing the non-combat side of the game and worked it into the whole of 4e. To steal your line, I'll say that, in good conscience, you can't call a system which tries to do that as less RP friendly than one which doesn't even try.

Also: is your argument that, because 4e has a good combat system, it must be less RP focused? Would it be more RP focused if the combat system were worse?

darkzucchini
2008-08-19, 09:20 PM
It seems to me that with every post, your list of house rules grows. With all due respect, you seem to be playing more a d20 homebrew than you are playing 3e.

I have never come across a RPG system that doesn't need at least a little homebrewing in my opinion. Admittedly, what I am working on is a d20 system based on 3e (having most of the same rules but with a few changes and a shift in class abilities). But 3e comes much closer to what I am looking for in an RPG system than 4e, largely due to its rules being more based in reality.


There are many skills in "real life" that you forget through lack of use. I certainly can't do trigonometry like I could in high school. Why would precision sword work be any different?

While more or less true, in a D&D game I may be consistently using all of my different daily powers, but then I level up and have the option to pick a new daily. I see a power that I really like and, scanning over my other dailies, I pick the one that I feel is the least useful to me and forget it. Now the next day I get in a situation were my old power could have saved the day, but having forgotten it, I can no longer perform that trick. Now learning new abilities overnight may not be the most realistic mechanic, but I sure as hell think that it is a lot better than forgetting abilities overnight. Plus the whole limited dailies and encounters seems rather arbitrary to me, as if 33 powers would be to much of a burden on the players. If you no longer use an ability than don't use, I find forgetting the ability pointless. That would be one of the first things to go if I started playing 4e.




Who said he physically pushes the dragon?

Maybe I am not physically pushing back the dragon, but then what am I doing? If I am frightening the dragon away why am I not making an intimidation check, or at least an attack vs. will?




Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder. There is no more absurdity in 4e than 3e, just different types of absurdity. For example, if 3e's physics are so "real", how is it that a 1 ton armoured lizard can fly without magical assistance (specifically, I'm referring here to the fact that a dragon's flight is not supernatural or a spell-like ability)? Obviously there's something "different" about D&D's physics, but 3e only allows that difference to affect some parts of the game world. To me, "humans are normal but they haven't been wiped out by all the super-tough orcs, flying armoured lizards and roaming corpses that feast on souls" is even more absurd than a 4e world where some humans have extraordinary capabilties (and thus go some way to explaining the survival of their species).

Well, dragon flight depends on wing span and muscle vs. weight, a dragon may very well be able to fly if it has a large wing span and light bones. The Zulus were pretty tough blokes, yet they were defeated by the British Empire. All of these are setting issues (other than the dragon flight thing, which may or may not be a setting issue). Perhaps the undead are very rare, maybe the orcs are too disorganized to pose a real threat, maybe the human nations are ruled by dragons, or maybe the humans have organized great dragon hunts, pushing dragons to the brink of extinction (both of these last examples come from my setting).



And how exactly do you do extra damage against the Tarrasque's big toe?

I would say that the rogue plunges his blade into the back of the Tarrasque's ankle, cutting through tendon and helping bring the beast down so the fighter (or whoever) can finish it off. Mechanically, the rogue would either bring the Tarrasque closer to 0 or to 0 or lower then some else can coup de grace it.



Nor have I in play, but it is physically possible within the 3e rules. Specifically through the reach of the chain and the whirlwind attack feat. Perhaps I should rephrase: "Spiked chain wielder attempting to trip 20 opponents in 6 seconds". The absurdity remains.

Well with whirlwind attack it doesn't seem all that absurd to me. In 6 seconds you can definitely spin your chain around twice, taking down the first set of people surrounding you and then the second.



I'm not entirely convinced that this whole debate is based around tone. I think practical realities play a part. I hated the amount of work involved in DMing 3e, so I look favourably on 4e and am happy to do some work to explain or hand-wave the bits that trouble me. Conversely, others dislike that the new editions came so "soon", or that they have "wasted" their 3e money, or they feel abandoned by WotC, or any of a myriad other things, and that disposes them to dislike 4e and in turn they focus on the things they don't like.

You're right. It is wrong for me to say that it is just about tone, it ignores those other issues that people may have. But I do feel that tone, cinematic vs. realistic, is a huge area of debate.


For the odd person who really truly sits in the middle (which probably precludes people passionate enough to be posting on forums), we come back to the issue of where they draw their "absurdity-line". If they're willing to come as far as playing D&D at all, I don't see how they can objectively justify drawing it between the 3e and 4e mechanics.

I like salty food, but not too salty. For a lot of people, 4e has just gone too far with its cinematic tone and unjustified mechanics.


As I've said before, I don't begrudge anyone for thinking 4e is not the edition for them. I don't disagree that it has more of an action-movie feel to it than 3e did (in fact that realisation goes 99% of the way to explaining all of the 4e mechanics*) But I do find it strange that many people cannot simply say "This is not the feel I want for my game" and feel compelled to try to justify it by pointing to 'flaws' in 4e.

I will say it right here. 4e does not give the right feeling for my game. It seems a well balanced game, I'll even call it a fun game, but it is not a system that I would want to run my campaign under. However, I feel that it is perfectly legit to complain about and protest the 4e changes. First off, 3e will no longer be supported, so I wont get my hands on all sorts of new splat books with their broken prestige classes. Secondly, I wont be able to get my campaign published (hey, a guy can dream, right?) under a 3e system and it wouldn't fit well under 4e. Lastly, 4e may be showing us the directing that D&D will be headed in the future, its a direction that a fair number of gamers are against.

Colmarr
2008-08-19, 11:26 PM
While more or less true, in a D&D game I may be consistently using all of my different daily powers, but then I level up and have the option to pick a new daily. I see a power that I really like and, scanning over my other dailies, I pick the one that I feel is the least useful to me and forget it. Now the next day I get in a situation were my old power could have saved the day, but having forgotten it, I can no longer perform that trick.

This logic only works if you arbitrarily state that the point at which power A is obtained is the first and only point at which the PC has trained for it or shown an interest in it. Conversely, if you accept that a 4e fighter has been practicing a "rain of steel" manoeuvre since 1st level but only achieved the skill to actually pull it off at level 5, the system is perfectly coherent.

Similarly, if you accept that the same fighter has been spending less and less time on Brute Strike as he progresses through the levels, it's perfectly consistent that when he reaches level X, his training pays off and he learns a new daily power but his lack of practice at Brute Strike means he can no longer pull it off.

Level X is not the fluff point at which powers are gained/lost, it is the mechanical point at which the PC's fluff activities reach a threshold that alters the mechanics of the PC. In other words, it is the point at which the PC finally becomes good enough to produce Rain of Steel, and finally becomes bad enough that he loses the ability to produce Brute Strike.

For the sake of comparison, compare this to gaining skill ranks in 3e. No one has ever seriously suggested that the instant the wizard hits level 6 he visits a library and studies a few books about dragons and therefore gains a rank in Knowledge(arcana). Rather the system assumed that during the course of thr wizards journey from level 5 to level 6 he devoted some time to that skill. 4e applies exactly the same logic to powers. The "assumed fluff becomes mechanical change" is exactly the same system, only in 4e it works both ways (improving and decreasing, rather than just increasing).

While I agree that speed of levelling might be a problem (ie. gain a level every 3-10 in-game days) and that that problem has impacts on verissimilitude through the follow-on effects of levelling, I don't think that the retraining mechanics themselves need be a problem. Speed of levelling has been a verissimilitude breaker since at least 3e.


Maybe I am not physically pushing back the dragon, but then what am I doing? If I am frightening the dragon away why am I not making an intimidation check, or at least an attack vs. will?

Harrying the dragon with blows or spells; moving into a superior position that forces the dragon to retreat to avoid opening itself up to danger; ducking under the dragon's body and forcing it to move to keep you in sight; jumping onto the dragon's head and forcing it to stamp backwards to dislodge you; planting your dagger in a gap between the scales on the webbing between the dragon's claws and causing it to stagger in pain. The list is endless.

Forced movement based on physical attacks is not even remotely hard to justify, and is one of the least "offensive" of 4e concepts IMO.


Well, dragon flight depends on wing span and muscle vs. weight, a dragon may very well be able to fly if it has a large wing span and light bones.

So one creature in D&D (dragons) can have abnormal biology but other creatures (humans) cant?


The Zulus were pretty tough blokes, yet they were defeated by the British Empire.

The British had superior equipment (especially firepower), training, mobility and communications. None of which apply RAW to D&D. There is no reason why a D&D orc can't wear plate or become a wizard or construct flying fortresses, but despite seeing these things in person for milennia, they haven't done so?

Technological adoption is one of the (near-)constants of the "real world" but we accept the absurdity of it not applying to our D&D campaigns?


I would say that the rogue plunges his blade into the back of the Tarrasque's ankle, cutting through tendon and helping bring the beast down so the fighter (or whoever) can finish it off. Mechanically, the rogue would either bring the Tarrasque closer to 0 or to 0 or lower then some else can coup de grace it.

See, you can invent fluff for a mechanically absurd situation. And yet you choose not to for the 4e mechanics you don't like...


Well with whirlwind attack it doesn't seem all that absurd to me. In 6 seconds you can definitely spin your chain around twice, taking down the first set of people surrounding you and then the second.

I find it absurd to suggest that any "normalish" creature can swing a chain hard enough that it will sweep 8 people off their feet, and then without stopping do it again within 6 seconds so that it knocks 16 more people over. And yes, I originally said attempt, so what happens when the chain doesn't knock over someone that it trips? It apparently continues on it's merry way and hits the next person in the circle without slowing or deviating from its path.

I'm sorry, but that's a completely indefensible rules mechanic from a verisimilitude point of view. If you can accept it, you should be able to accept forcing a dragon to move 15ft.


Stuff about tone

Noted. I won't respond because I think you're actually agreeing with me. Which is not to say that I've "won", but that we've come to a detente on this particular issue (or at least close enough that there's little point taking the issue any further IMO).

xirr2000
2008-08-20, 12:29 AM
If the rogue chooses when the ability is used (as it is now), then it implies that the rogue controls when it happens, he creates the opportunity. If that is the case, and it's an entirely physical ability, then it makes sense that it should be repeatable.

But that's not balanced to the other classes, so it's not done.

Because balance was the core of this game, not common sense.

Last 2 sentences sum it up, but to me 4e fixes a lot of things that I didn't like about previous editions, namely that balance between classes was non-existent. At the high levels you simply had to play a caster or be left behind, period. If you played a melee class, they pretty much had to be some splat-book inspired cater hybrid to keep up. And I usually found these splatbook classes to be unbalanced in more than one way and always felt that it was a patch job of an attempt to cover up that balance took a backseat to something, I guess verisimilutude.

We tried playing an 3.5e epic level campaign with my sorcerer and my buddy who had a rogue and things just didn't always work out. If the DM wanted to really challenge my sorcerer then the rogue usually was totally screwed unless he forced a scenario to fit for the two of us. It was ridiculous. Often he ran individual adventures separately for us so that he could make an interesting evening for whoever he was gaming with. Eventually the campaign ground to a halt as it became more and more difficult to make a story that made sense and could use both our abilities without boring the other player.

Balance, I like it and I'm willing to push verisimilutude to the side a bit to get it if it means I can keep playing a balanced campaign that is fun for the folks I like to game with.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-08-20, 01:07 AM
D&D is a game. A game. Not following the exact rules of life as we live it is probally a good thing.

If you really want to you can have your melee classes use only their basic attacks. Then it will really feel like 3e, as not only are you using a bland attack every round, but casters will once again have the power boost they deserve! So there you go, a way you can play 4e while still keeping the whole gimped feel of 3e. Enjoy!

Charity
2008-08-20, 02:37 AM
But 3e comes much closer to what I am looking for in an RPG system than 4e, largely due to its rules being more based in reality.

3e is nowhere near reality, just because something is more familiar to you does not make it more realistic. I can't begin to count how many times I've seen this unsupported claptrap.

Kompera
2008-08-20, 05:01 AM
3e is nowhere near reality, just because something is more familiar to you does not make it more realistic. I can't begin to count how many times I've seen this unsupported claptrap.
Come on, Charity! There is all kind of support for the in-depth realism of the 3.x D&D rules. I'll lay some of this incontrovertible evidence out, in case you've forgotten about it:

First aid via drowning;
Cat kills commoner;
Peasant rail gun/teleportation;
Diplomacy;
Hulking Hurler;
Spiked chain;
Trip attempt against 24 people in 6 seconds;
Leap Attack + Power Attack + Shock Trooper;
Pun Pun;

There are many, many more examples, but this list should serve to prove that D&D 3.5 is the only version of D&D with any rules based in reality, at all. All other versions therefore suck by default for lacking in the above realistic options, and should be burned by any serious role player.

Oslecamo
2008-08-20, 05:10 AM
3e is nowhere near reality, just because something is more familiar to you does not make it more realistic. I can't begin to count how many times I've seen this unsupported claptrap.

You're twisting the other poster's words.

Darkzucchini claimed that 3e is more realistic than 4e.

In 3e, a cat may kill a commoner(wich isn't as unrealistic as you may think at first), but in 4e, cats can't fight commoners, because neither of them have oficial stats.

Even if 3e is unrealistic, it can still be more realistic than 4e, where a character naturally heals all wounds over some hours of rest no matter what specialization he took.

Jerthanis
2008-08-20, 05:32 AM
Something has occurred to me... People are claiming that 4th edition is more combat focused than previous editions, and thus is less good for Roleplaying. This statement seemed to me to be talking about how Applesauce prices are going up because of a hurricane in Florida destroying the Orange crop.

Are you seriously saying you don't roleplay in combat?

Seriously, combat is the most intense roleplay you could ask for, besides maybe torture scenes or the culmination of a love story. It's when the chips are down and the swords come out that you learn what your character will die for, and what he will kill for. It's when the coward slinks away and the one with the heart of gold throws himself between an innocent and the fray. It's when the Fighter and the BBEG's First Lieutenant exchange playful banter as they cross swords. It's when people perform heroic sacrifices, and single out the one guy they truly hate. Think back to all your past characters, and count how many of them had a moment that defined who they are/were down to their very core, and how many of those moments occurred in or because of combat.

If combat isn't providing these moments, then good lord! Why would you include combat at all?