# 4E and "Old School Gaming" (and why they aren't mutually exclusive"



## Mercurius (Nov 3, 2008)

I have read a lot of views that 4E and "Old School", in particular OD&D, are two very different breeds. A good example is skills: As I understand it--and correct me if I'm wrong--the difference between skill use in OD&D and 4E is that in OD&D the player says what he or she wants to do and the DM resolves it with a simple die roll or judgment call. In 4E, the player describes what he or she wants to do and then the DM issues a Skill Challenge: a series of skill checks that correspond with each action that the player wants to take.

Obviously there is a bit difference here. But what i'm wondering is, cannot a group play 4E "Old School style"? I mean, if DM Fiat is basically accepted, cannot 4E be Old School in that the DM can always supercede any rule with his or her own judgment? For example, in the example above the 4E DM might decide that a full Skill Challenge isn't necessary or desirable; perhaps, as with OD&D, a die roll is necessary, but it can be a gestalt roll, a combination or average of different skills. Or perhaps good roleplaying will bypass the need to roll dice at all.

I'm starting up a 4E campaign but was raised on 1E, and therefore DM Fiat is just an accepted--and necessary--part of gaming. As the 4E DMG itself says, the DM's main job is to create an enjoyable experience; if this means bending or breaking the rules, then so be it.

Actually, I'm going to go right out and say that the thing I really disliked about the style of D&D that, I think, started with 2E and continued with 3E--and is hopefully on the wane with 4E--is the so-called "empowerment" of players, as if D&D is a wargame of Players vs. DM, rather than the DM being a storyteller that creates a dynamic and responsive context in which the players act. If a DM wants to "beat" the players then he or she shouldn't be a DM; it is like putting a kitten into a headlock--why bother? If players feel like they need to be "empowered" and are always trying to manipulate the rules and argue with the DM, there are likely psychological issues at work that should probably be moved from a gaming session to a therapy session. 

But my point is that "Old School Gaming" is more of a style than an actual rules set. It is primarily _identified_ with OD&D, and to a lesser degree with BECMI and AD&D, but it is more of a _flavor_ than a specific recipe. One can employ an Old School style simply by exercising the Gygax-given power of the DM. In that sense I think the so-called "Edition Wars" are a waste of time, or rather a misplacement of energy--not because there aren't real issues at work, but because it is seeming about one thing when it is really about another, like a married couple arguing over a broken glass when what they are really upset about is their broken marriage. In other words, what I see the Edition Wars _really_ being about is different styles of game play, especially the "Old School" ad hoc approach, where the rules are more guidelines rather than Law. 

OD&D was a simple rule set that allowed, no, _required_ continual improvisation. AD&D complexified greatly, trying to put a rule to as many situations as Mr. Gygax could think of. 2E tried to streamline this a bit, or at least soften it with a lot of fluff; and 3E somehow complexified _and_ stream-lined at the same time, by "correcting" the rules set with a core mechanic that allowed for infinite modifiers. It seems that 4E has tried to pull in the reins a bit, but still emphasizes rules-as-laws rather than rules-as-guidelines.

So rather than drawing up the battle lines between the "classic" editions--OD&D, BECMI, and 1E, and possibly 2E--and the newer editions--3E and 4E--why not discuss different stylistic approaches to gaming? Some argue that the rules themselves largely dictate the style of play; I say, let the rules be guidelines, not Absolute Law. You can use as much or as little of the 4E books--from the core three to whatever ungodly supplements will be coming out five or six years from now--as you want. 

Which leads to the question: Is it possible to combine the innovations of the last 35 years with the free-form attitude of the original D&D? I personally think that D&D, as a rules system, has evolved; the core d20 mechanic, in my view, is _better_ than THAC0, and much better than the combat charts; Defenses are better than Saving Throws, etc. But I also like to improvise and dislike when the rules get in the way of role-playing and creative thinking from the players. So, as I start my first campaign in years, I plan on taking a somewhat "old school style" to a 4E game: Or to put it another way, an improvisational and imaginative game style using a slick-running game engine.

To me this is the best of both worlds.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 3, 2008)

This mouth-music...is something I have trouble grokking.

I played my most improvisational and open-ended games in 3e. The robustness of the ruleset helped me do that, because I knew that wherever I would need a trampoline to spring me back up into the air again, 3e would have one. 

I'm generally not a tremendous fan of DM Fiat, either. In fact, it's one of the least satisfying ways for something to happen in D&D, as far as I am concerned. It's necessary, always, especially in the corner cases, but as a "core mechanic," so to speak, I have a lot of resentment for it. 

Sure, it's possible to play 4e and strip out the rules and just wing it, just like it's possible to play 3e that way, or any edition or game ever, anywhere. But I think the old school feel is more than just "make up the rules as you go along." I could be wrong.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 3, 2008)

Mercurius said:


> But what i'm wondering is, cannot a group play 4E "Old School style"?




How exactly do you propose to give these "old school style" elements back to the game under 4th edition?

-remove the ability for everyone to heal themselves
-remove the powers system and give the thief back the ability to be a thief
-give the classes back some dignity of being something special and have a purpose to themselves outside of just positions in combat

Can you do that with 4th and it keep its integrity to it? What would you need to do to the monsters to counterbalance these alterations to PCs?

What if the fighter player doesn't want to have to take time to think about healing during a fight and just wants to let the party healer take of it after the fight so he can focus more on smashing heads?

What if the cleric wants to be the doctor of the group and focus on keeping them healthy through healing and making them work together and not act in a foolish manor by just charging in?

What if the wizard doesn't want to just lob magic missile or damaging spells, but wants to do things with magic besides just 3 direct damage with a lighting bolt, or X damage with a fireball?

What if the party wants to collect money to make their own things rather than find exactly what they need to get through the game? Make their own weapons, fix their own armor, etc.

What if they just want to hoard money and art objects rather than spend it on the latest magic items?

There is a lot that is subjective about what "old school style" play is, and 4th edition will not easily accommodate all players that want an old school style.

It touches on on aspect with a focus on combat, but loses in many other areas some of the flexibility of the system of 1st edition and back.

2nd edition and 3rd are of course denied plausible under the systems of 4th edition because how tight knit it is.

So it really depends on what you are looking for out of the "old school style".


----------



## bagger245 (Nov 3, 2008)

IMHO, rules and playstyle aren't mutual exclusive. A game requires mastery over 
the rules has more tactics and management required, whereas a looser, lighter
ruleset allows more freeform play and DM adjudication. The latter descibes old school 
play. Furthermore, streamlined games are considered modern. I love charts and 
different mechanics in a game. If you take 4th ed character sheet and compared it to 
a BECM char sheet, the latter has very little information on the character mechanically.
This usually "forces" a player to subconciously develop the character through roleplaying
and heavy DM fiat is involved. To me, thats what old school's about. FOr those
who are able to run an old school style using modern gamerules ie 4th ed, well done to you, 
but I think you aren't actually playing the game RAW..


----------



## Phaezen (Nov 3, 2008)

justanobody said:


> How exactly do you propose to give these "old school style" elements back to the game under 4th edition?
> 
> -remove the ability for everyone to heal themselves



There is no second wind, possibly increase the nuber of healings a leader can do during an encounter, and done.

Alternatively, increase pc hitpoints by 25% and have healing surges only do 20% of your new total.



justanobody said:


> -remove the powers system and give the thief back the ability to be a thief



Powers system is built into 4e, this can't be done so easily.  What exactly is the 4e rogue missing in your opinion?  His skills allow him to do anything a 1e or becm thief could do.  He can also customise hiss skill selection to do different things.



justanobody said:


> -give the classes back some dignity of being something special and have a purpose to themselves outside of just positions in combat
> 
> Can you do that with 4th and it keep its integrity to it? What would you need to do to the monsters to counterbalance these alterations to PCs?



A class in 4e defines your combat abilities, as far as I have seen in previous editions (I have played BECM, 2nd Ed and 3.x) this has always been the case .  Your out of combat abilities are defined by skills, some of the feats and how you play your character.  Again, not wanting to be dismissive of your point, but explain what exactly your point is, how should the class define itself outside of combat? 



justanobody said:


> What if the fighter player doesn't want to have to take time to think about healing during a fight and just wants to let the party healer take of it after the fight so he can focus more on smashing heads?



I am not too sure how 1 healing surge during combat reads as the fighter thinking about healing.  Usualy my fighters in previous editions are thinking about healing all the time, positioning close enough to the cleric, have potions accesable in bandoleers etc.



justanobody said:


> What if the cleric wants to be the doctor of the group and focus on keeping them healthy through healing and making them work together and not act in a foolish manor by just charging in?



Once again, clerics in my experience, at least before 3.x, have generally always been in the thick of things.  Good armour and needing to be close to the fighters mean't that you had to be mixing it up with the monsters in most cases.  If you don't want to be up close and personal, concentrate on the ranged powers, and pack some throwing weapons.



justanobody said:


> What if the wizard doesn't want to just lob magic missile or damaging spells, but wants to do things with magic besides just 3 direct damage with a lighting bolt, or X damage with a fireball?



I combat, direct damage is what the 4e wizard does, but a lot his spells also alter the battlefield with zones, ongoing effects etc.  Be creative with your spell use.  For out of combat, there is a growing list of rituals to use, the long casting time and cost means you wont arbitrarily be stepping in other character niches when it comes to skill use.  



justanobody said:


> What if the party wants to collect money to make their own things rather than find exactly what they need to get through the game? Make their own weapons, fix their own armor, etc.



Rituals, skill challenges and DM fiat.  You want your fighter to be a smith, speak to your dm and agree on how to go about it.  BEfore 2e there weren't rules for this either.  As for crafting magical items, there is a ritual you can use, and if you really want to go old school on this, roleplay looking for rare ingrediants and formulas.



justanobody said:


> What if they just want to hoard money and art objects rather than spend it on the latest magic items?



Awesome, then do it.  Your character wants to build a keep? Speek to the dm about costs and start doing it.  All those gems and art you find in your adventures? Don't sell them. If you want your character to invest in merchant cartels, do so.  This is where the roleplaying comes into the game.  



justanobody said:


> There is a lot that is subjective about what "old school style" play is, and 4th edition will not easily accommodate all players that want an old school style.
> 
> It touches on on aspect with a focus on combat, but loses in many other areas some of the flexibility of the system of 1st edition and back.
> 
> ...



At the end of the day, play the system you want to play, no-one is going to stop you from doing it.  If you want to import something from a previous (or more current) system, discuss with the other people in your group and houserule.  The rules in D&D are not fixed and governed by a world body with penalties imposed if you break them.  Do what works for your group and for the campaign you are playing.

Phaezen


----------



## justanobody (Nov 3, 2008)

Phaezen said:


> I am not too sure how 1 healing surge during combat reads as the fighter thinking about healing.  Usualy my fighters in previous editions are thinking about healing all the time, positioning close enough to the cleric, have potions accesable in bandoleers etc.




Too much to read and respond to it all at this time. Remind me to come back to the rest, but to touch on here....

The problem is the fighter should not even know, nay no one should; that they are in need of healing.

There may be some perception that you are feeling a bit tired or weak, but when you go into dealing directly with the mechanics in the game such as the number of hit points one has being of conscious thought, it destroys part of the game and breaks the fourth wall too quickly.

The characters should not have any access to anything that identifies them as pieces in a game.

I also don't like wussy fighters that are worried about themselves getting hurt and needing to heal, rather than willing to lay his life on the line all or nothing for his cause. Leave the healing to the healers to nag the fighters about resting and healing when they think they can go on because they are some kind of...well....battle tank.

I wouldn't worry at all about healing, just know that living it will be a concern if I do survive. Until that point in battle the idea is that any stray thoughts means certain death.


----------



## rounser (Nov 3, 2008)

No.  For me, 4E is not oldschool.  But oldskool represents something particular in my opinion.  Hackmaster comes closest to resembling the freewheeling silliness of the way my mates and I used to play AD&D 1E, in a rules form.  Come 2E that style had changed to something more po-faced.

4E, on the other hand, has a Rod of Might rammed so far up it's rear in an attempt to keep game balance that it couldn't come anywhere NEAR supporting the wild and wacky magic items and spells and their uses of that era.  There's no in-jokes about Spears of Backstabbing and creative uses of Enlarge to be had here...move along...

It doesn't want to, and isn't designed to.  It is D&D wearing an accountant's visor, with greedy little squinty marketing eyes peering out from under it, not D&D wearing a jester's cap, grinning madly, and with eyes which swirl with oceans of possibility.  And that's if you give WOTC's fantasy heartbreaker the title "D&D" in the first place, and I'm not so sure it deserves it.

It's a pity that 1E has game balance roughly equivalent to that of Monopoly, and 4E has so little soul that it would make a figurative version of the late James Brown run away screaming.  3E is probably the nearest thing we have to a compromise.  1E or C&C supplemented by Hackmaster, perhaps, if you want to throw game balance and Serious Campaign Design Is Serious to the winds, and fall off the other end of the scale.


----------



## bagger245 (Nov 3, 2008)

Actually, why do people even want to emulate old school with the latest incarnation 
of D&D? Sounds liek denial or soemthign to me. Play old school games to get old school
feel. Why try to emulate different playstyles with different rules approach?
When C&C came out, nobody questioned the fact whether it has an old school feel
or not, because it just does.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 3, 2008)

bagger245 said:


> Actually, why do people even want to emulate old school with the latest incarnation
> of D&D? Sounds like denial or something to me. Play old school games to get old school
> feel. Why try to emulate different playstyles with different rules approach?
> When C&C came out, nobody questioned the fact whether it has an old school feel
> or not, because it just does.




I think for some it may be a way to convince others or maybe even themselves, that it is still D&D. Or some way to try to end edition wars, that in turn starts them up even more.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 3, 2008)

rounser said:


> It's a pity that 1E has game balance roughly equivalent to that of Monopoly



Hey, Monopoly was pretty well balanced (just really boring during the endgame stage). The car didn't get +1 to movement and the top hat didn't get a +$50 style bonus every time it passed "Go".  If anything, Monopoly pieces are exactly the opposite: so balanced that they are just cookie cutters of each other with no mechanical differentiation between them whatsoever.


----------



## rounser (Nov 3, 2008)

> If anything, Monopoly pieces are exactly the opposite: so balanced that they are just cookie cutters of each other with no mechanical differentiation between them whatsoever.



Hmm, good point.  It's balanced in the same way ball games like baseball and cricket are - it doesn't matter if batting is superior to pitching or bowling, because both teams have to do it.

The basic tactic to monopoly I've heard is to buy everything you land on, as soon as you're able.  If everyone does this, the rest is just dice.  More superficial than unbalanced, perhaps.

Okay.  1E is balanced seemingly by just eyeballing it, and often, it seems, not very closely.  Poor old thief.  Although....I suppose it could be fixed by campaign design.  Want a more powerful thief?  Involve it's abilities all over the show as fundamental adventure features.  Still doesn't stop spells and magic items taking it's gigs though I guess.

As far as poor, drawn-out endgames with foregone conclusions go, perhaps Talisman can give Monopoly a run for it's money.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 3, 2008)

If you want old school, then play old school. What would be the point of using a 4E rules system then changing the majority of it? 

Choose the system that fits the playstyle and needs of the group.
If game balance enforced at the per-round level is needed to make a group happy use 4E. If the group likes ultimate freedom with a high degree of uncertainty then use OD&D. Pick any other edition to get something in the middle.

Mechanics matter a lot in relation to the feel of a game. Whenever the need is felt to ignore the majority of mechanics then its time to shop for a new game.


----------



## Psion (Nov 3, 2008)

Didn't we just have this thread?


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 3, 2008)

Mercurius said:


> As I understand it--and correct me if I'm wrong--the difference between skill use in OD&D and 4E is that in OD&D the player says what he or she wants to do and the DM resolves it with a simple die roll or judgment call. In 4E, the player describes what he or she wants to do and then the DM issues a Skill Challenge: a series of skill checks that correspond with each action that the player wants to take.
> 
> Obviously there is a bit difference here. But what i'm wondering is, cannot a group play 4E "Old School style"?



The "difference" you've listed is one of the key _similarities_ between OD&D and 4E.  The skill-challenge mechanics are a very lightweight framework to help the DM decide what rolls to ask for.

Besides the obvious flavor changes, the real difference between older editions and 4E is the "boardgame" nature of combat, with very specific powers following narrowly defined rules.


----------



## Phaezen (Nov 3, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> The "difference" you've listed is one of the key _similarities_ between OD&D and 4E.  The skill-challenge mechanics are a very lightweight framework to help the DM decide what rolls to ask for.




On this topic:

Breaking news, live from Gnomestew:

1e spotted alive and well in a livingroom in southeastern PA - Gnome Stew, the Game Mastering Blog

Phaezen


----------



## Obryn (Nov 3, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I think for some it may be a way to convince others or maybe even themselves, that it is still D&D. Or some way to try to end edition wars, that in turn starts them up even more.



Well, gosh.  I'm running a 4e game.  I'm going to be running a 1e game shortly - the start date is 11/16, and I've been reading the rules & adventure for a week or two.  It's the first 1e game I've run in a very long time, but I've worked through the editions from B/X onwards over 25 years or so of play.

I can't say or do anything to convince you that 4e feels more oldschool to me (and evidently more than a few others) than 3e does - once you move past the surges and powers and the like.  I can also see why other folks disagree.  I'm very disheartened, though, to find that when I say "4e feels oldschool" your response is, "No, you're either fooling yourself or lying."

-O


----------



## Korgoth (Nov 3, 2008)

They made Perception checks passive in 4E. That's a step in the right direction.

I hate "roll to see things". Why don't we also roll to see if I can walk in a straight line? If it's a question of an ambush, there was a perfectly good mechanic for that called "Surprise".

So 4E looks like it at least leans in the Old School direction on the matter of perception... just compare your perception level against a difficulty. Anything that in any way undermines the tyranny of skill-rollery is good in my book.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 3, 2008)

Rule-Set vs. Game-Style arguments are like Nature vs. Nurture arguments. You always have both, and they aren't mutually exclusive, but it's the end result you care about.

4E Rules + Old School Style = Different Game than (1E Rules + Old School Style).

You mix different ingredients, you get a different bread. That's just how these things work.

For me I don't think it's possible to get the game I want using 4E rules, even if I play it with Old School Style. And I tried. I tried running B2 using 4E rules and it just wasn't the same. It "worked", in a sense, but it wasn't what I was looking for. For other people it will be good enough, and for others even trying to run B2 with 4E rules is "one step forward, two steps back." As with so many things on the Internet, YMMV.



			
				Mercurius said:
			
		

> Is it possible to combine the innovations of the last 35 years with the free-form attitude of the original D&D? I personally think that D&D, as a rules system, has evolved; the core d20 mechanic, in my view, is better than THAC0, and much better than the combat charts; Defenses are better than Saving Throws, etc. But I also like to improvise and dislike when the rules get in the way of role-playing and creative thinking from the players. So, as I start my first campaign in years, I plan on taking a somewhat "old school style" to a 4E game: Or to put it another way, an improvisational and imaginative game style using a slick-running game engine.



Yes. Here is one attempt. There are others. Arguably Castles & Crusades is very much an attempt at this too, though I am on record disagreeing with certain choices they made.

The main problem with games since OD&D is that the designers weren't content with making the rules that existed easier and more streamlined. They kept adding new twists and complexities as well (_e.g._, Exceptional Strength, Attacks of Opportunity, Critical Hits, Tumble, etc.), so instead of 25 slightly-unintuitive-but-useable rules you have 300 really well engineered rules. If you just went back to OD&D and converted over what was there to current state of the art _without adding any of the additional complexity that came later_, I think you'd have what you're looking for.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 3, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> I hate "roll to see things". Why don't we also roll to see if I can walk in a straight line? If it's a question of an ambush, there was a perfectly good mechanic for that called "Surprise".



Please watch this video and try to count the total number of times that the people wearing *white* pass the basketball. (Do not count the passes made by the people wearing black.)

When you're done, go and read this.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 3, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Please watch this video and try to count the total number of times that the people wearing *white* pass the basketball. (Do not count the passes made by the people wearing black.)
> 
> When you're done, go and read this.




Great video-good stuff.  Have there been studies about this that test what perception is like during periods of danger such as a hallway being walked down by people who are "frosty" and in watch mode, expecting that perhaps a fight or flight moment could occur at any moment? 

I would think that would have some bearing vs people in thier normal, not in danger lives.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 3, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Great video-good stuff.



Thanks, ExploderWizard.  I thought I'd fork off a new thread for discussing perception: How did I not see a beholder?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 3, 2008)

justanobody said:


> The problem is the fighter should not even know, nay no one should; that they are in need of healing.[/quiote]
> 
> Ah.  You see, I expect many of us hold the opposite opinion.  The fighter is a _specialist_ in combat.  Hitting and getting hit is what he does for a living. If there's anyone who should know exactly how much he's got left in reserves, it'd be the fighter.  Because if he doesn't know that, he can't apply decent tactics, and if he cannot do that, he's dead.
> 
> Though, honestly, anyone who gets into a fight regularly - meaning all the PCs in a typical D&D game - ought to have a clue.  Heck, in the real world I only put on armor and whack people with sticks occasionally, but I know when I'm getting too wiped out to keep going.


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 3, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I'm very disheartened, though, to find that when I say "4e feels oldschool" your response is, "No, you're either fooling yourself or lying."




I guess you should just get used to having any attempt to discuss 4e with other 4e players be dismissed by a certain group of posters as "mouth noise" and the game then attacked as a "greedy marketing ploy" and a "boardgame' and any opinion to the contrary being dismissed as "delusional".

For the record, I agree with you that 4e has a very old school feel to it.  I think its directly tied to the DM freedom that is built into the system, that and the re-emergence of class as a central component of character, rather than just a suite of abilities to be chosen at level up.  The emphasis is back on leveling within a class as opposed to applying classes to your levels.  I think that is a big source of the disconnect for some players, as well.  I could see how 4e would feel more constricting to long time 3e players (especially those who started with 3e) with its old school emphasis on class choice.


----------



## JeffB (Nov 3, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> I guess you should just get used to having any attempt to discuss 4e with other 4e players be dismissed by a certain group of posters as "mouth noise" and the game then attacked as a "greedy marketing ploy" and a "boardgame' and any opinion to the contrary being dismissed as "delusional".
> 
> For the record, I agree with you that 4e has a very old school feel to it.  I think its directly tied to the DM freedom that is built into the system, that and the re-emergence of class as a central component of character, rather than just a suite of abilities to be chosen at level up.  The emphasis is back on leveling within a class as opposed to applying classes to your levels.  I think that is a big source of the disconnect for some players, as well.  I could see how 4e would feel more constricting to long time 3e players (especially those who started with 3e) with its old school emphasis on class choice.





:clapshands:

Excellent post. I have to laugh at a certain overly vocal element here on EnWorld telling me what I feel/the kind of fun I'm having, is "wrong"- I'm delusional, there is no way I could prefer 4E by far over 3E for "old school" style,  nor do I know WTF I'm talking about when it comes to "old school" in general, even though I started playing OD&D in the late 70s with the LBBs. You cannot even try to discuss it in a fun/interesting manner among others who feel the same way about 4E without the vocal "I know what you think and feel better than you do" posters beating you down line by line to "prove you wrong".


----------



## Psion (Nov 3, 2008)

JeffB said:


> Excellent post. I have to laugh at a certain overly vocal element here on EnWorld telling me what I feel/the kind of fun I'm having, is "wrong"




Yeah, the 4e fans (and designers) telling me that thrill over high magic and the tension created by the peril of save-or-die effects was "wrong" got me down too.


----------



## gizmo33 (Nov 3, 2008)

Mercurius said:


> I'm starting up a 4E campaign but was raised on 1E, and therefore DM Fiat is just an accepted--and necessary--part of gaming. As the 4E DMG itself says, the DM's main job is to create an enjoyable experience; if this means bending or breaking the rules, then so be it.




I've been seeing a core idea expressed here on the internet at least as far back as when 3E came out and it barely makes any sense to me at all.

IME "simulationism" was much more then norm in the earlier editions.  The idea that people intentionally made 1E vague I think it overstating the reality.  Much of the vagueness and reliance on DM-fiat was a result of the evolution of the game and not some intentional design philosophy.  IME alternate rule sets like Dragon Magazine, the basic version of DnD etc. were mined by DMs to establish the rule set.  In the end, I just don't see the claims that 1E was rules-light in practice as being back up by what I remember FWIW.  Consider the wargaming background of many of the parcicipants in the early days.

And when it comes to "breaking rules" I just don't read how 3E or 4E really makes that any more difficult than it was in earlier editions.  The example I think of is climbing.  Let's say that the rules say that a wall of a certain nature has a climb check DC of 15.  What would the circumstances be for "breaking" this rule?  You do realize that circumstantial modifiers are part of the rules, right?  Using circumstantial modifiers isn't breaking or bending anything.  The DM is well within his rights AFAICT to say that walls on Tuesdays are +10 to their DCs - it's his world and his walls.  Sure, the players might think that's stupid, but they also might think that elves and orcs banding together in an alliance is stupid.  Ultimately the physics of the campaign world is to be determined by the DM, and this is RAW.  Nothing in any of the editions contradicts this.

So what's left under the heading of "bending the rules" by the DM are only the most extreme cases of a complete disregard for letting the circumstances dictate the probabilities.  And really, I can't actually think of an example that I couldn't come up with circumstance modifiers to justify.  The basic philosophy of every edition of DnD was that both players and the DM would roll dice for the outcome, and that the DM would be a "neutral arbiter" and that his judging of the game would involve determining the circumstances surrounding a particular event, and then determine the chance of success/failure based on these circumstances, and that the judging of those circumstances was ideally to be done in a consistent manner (example - if last week I got a +5 for climbing while wearing spiked gauntlets, I should get the same thing this week barring additional circumstances).  No edition of DnD IME has ever tried to prevent this basic DMing philosophy.

If the DM is, in fact, creating a more "enjoyable experience" then I would think he wouldn't have much explaining to do about breaking the rules since the players would all agree what an improvement his change would be.  If the DMs and all the players at the table think that limiting halflings to 4th level as fighters makes a more enjoyable and old-school experience then IMO that pretty much settles the issue.  The DM wouldn't need the official rule set to validate this judgement in this case.


----------



## JeffB (Nov 3, 2008)

Psion said:


> Yeah, the 4e fans (and designers) telling me that thrill over high magic and the tension created by the peril of save-or-die effects was "wrong" got me down too.




Well that's not *me* Alan.  You know the kind of people around here I'm talking about, and there is a handful of 4E zealots whom are just as bad. When it was the 2E people doing the sniping at the new 3E fans when this website was new, that  was NOT tolerated.   

I wish Morrus would provide a 4E general area separate from this one- so like minded folks can discuss things they want to discuss (like how some of use feel there is alot of Ol School "feel" in 4E, or 3E is far more flexible because of XYZ)  without a handful of idiots ruining it for the rest of us. Every single thread degenerates into this crapfest. More moderation, separate forum, I don't really care which, but this site has become extremely "hostile".


----------



## Obryn (Nov 3, 2008)

Psion said:


> Yeah, the 4e fans (and designers) telling me that thrill over high magic and the tension created by the peril of save-or-die effects was "wrong" got me down too.



Well that's funny.  I mean, *I* don't ever recall calling any of those badwrongfun, or that people who claimed to enjoy playing that way were either delusional or lying.  I understand that some folks did, but I don't understand how it's relevant to my or JeffB's claims at all.

I'm trying to understand your point.  Turnabout is fair play?  Two wrongs make a right?

-O


----------



## Psion (Nov 3, 2008)

JeffB said:


> Well that's not *me* Alan.  You know the kind of people around here I'm talking about, and there is a handful of 4E zealots whom are just as bad.




Oh, I know. And I never said you were. And I apologize if you felt like I was targeting you.

I'm just saying it goes on on both sides. And like you felt assailed, I felt lumped in by characterization.



> I wish Morrus would provide a 4E general area separate from this one- so like minded folks can discuss things they want to discuss (like how some of use feel there is alot of Ol School "feel" in 4E, or 3E is far more flexible because of XYZ)  without a handful of idiots ruining it for the rest of us. Every single thread degenerates into this crapfest. More moderation, separate forum, I don't really care which, but this site has become extremely "hostile".




Curious: when do you think it got hostile? Because I feel the trend has been towards _less_ hostile over the last month. Could it be just a matter of perception fed by how many people you think agree with you?


----------



## Obryn (Nov 3, 2008)

JeffB said:


> I wish Morrus would provide a 4E general area separate from this one- so like minded folks can discuss things they want to discuss (like how some of use feel there is alot of Ol School "feel" in 4E, or 3E is far more flexible because of XYZ)  without a handful of idiots ruining it for the rest of us. Every single thread degenerates into this crapfest. More moderation, separate forum, I don't really care which, but this site has become extremely "hostile".



I really don't...  I think a broad-range, General RPG forum is good for the site.  Yes, it's annoying that every. single. thread. will tend to turn into exactly the same argument after a while, often with the same people making the same points about the same topic.  And often far afield from the original post.  (As an example: My post here, which relates to the OP not at all.)  But that shouldn't overshadow the value.

I think it's great to separate out the various *rules* forums - that makes them much more useful.  However, I don't like the idea of ghetto-izing either 3e-related or 4e-related general RPG discussions.

-O


----------



## Betote (Nov 3, 2008)

To me, "old school" doesn't have so much to do with one or another spot rule as with the modules that made the old school: Keep on the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil, Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors...

If we believe what we have been said by the designers and the marketing guys at WotC, 4e was designed specifically to make those modules impossible to play as they were. Traps work on a totally different way because they found the previous ones (the ones that appear on them) broken, unfun and unfair, the feeling of "anytime now I could drop dead if I fail a saving throw" has been actively avoided. Even the maps would need to be redrawn because now they're "too small to 4e" (as Mike Mearls stated in an article about this specific topic).

So, if 4e feels old school, and it has been (or so we've been told) designed to achieve the exact opposite results, 4e is a failure.


----------



## JeffB (Nov 3, 2008)

Psion said:


> Oh, I know. And I never said you were. And I apologize if you felt like I was targeting you.
> 
> I'm just saying it goes on on both sides. And like you felt assailed, I felt lumped in by characterization.




No worries, you def are not lumped into that "vocal element" I spoke about. 





> Curious: when do you think it got hostile? Because I feel the trend has been towards _less_ hostile over the last month. Could it be just a matter of perception fed by how many people you think agree with you?




What day was 4E announced? 

I don't feel it's all that less "hostile" in the past month or so, though I must admit, I tend not to comb through all threads and forums. As for agreement- not that at all. I have no problems with disagreement. Some people genuinely want to discuss or understand or disagree in rational manne, some just peddle the same old bitter "you are wrong" BS argument over and over in each and every thread regardless of whether the post was warranted or not.  

:Galdriel Voice: You know of whom I speak


----------



## Psion (Nov 3, 2008)

Betote said:


> Even the maps would need to be redrawn because now they're "too small to 4e" (as Mike Mearls stated in an article about this specific topic).




You wouldn't have a link handy for this article, would you?


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Nov 3, 2008)

To me, the reason 4E feels "old school" is because it captures the same sort of feelings I had for the game when I first cracked open my AD&D PHB. Nostalgia, a general love for the rules, stuff like that. Even though they are two entirely separate set of rules, it just seems to bring out a feeling that I didn't really get with 3/3.5.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 3, 2008)

Betote said:


> If we believe what we have been said by the designers and the marketing guys at WotC, 4e was designed specifically to make those modules impossible to play as they were. Traps work on a totally different way because they found the previous ones (the ones that appear on them) broken, unfun and unfair, the feeling of "anytime now I could drop dead if I fail a saving throw" has been actively avoided. Even the maps would need to be redrawn because now they're "too small to 4e" (as Mike Mearls stated in an article about this specific topic).



Well, jeez.  Someone better tell Mearls it's impossible for him to run his 4e Temple of Elemental Evil game, and remind him that he specifically designed the game to destroy the module he's running!



> So, if 4e feels old school, and it has been (or so we've been told) designed to achieve the exact opposite results, 4e is a failure.



I think you, too, are falling into the assumption that there's only one definition or set of characteristics that define "old-school" play.

-O


----------



## Betote (Nov 3, 2008)

Psion said:


> You wouldn't have a link handy for this article, would you?




It's somewhere on wizards.com, so it's anything but handy 

Looking for it, however, I found the column about trap design:

Design & Development: Traps!

Also, thanks to another poster, I've found that Mearls has started running a "ToEE" campaign. If you look at his blog on Gleemax, you can see how many changes he felt necessary to make in order to adapt it to 4e. Saying it's "loosely based" is an euphemism if I ever saw one.

----

EDIT: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070827a for how Mearls states how much "dundeoncrafting" has to change because of the shift of gameplay made by 4e.

And a little history, to see what one of the lead designers of 4e feels about one of the defining modules of "old school": http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html


----------



## Korgoth (Nov 3, 2008)

Betote said:


> To me, "old school" doesn't have so much to do with one or another spot rule as with the modules that made the old school: Keep on the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil, Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors...
> 
> If we believe what we have been said by the designers and the marketing guys at WotC, 4e was designed specifically to make those modules impossible to play as they were. Traps work on a totally different way because they found the previous ones (the ones that appear on them) broken, unfun and unfair, the feeling of "anytime now I could drop dead if I fail a saving throw" has been actively avoided. Even the maps would need to be redrawn because now they're "too small to 4e" (as Mike Mearls stated in an article about this specific topic).
> 
> So, if 4e feels old school, and it has been (or so we've been told) designed to achieve the exact opposite results, 4e is a failure.




So 4E was specifically designed to destroy everything that made D&D the most popular role playing game in the world, at the height of its success and popularity?

Wow... according to you 4E is a million times worse than I thought.


----------



## Betote (Nov 3, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Well, jeez.  Someone better tell Mearls it's impossible for him to run his 4e Temple of Elemental Evil game, and remind him that he specifically designed the game to destroy the module he's running!




Well, having a look at his notes (as they're posted on his Gleemax blog-thing) I don't think "his" ToEE is similar in anything else that in name to the T1-4 module.



> I think you, too, are falling into the assumption that there's only one definition or set of characteristics that define "old-school" play.




Damn, and I thought I hadn't forgotten to start my post with "To me". Oh, wait...


----------



## Betote (Nov 3, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> So 4E was specifically designed to destroy everything that made D&D the most popular role playing game in the world, at the height of its success and popularity?
> 
> Wow... according to you 4E is a million times worse than I thought.




Let me emphasize the tense you used: "made". It's been more than 20 years since then, so it's a smart move to move on and focus on what could make D&D a popular game *now*.

Saying that 4e, by design, isn't anywhere near "old school" isn't the same as saying that 4e is a bad game. Not because of that, anyway  In fact, I'm very happy that they wanted to start anew, because now I have more different "flavors" of D&D from where to choose.

And 4e isn't destroying anything, as far as I know. 1e books and retro-clones are still there for the ones who want to play the game as it was 20+ years ago


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 3, 2008)

Complicating this even further were the differences between games in which people played "Old School" D&D as written, and those who played in a looser more narrative style.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 3, 2008)

Betote said:


> EDIT: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070827a for how Mearls states how much "dundeoncrafting" has to change because of the shift of gameplay made by 4e.




Honestly, not so much. The big advantage of 4e design is that it explicitly groups nearby rooms together to create one big encounter; something that actually has helped me when converting Castle Zagyg for my 4e campaign.

The idea of "lots of monsters need space" is something that a few 3e designers could pay some attention to. I've seen way too many battles in 5' wide corridors which, for six PCs, is not fun at all. 

In AD&D, the idea of monsters needing space to move was occasionally ignored by designers.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 3, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Complicating this even further were the differences between games in which people played "Old School" D&D as written, and those who played in a looser more narrative style.




Really.

If I played oD&D as it seems Gary did, I'd
* Play every day
* Have it mostly exploration of a megadungeon I keep adding to
* Have a lot of friends, in groups of 1-8, adventuring together
* Low-level PCs would work in groups, with hirelings (men-at-arms) if necessary
* High-level PCs would work mostly alone, with their henchmen
* Greed and mercenary desires would be the most common motivations.

Cheers!


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 3, 2008)

Psion said:


> Yeah, the 4e fans (and designers) telling me that thrill over high magic and the tension created by the peril of save-or-die effects was "wrong" got me down too.




There's a world of difference between contrasting the validity of save or die mechanics from edition to edition and referring dismissively to discussion on an edition to be "mouth noise".  You know this.

Discussing and contrasting differences is valid and productive.  Being told you're delusional if you feel that 4e has old school flavor is antagonistic.  



> Because I feel the trend has been towards _less_ hostile over the last month.




I've been noticing that, too, which is why the rude responses the OP got bothered me.  Things had seemed to be moving forward a bit.


----------



## Psion (Nov 3, 2008)

Betote said:


> EDIT: Design & Development: Dungeon Design in 4E for how Mearls states how much "dundeoncrafting" has to change because of the shift of gameplay made by 4e.




Whoa. That's definitely a case of falling befoul my sig admonition "let the rules serve the game".



> And a little history, to see what one of the lead designers of 4e feels about one of the defining modules of "old school": RPGnet : The Inside Scoop on Gaming




Heh. That's curiously correlates to something I said in another forum about different humanoids in the same dungeon that don't help each other akin to living in a "bad neighborhood".

At any rate, I think Melan's analysis of the KotB is much more astute.

Thanks for the links. Enlightening.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 3, 2008)

MerricB said:


> The idea of "lots of monsters need space" is something that a few 3e designers could pay some attention to. I've seen way too many battles in 5' wide corridors which, for six PCs, is not fun at all.
> 
> In AD&D, the idea of monsters needing space to move was occasionally ignored by designers.




There were some cramped quarters to be sure but there was also exactly some of the opposite going on. Dungeon Module X3: Curse of Xanathon, cracked us up back in the day. A bedroom in the Ducal Palace was 30' x 40' !!! We laughed at that and even drew basketball hoops at each end of the room on the battlemat. I grew up in HOUSE that was 22' x 40' .

Monsters needing space is simply an outgrowth of tailoring combat to fit the grid rather than resolving combat in whatever location it happens to take place in. The sizes of some rooms in classic adventures is too large for what the room was designed for in many cases. 

Consider a kobold lair. Kobolds are not big creatures and don't need chambers so huge that an ogre would feel small in them. 

Some locations should be nice and big. The main chamber of a temple designed to contain many worshippers might be huge. The high priests meditation chamber does not need to 50' x50' just because a cool fight is likely to happen there. 

Designing the environment as if it only exists to be a battleground for boardgame combat makes the whole world feel more like a soundstage and less like an organic location that fits within a world.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 4, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Designing the environment as if it only exists to be a battleground for boardgame combat makes the whole world feel more like a soundstage and less like an organic location that fits within a world.




Definitely. However, ignoring the fact that you're running a game can lead to some extremely frustrating combats and player dissatisfaction. You need a happy medium between the two.

Cheers!


----------



## 13garth13 (Nov 4, 2008)

huxuemei said:


> The game is very fun, and I like to play online game.
> maple mesos




Uhhhhhhhhhh................spam?!?!?

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 4, 2008)

I think both the ability to remove the skill system and the advice about Points of Light settings in the DMG mean 4E can be played closer to actual D&D.  But you're still going to have that awful combat system to account for and the division of magic spells from actual combat.  Of course the latter is an easy enough fix by shortening casting times to 1 action vs. 10 minutes.  Plus, I can't for the life of me figure out why they kept Feats.  But they're pretty integrated as well (very hard to remove).  I bet there are other ways to fix the game, but I haven't really taken a look at it from that angle.  It's just too much work for a very low payoff IMO.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 4, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Well, gosh.  I'm running a 4e game.  I'm going to be running a 1e game shortly - the start date is 11/16, and I've been reading the rules & adventure for a week or two.  It's the first 1e game I've run in a very long time, but I've worked through the editions from B/X onwards over 25 years or so of play.
> 
> I can't say or do anything to convince you that 4e feels more oldschool to me (and evidently more than a few others) than 3e does - once you move past the surges and powers and the like.  I can also see why other folks disagree.  I'm very disheartened, though, to find that when I say "4e feels oldschool" your response is, "No, you're either fooling yourself or lying."
> 
> -O




Except for the fact I didn't say those things. I said some, not all. I also said before that there is a focus on combat in both 1sy edition AD&D and 4th. That may be the biggest connection to there feels. The rest, not so much.


Umbran said:


> justanobody said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is the fighter should not even know, nay no one should; that they are in need of healing.
> ...




But the fighter should know nothing of HP, damage per attack expressed as a number, etc.

More to the point a fighter would know vital locations to strike to cause the most damage to kill or incapacitate the opponent, but those do not exist in 4th edition.

The character should have no knowledge of his character sheets and stats.

I mean is there some bard, scribe, and minstrels going around? Maybe the scribe is making a business!



> Warriors of the Savage Coast presents the new trading card game presenting famous fighters from the area! Collect them, trade with your friends, and play the game! Cards include vital stats of these famous characters for ease of game play. Be on the look out next season for Wizards of the Savage Coast, and expansion to the game that adds new dynamics and new cards to collect!




No. I don't think scribes are sitting around doing that in their spare time. There is no baseball card that tells a fighter how much relative hit absorption he has and how much average damage he is doing expressed in numbers.


----------



## Mercurius (Nov 4, 2008)

Damn, evidently my "token" ran out (whatever that is) and I lost my multi-quote response. Oh well, I'm not one to try to re-create the wheel...Anyways, I really like Irda Ranger's response so I'll respond to that:



Irda Ranger said:


> Rule-Set vs. Game-Style arguments are like Nature vs. Nurture arguments. You always have both, and they aren't mutually exclusive, but it's the end result you care about.
> 
> 4E Rules + Old School Style = Different Game than (1E Rules + Old School Style).
> 
> You mix different ingredients, you get a different bread. That's just how these things work.




Well said, and I agree to all the above.



Irda Ranger said:


> For me I don't think it's possible to get the game I want using 4E rules, even if I play it with Old School Style. And I tried. I tried running B2 using 4E rules and it just wasn't the same. It "worked", in a sense, but it wasn't what I was looking for. For other people it will be good enough, and for others even trying to run B2 with 4E rules is "one step forward, two steps back." As with so many things on the Internet, YMMV.




Well, I am just starting my first 4E campaign, so we'll see how I feel after a few sessions, but my sense is that 4E "corrected" a lot of what I didn't like about 3E--which I liked better than 2E and 1E--and with some of its own tricks added to mix.



Irda Ranger said:


> Yes. Here is one attempt. There are others. Arguably Castles & Crusades is very much an attempt at this too, though I am on record disagreeing with certain choices they made.
> 
> The main problem with games since OD&D is that the designers weren't content with making the rules that existed easier and more streamlined. They kept adding new twists and complexities as well (_e.g._, Exceptional Strength, Attacks of Opportunity, Critical Hits, Tumble, etc.), so instead of 25 slightly-unintuitive-but-useable rules you have 300 really well engineered rules. If you just went back to OD&D and converted over what was there to current state of the art _without adding any of the additional complexity that came later_, I think you'd have what you're looking for.




I actually agree with this, for the most part. This brings out another spectrum of game preference: simple to complex. The complexity-junkies loved 3E, because it enabled all sorts of options, while still resting on a nice core mechanic (2E was equally complex, if not more so, but without the core mechanic that allowed for greater complexity without getting lost in a ton of "Rules & Options"). The "new twists and complexities" aren't inherently wrong, imo, but indicate of a certain style of play. 

So every gamer, in my opinion, exists along a spectrum of complexity preference, from OD&D to BECMI to 1E to 2E to 3E. Where does 4E lie? I think between BECMI and 1E (or maybe between 1E and 2E) which is why like it. But, as I said, I would also be open to a hybrid of OD&D's simplicity and improvisational style and 4E's core mechanic and fun gimmicks (I like the Powers system, as well as Defenses, for example, but am not as much into all the complexities of combat and anything that requires miniatures; I like miniatures, I just don't want to NEED them).

As for your last sentence, you're probably right. Of course you could also say the contrary: start with 4E and strip out any unwanted parts and, voila, there it is. I'm going to start with 4E and see how I (we) like it, play the learn-as-we-go game, and see if anything gets in the way. We'll play what we want to play; it might come down to me making my own version of "Basic 4E." We'll see.


----------



## Hairfoot (Nov 4, 2008)

Psion said:


> Heh. That's curiously correlates to something I said in another forum about different humanoids in the same dungeon that don't help each other akin to living in a "bad neighborhood".




Can you direct me to that discussion?  It's very relevant to a dungeon I'm working on.


----------



## RFisher (Nov 4, 2008)

I believe you can play any game in old school style. I believe you can play old school games in styles that are not old school. I believe I have done both.

_But_, it works _better_ if the game and the style match.

If you want to play 4e in old school style, I think you have to first understand old school style. My suggestion would be to read the following and then play some sessions using a _bona fide_ old school game.
Considering OD&D?
Quick Primer for Old School Gaming


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 4, 2008)

RFisher said:


> I believe you can play any game in old school style. I believe you can play old school games in styles that are not old school. I believe I have done both.
> 
> _But_, it works _better_ if the game and the style match.
> 
> ...




Thats a very good idea. It would be a great test to see if 4E feels like an old school game for a particular group.

As an experiment, run an adventure with an old school system as close to RAW as possible.
Then run an adventure of the same level of a similar type in 4E .

Take notes and compare. Whatever the conclusion it will be the "truth" for that particular group and thats what matters.


----------



## buzz (Nov 4, 2008)

RFisher said:


> Quick Primer for Old School Gaming



Dag! Beat me to it. 

I think the key to this discussion is defining what one means by Old School. Is it a general attitude towards the DM-player relationship, or the player-character relationship (e.g., what *justanobody* believes PCs should "know" about their own abilities)... or is it literally making the game work mechanically like OD&D/1e/BECMI/whatever?

I honestly don't think there's a heck of a lot going on mechanically in 4e that would prevent running it with an Old School _attitude_. As *Henry* mentions in the thread Psion linked to above, there are aspects of 4e that are, at least superficially, very 1e-like. Really, ditch Skill Challenges and you've got your basic crawl-through-dungeons, DM-adjudicates-anything-non-combat Old School game. I.e., I don't think there's much you need to add to 4e, just aspects to subtract.

That said, 4e is certainly more overtly tactical than early D&D, so if you don't like that, well, you can get all the previous editions in PDF from DriveThruRPG.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 4, 2008)

Psion said:


> Yeah, the 4e fans (and designers) telling me that thrill over high magic and the tension created by the peril of save-or-die effects was "wrong" got me down too.



If you're referring to a relatively recent SoD discussion that I was part of, I think a more fair characterization of the discussion is this:

Some people: "We don't find SoD fun. We explain why."
A certain other poster (not you): "If you don't like SoD, it's because you're doing it wrong."

There may have been some anti-SoD poster who belittled those who enjoyed SoD, I don't recall. But _pages_ were filled disputing the certain poster's claim (not you) that only people who play the game wrong dislike SoD.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 4, 2008)

*Monday*



ExploderWizard said:


> Then run an adventure of the same level of a similar type in 4E .
> 
> Take notes and compare. Whatever the conclusion it will be the "truth" for that particular group and thats what matters.




If you're interested, you can visit this thread, which describes my 4E campaign... adventuring through Gary Gygax's "Castle Zagyg" adapted for the system from C&C.

Interesting comment by one of those reading the account: "The players drive the plot, the plot shouldn't drive the players - that's old-school gaming at it's best!"...

Cheers!


----------



## buzz (Nov 4, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Interesting comment by one of those reading the account: "The players drive the plot, the plot shouldn't drive the players - that's old-school gaming at it's best!"...



I thought that was New Dirty Hippie Indie School.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 4, 2008)

buzz said:


> I thought that was New Dirty Hippie Indie School.




Almost: the difference in old-school is that the players drive the plot, but the GM reacts by not pulling punches and just killing off characters on a regular basis. It's the *surviving *characters the determine the plot, and you only know what it was in retrospect. 

--Steve


----------



## mearls (Nov 5, 2008)

I think that "old school" is a completely subjective label. Everyone has different experiences in playing D&D, and it's foolish to claim that there is anything resembling a monolithic expression of the game. From the kids playing tiefling warlocks today to the guys who 34 years ago threw 3d6 in order and chose from fighting man, cleric, and magic-user, the entire point of D&D is that the DM and the players make of the game what they will.

I've been running a number of classic modules in 4e, and am currently working on converting the entire Temple of Elemental Evil. It's been a lot of fun, and it feels old school. On the other hand, I had no compunction about using kenku servants of Iuz in the moathouse, or adding in a summoned demon in the water pool chamber, or replacing Lareth with his agent, a doppelganger who had disguised himself as Burne.

(Lareth and Obmi long since fled for the temple; I did keep Lubash, though. He even kicked in part of a wall as he made his entrance after the green slime at the base of the stairs dropped on the party.)

To me, this is all old school stuff, and my players and I are loving it. I'm sure that, to someone else, messing around with the specifics of the monsters or encounters is some sort of sacrilege to Gary's original work. That doesn't bother me. To me, it doesn't get any more old school than twisting, folding, remolding, and reworking stuff as a DM and gaming group see fit. If anything, mindlessly clinging to classic material as if they are sacred, unalterable texts, goes against everything that AD&D and OD&D have taught me.

I think that, for me, "old school" means:

1. Player choice drives the game.
1a. Really bad player choices lead to TPKs.
1b. Really clever player choices lead to rewards and advantages beyond the norm.
2. There are strains of an almost Lovecraftian incomprehensibility to many gods and demons, a la the chaos temple in Keep on the Borderlands.
3. The forces of evil gather on all sides of the Realms of Man.

That's pretty much it, to me. Rule 1 and its sub-rules are the critical parts of it. Quick, creative thinking is key. Mindlessly attacking is a fool's gambit.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 5, 2008)

mearls said:


> I think that "old school" is a completely subjective label. Everyone has different experiences in playing D&D, and it's foolish to claim that there is anything resembling a monolithic expression of the game. From the kids playing tiefling warlocks today to the guys who 34 years ago threw 3d6 in order and chose from fighting man, cleric, and magic-user, the entire point of D&D is that the DM and the players make of the game what they will.
> 
> I've been running a number of classic modules in 4e, and am currently working on converting the entire Temple of Elemental Evil. It's been a lot of fun, and it feels old school. On the other hand, I had no compunction about using kenku servants of Iuz in the moathouse, or adding in a summoned demon in the water pool chamber, or replacing Lareth with his agent, a doppelganger who had disguised himself as Burne.
> 
> ...




As far as changing the specifics of encounters goes I do believe most old school modules encourage the DM to make the adventure thier own and to flavor it to suit the individual campaign. It sounds like you are doing exactly that. So in a way you ARE being true to those old ways by obeying those instructions.


----------



## Betote (Nov 5, 2008)

mearls said:


> I think that, for me, "old school" means:
> 
> 1. Player choice drives the game.
> 1a. Really bad player choices lead to TPKs.
> 1b. Really clever player choices lead to rewards and advantages beyond the norm.




I'd say that yes, sandbox is as much "old school" as it gets. I'd add a feeling of constant danger and a little player justified paranoia as well 

What's sad is that, RAW, the 4e rules make 1a and 1b very difficult. A because you really can't do much more to a player which lasts more than a few minutes apart from make him face a much higher level monster and kill him blow by blow. And B because the books are always stressing the need for everything to be balanced.

Yes, you can houserule it or ignore the mandates of the DMG, but I don't need to spend 90+ bucks on books just to be able to ignore them. I can ignore things for free, thank you very much 



> 2. There are strains of an almost Lovecraftian incomprehensibility to many gods and demons, a la the chaos temple in Keep on the Borderlands.
> 3. The forces of evil gather on all sides of the Realms of Man.




... And that would be "Sword & Sorcery" against "High Fantasy". As Howard predates Tolkien, one could say S&S is in fact more "old-schoolish"


----------



## mearls (Nov 5, 2008)

Betote said:


> What's sad is that, RAW, the 4e rules make 1a and 1b very difficult.




I could not disagree more.

What 4e does is push the mechanical repercussions more into individual encounters, than into a series of encounters. And I think it cuts both ways.

In 4e, players don't have the "smart bomb" of a sleep spell to escape one fight per day at low levels. On the other hand, they face far fewer save or die mechanics, but they also face far more durable monsters who can quickly overwhelm a party if the PCs are fool enough to draw too many opponents upon themselves.

While the short rest does provide some measure of reset, getting to that short rest, and taking it without interruption, can be a challenge, one that for foolish players can end in a TPK.

The key is that, as DM, you need to design your adventures that way. G1 is as deadly to a group that charges in on a frontal assault in 4e as it was in 1e.

Admittedly, you need to approach the game from a different POV, but I don't think the change is as radical as throwing out everything you learned about D&D.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 5, 2008)

Betote said:


> What's sad is that, RAW, the 4e rules make 1a and 1b very difficult. A because you really can't do much more to a player which lasts more than a few minutes apart from make him face a much higher level monster and kill him blow by blow. And B because the books are always stressing the need for everything to be balanced.




You can do a lot to PCs that last more than a few minutes, although we're still getting used to the forms that takes. Disease effects are the big ones, but medusa still petrifies, mind flayers can eat brains, and the bodak is rather scary.

And don't underestimate the effect of expending healing surges: when you're down to 1 or 2, you're close to death and all my players know it. At that point, you retreat or you hope the dice don't kill you.

I'm having a lot of fun with healing surges, actually. One of the PCs insulted an evil deity in that deity's temple... so, I _cursed_ that PC to be able to regain no healing surges until they got the cursed lifted. That really scared that player, I can tell you.

Cheers!


----------



## RFisher (Nov 5, 2008)

buzz said:


> Dag! Beat me to it.




Sadly, when I went to link to it, I didn’t have it handy. Had to search.



mearls said:


> What 4e does is push the mechanical repercussions more into individual encounters, than into a series of encounters.




Interesting. I think this may be an important but subtle reason that 4e wasn’t quite doing it for me.


----------



## Korgoth (Nov 5, 2008)

mearls said:


> I think that, for me, "old school" means:
> 
> 1. Player choice drives the game.
> 1a. Really bad player choices lead to TPKs.
> ...




I think those are very good points, Mr. Mearls, but you left one out: in Old School play, you don't handle with a roll what can be handled by common sense and description, such as searches, negotiations etc.

You don't get to roll your Int to 'solve' a riddle, or roll your Sense Motive to find out if the bad guy is lying to you. You have to figure out those things for yourself.


----------



## Betote (Nov 5, 2008)

mearls said:


> I could not disagree more.




Why am I not surprised? 



> What 4e does is push the mechanical repercussions more into individual encounters, than into a series of encounters. And I think it cuts both ways.
> 
> In 4e, players don't have the "smart bomb" of a sleep spell to escape one fight per day at low levels. On the other hand, they face far fewer save or die mechanics, but they also face far more durable monsters who can quickly overwhelm a party if the PCs are fool enough to draw too many opponents upon themselves.
> 
> While the short rest does provide some measure of reset, getting to that short rest, and taking it without interruption, can be a challenge, one that for foolish players can end in a TPK.




What I meant is that 4e focuses too much on damage as almost the only way to "punish" players, and the only way to end a combat is to drop all your enemies to 0 hp, blow by blow.

Surely, SoD sucks when it comes unannounced, and the pre-4e Sleep spell is almost a "win 1 encounter for free", but there has to be some sort of middle ground between that and the "from 40 to 0 in 1d8-steps" approach of 4e.

And, by the way, monsters are *too* durable in 4e. Half of the combat is actual combat, and the other half is a "are we there now, daddy?"



> The key is that, as DM, you need to design your adventures that way. G1 is as deadly to a group that charges in on a frontal assault in 4e as it was in 1e.
> 
> Admittedly, you need to approach the game from a different POV, but I don't think the change is as radical as throwing out everything you learned about D&D.




Problem is, if 4e is your first D&D game, you pretty much have no clues on how to do it apart from "everything has to be balanced or Something Horrible will happen and you'll stop having fun". If you grew up reading Gygax articles, you already have all the baggage needed to bring "old school" to any game (Heck, I've even run Gygaxian Risus), but if you're just stretching your DM wings and don't know any other advice than the 4e DMG's, it seems like your only option is to purchase correctly balanced monster groups and locating treasure parcels of the right level.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 5, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> You don't get to roll your Int to 'solve' a riddle




Please go to the 4e DMG, pages 81-84, which describe puzzles, riddles and similar challenges in more detail than has existed in any previous core D&D book, and tell me where it allows an Int check to solve a riddle.


----------



## Betote (Nov 5, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> I think those are very good points, Mr. Mearls, but you left one out: in Old School play, you don't handle with a roll what can be handled by common sense and description, such as searches, negotiations etc.
> 
> You don't get to roll your Int to 'solve' a riddle, or roll your Sense Motive to find out if the bad guy is lying to you. You have to figure out those things for yourself.




... And that's one of the things of "old school gaming" that I don't miss at all 

It reminds me of the world of video games. Many people (myself included) feel that modern video games get many times lost in having bigger explosions, killing the most prostitutes and rocking harder and don't remember that a video game was supposed to be fun to play. I'd play Tetris over the last FPS any time.

Yes, retro video games were more fun to play, but they also had crappy graphics and music. Those are not good things of retro video games. And I'd play the FFIII remake for DS over the original any time. Because it has the good things of being "retro", but it got rid of the bad ones.

And not having skills and relying on the player's descriptions amusing the DM enough falls short. Because rpgs are also about make-believe, about pretending to be someone you're not. And I don't want my ranger to be overshadowed by the bookwormy wizard in survival ability just because my friend Timmy is a boyscout and I'm not.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 5, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> I think those are very good points, Mr. Mearls, but you left one out: in Old School play, you don't handle with a roll what can be handled by common sense and description, such as searches, negotiations etc.




The really weird thing about that is that Old School _does_ handle them with a roll... sometimes. It's entirely about how the individual DM or designer wanted to handle it.

Searching for secret doors is a case in point: it's very clearly described as a roll in the Player's Handbook and DMG. In _Keep on the Borderlands_, you have the following text: "It has no treasure, but amidst the many sticks and bones it sleeps on is a bone tube (1 in 6 chance of noticing it for each person searching the heap, with a check for each once per round) with a protection from undead scroll within it." My my, another roll!

Initial negotiations? Handled with the reaction roll. (Note that this requires a number of opening exchanges - it's not rolled _before_ you say anything).

Further negotiations would be roleplayed; but to a large extent so should they be in 4e.

Cheers!


----------



## Betote (Nov 5, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Please go to the 4e DMG, pages 81-84, which describe puzzles, riddles and similar challenges in more detail than has existed in any previous core D&D book, and tell me where it allows an Int check to solve a riddle.




Page 84, the whole second column, "Puzzle as Skill Challenge".

I like more the option of page 81, "The "get a clue" check".


----------



## MerricB (Nov 5, 2008)

Betote said:


> Problem is, if 4e is your first D&D game, you pretty much have no clues on how to do it apart from "everything has to be balanced or Something Horrible will happen and you'll stop having fun". If you grew up reading Gygax articles, you already have all the baggage needed to bring "old school" to any game (Heck, I've even run Gygaxian Risus), but if you're just stretching your DM wings and don't know any other advice than the 4e DMG's, it seems like your only option is to purchase correctly balanced monster groups and locating treasure parcels of the right level.




I'm really, really, really trying to see what's bad with that. Now, the 4e DMG doesn't say "every encounter should be average difficulty" and, indeed, has some quite difficult encounter set-ups (hard encounters are _hard_ in 4e), but for a beginning DM, surely you want a game that is enjoyable for those involved?

What did Gary say in the AD&D DMG? Oh, yes:

"AD&D means to set right both extremes. Neither the giveaway game nor the certain death campaign will be lauded here. In point of fact, DMs who attempt to run such affairs will be drumming themselves out of the ranks of AD&D entirely. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS aims at providing not only the best possible adventure game but also the best possible refereeing of such campaigns." (DMG page 92).

Both 3e and 4e have come closer to that in terms of providing a framework that gives a range of encounters from easy to extremely difficult, and treasure to match, which aids the beginning DM enormously.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Nov 5, 2008)

Betote said:


> Page 84, the whole second column, "Puzzle as Skill Challenge".
> 
> I like more the option of page 81, "The "get a clue" check".




Same here. Arrgh, totally forgot about the Skill Challenge section. Most likely I wouldn't use it in my games.

Cheers!


----------



## Betote (Nov 5, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Same here. Arrgh, totally forgot about the Skill Challenge section. Most likely I wouldn't use it in my games.




I win the Interwebs!


----------



## Betote (Nov 5, 2008)

MerricB said:


> I'm really, really, really trying to see what's bad with that. [...]




I'm not saying its either bad or good. To me, "old school" is neither a positive nor derogatory term, just a descriptor.

What I'm saying on this thread is that 4e lacks that descriptor. I don't try to imply that it's a good or a bad thing.



> Both 3e and 4e have come closer to that in terms of providing a framework that gives a range of encounters from easy to extremely difficult, and treasure to match, which aids the beginning DM enormously.




And 4e does it, IMO better than 3e, because there's no so much difference between levels in 4e as in 3e, so encounters of different levels scale better.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 5, 2008)

Betote said:


> And 4e does it, IMO better than 3e, because there's no so much difference between levels in 4e as in 3e, so encounters of different levels scale better.




It's one of the most important features of 4e that made me abandon 3e: the power curve was way too steep in 3e. 

Cheers!


----------



## justanobody (Nov 5, 2008)

mearls said:


> 2. There are strains of an almost Lovecraftian incomprehensibility to many gods and demons, a la the chaos temple in Keep on the Borderlands.




Maybe you prefer Cthulhu to D&D?


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 5, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Maybe you prefer Cthulhu to D&D?



Yes, because what he described is so unlike D&D. Particularly the reference to _Keep on the Borderlands_.


----------



## mearls (Nov 5, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> I think those are very good points, Mr. Mearls, but you left one out: in Old School play, you don't handle with a roll what can be handled by common sense and description, such as searches, negotiations etc.
> 
> You don't get to roll your Int to 'solve' a riddle, or roll your Sense Motive to find out if the bad guy is lying to you. You have to figure out those things for yourself.




I think that's a big part of old school for a lot of people, but it isn't necessarily something I see as key. As a DM, I tend to mix the two approaches.

For a puzzle, I avoid dice. But for something like Sense Motive, or say a Perception check against a monster's Hide check, i like using dice. There are some things that AD&D leaves up to DM judgment that I find easier to adjudicate via dice.

OTOH, I do see the appeal of stuff like the example of play from the AD&D DMG, where the players figure out to poke at the skeleton or use the clues in one room to determine the location of a secret door.

Myself, I wish I had a good enough handle on my own preferences to nail down exactly where the line between dice and play rests.


----------



## mearls (Nov 5, 2008)

Betote said:


> Problem is, if 4e is your first D&D game, you pretty much have no clues on how to do it apart from "everything has to be balanced or Something Horrible will happen and you'll stop having fun". If you grew up reading Gygax articles, you already have all the baggage needed to bring "old school" to any game (Heck, I've even run Gygaxian Risus), but if you're just stretching your DM wings and don't know any other advice than the 4e DMG's, it seems like your only option is to purchase correctly balanced monster groups and locating treasure parcels of the right level.




I think you're overstating the DMG's approach to things. There's a world of difference between game balance, and running a dangerous campaign.

Balance makes options equivalent in power for a player. All things being equal, you can build a rogue or a wizard without worrying about playing a lame class.

For the DM, balance is about making things predictable. A DM has a good idea what happens when he sets a level 3 party against a level 5 encounter.

True, the DMG gives plenty of advice on how to design encounters, but I don't think it's anything more than Gary's advice in the AD&D DMG to avoid Monty Haul-ism and killer dungeons, but instead find the middle ground.

Now, it is true that hit point damage is the best mechanical way to clobber players. We did away with ability score damage, level drain, and SoD. We do have monsters that can kill with a series of failed saves. I can see that argument, but I'd also point out that this again comes down to DM style.

While the DMG might not explicitly cover such approaches, the truth is that the DMG had to draw a line somewhere. It can't cover every approach to DMing, but I think James did a good job of covering the bases, particularly for new DMs. The approach in the book did focus more on the practicalities of managing a table of players with potential conflicting goals and desires.

Was that the right path? I think so, but we can't really know for another few years, when we can see if we have a vibrant community of skilled DMs emerging from the newest generation of gamers.

Anyway, I think you're right that Old School sensibilities aren't necessarily reflected in the DMG, but I do believe that a game that feels Old School (again, depending on what's old school to you) is possible in 4e.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 5, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Yes, because what he described is so unlike D&D. Particularly the reference to _Keep on the Borderlands_.




Outside of really Skullport and the Promenade where do the Lovecraftian Old Ones really present themselves in D&D?

We are talking of the gods here. There would be nothing wrong with Mr. Mearls liking the Cthuluhu based gods over those presented in D&D for years, and in his place has a chance to include more similar tot he game to broaden the audience with some more tentacles and open up new world potentials for home-brew that take less work to develop by having such gods like Deities and Demigods had, but with a distinct D&D slant that keeps WotC out of copyright infringement as did the original use of Cthuluhu and Melnibonean properties.

I mean we have Eldritch Blast now, so why not try to reclaim some influence by the other long lost god area for D&D?


----------



## MerricB (Nov 5, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Outside of really Skullport and the Promenade where do the Lovecraftian Old Ones really present themselves in D&D?




In AD&D, you have the Elder Elemental God - see the deserted chapel in G3, and again in D3. Tharizdun also has a bit of that Old One mystique about him.



> I mean we have Eldritch Blast now, so why not try to reclaim some influence by the other long lost god area for D&D?




You might want to take a look at this Dragon article by Bruce Cordell... Wish Upon a Star (should be still free).

Cheers!


----------



## justanobody (Nov 5, 2008)

MerricB said:


> You might want to take a look at this Dragon article by Bruce Cordell... Wish Upon a Star (should be still free).
> 
> Cheers!






> Microsoft VBScript compilation  error '800a03e9'
> 
> Out of memory
> 
> /default.asp, line 0




Please remind me later, just in case I forget to check when it might be working again.... 

Definitely need more diversity in gods now than before with all the range of power sources. Primal power source just begs for old gods.


----------



## Phaezen (Nov 5, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Outside of really Skullport and the Promenade where do the Lovecraftian Old Ones really present themselves in D&D?




Not quite the gods themselves, but a short list that comes to mind.

Mindflayers
Aboleth
Gibbering Mouther
Kuo-Tao
Chaos Beast
Phasm

And ofcourse, the Far Realm.

Phaezen


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 5, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Initial negotiations? Handled with the reaction roll. (Note that this requires a number of opening exchanges - it's not rolled _before_ you say anything).
> 
> Further negotiations would be roleplayed; but to a large extent so should they be in 4e.
> 
> Cheers!




Actually the initial reaction was determined before any communication from either side. The DM's notes on the creature(s) came first, if there was no specified reaction within, then an initial reaction roll determined if further communication was possible. This could be modified by friendly/ hostile gestures. Any result other than " immediate attack" allowed communication to continue.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 5, 2008)

mearls said:


> I think you're overstating the DMG's approach to things. There's a world of difference between game balance, and running a dangerous campaign.
> 
> Balance makes options equivalent in power for a player. All things being equal, you can build a rogue or a wizard without worrying about playing a lame class.




One important part of old school play was that balance was achieved by a good DM throughout the campaign as a whole. A character who was not 
the pinnacle of effectiveness in combat did not have to be lame.

I see the round by round balance of 4E as a response to the " all me, all now" mindset that comes from instant gratification entertainment such as a videogame. Mature players are not in a competition with each other to see who can dish out the most pwnage in every combat. 

Equal does not have to mean the same. In a GURPS game, players can all start out with the same number of points to spend and yet create characters that are vastly different with regard to both combat and noncombat effectiveness. 

If balance for the game as a whole is to be determined solely by what takes place on the tactical grid then we have lost precious elements that separate roleplaying games from skirmish games.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> One important part of old school play was that balance was achieved by a good DM throughout the campaign as a whole. A character who was not the pinnacle of effectiveness in combat did not have to be lame.
> 
> I see the round by round balance of 4E as a response to the " all me, all now" mindset that comes from instant gratification entertainment such as a videogame. Mature players are not in a competition with each other to see who can dish out the most pwnage in every combat.



Videogames, or having less/little time to play? 
I really don't want to drive to the game and sit through the session being mostly passive for several hours. 
I suppose if I played D&d multiple times a week over several hours each day, I might found the 3E or 4E participation/instant gratification focus too stressful, because I have to contribute all the time and don't have any rest. But that's not the kind of time I have for playing. 



> Equal does not have to mean the same. In a GURPS game, players can all start out with the same number of points to spend and yet create characters that are vastly different with regard to both combat and noncombat effectiveness.



And this alone is already a problem. You don't really know how to challenge the players without taking a deep look at their actual statistics. You don't know beforehand if your campaign will be more combat focused or non-combat focused. You don't know if you'll use a lot of wilderness travel or if it will be more space combat. You can't look at the point buy value and say "oh, sure, this is the kind of opposition and challenges the party can face". You don't even have classes that can tell you what the character might be reasonably able to do. If you want an entertaining campaign that fits the characters (providing them "fair" challenges - from easy to hard ones), you need to look at the details. And that is a problem for preparing your campaign or adventures. 
It is probably not unsurmountable, but it's still not a trivial task.



> If balance for the game as a whole is to be determined solely by what takes place on the tactical grid then we have lost precious elements that separate roleplaying games from skirmish games.



If this tactical grid is where most of the time is spent, balancing this element is crucial. if it's not where most of the time is spent, it's balance or imbalance doesn't hurt. 

You can't balance combat vs non-combat, unless you can predict how much of each you will have in a typical campaign. 

How do you balance non-combat aspects? Do you know how much people will spend on social encounters, wilderness travel, dungeon exploration or mystery solving? 

Argh, getting off topic again...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Videogames, or having less/little time to play?
> I really don't want to drive to the game and sit through the session being mostly passive for several hours.
> I suppose if I played D&d multiple times a week over several hours each day, I might found the 3E or 4E participation/instant gratification focus too stressful, because I have to contribute all the time and don't have any rest. But that's not the kind of time I have for playing.




I currently get to play 1 regular (4-6 hour) session every 2 weeks and I still don't consider not being in combat the entire session to be a waste of time.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And this alone is already a problem. You don't really know how to challenge the players without taking a deep look at their actual statistics. You don't know beforehand if your campaign will be more combat focused or non-combat focused. You don't know if you'll use a lot of wilderness travel or if it will be more space combat. You can't look at the point buy value and say "oh, sure, this is the kind of opposition and challenges the party can face". You don't even have classes that can tell you what the character might be reasonably able to do. If you want an entertaining campaign that fits the characters (providing them "fair" challenges - from easy to hard ones), you need to look at the details. And that is a problem for preparing your campaign or adventures.
> It is probably not unsurmountable, but it's still not a trivial task.




Its actually not that hard. Once you know the Ads/ Disads and skills of the PC's, challenges are easy.  Success is not determined as much by what they can beat, instead it is determined by how well the player role-plays the character as it is defined. A character who was successful in an adventure by being super heroic when he is defined by the player as being a coward will be lucky to get any reward. If that same character had faced danger and hid, or let others deal with it and there was a failure because of that, then the player would be rewarded for staying true to the character. 



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If this tactical grid is where most of the time is spent, balancing this element is crucial. if it's not where most of the time is spent, it's balance or imbalance doesn't hurt.
> 
> You can't balance combat vs non-combat, unless you can predict how much of each you will have in a typical campaign.
> 
> How do you balance non-combat aspects? Do you know how much people will spend on social encounters, wilderness travel, dungeon exploration or mystery solving?




Its all about knowing what your players want. The system should provide robust options for both combat and non-combat and leave the balance to the DM. If you balance only for combat then you have made a combat game. If thats what everyone wants its the Holy Grail. If you have a mixed group including people that want to be just as good at doing things out of combat as others are in combat then a system that allows for that helps a lot. Sure you have skills but the combat character has the same stuff. In order to be balanced you have to take a heaping serving of combat powers and are still no better at other things than Mr. combat. 

In effect, the DM is taken out of the loop for providing overall campaign balance, leaving the same flavor for every game.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I currently get to play 1 regular (4-6 hour) session every 2 weeks and I still don't consider not being in combat the entire session to be a waste of time.



I wasn't talking about combat specifically. 
Look at a skill challenge - it provides me a way to think about how my character can contribute to any situation. Of course, real old school gaming would probably not want the skill part of this and just have my thinking about the situation and how to solve it. 



> Its all about knowing what your players want. The system should provide robust options for both combat and non-combat and leave the balance to the DM. If you balance only for combat then you have made a combat game. If thats what everyone wants its the Holy Grail. If you have a mixed group including people that want to be just as good at doing things out of combat as others are in combat then a system that allows for that helps a lot. Sure you have skills but the combat character has the same stuff. In order to be balanced you have to take a heaping serving of combat powers and are still no better at other things than Mr. combat.
> 
> In effect, the DM is taken out of the loop for providing overall campaign balance, leaving the same flavor for every game.



Why are you assuming that just because classes are balanced by combat that you can only play combat? Every class in 4E has non-combat abilities (skills), and I suppose every player is able of coming up with ideas to solve problems or make decision on their course of action. If you generally trust the DM to handle balance, why do you lose this trust if the game provides the combat balance? Is it just because you want to use your combat powers whenever it's your turn to make a decision?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Why are you assuming that just because classes are balanced by combat that you can only play combat? Every class in 4E has non-combat abilities (skills), and I suppose every player is able of coming up with ideas to solve problems or make decision on their course of action. If you generally trust the DM to handle balance, why do you lose this trust if the game provides the combat balance? Is it just because you want to use your combat powers whenever it's your turn to make a decision?




Not at all. You can play plenty of non-combat. The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Nov 5, 2008)

mearls said:


> I think that "old school" is a completely subjective label. Everyone has different experiences in playing D&D, and it's foolish to claim that there is anything resembling a monolithic expression of the game.




This is true or not true, depending on whether you're talking about your definition of old school (which is based on how the world interacts with the players) or whether you're looking at the way the rules operate.  More on this to follow.



> I think that, for me, "old school" means:
> 
> 1. Player choice drives the game.
> 1a. Really bad player choices lead to TPKs.
> ...




I'd agree with this, and also agree that this part of "old school" is actually quite subjective.  These items "emerged" from the rules as they existed in the early days, from the literature that happened to be on shelves in the early days, and from gaming advice in The Dragon Magazine.  In other words, a historical phenomenon that might be more or less true depending on the group.  This was a zeitgeist, but not a universal mode of play.

ON THE OTHER HAND, and this points out where the term "old school" is not a great term because it's too broad, there's also an objective fact, which is the condition of the rules.  Sparse and vague.  This actually implies a mode of play, commonly called DM fiat - a pretty decent descriptive term which is unfortunately loaded with negative connotations.  But it's nevertheless accurate as long as one remembers that the players and DM are playing a game and the players won't let a terrible DM get away with consistent unreasonability.

Vague rules effectively give the players only a few "rights."  The DM makes rulings on the fly, and isn't "tied" to using a consistent method time after time.  It's for this reason that "old school" is a distinct gaming style supported by old (or old-style) systems ... just as later games are a distinct gaming style in which the DM operates in a framework that lets him game a bit more head-to-head with the players.  Both are fine depending on what the group likes - but OD&D is absolutely not just 3e or 4e "lite."  It's a different animal entirely.  Here you can make a fairly definitive statement about what old school means, because everyone was using those vague rules and was forced to use the free-form old school gaming style.  The fact that everyone was forced to play that way doesn't mean it sucked - it just means there was another approach waiting to be born.  In fact, I think there was a third style waiting to be born as well - the "explore your character's mind and simulate it" school that dominated 2e to a certain degree.  All three styles work for different groups, but they are definitely distinct "games" operating on different principles and to a certain degree each style is complemented by its particular set of rules (3e/4e and 0e tend to support their play-styles rather better than 2e, I believe).

If anyone's interested in seeing 0e distributed as a toolkit for adding new features from the ground up, take a look at Swords & Wizardry, which is a 0e retro-clone I wrote, but which is part of a larger project to take gamers back to the hobbyist attitude of tweaking and screwing around with every facet of the game.  Example: in the S&W rules themselves, there's a dual stat built in for ascending/descending AC.  It can be used, and is compatible, both ways.

EDIT: S&W is distributed in .doc format as well as pdf specifically to allow cutting and pasting for house rules, and it's all OGL.


----------



## buzz (Nov 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not at all. You can play plenty of non-combat. The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.



This is a feature, not a bug.

(And there are always feats. Load up on SKill Focus, Skill Training, JoT, etc.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not at all. You can play plenty of non-combat. The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.



Why is this important? Was this really a possibility in "Old School Gaming"? Could you make a Fighter that was worse at fighting but better at non-combat scenarios? The only class with a choice seemed to be the wizard...

(And actually, there is - there are lots of skill oriented feats that will not help you much in combat. The trade off is not the same as trading of your daily attack power against a non-combat utility power, but it's still a trade-off)


----------



## Mallus (Nov 5, 2008)

buzz said:


> This is a feature, not a bug.



Exactly. 

Also, if you want your PC to be bad at combat, when you're turn comes up, have him or her do something stupid/less effective. This negates any combat competence that you find to be unwanted baggage.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 5, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Also, if you want your PC to be bad at combat, when you're turn comes up, have him or her do something stupid/less effective. This negates any combat competence that you find to be unwanted baggage.




And this makes the character significantly better at non-combat/ utility functions how?


----------



## Mallus (Nov 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> And this makes the character significantly better at non-combat/ utility functions how?



It doesn't. But those kinds of trade-offs were never part of D&D.

For example, it's not like 1e Thieves traded combat abilities in for non-combat ones. They were simply bad --in most situations-- at fighting but possessed thief skills. 

Conversely, it's not like 4e Rogues traded thief skills for combat abilities. They are just as capable as their 1e counterparts in the robbin'-and-stealin' department. The only difference is that they now posses more general combat ability. And if that combat ability bothers you, you're free to downplay that with your choice of tactics.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> And this makes the character significantly better at non-combat/ utility functions how?




Sacrificing combat ability for noncombat ability was bad for the game as a whole, and as such this option was largely removed from the game. Good riddance.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 5, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Outside of really Skullport and the Promenade where do the Lovecraftian Old Ones really present themselves in D&D?



Read his post again: "_There are strains of an almost Lovecraftian incomprehensibility to many gods and demons_".

You're taking a statement that essentially says "many D&D gods and demons have an incomprehensibility to them, _almost_ in a Lovecraftian way" (note the use of "strains of" and "almost" in the post), and reading it as "Mike Mearls thinks Old Ones should be everywhere in D&D."


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 5, 2008)

Mallus said:


> It doesn't. But those kinds of trade-offs were never part of D&D.
> 
> It's not like 1e Thieves traded combat abilities in for non-combat ones. They were simply bad --in most situations-- at fighting but possessed thief skills.




Since originally D&D RAW didn't include skills that could be shifted around thats a fair assessment. 



Mallus said:


> Conversely, it's not like 4e Rogues traded thief skills for combat abilities. They are just as capable as their 1e counterparts in the robbin'-and-stealin' department. The only difference is that they now posses more general combat ability. And if that combat ability bothers you, you're free to downplay that with your choice of tactics.




4E rogues (and 3E too really) are videogame ninjas. I don't know how else to explain how a lockpicking, trap finding, stealthy robber suddenly became a master of melee DPS. I don't have books handy right now so I shall ask. Is there anything in 4E that makes the rogue actually better at thievery than another character assuming the same race and stats?


----------



## justanobody (Nov 5, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Read his post again: "_There are strains of an almost Lovecraftian incomprehensibility to many gods and demons_".
> 
> You're taking a statement that essentially says "many D&D gods and demons have an incomprehensibility to them, _almost_ in a Lovecraftian way" (note the use of "strains of" and "almost" in the post), and reading it as "Mike Mearls thinks Old Ones should be everywhere in D&D."




What I am saying is why can't they?

Deities and Demigods may have used two carefully written and copyright works, but it doesn't mean that they were not inspired from real world mythology, that can be placed into D&D.

I think it would add a bit more flavor to the gods than what exists, and that is something 4th edition sorely lacks is some flavor. Something to inspire you. Something "old school" gaming did. Be it going to look up these things for yourself to read about, or to create your own original ideas.

I was interested in what little viking information I had access to, but getting my hands on D&D made me want to look more into it, as well as Aztec and other mythology.

I think that added inspirational material would go a long way to getting back some of the old school feel and style of play. That kind where you want to know more about the world you are in, rather than trying to create the latest fantasy movie within your game, but create your own story with bits and pieces from many different things.

Lovecraft was a good one for taking old ideas and giving them new life, so what is wrong with D&D doing it? D&D cannot contain pagan or druidic old work references anymore from a mythological aspect, but can still have breasted dragons cutting the heads off of humans?

Has D&D become Lion Witch and Wardrobe fantasy like Charlie Brown with strong Christian overtones, and cannot deviate from that idea into real world mythology, but must create its own fake mythology?


----------



## Mallus (Nov 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> 4E rogues (and 3E too really) are videogame ninjas.



I wouldn't use the word videogame... but sure, recent edition rogues are pretty ninja-ish (ninja-esque??). 



> I don't know how else to explain how a lockpicking, trap finding, stealthy robber suddenly became a master of melee DPS.



The explanation is pretty simple. The designers who worked on the recent editions decided that a) D&D characters get into a lot of fights and 2) it would be nice if all the character classes could make substantial contributions in them. The rest is history. 



> Is there anything in 4E that makes the rogue actually better at thievery than another character assuming the same race and stats?



Nope. A character of any class trained in the Thievery skill is as good as any other, assuming like race, stats and level. But why should a rogue be better at Thievery? Any character trained in Thievery is a thief, regardless of their class.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 5, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Nope. A character of any class trained in the Thievery skill is as good as any other, assuming like race, stats and level. But why should a rogue be better at Thievery? .




 [ Queue I can't believe what I'm hearing cam]
I can see that this line of thinking was dominant in 4E development.

Why should a FIGHTER be better at combat? Lets make them feel extra special by letting the rogue do more damage.



Mallus said:


> Any character trained in Thievery is a thief, regardless of their class.




Amen. This is a concept that I can appreciate. It goes hand in hand with not having a thief/rogue class in the first place.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> [ Queue I can't believe what I'm hearing cam]
> I can see that this line of thinking was dominant in 4E development.
> 
> Why should a FIGHTER be better at combat? Lets make them feel extra special by letting the rogue do more damage.




Fighter is just as good at combat as the Rogue, they are just good at different styles.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 5, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Fighter is just as good at combat as the Rogue, they are just good at different styles.




The styles are very different indeed. "Takin it" style vs "Dishin it" style.

Hmm. I gotta try out a few heads up battles to see who comes out on top.


----------



## JeffB (Nov 5, 2008)

Mythmere1 said:


> If anyone's interested in seeing 0e distributed as a toolkit for adding new features from the ground up, take a look at Swords & Wizardry, which is a 0e retro-clone I wrote.....




Which I happened to order through Lulu yesterday evening   Having a 2-3 day "marathon"  gaming session with the guys I used to play D&D (LBBs/B/X/AD&D) with as a kid and young teen. It's been basically 25 years since we played together, and I thought S&W would be perfect (I sold all my LBBs and JG stuff a few years back, unfortunately).  Your effort looks great-enough to make me choose it over all the other old -school options, and I wanted to say thanks!  (i'll be joining your forums soon enough).


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not at all. You can play plenty of non-combat. The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.




There is, you just need to still take combat powers.

However, feats and utilities range between those especially useful IN combat, and those useful outside of combat. So do skills.

Acrobatics and Athletics and Stealth have a number of in combat uses. Some of the other powers ... less so. Outside of "I know what that does" most of the knowledge skills only help in combat if it's part of a larger mixed skill challenge and combat encounter. Traps also factor into that.

While you can't get rid of attack powers to get utility powers, there are a FEW attack powers which can have out of combat applications.

One of the things that was changed in 4e was that a class wouldn't be balanced by giving it more OUT of combat powers to make up for a lack of IN combat powers.

How, exactly, is having a character suck at combat, and another character suck out of combat particular useful? It basically means the group is going to go back and forth between "Well, now we are going to be doing stuff in the city. The Fighter can go to sleep while the Rogue and Wizard have fun. Now we are in nature ... the fighter can sleep while the ranger and barbarian do stuff. Fight time ... it's undead, the rogue can sleep now ..."

But basically, you can't trade combat effeciency for out of combat effenciency in 4e.

Except for feat selection
And utility power selection.
And choice of assigning ability scores.
And skill selection.

But other than that ...

EDIT:

A note on Rogues. First of all, they aren't called theives anymore. Secondly, while they don't get a NATURAL bonus to thievery ... they do have utility powers tied to thievery. No other class has that, as far as I can tell, even the warlock who can train in it right off the bat [as opposed to every other class that needs a feat or background or be eladrin to get thievery].

They can:

Reduce thievery from standard to minor action 1/encounter (5 minutes). You can pick a pocket during combat without penalty. You can pop a lock open easily and in short order. 

And that's what they have now ... they may very well add to this in the Martial Power book, probably making sure there is 1 utility per level for each skill type [which seems to be the basic "specialization" path Rogues get ... compared to the weapon specialization of a fighter].


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> The styles are very different indeed. "Takin it" style vs "Dishin it" style.
> 
> Hmm. I gotta try out a few heads up battles to see who comes out on top.




4E is heavily designed towards group play. PvP means nothing. Less than nothing. Put a Fighter against a Rogue in a 5 on 5 battle and the marking/movement denial of the Fighter can screw the enemy Rogue royally.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Nov 5, 2008)

JeffB said:


> Which I happened to order through Lulu yesterday evening   Having a 2-3 day "marathon"  gaming session with the guys I used to play D&D (LBBs/B/X/AD&D) with as a kid and young teen. It's been basically 25 years since we played together, and I thought S&W would be perfect (I sold all my LBBs and JG stuff a few years back, unfortunately).  Your effort looks great-enough to make me choose it over all the other old -school options, and I wanted to say thanks!  (i'll be joining your forums soon enough).




Look forward to seeing you there!  A couple of interesting projects just started percolating on the boards within the last hour; a samurai interpretation of 0e ala Mazes & Minotaurs was to Greek myths - and I'm really pushing a SE Asian version, too...

/threadjack, sorry, all!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 5, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> One of the things that was changed in 4e was that a class wouldn't be balanced by giving it more OUT of combat powers to make up for a lack of IN combat powers.
> 
> How, exactly, is having a character suck at combat, and another character suck out of combat particular useful? It basically means the group is going to go back and forth between "Well, now we are going to be doing stuff in the city. The Fighter can go to sleep while the Rogue and Wizard have fun. Now we are in nature ... the fighter can sleep while the ranger and barbarian do stuff. Fight time ... it's undead, the rogue can sleep now ..."




Its a concept that just doesn't work for a game where everyone has to be in the spotlight at every moment. If everyone is special all of the time then there isn't really a moment for anyone to shine as an individual. 

Combat specialists who "sleep" when the non-combat roleplaying is going on are missing a lot of fun. The mentality of not participating in game events because your character isn't optimized for it is foreign to me. 

Its fun for an aggressive outgoing barbarian to try and impress the folks at court. Its also fun for a bookish yet clever wizard to use magic in a scrape that doesn't involve blasting things. 

As long as fun is something that has to be doled out in equal sized pellets at every moment of the game to be considered real fun, no other model is going to work anyhow.


----------



## Phaezen (Nov 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not at all. You can play plenty of non-combat. The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.






ExploderWizard said:


> Its a concept that just doesn't work for a game where everyone has to be in the spotlight at every moment. If everyone is special all of the time then there isn't really a moment for anyone to shine as an individual.
> 
> Combat specialists who "sleep" when the non-combat roleplaying is going on are missing a lot of fun. The mentality of not participating in game events because your character isn't optimized for it is foreign to me.
> 
> ...




WARNING RANT INCOMING

This is all personal opinion and should not construed as anything else.  No offense to any person or party is meant in this rant.

My D&D is a game about fantasy heroes, heroes who brave dangers in the name of Glory, Wealth and The Good of All.  The game itself, from the very first edition is built around fighting, Fact.  The rules in general through several editions have revolved around solving conflict, Fact, read your rulebooks.  Fun is had by all paricipating in the game when a conflict is successfully resolved, with everyone around the table participating to resolve it.  This holds true whether the conflict is combat, social, an obstacle or any thing else the DM has put in the way of the characters to hinder them in thier quest.  This I have learned from 22 years of roleplaying experience (For what it is worth including but not limited to: BEMCI, AD&D 2nd Ed, D&D3, D&D3.5, Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, Shadowrun, Battletech, Call of Cthulhu, Delta Green, D20 Modern, Star Wars, Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Unknown Armies amongst others)

When you are sitting at a table to play a game of conflict resolution (pick your system), it is not fun to have one player purposefully holding his character back from a specific type of conflict resolution.  In D&D the most common form quoted on the forums is the "non-combat" character, designed to be useless in combat.  Trust me on this, when you have 4 or 5 characters pitted against a challenge, it is not fun to have to pick up the slack for a playter who does not want to partake in the challenge.  It is annoying to everyone else at the table.  It is also not fun when this "non combat" character uses his spesifically picked skills/feats/spells/powers/class abilities/traits/advantages to totally dominate all non-combat, religating all other players in the game to little more than body guards for his frail little sheep who can talk rings around Orcus.  You are not being clever with your character, you are being annoying and getting in the way of everyone elses fun.  

And in general in a democracy, 4 peoples fun is more important than 1.  

A munchkined "non-comat" specialist is just as annoying as a munchkined combat specialist.  It does not promote roleplaying either.  Roleplaying is not, I use spell x, combined with skill c, roll, I succeed woohoo, the ancient Red Dragon is now my pet lizard.

To quote Mallus:


> Let's call this the Incompetence Fallacy; the belief that a character is inherently deeper, better rounded, and/or more interesting because they're bad at what they're supposed to good at...
> 
> Going along with this is the Competence Corollary; a character get less interesting the better he or she is at what they're supposed to be good at. This is nonsense, too.




In designing 4e, they have purposefuly designed in that *all *characters are effective at combat, and that *all *characters can effectively participate in non-combat activities.  This makes it fun for everyone sitting at the table, as you now have the choise to participate in all aspects of the game, whether your character sheet says fighter, wizard, rogue, bard or barbarian.  Also, as many people complain you can't trade combat ability for non-combat ability.  Good, tell me why your learned sage who would not lift a finger to harm a butterfly is travelling through the goblin and kobold infested tunnels of the ruins of Kalishar, and how he expected to survive.

Another good thing, in my opinion, is that non-combat abilities are no longer defined by your class, but by your skill and feat selections.  This means you don't automatically gain the "I dominate non combat encounters" by the mere virtue of being a bard (+31 to diplamacy at level 3 anyone?), rogue or wizard, allowing other classes a say in the non-combat part of the game as well.

Yes, it is fun for an outlandish barbarian to try and use intimidat to impress the court, it is not fun for him to have to stand back and watch his bard companion auto succeed his diplomacy check and make any effort on the barbarians part useless.

Yes, it is fun for a wizard to use spells, damaging or otherwise, in inventive ways to help turn the tide of combat.  It is not fun for the rest of the party to watch little Timmy the Magic User, stand back, because well these undead are immune to my usual array of charm and illusion spells, and no, I did not memorise magic missile because my charm and illusion spells worked so well on the goblins and orcs we usually fight, rendering them docile and unable to fight back, and no-one told me we were fighting undead today.

That is all.

Phaezen 
​


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 5, 2008)

Phaezen said:


> Rant. Snip.​



​ 
I can appreciate where you are coming from. Please do not confuse lack of participation with a lack of extreme competence. 

I too, think its lame for someone to sit out and not participate in a challenge because it isn't thier specialty. 

What I have learned from 28 years at the table is that I am not sitting down to play a game of conflict resolution. I am sitting down to play a roleplaying game. Conflict resolution of different types is a part of that game. Winning is achieved through the fun of playing the character, win or lose, live or die.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 6, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> If everyone is special all of the time then there isn't really a moment for anyone to shine as an individual.



But we know that's not true.  People consistently enjoy combat, because it actively involves all the players.  As in real life, every extra fighter counts.

Every extra diplomat or lockpicker does not.  That's why this complaint rings false: 







ExploderWizard said:


> The mentality of not participating in game events because your character isn't optimized for it is foreign to me.
> 
> Its fun for an aggressive outgoing barbarian to try and impress the folks at court.



Some tasks don't benefit from second- or third-rate help.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 6, 2008)

Phaezen said:


> Good, tell me why your learned sage who would not lift a finger to harm a butterfly is travelling through the goblin and kobold infested tunnels of the ruins of Kalishar, and how he expected to survive.



I agree with a lot of what you say, Phaezen, but this complaint is pretty silly.  We can come up with all kinds of good reasons for why a learned sage might get dragged into an adventure.  I suspect we can also come up with some good reasons for why an aristocratic young hobbit and his gardener might get caught up in an epic quest too.  Reluctant heroes are a staple of adventure fiction.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 6, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> But we know that's not true. People consistently enjoy combat, because it actively involves all the players. As in real life, every extra fighter counts.



I don't ever recall saying that characters that are not optimized for an activity should avoid it. Everyone should participate, and yes every fighter should help. Its not very heroic to sit and watch friends being harmed while cowering because your fighting skills are not on par with eveyone else.


mmadsen said:


> Every extra diplomat or lockpicker does not. That's why this complaint rings false: Some tasks don't benefit from second- or third-rate help.




Sure picking a lock is a single person activity, but social situations are not. The mistake is thinking that every character without a high enough bonus should shut thier trap while the "mouthpiece" does the work. Game systems designed to reward this type of play only reinforce this enforced "uselessness" that is so common these days. 

This is the kind of attitude that comes from MMO's where its the players vs the machine and everyone had better get thier crap in order or they will be booted and replaced. Do we really need this in a tabletop RPG:

Player 1: " I would like to make a suggestion to the Baron"
Player 2: " Pfft. Whats your diplomacy bonus?"
Player 1: " Ummm.....1"
Player 2: " STFU you noob", to DM: " He says nothing"

I want to play a character and react to situations as the character, not simply push a mini around and choose the most tactically astute option. 

4E may very well BE the wrong game.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 6, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Sure picking a lock is a single person activity, but social situations are not. The mistake is thinking that every character without a high enough bonus should shut thier trap while the "mouthpiece" does the work. Game systems designed to reward this type of play only reinforce this enforced "uselessness" that is so common these days.




Dangerous social situations often are. In my game, we have a player who is forbidden from speaking to NPCs(by the other players), because as a player, he is just that bad at it. 

When a failed roll or saying the wrong thing gets you killed, social encounters can be a single person activity for the mouthpiece.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 6, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> 4E may very well BE the wrong game.



It's just a problem with the skill challenge sub-system.

Can we fix it?

Yes we can.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 6, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Dangerous social situations often are. In my game, we have a player who is forbidden from speaking to NPCs(by the other players), because as a player, he is just that bad at it.
> 
> When a failed roll or saying the wrong thing gets you killed, social encounters can be a single person activity for the mouthpiece.




Thats whats so baffling. Huge gaping holes in logic are accepted as fine because its a GAME, but we have to gag someone and keep them from having fun and fully participating *because make believe characters' lives are at stake? *


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 6, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Thats whats so baffling. Huge gaping holes in logic are accepted as fine because its a GAME, but we have to gag someone and keep them from having fun and fully participating *because make believe characters' lives are at stake? *




I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. It is a game, and people play it. If actions don't have an appropriate response, its not much of a game. We have a player in our group who says things so stupid that he pretty much fails the encounter on the spot. I'm not alone in this assessment. I don't coddle people. If you blow things, things get blown.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 6, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> If you blow things, things get blown.




ROFL!!

 This        is              priceless.

Keeping things grandma friendly though, is that a threat?


----------



## justanobody (Nov 6, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> says things so stupid that he pretty much fails the encounter on the spot




 What? Am I alone thinking this doesn't make sense?


----------



## MerricB (Nov 6, 2008)

justanobody said:


> What? Am I alone thinking this doesn't make sense?




Probably not, but I've certainly seen careful negotiations fail instantly because someone has said something so stupid that there's no recourse.

Or bluffing attempts...

Cheers!


----------



## RFisher (Nov 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The only class with a choice seemed to be the wizard...




(Ignoring that in earlier editions the trade-offs were mostly in your choice of class.)

And it is with the Wizard—which happened to be the 4e class I’ve played—that I feel unsatisfied.

And if the game is going to make the Fighter follow mechanics more similar to the Wizard, then I’d like the possibility of those trade-off to now be available to him too.

Maybe if I didn’t feel like my first level Wizard was combat-heavy and utility-light. Maybe if you started out combat-heavy _and_ utility-heavy, maybe then I would’ve enjoyed it more.



mmadsen said:


> But we know that's not true.  People consistently enjoy combat, because it actively involves all the players.  As in real life, every extra fighter counts.
> 
> Every extra diplomat or lockpicker does not.  That's why this complaint rings false: Some tasks don't benefit from second- or third-rate help.




While I have no doubt that the 4e design works great for some groups, there’s no denying that not a single person in my group really enjoyed it. While I think it deserves us giving it more time, I doubt anyone is ever going to care enough for that to happen.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 6, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.



As others have stated, this is not true. Some utility powers help combat competence. Some do not (eg various skill-boosting powers). Some feats help combat competenece. Some do not (eg skill training, skill focus). These are all trade-offs between combat and non-combat effectiveness. And the 4e character-building rules suppport them.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 6, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Probably not, but I've certainly seen careful negotiations *fail instantly because someone has said something so stupid that there's no recourse.*
> 
> Or bluffing attempts...
> 
> Cheers!




This. Every single time he opens his mouth. It really is that bad. He goes through characters like toilet paper, since he often plays characters so obnoxious that the party kicks them out in game. Gamers are not the most socially adept people.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 6, 2008)

^ A case of verbal diarrhea then?



MerricB said:


> Probably not, but I've certainly seen careful negotiations fail instantly because someone has said something so stupid that there's no recourse.
> 
> Or bluffing attempts...
> 
> Cheers!




True, but it just may have been the way it was worded in that post that seems a bit off.

So it is only meaning social encounter, rather than voicing some tactical opinion for a combat encounter that just by speaking the idea causing the success rate of the combat to drop dramatically?


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 6, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Its a concept that just doesn't work for a game where everyone has to be in the spotlight at every moment. If everyone is special all of the time then there isn't really a moment for anyone to shine as an individual.
> 
> Combat specialists who "sleep" when the non-combat roleplaying is going on are missing a lot of fun. The mentality of not participating in game events because your character isn't optimized for it is foreign to me.
> 
> Its fun for an aggressive outgoing barbarian to try and impress the folks at court. Its also fun for a bookish yet clever wizard to use magic in a scrape that doesn't involve blasting things.




Then how is having productive things to add make things less fun? I've had fun in games doing "goofy things", regardless of whether my character was good at it or not. My little halfling warlock was trying to bluff/diplomacy a captured orc into splitting the loot, killing the party, I just needed to know where the loot was being kept, because I knew a fence ...

When he finally caught on that I was lying, he laughed, so I immediately switched to intimidate, sticking a finger up his nose and asking if he'd ever seen an eldritch blast from that close.

Everyone being good at combat doesn't mean that every combat everyone is going to contribute the same things. Certain monsters have resistances/vulnerabilities, defenses they attack, or defenses they have, etc, etc, etc that makes certain characters shine and other characters get beat up. Depending on the dice, certain characters can be the hero ... for example a bronze warder, which is just plain nasty, became a cake walk due to a combo of a warlock daze (save ends) power and HORRIBLE rolling on my part as a DM. The Warlock got to shine as he dazed an elite monster into being pretty ineffective for the entire fight. 

Same group, different day, the wizard single handed changed the way the fight would play out by hitting with the Sleep spell and having an unlucky roll on my part cause the elite to fall asleep. I didn't roll as badly as the other case, but it only took one failed saved for all the martial guys to pile on and coup de gras the HP away. By the time he was awake he was killed before he had a second turn to get up and fight back.

Just because everyone has good combat skills doesn't mean no one shines in combat. Just because everyone has good out of combat skills doesn't mean no one shines out of combat. There are still people with skill sets better suited for certain skill challenges. There are still people with combat skills better suited for certain combat challenges.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 6, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say, Phaezen, but this complaint is pretty silly.  We can come up with all kinds of good reasons for why a learned sage might get dragged into an adventure.  I suspect we can also come up with some good reasons for why an aristocratic young hobbit and his gardener might get caught up in an epic quest too.  Reluctant heroes are a staple of adventure fiction.




But do all of these examples really work in the game? And won't the reluctant and unprepared hero not learn how to become more effective in combat? The hobbits certainly do learn to hold their own eventually.



> Is there anything in 4E that makes the rogue actually better at thievery than another character assuming the same race and stats?



If another character invests into Thievery, yes, he can achieve the same as the Rogue. But in a way this is just the same as a 3E character multiclassing into Rogue to get Trap Sense. (Of course, 3E is a bad example since it already has the Ninja version of the Rogue  )
The Rogue class has some utility powers that make him better at being a thief - not necessarily improving his Thievery skill itself, but improving his ability to be stealthy and move unnoticed, or to help the breaking in part (powers that improve his Athletics or Acrobatics).


----------



## Betote (Nov 6, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This. Every single time he opens his mouth. It really is that bad. He goes through characters like toilet paper, since he often plays characters so obnoxious that the party kicks them out in game. Gamers are not the most socially adept people.




I feel your pain 

Player: "Can I be an Evil character?"
DM (me): "You're going to be anyway, so at least write it down on your sheet"


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 6, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This. Every single time he opens his mouth. It really is that bad. He goes through characters like toilet paper, since he often plays characters so obnoxious that the party kicks them out in game. Gamers are not the most socially adept people.




It sounds like you have a player who simply lives to rain on the parade of everyone else. This a purely a player issue and I would imagine that such a player would be a PITA using any rules. Its a shame that the behavior of a bad player gets to influence the entire approach to the game.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 6, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> It sounds like you have a player who simply lives to rain on the parade of everyone else. This a purely a player issue and I would imagine that such a player would be a PITA using any rules. Its a shame that the behavior of a bad player gets to influence the entire approach to the game.




Its not as bad as all that. He isn't doing it intentionally, he's just that socially inept. In game, he's perfectly fine running a character in combat or in noncombat situations that don't involve talking to NPCs. He's a contributing player in those situations. We also get along fine with him out of game. Its just that he puts his foot in his mouth in an epic fashion whenever he attempts to talk to NPCs.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 6, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Its not as bad as all that. He isn't doing it intentionally, he's just that socially inept. In game, he's perfectly fine running a character in combat or in noncombat situations that don't involve talking to NPCs. He's a contributing player in those situations. We also get along fine with him out of game. Its just that he puts his foot in his mouth in an epic fashion whenever he attempts to talk to NPCs.




In that case it sounds like you have a rare treasure. 

Story time:

Several years ago, a new guy started gaming with us. I was running a 3.0 Scourge of the Slavelords adventure and he joined the group and played a cleric of Kord. 

The party had a roadside encounter with a group of slaver agents led by a nasty dwarf (one of the Ruvik brothers). The encounter turned to combat and the PC's defeated the bad guys and took thier stuff. The PC's decided to drag the bodies off the road and bury them to conceal evidence of the struggle. (The cleric had no trouble wearing the dwarf's armor though )

The next day the PC's reached town and went to the local pub ( controlled by slaver agents) to start looking for clues. After sitting down and ordering drinks, a dwarf was seen on the balcony above. Upon spotting the party, he came trotting down the steps towards thier table. 

The dwarf ( the other Ruvik brother)  made a complimentary remark about the cleric's armor. The party noticed something faintly familliar about his facial features. After a couple pointed questions the dwarf fixed menacing eyes upon the cleric and asked: " Where exactly IS my brother?"  to which the cleric replied: " We buried him."

Initiative was rolled a second later  

After we recovered from the fits of laughter, a major battle took place, sparked by that response. I wouldn't trade that moment for anything.

What made it so funny was that it was in no way an attempt at intimidation. He had formulated a story in his mind that involved the party discovering his brother's corpse, and laying him to rest peacefully. The line was delivered innocently and in a tone that conveyed "our condolences". 

End story.

Sometimes you have to appreciate those moments and make lemonade from the lemons.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Nov 6, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> In that case it sounds like you have a rare treasure.
> 
> Story time:
> 
> ...




If that happens here and there its all good. When it happens every time the party talks to NPCs, it gets old really fast. For the players that is. His muzzling is more a response by the other players than any imposition by the DM. My only contribution as a DM is the fact that when he says this stupid stuff, I will respond unfailingly in a negative fashion.


----------

