# This mentality needs to die



## WarlockLord (Feb 13, 2010)

This.  This is videogame logic, the logic that won't let you get past the Ragecandybar man despite the fact that you have 2 dragons and a ghost in your pocket.  Tvtropes.  Why is this considered good? And would you want your DM to do it?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 13, 2010)

WarlockLord said:


> This.  This is videogame logic, the logic that won't let you get past the Ragecandybar man despite the fact that you have 2 dragons and a ghost in your pocket.  Tvtropes.  Why is this considered good? And would you want your DM to do it?




Ouch is that painful.  It's not considered good.  It never has been considered good.

Remind me to never to pay to be a player at Chris Perkins table.  Besides being hidebound and always looking for a reason to say 'No', his delivery is almost anti-story and anti-cinematic.  I'd blame it on the edition except that I know there are some good DMs here at EnWorld who've transcended the edition.

I think I'd rather watch paint dry than that.  No wonder PnP RPG's have a hard time acquiring new players.


----------



## Vorput (Feb 13, 2010)

...that is sad.


----------



## bagger245 (Feb 13, 2010)

Is this how majority of 4e games are played?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 13, 2010)

What is?  Usually its better to explain your postion then having links to things.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 13, 2010)

What's interesting is that I've played at Chris Perkins' table before (way back in 2000 or so, before 3e launched), and he can be a _superb _DM. He had a good sense for the dramatic, a great dungeon design sense, and he's a good enough artist that his quick dungeon sketches were really evocative. He ran a fun game.

That being said, I really don't like a tendency to say no instead of yes. That makes the game less fun for everyone in my opinion. If a door is frozen shut and a PC has a fire power, I'd rather have the DM say "yes, but..." instead of just "no."


----------



## darjr (Feb 13, 2010)

Is the issue with him saying the doors are sealed or with his denying the use of darkfire to melt the ice?


----------



## bagger245 (Feb 13, 2010)

darjr said:


> Is the issue with him saying the doors are sealed or with his denying the use of darkfire to melt the ice?




If it is, can someone post the Darkfire power up just so that people will know what they are talking about?


----------



## unan oranis (Feb 13, 2010)

Drow dark-fire not melting ice?  Sounds... reasonable?

I would have let the guy make an arcana check to "magically" melt the ice, or given him some option other than "there is only one way to open this door - period".

Especially as this is being recorded, I think you'd want to stonewall as little as possible.

But still, drow dark-fire doesn't actually make fire.


----------



## Vorput (Feb 13, 2010)

darjr said:


> Is the issue with him saying the doors are sealed or with his denying the use of darkfire to melt the ice?




My issue is with him saying the power can't be used because the door isn't a creature.  I have no problem if the power was ineffective (though I'd like to know why), but it should still be allowed to be used.


----------



## bagger245 (Feb 13, 2010)

But the players are creative in terms of making the fire trap directed to the door as well..


----------



## Vorput (Feb 13, 2010)

bagger245 said:


> But the players are creative in terms of making the fire trap directed to the door as well..




I sort of got the feeling they were supposed to do that.  After all, it is a big rotating fire-shooting trap in the middle of a room with an ice-sealed door.


----------



## weem (Feb 13, 2010)

Vorput said:


> I sort of got the feeling they were supposed to do that.  After all, it is a big rotating fire-shooting trap in the middle of a room with an ice-sealed door.




Yea, that's what it was there for - he even mentioned something like using a source they had not considered (not the exact quote).

---edit---

"You're of a mind, based on the abilities that you have, it would probably just take somebody strong using a strength check to power the doors open, umm, *or finding a way to melt them that is not readily apparent.*"

---/edit---



bagger245 said:


> If it is, can someone post the Darkfire power up just so that people will know what they are talking about?




Darkfire
_A flickering halo of purple light surrounds the target, making it easier to hit.
Encounter  _
*Hit:* Until the end of your next turn, all attacks against the target have combat advantage, and the target cannot benefit from invisibility or concealment.


----------



## Glade Riven (Feb 13, 2010)

I don't think that it is as bad as it seems at first. If I remember right (I don't have the book handy), darkfire is a racial ability in 4e that outlines a creature or person, making them easier to hit. It isn't actual fire, so there is no heat, and the ability is written in a way that heavily suggests that it works only on people.


----------



## bagger245 (Feb 13, 2010)

I don't really mind how Chris handled it. Maybe he didn't want the player to waste that power by using it up. But anyway, DMing skills aside, do 4e combat typically run this way?


----------



## ffanxii4ever (Feb 13, 2010)

Unless I am mistaken, the Drow's Darkfire ability is the equivalent of their Faerie Fire Spell-Like Ability from 3.5

It doesn't actually create fire

But yes, I am of the mentality that you can go ahead and try it, hell 1 creature simply equals 1 target, I mean if the door was animated and turned around and started to smack the PCs around, would he still not allow him to use the ability? Hell no, he would have said "go right ahead, use it".

So what is the difference if it isn't animated?


But all the effect that the Darkfire would have done is outline the door in flickering purplish flames; they do not actually generate heat (which is why they do not do damage to the target that they outline)


----------



## Kinneus (Feb 13, 2010)

Somebody asked for it, so here it is:

Darkfire
_A flickering halo of purple light surrounds the target, making it easier to hit._
*Encounter* 
*Minor Action* *Ranged* 10
*Target*: One creature
*Attack*: Intelligence +4 vs. Reflex, Wisdom +4 vs. Reflex, or Charisma +4 vs. Reflex
Increase to +6 bonus at 11th level and +8 bonus at 21st level.
*Hit*: Until the end of your next turn, all attacks against the target have combat advantage, and the target cannot benefit from invisibility or concealment.
*Special*: When you create your character, choose Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma as the ability score you use when making attack rolls with this power. This choice remains throughout your character’s life and does not change the power’s other effects.

It's important, I think, to note the flavor text in particular. This is a power that makes purplish light... not necessarily fire. So, as a DM, I might balk at this too.

Of course, his 'it only targets creatures' justification is an incredibly lame one, because _all powers ever_ target only creatures. If he were to stand by that ruling, then you could _never_ use any power on anything that wasn't a 'creature', an 'enemy' or an 'ally', the three terms that define targets in 95% of all the game's powers (very rarely, some specifically target objects). That obviously doesn't make any sense... I imagine hilarious scenes in which players try depserately to convince the DM that, no, that sealed chest really is an enemy! It's getting in our way, therefore it's an antagonist, therefore it's an enemy!

What I think is really going on here: the DM sees that the power can't do what the player wants it do. He needs to convince the player of that. Maybe he knows the player is a very literal-minded person. To him, a power that says "Darkfire" should make fire, period. So he needs an overly-literal argument to counter-act that.

Still, I don't think this was a good call, and I don't think this is the way most 4e games are played. What I would've done is say: "Sure, but Darkfire doesn't usually make actual flame. You'd need a successful Arcana check to modify your spell."

The player then rolls Arcana. Since I know he's playing a Drow Ranger, he's very likely to have crappy Arcana, so this is pretty darn likely to fall. Therefore, the DM has the benefit of saying "Yes" and letting his players get creative with their abilities, even when he is for all intents and purposes really saying "No." That's how I'd of handled it, personally. Not saying that's the best solution.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 13, 2010)

Now that I've seen Darkfire, I sure wouldn't have let it worked, either. I'd have let the player know this, though; explaining that it doesn't actually create heat seems more important to me than the "creature" wording.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 13, 2010)

WTF? Did I just watch someone spend about a month not opening a door. Wasn't even an interesting door. I assume the guy who left the table popped out to hang himself.

Was playing rules light with a kid last night. In almost the same amount of time as that video she knocked out a couple of goblins, then wounded, healed and befriended a timber wolf, duelled with a goblin shaman, interrogated another goblin who told her to drink from a fountain. Didn't drink from the poisoned fountain but evaporated some of the water to form a blade venom and . . .


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 13, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Was playing rules light with a kid last night. In almost the same amount of time as that video she knocked out a couple of goblins, then wounded, healed and befriended a timber wolf, duelled with a goblin shaman, interrogated another goblin who told her to drink from a fountain. Didn't drink from the poisoned fountain but evaporated some of the water to form a blade venom and . . .



That sounds GREAT!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 13, 2010)

I don't have a problem with the ruling, per se, but I do have a problem with the *reason* for the ruling ("Well, the rules say 1 creature, and the door isn't a creature, so no"). 

The main problem I see is one that 4e actually has pretty deep down: _naming conventions_ and _flavor_. 

If the Darkfire was not called "darkfire," it wouldn't give the impression of being, you know, fire. The player was mislead by a name that didn't match what the power actually did. Maybe if was called "Elfshine," or "Assassin's Halo" or something.

Or, if Darkfire had evocative flavor text that described the phenomenom (which seems more like the St. Elmo's Fire kind of fire than the literal fire kind of fire), then a player who read the effect would know that it was a heatless kind of flame, more of a light than an actual fire. 

Or, even if Darkfire had a reason why only creatures can be targeted ("conjures the light of a living soul to the surface" or something), the reason for the ruling would make sense.

Using a fiddly bit of rules language to deny the player is weak. It kind of inspires the "Oh no, I have to pay very close attention to every little word on my card" phenomena. Which is fun for D&D gearheads, sure, but not usually so fun for newbies and casual players. 

If this were my game, I can see one of two things happening, depending on how charitable I'm feeling:


 "Actually, Darkfire is more of an illumination, kind of a flickering halo that makes enemies in the darkness more visible. It's not a literal fire. Bad name. But if, say, you meet some enemies skulking around in the shadows, Darkfire will help you see them and hit them better." (Explaining the term a little better, giving an example of where you might want to use it; it's not the player's fault the power has a lousy name and unhelpful flavor text). 
 "Well, it's fire, right? But it doesn't do any damage or anything, so the heat it generates is pretty low. It would be kind of like trying to melt ice with your breath. Slow going. You could probably chip it off with your sword faster." (Yes, but..., combined with a suggestion for solving the problem the player is trying to solve; and now the player knows that they can use elfshine to keep themselves warm!)

I'm not sure this is so much an example of "Statistically Speaking"/videogame think as it is a case of rules/flavor/text mismatch. Player understandably thinks the power does something it doesn't do. Either give the power that ability, or explain it more clearly than the rules have, don't appeal to the rules as if it was the player's fault. Hacking at the ice should totally work (jaws of the wolf!). THAT is more videogame than the Darkfire thing. ("Oh, I can only hack at things that are creatures? I can't choose to attack other things?") Though I did like how he eventually just gave the player the answer to his little bottleneck, so it didn't quite turn into a game of "Guess What The DM Is Thinking." He kept it rolling OK, but the fact that there was a bottleneck to begin with is a little rough. 

But, honestly, I saw a lot of things in that little video that made me question a lot of the underlying assumptions of D&D as a game, seeing the reactions of the new players to the stuff going on. Lots of math. "STOP MOVING AND ROLL" for a low DC. It certainly solidified my stance against minis, for one. 

Some good stuff, too. The turning fire-trap is good, and the specific mention of hitting the drums is a subtle tactical recomendation.


----------



## avin (Feb 13, 2010)

"Well, the rules say 1 creature, and the door isn't a creature, so no"

Mr. Perkins... this is very very bad... you should have explained that "Dark Fire" isn't a real fire (per rules)... but powers not working on objects is something 5E must get rid of.

That's a point where 4E fails miserably by RAW... BUT my 4E games sound very different from that.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 13, 2010)

bagger245 said:


> But anyway, DMing skills aside, do 4e combat typically run this way?



Every game of D&D (any edition) I've ever played with beginning players who don't have a firm grasp on the rules yet has run this way.

Combats in my current 4e game (with players who have all been playing for over a year) tend to run much more smoothly.

FWIW, I agree with Chris's ruling, but not with his reasoning (Darkfire doesn't have the "Fire" keyword, it doesn't create heat, it doesn't work to melt ice. Seems straightforward enough). That aside, I think he did a great job running the combat with new players. It may not be fun to watch, but the players were obviously engaged and having fun, and that's what is ultimately important.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Feb 13, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Was playing rules light with a kid last night. In almost the same amount of time as that video she knocked out a couple of goblins, then wounded, healed and befriended a timber wolf, duelled with a goblin shaman, interrogated another goblin who told her to drink from a fountain. Didn't drink from the poisoned fountain but evaporated some of the water to form a blade venom and . . .



Great stuff. And XP for you!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 13, 2010)

Kinneaus said:
			
		

> Still, I don't think this was a good call, and I don't think this is the way most 4e games are played. What I would've done is say: "Sure, but Darkfire doesn't usually make actual flame. You'd need a successful Arcana check to modify your spell."




I like that idea, too. 

Really, just don't tell me that the reason is because the rules don't want me to have fun.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Feb 13, 2010)

Yeah, I definitely noticed that when I was watching it. Is there anything in the rules that allows you to use something intended for "One Creature" on objects? I was looking the DMG but I didn't see anything.

It doesn't matter for me, but I'm just curious if I'm in houserule territory or not.

EDIT: To give Chris the benefit of the doubt, I think he just made a mistake rather than that being how he would always rule it. He spend a lot of time reading it (by which I mean he should have spend no more than a second looking at the target line and saying "no" if that was all he was looking for) and was probably deciding on how to say it doesn't work, since there are a multitude reasons. I think he picked something obvious and didn't consider the repercussions of such a ruling.

Also, given that he ruled you can attack anything in the room, which are pretty much all objects, especially the drums, I think he's fine with attacking objects. *Shrug* I dunno. I think it's harsh to say "Man, he sucks, never want to play with that guy." Unless he does it again with a power that _should_ work on a door, despite specifying creatures, like scorching burst or something.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 13, 2010)

Most funny thing: I had a similar Situation at my game table: Chaos scar adventure with a barred door... the sorcerer asked: can i use my thunderbolt to open the door... is said "yes"

It is not inheritely a system problem. In a rukes update it says that the DM can make a power that targets a creature also target an object.

Also i want to add, that in older editions it was clearly stated that magic is no tool and a magic missile was explicitely mentioned not to be usable against objects.

Also, darkfire is as already stated feary fire, an illusion. Feary fire would not have worked. His reasoning however was very bad. But maybe he didn´t want to have a debate about fire maybe hot enogh to melt it and used the easy way out.

In an older edtion i also would have said: Feary fire is only useful to outline creatures. It doesn´t work on objects.


----------



## Mark (Feb 13, 2010)

I wouldn't disagree with the ruling, though the explanation highlights a silly rule restriction.  I think I would have allowed the spell to (at the player's acceptance of this spell adjustment) outline the doors and make them easier to hit with lobbed flasks of oil or torches or whatever.  The inflexibility of spells in the last two editions of D&D sometimes have me scratching my noggin.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 13, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> That being said, I really don't like a tendency to say no instead of yes. That makes the game less fun for everyone in my opinion. If a door is frozen shut and a PC has a fire power, I'd rather have the DM say "yes, but..." instead of just "no."



My game became about a thousand percent better when I put a post-it on my GM screen that said:

"Before saying no, remember you can add an 'and' or a 'but' right afterwards."

I try to remember the same thing when I say yes as well.

When players try something different and try to get engaged with the game, best to think long and hard before ruling it out.

--Steve


----------



## Daern (Feb 13, 2010)

The tension in those videos seems to be that the Drow player is taking a more open ended approach to the encounter, like, "why fight? why not escape?  this is fire?  then it should melt ice right?"  whereas the other players are going along with the idea of "ok he said roll initiative, so that means its a fight."  
Although I wouldn't have allowed darkfire to melt the door, I do agree that Perkins seems to have a number of interesting options for the encounter, but the drow player is trying to discover new ones and is a being shut down a bit.    
It would be neat to see some free form DMing by the seat of his pants in these videos as we all know those are often the most magical moments in rpgs...


----------



## weem (Feb 13, 2010)

Not to sidetrack or anything but...

...is it just me, or does anyone else think Chris Perkins looks like the guy from "Future Weapons"?







I was almost expecting him to say, "to get through that frozen door you will need someone with strength... some interesting use of fire... or better yet a M72 LAW antitank rocket grenade launcher"


----------



## Turtlejay (Feb 13, 2010)

SteveC said:


> My game became about a thousand percent better when I put a post-it on my GM screen that said:
> 
> "Before saying no, remember you can add an 'and' or a 'but' right afterwards."
> 
> ...




Good point, and needed to be said!  "No, but" is just as good as "Yes, and" in most cases.  Riffing off of each other's cool ideas, including the DM, is what gives me that tingly buzz when a game is going well.

Jay


----------



## Nikosandros (Feb 13, 2010)

Ourph said:


> That aside, I think he did a great job running the combat with new players. It may not be fun to watch, but the players were obviously engaged and having fun, and that's what is ultimately important.



For some reason that I can't fully explain, I'm actually finding this videos a lot of fun.

As for the darkfire issue, I agree with everyone else. Good ruling, but silly reason.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 13, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> That sounds GREAT!




In almost the same amount of time as that video she knocked out a couple of goblins, then wounded, healed and befriended a timber wolf, duelled with a goblin shaman, interrogated another goblin who told her to drink from a fountain. Didn't drink from the poisoned fountain but evaporated some of the water to form a blade venom and . . .

Tonight:

After tipping her arrows with poison Coco checks out three frayed tapestries with large white skull logos painted over them. She tears one down, revealing a doorway, and decides to wash the cloth in the poisoned water. The paint fades and a fleur-de-lis crest emerges. The second tapestry hides another doorway and a tapestry with twin fleur-de-lis crests.

Two goblins enter through the first doorway. They try to rush Coco as she lifts her bow. 2D6, 12, multipliers kick in, the arrow tears through the first goblin's armour and stops him dead. The second raises his mace but the (goblin hating) wolf behind him has first roll. 2D6, 7, the wolf's fangs catch the goblin on his trailing leg. The goblin strikes at the wolf. 2D6, 7 but he's off balance. He catches the wolf a glancing blow. The wolf pins the goblin to the ground.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 13, 2010)

deleted


----------



## darjr (Feb 13, 2010)

Thanks for the clarification, I thought so, but I wasn't sure.

I do think it was rather hamfisted. I would have explained that it would have made the door easier to hit. I would have allowed him to 'waste' it on the door and then I would have given the to hit bonus to the 'candybar?' and everyone else. I would have explained it in a descriptive way.

I do enjoy the videos, and I think I'm probably a bit more forgiving to a fellow DM, I've been there done that.

It did strike me as odd in the video, rather unlike the rest of his game(s).


----------



## S'mon (Feb 13, 2010)

My only problem is that the GM (Chris Perkins) allowed 6 minutes to have a PC in combat decide on and resolve a single Standard action, with the player shuffling through cards deciding what to do!  I wouldn't give more than a few seconds for a PC in combat to decide what his standard action would be.  At that rate I'm not surprised WoTC GMs talk about ending sessions mid-combat, using their cellphone cameras to record the battle layout for next game etc.  I find that idea mildly horrifying.

Otherwise, maybe he could have described the PC bouncing off the door a bit better - the PC has STR 18-19 so he isn't going to be pathetic - but we all have off days, right?  His enunciation was nice and clear, though.

Anyway, Chris Perkins I've heard is accounted a great GM, so this certainly makes me feel better about my own GMing!


----------



## Mark (Feb 13, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Anyway, Chris Perkins I've heard is accounted a great GM, so this certainly makes me feel better about my own GMing!





Clever takeaway.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 13, 2010)

Oh noes, the big, bad DM didn't allow a player to do whatever he wants, however he wants, whenever he wants!

There is fire needed here, for sure, but not for the door.

*Kzach has earned a suspension. Read his posts in this thread, folks, and use them as an example of what not to do! ~PCat*


----------



## Kzach (Feb 13, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I'd blame it on the edition except that I know there are some good DMs here at EnWorld who've transcended the edition.




I wish people could transcend 4e hate and just, you know, get over it.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 14, 2010)

That was an atrociously bad ruling.  But, you know, DMs make those from time to time.  It happens.

The issue is that the DM in this case is the Creative Manager, and - _at least in this video_ - creativity doesn't seem to be his forte ;p


----------



## S'mon (Feb 14, 2010)

Oh, re Darkfire, I think the correct RB GM's response is:

"OK, you outline the door with an eldritch glow.  It's still frozen shut.  Next!"


----------



## Nightson (Feb 14, 2010)

I am 90% sure that there is a line in the rulebook somewhere that says powers affect objects at the discretion of the DM.  

Darkfire not melting the ice sealing door makes perfect sense to me.  And with more obvious avenues readily available to melt the ice, I wouldn't be inclined to spend extra effort to allow darkfire to work.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 14, 2010)

Nightson said:


> I am 90% sure that there is a line in the rulebook somewhere that says powers affect objects at the discretion of the DM.




Yep.  I mostly use that line to justify PCs *not* being able to poke doors to death with their dagger.  You want to kill a door IMC, use an axe or a sledgehammer.  It might take a few minutes, too.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 14, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The main problem I see is one that 4e actually has pretty deep down: _naming conventions_ and _flavor_.
> 
> If the Darkfire was not called "darkfire," it wouldn't give the impression of being, you know, fire. The player was mislead by a name that didn't match what the power actually did. Maybe if was called "Elfshine," or "Assassin's Halo" or something.



Pssst. 

Before it was called "Darkfire", it was called "Faerie Fire". Hence, "Fire" was always in the name. Hence, the situation could have easily been the same in any prior edition.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Feb 14, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Pssst. Before it was called "Darkfire", it was called "Faerie Fire". Hence, "Fire" was always in the name. Hence, the situation could have easily been the same in any prior edition.



I don't think he's trying to say that the 4e name is worse than the previous name; only that the name regardless of edition should be change to omit the fire part. 

I don't agree with it, because the effect is glowy/fiery, but I think that's what he is saying.


----------



## bagger245 (Feb 14, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Oh, re Darkfire, I think the correct RB GM's response is:
> 
> "OK, you outline the door with an eldritch glow.  It's still frozen shut.  Next!"




Easily done. But it does feel like the player is being punished. There is a difference also between a player that knows his abilities and trying to play it creatively compared to a newbie who just say "can this card with the word "fire" do the trick?"

The creative player gets rewarded by the DM saying YES but the outcome may or may not be in favour to the player. A newbie however, needs hand holding. But in this case the creature/=door was a bad example.


----------



## Kurtomatic (Feb 14, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Oh, re Darkfire, I think the correct RB GM's response is:
> 
> "OK, you outline the door with an eldritch glow.  It's still frozen shut.  Next!"



_bing! bing! bing!_ 

I'd also go so far to say that the power was still available for use in the current/next encounter, making this a harmless but educational experiment.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 14, 2010)

Using powers on objects is a no-brainer choice for me. A fire power should behave like fire and set things on fire, etc. 

*Infact*, I encourage my PCs to do things that make sense for their powerset, even if they don't have an explicit Power to do it. "Hey I'm a druid and I have plant-based powers. Can I make roots come out of this cliff so we have some handholds?" It costs them an action point + healing surge, but it makes _sense_ for their characters. A shaman my game used this to shove a primal spirit out of statue it was possessing.

Now, the caveat here is that doesn't mean it's a instant-win button. You can't eldrich-blast your way through a door unless you want to stand there for a few hours continually hammering away. It'd be the equivalent of killing a door with a dagger (good example S'mon). 

The second caveat is that there may be a SPECIFIC reason X does not work. For instance, the Ice Door might not be meltable. The Ice Door may need the Ice Key to open. Or may only be meltable by flame from the Sacred Brazier of Whatever which is found elsewhere in the dungeon.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Every game of D&D (any edition) I've ever played with beginning players who don't have a firm grasp on the rules yet has run this way.



This.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 14, 2010)

Doc_Klueless said:


> I don't think he's trying to say that the 4e name is worse than the previous name; only that the name regardless of edition should be change to omit the fire part.
> 
> I don't agree with it, because the effect is glowy/fiery, but I think that's what he is saying.



No he says in the first sentence I quote that 4e has this problem right down to its core.

And I'm pointing out that if it does, then earlier editions did too.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 14, 2010)

DMs making mistakes happens regardless of edition. 

DMs saying "No" instead of "Yes" happens regardless of edition. 

DMs interpreting the rules strictly and literally happens regardless of edition. 

And I don't believe that 4E particularly encourages any of the above, either.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 14, 2010)

FireLance said:


> DMs making mistakes happens regardless of edition.
> 
> DMs saying "No" instead of "Yes" happens regardless of edition.
> 
> ...



But didn't you know, when you see someone do something stupid/wrong, it MUST be deeply indicative of the game and/or system they are playing! Not the quality of the DM or other mitigating factors!


----------



## Kzach (Feb 14, 2010)

You know, after listening to the podcast, not only do I think this is such a non-issue as to make this a totally ridiculous accusation, but the fact that he prompted the players by reminding them they all had torches, and that the door could be melted by other fire-related means, this puts the accusation squarely in troll territory.

Not only is there nothing wrong with how he handled it, nobody was up in arms over it or upset by it or even noticed it beyond the half-second it took to mentally absorb the concept that the door was not a creature.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2010)

> No he says in the first sentence I quote that 4e has this problem right down to its core.
> 
> And I'm pointing out that if it does, then earlier editions did too.




So, starting off, there's a LOT of evidence for bad 4e naming conventions. Darkfire doesn't stand alone. It is not the sole piece of evidence. 4e has this problem in many areas. Darkfire is one (not even particularly bad) datapoint, but there are so, so many more. 

But hey, earlier editions don't get a pass. There's some evidence for cruddy names from earlier editions. The difference between them is more about those have a bigger problem with being "too exotic" (ixixachitl, aasimar) than "amazingly dumb" (Feywild, Wilden, Shadowdark).  I'd also argue that they weren't nearly so prevalent or central to the game (monster names vs. place names and power names). The case for 4e having bad naming conventions goes far, far, far, far, far beyond this one power. If you'd like to make a case that older editions were no better, okay, but you'll have to provide more than this as evidence, you'll have to overcome the "exotic vs. dumb" comparison, you'll have to show centrality, etc. That's a whole separate conversation, and it doesn't absolve 4e of being ALSO bad, though it might show that D&D has a long history of horrible, horrible fantasy names. At best, we're all wallowing in the same mire. Not sure I'd buy that, but you'll need more than "This power was also confusing back then!" to convince me.  

So, this fire-based confusion doesn't mean that 4e doesn't have horrible naming conventions, and it also doesn't mean that earlier editions did, too. 

But let's look at Faerie Fire. With that name, there is a Mythological Basis Trump Card that is pretty evocative, and puts an image in the mind of someone vaguely familiar with myths or fantasy literature that use the myths. Which is what D&D does well. There may still have been some confusion, 'cuz not everyone's up on their Welsh mythology or whatever, but in grand Gygaxian fashion, D&D with faerie fire is edutainment. 

Still, even with that trump card, it's probably not the best name. Your/my criticism remains valid. Evocative and mythological, but still confusing for the newbies. It's fire, but not fire, and this is probably not the first time in that power's history where someone thought it would melt ice. When they revisited the name in 4e, they clearly agreed that it could use a change, because they did change it. But they didn't think the "fire" part was problematic at all, just the "faerie" part. Which they changed to "dark." Because clearly the word "dark" doesn't get used enough in a D&D game? While "faerie" suffers from over-use? And they didn't know about potential "fire" confusion? Despite "fire" being almost as common as "Dark"?

I dunno. I don't know what they were thinking. But I can say that Faerie Fire -> Darkfire is not an improvement in any way in my eyes, since it retains possible confusion while obliterating mythological resonance, making up a newcompoundword and risking over-use singularity of the term "Dark." 

So, take an evocative but probably confusing term, and turn it into a bland and probably confusing turn. Which is further evidence of 4e's bad use of names. 

Though I will say that problem seems to be getting better. The only groaners I found in the Underdark book were legacy imports like "Shadowdark," "Feydark," "Swordwing," etc. Didn't see any "Darkcrawlers" or "Deepdwarves" or "Swordcrawlers" or anything.


----------



## Turtlejay (Feb 14, 2010)

Oh God, so now. . .my game is stupid because the names in it are stupid?  Wow, have you seen this guy's articles where he highlights all the dumb creatures D&D has seen?

Your edition war trolling is not impressive.  Go start a thread about how 4e=wow, *that* has more merit than this arguement about Darkfire equalling omg suck.

Jay

*Admin here. Folks, this is a good example of how not to respond to someone you disagree with; it helps nothing and drags down the thread. Remember -- if you're in the process of losing your temper over a post, walk away from the keyboard for an hour or so. Then report it if needed, or calmly discuss the issue. Don't start typing invectives. ~ PCat*


----------



## Pig Champion (Feb 14, 2010)

Does this really need three pages? Their being videotaped, what do you expect? I bet if I taped one of your sessions I could find faults as well.

Seriously.


----------



## Mark (Feb 14, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So, starting off, there's a LOT of evidence for bad 4e naming conventions.





This comes from, IMO, the IP-ization of 4E and corporate efforts to stave off others from doing with 4E what some have done with editions previous to 3E, namely, using the OGL to create a clone and thus create opportunities to out-D&D, D&D (or cut into brand territory).  The GSL creates a limited area in which 3PPs can tread and the naming conventions at work in 4E limit what someone can do with or without the licenses.  This practice is also one of the reasons why 4E needed to be and is so different from previous editions, again, IMO.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2010)

> Not only is there nothing wrong with how he handled it, nobody was up in arms over it or upset by it or even noticed it beyond the half-second it took to mentally absorb the concept that the door was not a creature.




I dunno, man, I wasn't there, but Bluebell's player seemed legitimately lost there for a while, looking at his pile of powers, wondering how they apply, until the DM gave him something to do, that he then failed at. 

I mean, it is easy to judge like that, and I'm sure it didn't ruin the game, and I do think the first few posts in this thread are pretty reactionary, and no one can be a perfect DM at all times, and blah blah blah extenuating circumstances, whatever. It's still not a great call, and it's something we can learn from as well. 

Though mentioning the torches, and darkfire's actual in-game purpose, does remind me how much lighting rules in D&D are kind of borked, too. But anyway, the idea that I can only use my powers against game-defined "creatures" is pretty imagination-breaking at the best of times.


----------



## deadsmurf (Feb 14, 2010)

While his ruling was worded badly, or used faulty logic, he came to the correct ruling.
I don't think Darkfire is a terrible name for the power (though i can see how a First time player might misread the name and not look at the power etc) I can't come up with a better name for the power, faerie fire is no better, and can be thought of as a little 'lame' - and I'm sorry, the mythological connections that us as adults know about because we were geek kids even before D&D, is a lot less common these days - when a kid wants to read fantasy they don't generally go to faerie myths and such - they can grab a stack of fantasy novels that use different tropes.
Anyway, the thing a lot of people up in arms about this playstyle and everything seem to be forgetting is that all but one of these players are brand new, have never even looked at their power cards before and don't know any of the rules for the game.  Mr. Perkins is trying to ease them into the game by letting them take 4 or 5 minutes on their turn so they can get used to doing actions etc.  As the game goes on I expect the amount of gameiness to go down and the roleplaying and cool actons encouragement to go up.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2010)

> Oh God, so now. . .my game is stupid because the names in it are stupid? Wow, have you seen this guy's articles where he highlights all the dumb creatures D&D has seen?
> 
> Your edition war trolling is not impressive. Go start a thread about how 4e=wow, *that* has more merit than this arguement about Darkfire equalling omg suck.
> 
> Jay




I don't think 4e is stupid. I do think it has a bad habit of having stupid names. 

I play in and actively DM two different 4e games at the moment. I buy books and have an active DDI subscription. I don't play 3e, or Pathfinder, at all at the moment. In fact, 4e is the ONLY RPG I currently play. I have (gasp!) had fun in 4e. I even posted a thread a few days ago RAVING about a 4e book that I bought.

Rechan called out the totally fair example that "darkfire" and "faerie fire" are both pretty confusing, and I was simply defending my criticism, which is not mine alone.

Calm down, and quit jumping at shadows, okay? I am saying "Darkfire" is a bad name, like a lot of 4e names, and that if 4e were better at naming things, we might not have had the problem that Bluebell had (which I'm sure occurred in previous editions, too). That in no way claims that 4e killed my puppies.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2010)

Pig Champion makes a pretty good point.  Videotape your next gaming session.  Stuff it up on Youtube and make it available to everyone at En World to critique.  I'm pretty sure ALL of us would have at least one cringeworthy moment.  At the very, very least.

DMing is a lot like driving.  People vastly overestimate their abilities.  I know when I drive I always notice how it's always everyone else who is a moron on the road.


----------



## Arksorn (Feb 14, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Oh, re Darkfire, I think the correct RB GM's response is:
> 
> "OK, you outline the door with an eldritch glow.  It's still frozen shut.  Next!"




This is good for an experienced player. To give him the benefit of the doubt, he was trying to help a new player save his power, he just did not do it well.

Also "At the DM's discretion, a power tha targets a creature can also target an object, whether or not the power identifies an object as a potential target" 4th Edition Rules Updates January 19, 2010 to page 57 of PHB under "Target"


----------



## Gilwen (Feb 14, 2010)

I watched this and the most of the other videos. I don't find them horrible or a slight to DMing. His style is different but seemed to deliver a good time to the ppl he was running for and that's what counts in the end. I would have made the call differently behind my screen but it is what it is. 

I did find it funny that the DnD Creative Brand Manager had to read the card to know what DarkFire was all about 

I wish there were more videos like this for me to mine for info for my games. I'm particularly interested in combat because even subtracting out or screwing around and frequently horribly unfortunate a comical dice rolls it takes a while sometimes!

gil


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Feb 14, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Yeah, I definitely noticed that when I was watching it. Is there anything in the rules that allows you to use something intended for "One Creature" on objects? I was looking the DMG but I didn't see anything.



In explaining targeting, the PHB does give examples of powers that target objects, presumably in contrast to creatures.  The following bit in the DMG addresses a technically distinct but related issue.







			
				DMG page 40 said:
			
		

> When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target--or reducing a target to 0 hit points--the power functions only when the target in questions in a meaningful threat.  Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes o healing their allies by hitting the rats.



If you let the drow use Darkfire on a door outside of combat, can you still tell the cleric that Sacred Flame against the same door doesn't grant his ally a saving throw?  This scenario is logically distinct from the one in question, but it does demonstrate that the DM should exercise some discretion.

That said, I agree that I would want to exercise my discretion differently. I would try to find an in-game explanation for why the power doesn't work as the player expects.  Perhaps Chris Perkins would also do things differently given another chance.  Or perhaps he felt it was more important to teach the player the basics of how powers work.

Honestly, if a player had Scorching Burst in that situation, or some other power that actually does create fire (at least as described in the flavor text), I probably would make it at least as effective as using a torch or an existing fire source.  Honestly, I would only apply the restriction I quoted from the DMG for game mechanical effects.  Darkfire on a door doesn't give you combat advantage against it, but a drow can help his friends who don't have low-light vision find the door in a darkened room.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Videotape your next gaming session.  Stuff it up on Youtube and make it available to everyone at En World to critique.  I'm pretty sure ALL of us would have at least one cringeworthy moment.  At the very, very least.



Good lord. Only one? I'd have a lot more than that!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2010)

Heh, one thing I've noticed, having transcripts of all my games since I play using either OpenRPG or Maptools, is that there are LOADS of mistakes and cringeworthy events upon rereading.  Things I totally did not see the first time around.  Going back and rereading old transcripts has really helped me, I think, find areas that I need to work on.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 14, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Good lord. Only one? I'd have a lot more than that!



I know people would love to see a Piratecat gaming session tho!


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 14, 2010)

Rechan said:


> I know people would love to see a Piratecat gaming session tho!



Yeah, 'cause 15 minutes of "are those yoinkable fries? Gimme!" is simply _riveting._

One of the things these podcasts illustrate is that games have a rhythm you want to keep going. If the pacing slows down in the wrong place, you lose people. The question is how to identify where those spots are, and how to keep people focused?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2010)

> One of the things these podcasts illustrate is that games have a rhythm you want to keep going. If the pacing slows down in the wrong place, you lose people. The question is how to identify where those spots are, and how to keep people focused?




Good question. Part of what I love about these videos is that they can showcase some great "table habits," and can point out some more subtle habits that can be corrected. They really help the self-examination part of becoming a better DM, highlighting the moments when the players were all really there, showing you where they weren't, stuff like that.

Kinda wish I could videotape my sessions, see where I'm screwing up, and see what really works.


----------



## jinnetics (Feb 14, 2010)

Real mature attitude: I disagree with it, so kill it!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2010)

I think the podcasts really illustrate the need for DM's to get honest criticism from their players beyond, "Hey, that was a fun session."  Getting honest, open criticism from players can be like trying to pull kidney stones with pliers.


----------



## Mark (Feb 14, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Yeah, 'cause 15 minutes of "are those yoinkable fries? Gimme!" is simply _riveting._
> 
> One of the things these podcasts illustrate is that games have a rhythm you want to keep going. If the pacing slows down in the wrong place, you lose people. The question is how to identify where those spots are, and how to keep people focused?





Trev has begun recording his sessions and adding coordinated notes so that he can find ways to improve (though I am sure he is an excellent DM already).  Perhaps he can be persuaded to share his thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 14, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think 4e is stupid. I do think it has a bad habit of having stupid names.




What I just love about this logic is that a) it applies to all editions so singling out 4e is ridiculous and b) if it was named something more descriptive of the power like, for instance, Outline Foe, you'd claim 4e is bland and boring and lacks flavourful naming conventions for it's powers.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2010)

I wouldn't want to videotape one of my sessions...especially if the camera was set in a position to capture my ear hair for Internet immortality.

As for cringeworthy moments...we'd have lots.  But that's due in great part to our use of language that would make sailors run away.  (Even though we only do so for comedic effect.)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2010)

> What I just love about this logic is that a) it applies to all editions so singling out 4e is ridiculous and b) if it was named something more descriptive of the power like, for instance, Outline Foe, you'd claim 4e is bland and boring and lacks flavourful naming conventions for it's powers.




Well, for a, 4e is the only edition currently in production, so it is the only one that the designers can actually respond to criticism of in future products (which they seem to be doing, like I said above, I think the problem has gotten quite a bit less). 4e also has changed names of things that have had perfectly fine names for several editions now. You change Faerie Fire to Darkfire, and you are not making anything better (and Faerie Fire isn't even a particularly good name, like Rechan pointed out). 4e's new inventions also have very mockable names (the Penny Arcade dudes riffed on Shadowdark, for instance, and a casual browse through the Monster Manual will turn up quite a few). Even the things that 4e shepherded in from 3e tend to have some pretty dorky names (Dragonborn). 

Those are all uniquely 4e's burden to bear, things that other editions can't hold a claim to.

So it is a problem that 4e has, that 4e has not changed, and that 4e carries on a deep level. 

Again, not that they aren't getting better. But they didn't start getting better when someone was paid to change "Faerie" to "Dark."

For b, you're pretending to be an internet psychic, so I suppose in that respect, I'll do whatever you imagine me to be doing for the sake of your hypothetical fantasy, but I don't see how that's mostly relevant. 

But, here's some names that I thought of while looking casually at the articles I linked to above, and thinking about them in the context of Drow, and how the power is supposed to be used:

"Elfshine"
"Spiderlight"
"Assassin's Guide"
"Drowmark"
"Pallid Glow"
"Victim's Halo"
"Lolth's Candle"
"Lolthlight"

I kind of like "Drowmark" and "Assassin's Guide" best out of those, since they both imply that whoever has this light on them is likely to die, which is kind of the point. I could see the first being used in-universe. "Beware the Drowmark, the violet light some call the Assassin's Guide. The dark elves place this on their victims before they strike, so if you see someone outlined in flickering purple light, ye best run and save yerself. The poor glowing sap's gonna be dead in a few seconds, and ye'll be next if they spot ya!"

Here  are some others. The real world has done most of the work already. Slap "Lolth" in place of most of 'em, and use words like "light," and "glow," and "halo" instead of fire, and I bet you can come up with a few good ones yourself.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 14, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, for a, 4e is the only edition currently in production, so it is the only one that the designers can actually respond to criticism of in future products (which they seem to be doing, like I said above, I think the problem has gotten quite a bit less).




You're missing the point. You will find something wrong with whatever WotC does. It's a talent.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Feb 14, 2010)

Kzach said:


> Oh noes, the big, bad DM didn't allow a player to do whatever he wants, however he wants, whenever he wants!
> 
> There is fire needed here, for sure, but not for the door.






Kzach said:


> You know, after listening to the podcast, not only do I think this is such a non-issue as to make this a totally ridiculous accusation, but the fact that he prompted the players by reminding them they all had torches, and that the door could be melted by other fire-related means, this puts the accusation squarely in troll territory.
> 
> Not only is there nothing wrong with how he handled it, nobody was up in arms over it or upset by it or even noticed it beyond the half-second it took to mentally absorb the concept that the door was not a creature.






Kzach said:


> You're missing the point. You will find something wrong with whatever WotC does. It's a talent.




If you don't like trolls so much, why do you keep trolling in this thread?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2010)

> You're missing the point. You will find something wrong with whatever WotC does. It's a talent.




Ain't never been no perfect game. And I've directed a lot of compliments to things WotC does, too. I have nuanced opinions. Is this somehow a problem for you? 

PS: Lighten up on the whole "you would/you will" anticipatory stuff, okay? It is really hard to have a conversation with someone who is deligitimizing opinions like that. You are not an internet psychic, man, you can't predict the future of ENWorld conversation threads.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 14, 2010)

Kzach said:


> What I just love about this logic is that a) it applies to all editions so singling out 4e is ridiculous and b) if it was named something more descriptive of the power like, for instance, Outline Foe, you'd claim 4e is bland and boring and lacks flavourful naming conventions for it's powers.




Are people just looking for fights?  

How are people deriving negative 4e comments from Kamikaze Midget's posts?

Sometimes criticism is just criticism.


----------



## OakwoodDM (Feb 14, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I kind of like "Drowmark" and "Assassin's Guide" best out of those, since they both imply that whoever has this light on them is likely to die, which is kind of the point. I could see the first being used in-universe. "Beware the Drowmark, the violet light some call the Assassin's Guide. The dark elves place this on their victims before they strike, so if you see someone outlined in flickering purple light, ye best run and save yerself. The poor glowing sap's gonna be dead in a few seconds, and ye'll be next if they spot ya!"




However, if they'd used those names, someone (I'm not saying it'd be you, but someone) would complain "Why did they call it drowmark? It doesn't cause the target to take -2 to hit targets other than the drow. Does it supersede other marks? I don't understand. Why couldn't they have avoided such awful, conflictig names?" or "Assassin's Halo? But my drow is an enlightened Paladin of Pelor. Does that man I'm forbidden from using my racial power?"

I'm not getting at your names, just pointing out that there will be criticism of the name whatever you call it.

Oh, and I imagine Faerie was changed to Dark because you can't have the classic emo/goth race have a power that suggests bright twinkly lights and panpipes...


----------



## Orius (Feb 14, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Remind me to never to pay to be a player at Chris Perkins table.  Besides being hidebound and always looking for a reason to say 'No', his delivery is almost anti-story and anti-cinematic.  I'd blame it on the edition except that I know there are some good DMs here at EnWorld who've transcended the edition.




Being hidebound and saying "No" also transcend edition.  The stereotypical old-school killer RBDM would never even deign to pick up a 4e book yet would do everything he could to make life difficult for players.  So no, this isn't a 4e problem, it's a DM style problem, if even that.

I don't have a problem with Perkin's ruling.  I'm not familiar with 4e rules at all, but he clearly states that Darkfire targets creatures, not objects.  So therefore, it can't be used to melt ice.  Besides, if it's just 4e _faerie fire_ it can't melt ice anyway, so I'd probably make a similar ruling.

 This also isn't a 4e thing.  Back in 2e, there were plenty of times in Sage Advice in Dragon where Skip generally encouraged a fairly strict reading of spells and a narrow application of them rather than getting creative with them, as a way of preventing rules laywering.  Similar advice was given in High Level Campaigns.  So this is thinking that the writers of the game have been working under for at least 15 years and prior to WotC getting the game.



Vorput said:


> I sort of got the feeling they were supposed to do that.  After all, it is a big rotating fire-shooting trap in the middle of a room with an ice-sealed door.




That what I suspected immediately when the jet of flame went off, they should find a way to point it at the door.




S'mon said:


> Oh, re Darkfire, I think the correct RB GM's response is:
> 
> "OK, you outline the door with an eldritch glow.  It's still frozen shut.  Next!"




Yeah, that's another RBDM approach, let the players waste resources.  For extra points, drop a random encounter at the worst possible time.  Though honestly, if I were DMing, I might very well let them waste their powers if I know they know better.  I don't like to RBDM per se, but I also don't hesitate to take advantage of really stupid PC actions either.  If they're less experienced players, I wouldn't actually say no, but explain that it wouldn't work or do any good.

  I would assume that Perkins was giving them the benfit of the doubt here either because they're novice players (they are novices right?) or for the benefit of people watching the video.  Perhaps even more of the latter, as someone who is representing WotC here, he's giving an example of the DMing style they're trying to encourage I guess.



Mark said:


> This comes from, IMO, the IP-ization of 4E and corporate efforts to stave off others from doing with 4E what some have done with editions previous to 3E, namely, using the OGL to create a clone and thus create opportunities to out-D&D, D&D (or cut into brand territory).




Yeah, a lot of 4e naming conventions are highly unappealing, but I can understand the IP reasons behind it.  Generic fantasy can't be trademarked (as T$R learned the hard way).  These specific names can be tradmarked and harder to rip off.  I don't like some of the 4e name conventions I've read, but I suspect it's from the amount of stuff getting branded, probably it's not easy to have everything sound cool.



Gilwen said:


> I did find it funny that the DnD Creative Brand Manager had to read the card to know what DarkFire was all about




Probably for the benefit of the players at the table and viewers.  I would assume Perkins knows damn well how the power works.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2010)

> However, if they'd used those names, someone (I'm not saying it'd be you, but someone) would complain "Why did they call it drowmark? It doesn't cause the target to take -2 to hit targets other than the drow. Does it supersede other marks? I don't understand. Why couldn't they have avoided such awful, conflictig names?" or "Assassin's Halo? But my drow is an enlightened Paladin of Pelor. Does that man I'm forbidden from using my racial power?"
> 
> I'm not getting at your names, just pointing out that there will be criticism of the name whatever you call it.
> 
> Oh, and I imagine Faerie was changed to Dark because you can't have the classic emo/goth race have a power that suggests bright twinkly lights and panpipes...




True, but both at least pass the "casual reading" test. Meaning, the words don't necessarily imply anything misleading to people just reading the words. Faerie fire and darkfire don't do that as well (unless, in the former case, you are up on your Welsh mythology ). It's not really a matter of being THE BEST NAME, as it is of getting a better name. 

But really, it boils down to, "Bluebell's player was pretty justified in thinking darkfire made fire, and a better name could've helped him out, and 4e has had a big problem with goofy names before, so I'm glad they've started to look at this as an issue, as shown in their more recent products." Really a minor point.

And I'm not so sure about your last point. I mean, they're still "fey humanoids"  (though for the record, I have no actual problem with that naming convention. Settle down.).


----------



## S'mon (Feb 14, 2010)

bagger245 said:


> Easily done. But it does feel like the player is being punished. There is a difference also between a player that knows his abilities and trying to play it creatively compared to a newbie who just say "can this card with the word "fire" do the trick?"




If it was his Daily he was going to waste I might give him a chance to reconsider, but part of playing a game is learning the game, what works and what doesn't.  Plus, much better to get this resolved in 20 seconds than 6 minutes.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Videotape your next gaming session.  Stuff it up on Youtube and make it available to everyone at En World to critique.  I'm pretty sure ALL of us would have at least one cringeworthy moment.  At the very, very least.




I once ran a session that was broadcast on national television in Sweden. It was cringeworthy, although not abysmal.

The funny thing is, many comments afterwards decried my skills at game mastering as shown on tv, while I get a lot of positive comments at cons.

So the transfer of a gaming session from real life to video really sets things in a very different light. Roleplaying is not a spectator sport. 

Or I'm a bad GM. Always a possibility. 

/M


----------



## Pig Champion (Feb 14, 2010)

OakwoodDM said:


> Oh, and I imagine Faerie was changed to Dark because you can't have the classic emo/goth race have a power that suggests bright twinkly lights and panpipes...




Wait, what? Goth/Emo kids would be all over some faerie flavour. One of the players I had for a time who identified with both the aforementioned sub-cultures wanted to play a Pixie Werewolf.

I kid you not.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Feb 14, 2010)

Could we please let the usual goth / emo stereotyping out of this thread? Both things are not remotely the same. It´s insanely juvenile to feel the need to use them as a denigrating label for something you don´t care for. I thought we left that behind us after the big 4e flamewars died down.


----------



## Starfox (Feb 14, 2010)

As an aside, anyone with experience with ice can tell you it takes a lot of fire to heat something that is really frozen. Ice takes a LOT of energy to melt.

I thought that session was running very slow. It looked like an introductory game to me; the players seemed unused to the game. Probably a big part of why it was running so slowly.  Or maybe they were acting this way to make an introductory video. Had the game proceeded at speed, it would probably have seemed frightening to newbie watchers. 

When Chris looked at that card, it seemed to me that he was looking for a way to tell the player why it didn't work, and that the reason he gave was probably not the one he used to make his own decision. As explained above, Darkfire really isn't a suitable power for melting anything. But this is all speculation.

My main experience of Mr. Perkins is as editor of Dungeon Magazine, which I thought was one of the low points of that publication because it empathized dungeons over stories. But I never thought his rules mastery or DM skills were anything but excellent from what he's written.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Feb 14, 2010)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Could we please let the usual goth / emo stereotyping out of this thread? Both things are not remotely the same. It´s insanely juvenile to feel the need to use them as a denigrating label for something you don´t care for. I thought we left that behind us after the big 4e flamewars died down.



Could you please leave a discussion of sanity out of this thread? To use it merely as a adjective for describing another unrelated concept is quite offensive.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 14, 2010)

Pig Champion said:


> Wait, what? Goth/Emo kids would be all over some faerie flavour. One of the players I had for a time who identified with both the aforementioned sub-cultures wanted to play a Pixie Werewolf.
> 
> I kid you not.




As someone who identifies with the goth subculture, I find this insulting.  Playing "Pixie Werewolves", or Vampires has nothing to do with being a member of a music or a fashion scene (although some within the scene may fantasize themselves as being one for a myriad of reasons).  

Playing a pixie, werewolf, vampire, etc is all about wanting to play out a insanely powerful character archetype or a monster within a fantasy/horror context.  Though you insinuated superiority to a "goth" or "emo kid" who might play a were-wolf or vampire, you should ask yourself, what about playing a tiefling fighter, shifter ranger, or a dragon-born sorcerer makes any non-goth or non-emo role-player superior?  After all, a monstrous archetype is a monstrous archetype no matter what kind of artwork, name, or fluff it uses.  In my belief, there is no difference, it's all about playing a character idea (or game) you thought would be cool.


----------



## Pig Champion (Feb 14, 2010)

Relique du Madde said:


> As someone who identifies with the goth subculture, I find this insulting.  Playing Pixie Werewolves, or Vampires have nothing to do with being a member of a music or a fashion scene (although some may fantasize themselves as being one for a myriad of reasons).  It's all about wanting to play out a insanely powerful character archetype within a fantasy/horror context often with the belief that doing so is more sophisticated then playing straight medieval fantasy.




Out of interest, why are you insulted? I'm just pointing out, with no malice, that faeries are iconic with in the community. I mean, I know of two fairy cults that are intertwined with the gothic scene here. 

The player I mentioned wasn't interested in game mechanics but just a freak for faeries and stuff of that nature (get it). Of course, I know that and you didn't but I wasn't trying to offend anybody, so I apologize.


----------



## hopeless (Feb 14, 2010)

*Reg: Darkfire and that link*



Crothian said:


> What is? Usually its better to explain your postion then having links to things.




As far as I can tell what Chris Perkins should have said is that Darkfire can only be used to cloak a target in what looks like fire granting an attack bonus, it isn't actually fire more a sort of faerie fire but other than that I have no idea.


----------



## hopeless (Feb 14, 2010)

*Reg: This*



unan oranis said:


> Drow dark-fire not melting ice? Sounds... reasonable?
> I would have let the guy make an arcana check to "magically" melt the ice, or given him some option other than "there is only one way to open this door - period".
> Especially as this is being recorded, I think you'd want to stonewall as little as possible.
> But still, drow dark-fire doesn't actually make fire.




Just a thought but wouldn't prestdigitation work on melting the ice?


----------



## nedjer (Feb 14, 2010)

Kzach said:


> You know, after listening to the podcast, not only do I think this is such a non-issue as to make this a totally ridiculous accusation, but the fact that he prompted the players by reminding them they all had torches, and that the door could be melted by other fire-related means, this puts the accusation squarely in troll territory.
> 
> Not only is there nothing wrong with how he handled it, nobody was up in arms over it or upset by it or even noticed it beyond the half-second it took to mentally absorb the concept that the door was not a creature.




I don't need to transcend any kind 4e hate, because I've never had 4e hate. Despite its battle game micro-management rules it is entirely possible to play 4e at speed and with roleplaying.

However, the GM has to make that happen in 4e and the Youtube videos show exactly how to get a major fail and end up with a laborious and predictable 'adventure'. This is nothing to do with niggling interpretations of the rules and everything to do with skipping essentials:

- the scenario is mapped out in advance instead of revealed (OK for new players but it takes suspense out of the game)
- play is unbearably slow to the point where we're watching lingering shots of someone sucking a doughnut
- encounters happen in a hermitically sealed bubble, where you can spend half an hour talking with a door without anyone butting in
- the talking door is a fantastical early 1980's trap which takes players away from any sense of threat or gritty realism
- the player's are not challenged by the trap/ puzzle. They just roll a dice and hear the outcome
- the Darkfire 'decision' is 2 seconds of GM's disgression not a debate about the geopolitical structure of the Balkans

The WoTC guy may be a great manager/ product designer but it is not trolling to recognise that, on the occasions shown, we are watching a demonstration of mechanics not roleplaying. This is the result of skipping several roleplaying essentials involving engaging your audience and enabling roleplaying.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Feb 14, 2010)

@nedjer

The only failed adventure is one in which the participants don't have fun. If they only get through 1/10th of a battle in 4 hours, was laborious and predictable, and they had the time of their lives, they win.

It feels weird typing it, but I think you seem to be missing that in your discussion of "essentials."


----------



## kevtar (Feb 14, 2010)

Our group plays different editions, we're not locked into a particular edition, but right now we are playing the scales of war [4e] and our game sessions DON'T look like these. I think part of the problem was that he was teaching people to play, and it is a challenge to keep the energy high when you have to explain a rule on every roll. Apart from that, I would've allowed the player to target the door, but there would not have been any effect from the use of Darkfire. No harm, no foul... move along.

The biggest issue for me was that it just didn't look fun. I'm not cappin' on Perkins' DMing skills, it's just that the video wasn't very interesting. I don't see how that is going to entice anyone to play D&D. It was basically ten minutes of opening a frozen door, and what's worse, there are the "geeky" (or what is perceived as being geeky) rules arguments that appear in the comments below - and yes, I participated in the argument. I am geek, hear me roar.

Overall, not a shining moment for 4e or any PnP rpg. Perhaps those of us who feel we have fun, exciting games should post video edits of some of our encounters.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 14, 2010)

kevtar said:


> Overall, not a shining moment for 4e or any PnP rpg. Perhaps those of us who feel we have fun, exciting games should post video edits of some of our encounters.



Yep. In a few threads over the last couple of years, mostly referencing the WotC podcasts, I've made exactly the same invitation. And no-one, so far as I know, has done so.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 14, 2010)

re: Branding

See the whole dustup in the other thread about the "genericness" of the term ARMY BUILDER....Really, I'm not sure what people expect companies to do....


----------



## nedjer (Feb 14, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> @nedjer
> 
> The only failed adventure is one in which the participants don't have fun. If they only get through 1/10th of a battle in 4 hours, was laborious and predictable, and they had the time of their lives, they win.
> 
> It feels weird typing it, but I think you seem to be missing that in your discussion of "essentials."




I don't doubt that they had social fun or that new players make a difference. However, 'the essentials' are about the clear link between in-game 'fun' or 'enjoyment' and the many choices we have when we use our brains to generate enjoyment during gameplay.

It's discussed at:

RPGs and skills/ fun
Tabletop RPGs and skills/ fun
Videogame RPGs and skills/ fun

Everything there is based on empirical evidence drawn from high quality scientific research. The videogame industry spends fortunes on researching the link between fun or enjoyment and how we 'exercise' our brains during gameplay.

This, perhaps, 'matters' with tabletop RPGs because the 80% of the world most in need of fun and skills will never afford a subscription to DDI or a copy of Final Fantasy 13. So, yeah, I'm being preachy not ranty


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 14, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Tortoise (Feb 14, 2010)

I've also been a player at Chris Perkins' table for a session. Back at GenCon in 2000 he was running a bunch of us through a 3E session. Instead of nit-picking us on the new rules, he let me get away with something while running a cleric. I converted my domain spell to healing (which the 3e rules forbade).

This instance seems like he was trying to get the newbies to examine their powers to pick up rules tidbits, though I agree, a little more explanation would have helped tremendously especially since the video will be seen by new players and new DMs alike.

Chris is a good DM, and as PirateCat already said, very evocative with his role-playing and descriptions.


----------



## Rel (Feb 14, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Was playing rules light with a kid last night. In almost the same amount of time as that video she knocked out a couple of goblins, then wounded, healed and befriended a timber wolf, duelled with a goblin shaman, interrogated another goblin who told her to drink from a fountain. Didn't drink from the poisoned fountain but evaporated some of the water to form a blade venom and . . .




I love this kind of stuff!  As somebody who has, and continues to, run games for his daughter, I would love to read more about the adventures you've run.  I'm especially interested in rules and techniques for younger players.

If you ever decide to post a thread about this topic in particular, please let me know.


----------



## kevtar (Feb 14, 2010)

wedgeski said:


> Yep. In a few threads over the last couple of years, mostly referencing the WotC podcasts, I've made exactly the same invitation. And no-one, so far as I know, has done so.




My sons are trying to round up a game tomorrow (since they don't have school - thank you 'President's Day.') So, if that happens, I'll break out the camera, record an encounter, and edit it down to a 10-minute video. I'm not saying our sessions are any better, it will just be a different take on D&D.


----------



## filthgrinder (Feb 14, 2010)

kevtar said:


> My sons are trying to round up a game tomorrow (since they don't have school - thank you 'President's Day.') So, if that happens, I'll break out the camera, record an encounter, and edit it down to a 10-minute video. I'm not saying our sessions are any better, it will just be a different take on D&D.




And cheating. This video is part 5 of the session, it's not edited down to 10 minutes, it's just minute 40 to 50 of the game session. They didn't pick an encounter and edit it down, the camera is just rolling.

Get five people together, most of whom have little to no experience with D&D, and then try and teach them all to play, run the adventure, get them all happy, and oh yeah, overcome any possible stage fright you have about having a camera on you. Oh, and also know that everything you say is going to be nitpicked and judged by fanboys on the internet.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 14, 2010)

filthgrinder said:


> And cheating. This video is part 5 of the session, it's not edited down to 10 minutes, it's just minute 40 to 50 of the game session. They didn't pick an encounter and edit it down, the camera is just rolling.




And maybe that's not such a great idea?  When my wife does videos of our baby on Youtube she doesn't just let the camera run and post the whole thing, she edits it up into something decent.


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 14, 2010)

Orius said:


> S'mon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How many tips is a DM expected to drop? They player had the card in hand, telling them full well what the effect does. How is it rat bastardly not reexplaining what was stated on in the text in front of the player.



			
				Starfox said:
			
		

> My main experience of Mr. Perkins is as editor of Dungeon Magazine, which I thought was one of the low points of that publication because it empathized dungeons over stories.



Sounds like he was dong his job to me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 14, 2010)

S'mon said:


> And maybe that's not such a great idea?  When my wife does videos of our baby on Youtube she doesn't just let the camera run and post the whole thing, she edits it up into something decent.



Of course, one could still complain if they were edited:
"See, they are editing it! They probably took everything out that made  them look bad! They don't trust their own game well enough to just show  off a regular game!"

But maybe you are right anyway. I think it's their first take on it. The Penny Arcade Podcasts (audio only) weren't edited, IIRC. But maybe you really need to do it differently with a visual medium? 

I listened to the PA podcasts while driving. My eyes were busy elsewhere. If I were to watch the videos, I'd have to dedicate time for them alone, I guess boring parts might indeed hurt more than with the audio casts.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Feb 14, 2010)

bagger245 said:


> Is this how majority of 4e games are played?



NO.

For some reason, some DMs -- regardless of edition -- are afraid to use common sense.

If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny because Basic Attacks also list 'one creature' as their valid target -- so apparently you can't even try to smash a door down with your hammer or fists in Chris' game.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 14, 2010)

*Well*

I wouldn't have let darkfire work either -- even to make it easier to hit the door (I don't think a to hit roll against a door represents aiming at it, but rather connecting with a really solid blow).

I do agree though, that refusal because 'it is not a creature' is lame.   A quick explanation of what Darkfire is would have been better.

He did draw  a nice battlemap, though!    And to be honest, who here hasn't made an on the fly ruling that they regretted later or that could have been delivered better?  

Ken


----------



## Psion (Feb 14, 2010)

Wow. That was a prime example of what I am talking about in my sig... letting the rules use you.

Now it may well be that it is, by concept, not a valid use of the power if it represents some life-sapping ability. But from appearances, that's not what was going on there. Perkins specifically asked to see the card, cited the creature bit as his reason, not the concept that might be behind it.

Now, I don't think this is JUST a 4e problem. I've been using that sig line since the 3e era, after all. I _do_ think the syndrome is worsened by edition shift given the shift to a less "simulationist" philosophy, telling me that things occur some way because the game text says so, not because of the _reason_ behind the game text.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Feb 14, 2010)

Psion said:


> Wow. That was a prime example of what I am talking about in my sig... letting the rules use you.
> 
> Now it may well be that it is, by concept, not a valid use of the power if it represents some life-sapping ability. But from appearances, that's not what was going on there. Perkins specifically asked to see the card, cited the creature bit as his reason, not the concept that might be behind it.
> 
> Now, I don't think this is JUST a 4e problem. I've been using that sig line since the 3e era, after all. I _do_ think the syndrome is worsened by edition shift given the shift to a less "simulationist" philosophy, telling me that things occur some way because the game text says so, not because of the _reason_ behind the game text.




Or you could be searching too hard to notice a phenomenon which you already see as prevalent. And the ruling just meant that certain magic simply doesn´t work on objects. 
But who knows. Perhaps there IS a storm in this glass of water, and i just can´t see it.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 14, 2010)

Rel said:


> I love this kind of stuff!  As somebody who has, and continues to, run games for his daughter, I would love to read more about the adventures you've run.  I'm especially interested in rules and techniques for younger players.
> 
> If you ever decide to post a thread about this topic in particular, please let me know.




Working on a guide to getting kids into imaginative play and RPGs at present. Bigger task than I thought when I started sketching it out. Was going to be a blog post for Thistle Games but it's well past that now.

It'll be science not opinion, easy to digest and include more from Coco Wildwolf. Will share for free with ENWorld when it's done.

Coco's 'in training' to do a walkthrough for the system free scenarios/ setting project 'Questions of a 1000 Dreams' developing out of working with graphic RPG Treasure. Coco saw some of the rough layouts and artwork emailed by the concept artist and wouldn't shut up about it until a game was promised.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 14, 2010)

Hmm, Kevin says that in the earlier 2000's that Chris had a more dramatic nature.

Last year, someone told me...that he (Chris) is more mechanical in nature (less dramatic?) 

Which one of you cast a alignment shift on that man?


----------



## MrGrenadine (Feb 14, 2010)

Kzach said:


> You're missing the point. You will find something wrong with whatever WotC does. It's a talent.




Not to be argumentative, but from reading your posts, you seem to be very sensitive to anyone criticizing WotC or have any issues with 4e--even if they play it, too.

Someone who dislikes 4e might actually have some insight as to how it could be improved, if you'd just listen without seeing them as lashing out, (and then lashing out yourself).


----------



## S'mon (Feb 14, 2010)

Psion said:


> Now, I don't think this is JUST a 4e problem. I've been using that sig line since the 3e era, after all. I _do_ think the syndrome is worsened by edition shift given the shift to a less "simulationist" philosophy, telling me that things occur some way because the game text says so, not because of the _reason_ behind the game text.




I actually feel far less rules-ridden by 4e than I was by 3e, back when I used to run 3e more or less by RAW.   3e's attempt at simulation-by-rules; eg building monsters and NPCs by the rules for PCs, caused a lot more problems than 4e's approach of rules-are-for-players, which used to be my sig line.


----------



## jbear (Feb 14, 2010)

FireLance said:


> DMs making mistakes happens regardless of edition.
> 
> DMs saying "No" instead of "Yes" happens regardless of edition.
> 
> ...



Agreed on all accounts.

I think this a case of lack of familiarity with the rules. It certainly isn't one of the important rules but it certainly is mentioned somewhere that powers can be used to target objects. I think I recall this point came up in one of the very early Aquisitiions Inc. Podcasts when they first descended into the Keep of the Shadowfell (I may be wrong). Certainly, the DM in the video had to read the card, so clearly he didn't even know what darkfire was off the top of his head and it is clearly an unsuitable power to use to melt ice.

This isn't entirely surprising considering later podcasts in which Mr Wheaton's Avenger was fighting with a +3 or 4 to attack, and the DM didn't even pick up on the fact that he wasn't adding in his weapon proficiency bonus to his attacks.

New players, DMs unfamiliar with the rules... play is bound to be slower and lacking fluidity and improvisation. 

I think it is unfair to suggest that the system has anything to do with this kind of ruling. The first time I read 'say yes', was reading the 4e DMG.


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Feb 14, 2010)

I gotta say that these unedited videos will probably be a problem.    My session last night ran 5 hours, and was just a tiny part of an adventure.

If they do that whole dungeon there in 10 minute segments... 1 per week, they'll have them all posted sometime around 2018.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 14, 2010)

jbear said:


> I think this a case of lack of familiarity with the rules.... ....Certainly, the DM in the video had to read the card, so clearly he didn't even know what darkfire was off the top of his head... New players, DMs unfamiliar with the rules... play is bound to be slower and lacking fluidity and improvisation...




Chris Perkins... *cough*...


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 14, 2010)

*Kzach has just gotten himself suspended for a few weeks. I'll be addressing the thread's other problems in a second. Guys, you know better - stop with the edition war crap and the veiled (or otherwise!) insults. No one wants to read it, honestly. I'd much rather we talk about the games we love, instead of complaining about the ones we don't.*


----------



## Starfox (Feb 14, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> Starfox said:
> 
> 
> > My main experience of Mr. Perkins is as editor of Dungeon Magazine, *which I thought* was one of the low points of that publication because it empathized dungeons over stories.
> ...




(My bold in the quote)

I was merely stating an opinion. He was doing his job, only not in the way I wanted him to. Its a matter of taste. 

I am reading through old Dungeon issues (At #26 now) and in this period, each issue has about one dungeon and 3-4 adventures with plot. The dungeons tended to be longer, so I guess the magazine ended up with about equal parts dungeons, sandbox resources, and scenarios with plot. And that's how I liked it. I guess you liked the later issues with more dungeons better. No quarrel with that.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 14, 2010)

I think we are lookng far to deep into somebody else's game session.

To quote "mountain out of a molehill, tempest in a teapot, people in glass houses should't throw stones"...etc

Does/did he do somethings different than I would?  Sure.

Has this session and the Penny Arcade one's been enjoyable and sparked some creative thoughts on my part? Yup.


----------



## bagger245 (Feb 14, 2010)

Truth Seeker said:


> Hmm, Kevin says that in the earlier 2000's that Chris had a more dramatic nature.
> 
> Last year, someone told me...that he (Chris) is more mechanical in nature (less dramatic?)
> 
> Which one of you cast a alignment shift on that man?




I am interested to see him DM 3.5e or earlier D&D to see if there is a difference.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 14, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> *Kzach has just gotten himself suspended for a few weeks. I'll be addressing the thread's other problems in a second. Guys, you know better - stop with the edition war crap and the veiled (or otherwise!) insults. No one wants to read it, honestly. I'd much rather we talk about the games we love, instead of complaining about the ones we don't.*




Be good if all the energy put into Edition Fury went into something more constructive. As a relative EN newbie it's slightly bizarre to see so many topics veer off in the direction of the Edition Wars lowest common denominator. What about creating more players, or seeking out the common ground for 5E and presenting a concensus to WotC, how about asking WotC Youtube guy to get fired up like he's going snowboarding and tape a self designed game session with four teenagers who know the basics?


----------



## S'mon (Feb 14, 2010)

nedjer said:


> how about asking WotC Youtube guy to get fired up like he's going snowboarding and tape a self designed game session with four teenagers who know the basics?




Personally I would really like to see a video of an 'all stars' game with one of the best GMs plus a bunch of the best players in the hobby.  I suspect I could learn a lot from that.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 14, 2010)

I do think this transcends editions....

As mentioned earlier, I suggest people look through their old DRAGON "Ask the Sage" columns...Skip was a stickler for the letter of the law and if this was 2e and the player was using the 2e equivalent, "Faerie Fire", I would expect Sage to say the EXACT same thing....


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 14, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Personally I would really like to see a video of an 'all stars' game with one of the best GMs plus a bunch of the best players in the hobby.  I suspect I could learn a lot from that.




Now, if we could just get a consensus on what constitutes the best DM and best player.....


----------



## S'mon (Feb 14, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Now, if we could just get a consensus on what constitutes the best DM and best player.....




Well, I've seen a lot of praise for Chris Perkins (until this thread!); Kevin Kulp/Piratecat is universally praised by those he's GM'd for, and Mike Mearls sounds like he must be a pretty good GM too.  

As for players, I'd go by whoever the GM thinks are the bestest, funnest players to run a game for.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 14, 2010)

Pig Champion said:


> Out of interest, why are you insulted? I'm just pointing out, with no malice, that faeries are iconic with in the community. I mean, I know of two fairy cults that are intertwined with the gothic scene here.
> 
> The player I mentioned wasn't interested in game mechanics but just a freak for faeries and stuff of that nature (get it). Of course, I know that and you didn't but I wasn't trying to offend anybody, so I apologize.




Faeries are not iconic to the goth community and have nothing to do with goth.  Faeries (dark faeries and UnSeelie) are just another piece of folk-lore/myth that was cooped by goths and popularized by the over abundance of faerie related merchandise that appeared in Hot-Topic during the late 1990s and early 2000s.  

"Faerie cults," however, are an off shoot of Neo-Paganism, Spiritualism and New Age-ism.  It is only became prevalent within the goth subculture because the goths are more open, accepting and non-judgmental of that sort of thing compared to other groups/scenes.    

Liking faeries or being a member of a "faerie cult" is not a requirement of being goth nor is being goth a requirement of liking faeries or being a member of a "faerie cult".  Limiting one's creative desires based on what subculture they identify with is some what is insulting, as is assuming every individual within that subculture would express their creative desires using the same method. Is was what I thought you were doing in your post.  I thought you were denigrating  that player's creativity by adding a "goth/emo kid" as a pejorative (which was why I was insulted).

As you said, it wasn't meant as a pejorative, so I apologize for taking it the wrong way.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 15, 2010)

Did anyone else notice that Chris was having the players use their Basic Attack when they could easily be using an power? That happened twice (once with Steel Diamond and again with the Goliath), so I don't know if it was a mistake or a conscious decision. Either way, that seems like a bigger "sin" to me than the call he made on _Darkfire_.


----------



## bagger245 (Feb 15, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Did anyone else notice that Chris was having the players use their Basic Attack when they could easily be using an power? That happened twice (once with Steel Diamond and again with the Goliath), so I don't know if it was a mistake or a conscious decision. Either way, that seems like a bigger "sin" to me than the call he made on _Darkfire_.




Yeah, i posted in another forum saying it was basic melee attack galore. Maybe because he expects the player to tell him when they want to use an at-will. Though I think everyone would recommend a newbie to use the greencards. It's not a norm but hey, it's the first time I see the melee basic attack being used frequently in 4e.


----------



## Pig Champion (Feb 15, 2010)

Relique du Madde said:


> Faeries are not iconic to the goth community
> 
> *snip*
> 
> As you said, it wasn't meant as a pejorative, so I apologize for taking it the wrong way.




I guess we'll agree to disagree then. I hope I did that snip trick right haha.



El Mahdi said:


> LOL! That would have been cool. I can see it now...
> 
> _"Awww, your'e just so cute!...The full moon really highlights your gossamer little wings!...Wait!...What's happening to you?...Stay Away!...Aaaaaaaaaah!"_
> 
> Yup, Very Cool Indeed!




I know right, we had quite a lot of fun with it.


----------



## rexartur (Feb 15, 2010)

Late to the party and there are several points that have come up on this thread, but to address just one; this was addressed in an update to the rules so I have to assume enough people had questions about it

"Target
Page 57: Replace the first paragraph with the following text.
If a power directly affects one or more creatures or objects, it has a “Target” or “Targets” entry. Some powers include objects as targets. At the DM’s discretion, a power that targets a creature can also target an 
object, whether or not the power identifies an object as a potential target."

I had the same question myself in earlier 4E games.  I've had people tell me I'm the best DM they've had and others tell me I'm the worst.  Since those are opposite extremes I have to assume there is something (if not mostly) subjective about those claims.  As it is the only folks I'm trying to entertain are those sitting at my table at any given moment - glad I'm not being taped - what we find hilarious may be boring to tears for others.

Just my 2 cents - spend wisely - inflation has devalued them.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Feb 15, 2010)

Vorput said:


> I sort of got the feeling they were supposed to do that.  After all, it is a big rotating fire-shooting trap in the middle of a room with an ice-sealed door.




Whether darkfire would work or not (I'd rule that it's not actually a heat source), the entire "challenge" appears to have been designed specifically for pixel-bitching.

When you design a challenge like that, you look for reasons to _not_ let other solutions succeed. It's a very bad mindset to get into as a GM.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 15, 2010)

RE: Pixie Werewolves.

I noticed that everyone is assuming its a little pixie with lycanthropy.  What if its a regular werewolf who happens to have fey blood?

Imagine the ridicule when that lycan shows up to run with the pack...sporting a pair of 4' wide gossamer wings.


----------



## kevtar (Feb 15, 2010)

filthgrinder said:


> And cheating.



Cheating? Am I playing a game? Is there a rule about what videos I can post?



filthgrinder said:


> This video is part 5 of the session, it's not edited down to 10 minutes, it's just minute 40 to 50 of the game session. They didn't pick an encounter and edit it down, the camera is just rolling.




While the encounter is not edited down to 10 minutes, the video is almost certainly edited. My point is not to "one up" the video, or even to compete with it, but to offer other demonstrations of play.



filthgrinder said:


> Get five people together, most of whom have little to no experience with D&D, and then try and teach them all to play, run the adventure, get them all happy, and oh yeah, overcome any possible stage fright you have about having a camera on you. Oh, and also know that everything you say is going to be nitpicked and judged by fanboys on the internet.




I think you should go back and carefully read my original post. I acknowledged many of the things you mention above. Again, I wasn't criticizing Perkins. I just thought that, in my opinion, it was not a strong method for demonstrating the fun people can have playing D&D. I then mentioned that I would consider recording one of our own sessions as a different perspective - mostly in response to those who say "4e sux!" - because we've enjoyed 4e just as we've enjoyed 1st e, 3rd e, etc.

Moreover, I've made a point in presenting my opinions in a respectful manner, and in a way that contributes to the quality of the thread. I hope to receive the same consideration in return.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 15, 2010)

Were-mosquito?  Were-Butterfly?  It flaps its wings and a hurricane destroys a town... five thousand miles away.  

I gotta admit, I'd love to see people do the video thing.  But, it is totally true that RPG's are most certainly NOT a spectator sport.  I like listening to the Penny Arcade guys+Wil Wheaton, but, that's because those guys are seriously funny to listen to.  

I'm not so sure that the comedy gold at my table wouldn't turn to comedy brass in translation.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 15, 2010)

Relique du Madde said:


> Faeries are not iconic to the goth community and have nothing to do with goth.



If nothing else, it's confusing Goth with Otherkin.


----------



## Orius (Feb 15, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I do think this transcends editions....
> 
> As mentioned earlier, I suggest people look through their old DRAGON "Ask the Sage" columns...Skip was a stickler for the letter of the law and if this was 2e and the player was using the 2e equivalent, "Faerie Fire", I would expect Sage to say the EXACT same thing....




I mentioned that above.  The spell that comes to mind (_frisky chest_ IIRC) in this case is one from the 2e ToM that was meant as an anti-thief deterent that would case a chest or other object to move away from a character that wasn't supposed to touch it.  The spell apparently was poorly worded in a way that player were using it to herd chests loaded with loot out of dungeons.  Skip's opinion was that DMs should make that tactic very inconvenient and that the spell had some very overdue errata (might have gotten it in the Priest's Spell compendium at the end of the edition).


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 15, 2010)

Man, I loved _frisky chest._ In Sagiro's game we'd cast it on toys for the adventuring group's pet cats to play with.



S'mon said:


> ...and Mike Mearls sounds like he must be a pretty good GM too.



Mearls is an excellent GM. I first got to know him co-GMing a Call of Cthulhu one-shot way back in the 90s when he was at Dartmouth. He's very fun, with a good sense for what makes a fight dramatic and exciting. 


S'mon said:


> Personally I would really like to see a video of an 'all stars' game with one of the best GMs plus a bunch of the best players in the hobby.  I suspect I could learn a lot from that.



This was why I loved the old RPGA Grand Master and Paragon games; tables of smart, funny players where everyone had the same play style. If you're going to play D&D with strangers, that was how to do it.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 15, 2010)

I would say somethng to that...but if you get the chance. Let me know and we can compare notes.



bagger245 said:


> I am interested to see him DM 3.5e or earlier D&D to see if there is a difference.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 15, 2010)

Relique du Madde said:


> Faeries are not iconic to the goth community and have nothing to do with goth.




Gonna have to disagree with you on this one.  The various subcultures of goth, neopaganism, and the like are very fluid and have "fuzzy" boundaries.

I've personally known quite a few goths who fit the profile you describe Relique, I've also known quite a few folks who consider themselves goth, neopagan, and they love faeries.

Also, not sure how old you are, but the goth subculture is at least 25 years old, if not older, and it's evolved over time.  As has every subculture that has lasted as long.

Not to mention things vary depending on where you live . . . what region of world, what part of the US, what city, even which particular group of goths you might hang out with . . . .


----------



## messy (Feb 15, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Now, if we could just get a consensus on what constitutes the best DM...




monte cook?


----------



## Rel (Feb 15, 2010)

I think we can save the discussion about the boundaries of what is or isn't Goth for another time.  Thanks.


----------



## Windjammer (Feb 15, 2010)

WarlockLord said:


> This.  This is videogame logic, the logic that won't let you get past the Ragecandybar man despite the fact that you have 2 dragons and a ghost in your pocket.  Tvtropes.  Why is this considered good? And would you want your DM to do it?




Let's just say there's a reason why I don't post these things on EnWorld anymore. But kudos for taking my post and just seeing how much signal to noise ratio it would catch here. Impressive!


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 15, 2010)

I guess I have to be one of the few people to defend Chris Perkins here.  He did nothing wrong at all.  The rules say it can't target objects unless the DM says so.  Chris is following the rules.  I don't understand the pure disdain hurled at him for that.

Here's why I don't think it was a bad reason to give:  The logical reason starts arguments.

Flash back to my 2e games:

Me: "There's a frozen door covered in ice."
Wizard: "I fireball it, that should melt all the ice off."
Me: "Fireball is extremely hot, but it only lasts for a fraction of a second, it isn't going to melt all the ice off."
Wizard: "What?  It does enough damage to kill someone outright and you're saying it doesn't last long enough to melt a door?"
Me: "Yes, that's my ruling."
Wizard: "Well it's stupid.  Look, a fireball probably has to burn at what, 1000 degrees Celsius?  We could figure it out, but I'm guessing that melts ice in fractions of a second."
Me: "I don't want to start using physics equations to figure this out, let's just say it doesn't last long enough to melt the ice and move on with finding a different solution to the problem."
Wizard: "You aren't letting me be creative with my powers.  This game is stupid."

Fast forward back to my 4e games:

Wizard: "I use a fire based power on the frozen door."
Me: "You can't, that power doesn't work on objects, only creatures."
Wizard: "Oh, yeah, you're right...that's what it says.  Alright, let's get the Fighter to try to push the door open with a strength check."

This isn't to say that I wouldn't let some powers target the door.  But if the point of the challenge is to use skills to solve it, I don't like people bypassing the challenge entirely by using powers.

Powers, to me, are the in combat method of solving problems with people attempting to kill you.  Skills and Rituals are the out of combat ways of solving problems.  And I like to keep the 2 separate if at all possible.  Otherwise we run into the Wizard syndrome from earlier editions again.  Why be good at a skill when there is certain to be a power that succeeds automatically when you have a chance of failure?  My solution to this is simple.  Powers rarely, if ever affect non-combat situations(utilities not withstanding).


----------



## Nikosandros (Feb 15, 2010)

Well, in 2e a _fireball_ can melt soft metal, so it certainly can melt ice...


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 15, 2010)

Nikosandros said:


> Well, in 2e a _fireball_ can melt soft metal, so it certainly can melt ice...




Depends how thick the ice is.  It might melt off a couple of inches.  But of course, the fact that this discussion can happen at all, is kind of my point.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 15, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I guess I have to be one of the few people to defend Chris Perkins here.  He did nothing wrong at all.  The rules say it can't target objects unless the DM says so.  Chris is following the rules.  I don't understand the pure disdain hurled at him for that.




Many posts ago this was a thread about the style of play not how the rules were applied. Chris did nothing 'wrong' in running the rules as he wanted to, he also did nothing 'wrong' in choosing a particular style of play - he's a professional businessman, not a professional tutor or teacher.

However, if the idea was to put across the sense of anticipation, spontaneous fun and 'edge of the seat' gameplay that would encourage young players to try out tabletop RPGs the plan went out the window when the leather Gandalf chairs arrived.


----------



## messy (Feb 15, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Chris is following the rules.  I don't understand the pure disdain hurled at him for that.




i can't help wondering if he'd be the recipient of such hostility if he weren't a wotc employee playing 4e...

messy


----------



## The Ghost (Feb 15, 2010)

messy said:


> i can't help wondering if he'd be the recipient of such hostility if he weren't a wotc employee playing 4e...
> 
> messy




I think that there is an expectation that a WotC employee should be a "better" DM than your average DM - regardless of edition. At least, that is the assumption I hold.


----------



## Festivus (Feb 15, 2010)

bagger245 said:


> Is this how majority of 4e games are played?




I can't speak to the majority of tables, but certainly not at m table.  I always look for a way to say yes.  If someone said "Hey, I want to use Darkfire to try to melt the door open"... I would let them give it a try.  In the case of darkfire melting the ice, I would say that the door is outlined with blue magical flames but that the ice didn't seem to melt.  What bothered me was Chris said it was a minor action to open the doors... so let the person try to open the frikken locked door.  They would attempt to open the door, expending the minor action, and THEN I would explain that it was locked.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 15, 2010)

Festivus said:


> What bothered me was Chris said it was a minor action to open the doors... so let the person try to open the frikken locked door.  They would attempt to open the door, expending the minor action, and THEN I would explain that it was locked.



I believe this is exactly what happened. The player moved to the door (move action) and said he was attempting to open them (minor action), after which Chris told him the doors were "stuck" and explained that they appeared to be frozen shut. The player then went through his options for his standard action and decided, in the end, to try opening the door with a Str check, which failed. End of turn.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 15, 2010)

Festivus said:


> I can't speak to the majority of tables, but certainly not at m table.  I always look for a way to say yes.  If someone said "Hey, I want to use Darkfire to try to melt the door open"... I would let them give it a try.  In the case of darkfire melting the ice, I would say that the door is outlined with blue magical flames but that the ice didn't seem to melt.  What bothered me was Chris said it was a minor action to open the doors... so let the person try to open the frikken locked door.  They would attempt to open the door, expending the minor action, and THEN I would explain that it was locked.




I thought that was what happened - the PC moved up (Move) tried and failed to open door (Minor), spent 6 minutes deciding what to do then tried & failed to push it open (Standard).

Majoru - the main thing about "Darkfire" is that it's not Fire.  Hence, no heat.  So it shouldn't melt the ice.  Conversely a 2e Fireball certainly should have an effect on the ice, either hit point damage or an object saving throw.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 15, 2010)

Personally, rather then let them try, or simply say no, I'd tell them they could try if they wanted to, but as their character knows Darkfire doesn't generate any heat, they assume it probably wouldn't have any effect.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 15, 2010)

The Ghost said:


> I think that there is an expectation that a WotC employee should be a "better" DM than your average DM - regardless of edition. At least, that is the assumption I hold.




Which seems puzzling to me. They probably haven't had any training in running events and tutoring kids or adults. Would you ask them to go into a room in a college with a bunch of sixteen year olds to run a scenario on coping with a supervolcano eruption or deciding what technology to use to deliver health information in Africa? Probably not, because they wouldn't be considered trained to a suitable standard.


----------



## Festivus (Feb 15, 2010)

I must have mis-heard what he said.  Because I heard "You can use a minor action to open the door, but actually before you do that you can see that it's locked".  I didn't think the player expended his minor (if I was the player, that would have been what I was thinking).

Hey, here is a thought, how about some of you who have a different playstyle, set up a similar encounter and video it, stick it on youtube as a response to that one so we can see how your table would run it?


----------



## Saracenus (Feb 15, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Did anyone else notice that Chris was having the players use their Basic Attack when they could easily be using an power? That happened twice (once with Steel Diamond and again with the Goliath), so I don't know if it was a mistake or a conscious decision. Either way, that seems like a bigger "sin" to me than the call he made on _Darkfire_.






bagger245 said:


> Yeah, i posted in another forum saying it was basic melee attack galore. Maybe because he expects the player to tell him when they want to use an at-will. Though I think everyone would recommend a newbie to use the greencards. It's not a norm but hey, it's the first time I see the melee basic attack being used frequently in 4e.




Ice: Slick ice patches are _*difficult terrain*_. You might also require an Acrobatics check for a character to avoid falling. See the relevant DCs under “Balance” in the Acrobatics skill in the Player’s Handbook (page 180). (DMG, pg. 66)

_*Difficult terrain*_ = spaces with ice require 2 squares of movement to enter.

If the PC moved more than three spaces he was charging to attack. Basically Chris Perkins was not announcing that they were charging. 

It would have been better for him to explain that they need to charge to attack and ask them to check their powers to see if one of their attacks can be used in place of a regular melee basic attack.

But this wasn't my game, so that is not what happened.

BTW, the suggested method for ice is roll acrobatics when you first enter a square with it. I think I like Perkins' way, rolling it after hitting a certain number of squares.

My Two Coppers,


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 15, 2010)

I don't think the video is indicative of any sort of mentality.

I have said NO to new players many times.  Some of them are still playing in my game.  If a player asks me if they can do something I expect them to be mature enough to not take a NO as a personal affront.  If they can't handle that, I am not convinced it is my job to coddle people.  (the player in the video did not need coddling, I am just stating a general sort of thing)

I like to point out what they might be able to do instead, but that depends on the situation.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 15, 2010)

Hm.  Context matters...

If that were at my table, I'd have ruled that he probably could use the power on the door ("You want to outline the door in purple light?  Sure!") but would have warned the player there's no actual fire involved in the power so it would not have the desired effect, because really, the character would know that.

However, that wasn't happening at my campaign-table at home.  That was part of a (one shot, with newbie players?) game with something like minor celebrities, being filmed for PR and marketing.  That's a different situation.

My normal ruling might make the minor celebrity look a little dumb on camera (he hadn't bothered to read his power beyond the name?).  Plus I risk making my game look a little nonsensical ("Why is it named Dark_fire_ if there's no fire?").  So, the DM instead went with a ruling that is technically accurate (the choice to allow the power to be used on objects is in the DM's hands), and sits in a rules-detail where it isn't all that embarrassing if a new player doesn't know it.  

In addition, in the filming context, when the DM knows there's a way to deal with it that's going to be bleeding obvious in 30 seconds, it makes sense to use a ruling that will keep the players from rooting around through their powers for several minutes looking for a solution, and instead point them at looking at the surroundings.  While maybe not the best ruling in terms of getting players to do new things specifically with their powers, it does put emphasis that the game calls for interacting with the environment in ways the audience might not expect.

So, maybe in that context, it doesn't look all that bad...


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Feb 15, 2010)

Hmmh, I don't understand the fuzz.

The guy asks: "Can I attack a door with Darkfire?"

So Chris' answer is correct and adequate, a meta-game answer to a meta-game question.


----------



## kevtar (Feb 15, 2010)

nedjer said:


> However, if the idea was to put across the sense of anticipation, spontaneous fun and 'edge of the seat' gameplay that would encourage young players to try out tabletop RPGs the plan went out the window when the leather Gandalf chairs arrived.




Lol, nice.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2010)

> Here's why I don't think it was a bad reason to give: The logical reason starts arguments.




Well, arguments come from unsatisfied players, IMXP. Very few people enter a game going "You know what would be a lot of fun? Debate about rules minutae in a make-believe game about elves and magic." If they're arguing, it's generally (though not always) because their fun is being shut down.

Looking beyond the argument in your examples, you can see that the player was frustrated because they had what they thought was a cool idea, and the DM basically said, "No." So the player defended their idea. Not the right thing to do (DM's say always goes), but understandable because they would have more fun having their idea work than having it shut down. The only difference in the second example is that the game itself is shutting their idea down based on a technicality, rather than the DM shutting their idea down based on the DM's judgement. A player that respected or understood the DM's reasoning would react the same way in the second example, and a player frustrated with the game's reasoning will decide that the game itself sucks and argue against the game's rules rather than the DM's rules.

And that boils it down to the essential problem: it is fun to use elements of your character in new and innovative ways. It's the basic "fun of using tools" that people have. The same rush that the caveman who came up with the idea of sharpening a stick had when he stuck it into an animal. "My imagination and cleverness have expanded my abilities!"

It is fun to use fireballs to melt door ice, even if they are mostly made for damage or combat. 

Which explains something of the resentment in some folks the game's tendency to say "rules are results, insert whatever flavor you want." It shuts down creative uses. This is good for game balance and DM control, but can certainly hurt the imagination side of the equation in some people. 

I prefer to give up DM control in a situation like this. Let them get away with blasting the door with fire or attacking it with weapons or whatever. It's clearly fun to use these elements in new ways, so encourage the fun. Just ramp up the difficulty of the next part, if you thought they got through it too easily. You're the DM, after all, nothing you haven't already said is set in stone.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 15, 2010)

Saracenus said:


> If the PC moved more than three spaces he was charging to attack. Basically Chris Perkins was not announcing that they were charging.



That's a good point.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 15, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I prefer to give up DM control in a situation like this. Let them get away with blasting the door with fire or attacking it with weapons or whatever. It's clearly fun to use these elements in new ways, so encourage the fun.




Hear, hear.

Is the point of the encounter "Get through the door"? If so, then solutions which facilitate that point ought to be encouraged. Situations that have only one solution (or a very narrow set of solutions) are almost always the result of bad scenario design. Sticking to the script when running into a bad scenario is an example of bad DMing.

No matter the game or edition.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 15, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Me: "There's a frozen door covered in ice."
> Wizard: "I fireball it, that should melt all the ice off."
> Me: "Fireball is extremely hot, but it only lasts for a fraction of a second, it isn't going to melt all the ice off."
> Wizard: "What?  It does enough damage to kill someone outright and you're saying it doesn't last long enough to melt a door?"
> ...



This is an example of a player with a jar of fromunda cheese for brains.

The player makes an argument, the referee makes a ruling, and and the game moves on. It doesn't take a printer's bale of rules.

With respect to to the original post, I don't see anything to get in a wad over; the referee answered a rules question with the rule, and while it might've been more helpful to describe to the player how the effect is not fire but flickering light, it got the job done.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 16, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It is fun to use fireballs to melt door ice, even if they are mostly made for damage or combat.
> 
> Which explains something of the resentment in some folks the game's tendency to say "rules are results, insert whatever flavor you want." It shuts down creative uses. This is good for game balance and DM control, but can certainly hurt the imagination side of the equation in some people.
> 
> I prefer to give up DM control in a situation like this. Let them get away with blasting the door with fire or attacking it with weapons or whatever. It's clearly fun to use these elements in new ways, so encourage the fun. Just ramp up the difficulty of the next part, if you thought they got through it too easily. You're the DM, after all, nothing you haven't already said is set in stone.




I agree 100%.  However let's not lose sight of the fact that some things just won't work, no matter how creative the player is.

My players come up with stuff I never thought of all the time and I shrug my shoulder, say cool, and we press on.

But if they are attempting to chop down a shrubbery with a herring, it just won't work.  Not limiting them to one solution, letting them know if one won't work.

I might have let Darkfire melt "some" of the ice, if it had a damage component.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 16, 2010)

As an aside to this...

When does a "cool idea" become an annoyance?

How do you tell your players "this idea no longer works" yet you allowed it to work in the first place?

For example, if we let Darkfire/Faerie Fire actually be fire, does this mean that the DM now has to consider every situation with faerie fire as it working like it is actual fire?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2010)

SkidAce said:
			
		

> I agree 100%. However let's not lose sight of the fact that some things just won't work, no matter how creative the player is.




I agree. Which is why I pitched the idea that the name was kind of flawed, since, by name alone, you'd get the idea that darkfire was a kind of fire. An explanation/namechange probably works better here. 



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> For example, if we let Darkfire/Faerie Fire actually be fire, does this mean that the DM now has to consider every situation with faerie fire as it working like it is actual fire?




For "rules purposes," they only need to follow the rules.

For "flavor purposes," why not? Let it keep folks warm and start tinder alight and melt stuff as if it were a candle's flame. Have fun.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> As an aside to this...
> 
> When does a "cool idea" become an annoyance?
> 
> ...




And this, right here, is the big old can of worms that gets opened when you let people get "creative" with interpretations of abilities and the like.  If you allow me to use darkfire to melt ice, can I not set someone on fire with it?  Would it not protect me in cold situations?  On and on.  

And, IMO, it's perfectly reasonable for the player to assume some or all of these things.  And it can lead to all sorts of problems at the table.

Not that it always will or anything like that.  But, I think AllisterH brings up a very valid point.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Which explains something of the resentment in some folks the game's tendency to say "rules are results, insert whatever flavor you want." It shuts down creative uses. This is good for game balance and DM control, but can certainly hurt the imagination side of the equation in some people.
> 
> I prefer to give up DM control in a situation like this. Let them get away with blasting the door with fire or attacking it with weapons or whatever. It's clearly fun to use these elements in new ways, so encourage the fun.





AllisterH said:


> As an aside to this...
> 
> When does a "cool idea" become an annoyance?
> 
> How do you tell your players "this idea no longer works" yet you allowed it to work in the first place?





Hussar said:


> And this, right here, is the big old can of worms that gets opened when you let people get "creative" with interpretations of abilities and the like.



HeroQuest 2e has a solution to this problem. _Augments_ - uses of one ability to boost another ability which is the primary ability being used - are permissible only if novel, thematically fitting and/or manifestly entertaining to the table.

The rulebook (written by Robin Laws) goes on to say "it may seem that this rule puts the Narrator in the uncomfortable position of critiquing player performance. In practice, players can be counted on to step up to the creative challenge".

In my opinion 4e would benefit from having more rules, and more GMing advice, along these lines. The DMG2 is better than the DMG, but there's still room for improvement.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 16, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> For "flavor purposes," why not? Let it keep folks warm and start tinder alight and melt stuff as if it were a candle's flame. Have fun.




What about using it AGAINST creatures vulnerable to fire. 

Does this invalidate the whole Endure elements ritual/power/spell whatever since Faerie Fire means you don't have to worry about cold conditions?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2010)

> What about using it AGAINST creatures vulnerable to fire.
> 
> Does this invalidate the whole Endure elements ritual/power/spell whatever since Faerie Fire means you don't have to worry about cold conditions?




Well, since it doesn't deal damage, it doesn't deal damage. Maybe it makes the ice elemental a little uncomfortable.

The rules of Darkfire don't say anything about helping you out with Endurance checks or anything, either. It might make a cold, rainy day a little more pleasant for you, but you can't warm your body on a candle's flame.

I should point out that still, in the scenario, it wouldn't grant an automatic success -- the door wouldn't be melted under Darkfire (though with Fireball, it might). If the fire's not hot enough to deal damage to people, logic would tell you that it's probably not hot enough to burn through ice very quickly (it makes sense, while the "only creatures" restriction doesn't quite). But even in that situation, saying "Yes, you can use Darkfire on the door, and it will very slightly heat the ice. Give it a few hours, and maybe it would melt," is saying "Yes, but...", and making sure that the effect is mild. 

If the party wants to sit around after the combat for a few hours and melt the door open with candles (as opposed to making Strength checks or tricking the ballista or whatever), I don't see much of a problem there. If they want to melt every frozen door in the place with a candle's flame, I don't see why I should stop them.

I mean, clearly, there would still be better options. Chipping away at the ice with your sword would be faster. But saying it might not be the best tactic is not quite as invalidating and frustrating as saying, flat out, "you can't do it." It says "You were clever, so here is your reward, but not clever enough, so keep trying!"

With fireball, yeah, I'd probably let it start campfires (well, blow up piles of wood), and it already deals damage to vulnerable creatures, and it doesn't last long enough for an Endure Elements style enhancement (and come to think of it, Darkfire might not either). 

*shrug* Even if some rule element does spiral out of the GM's control into unexpectedly broken territory, it's not the end of the world. Talk with the player, ratchet it down, make it an adventure, or pump up the enemies to compensate. It's not like you can't challenge someone who can make a candle's heat at will. You've got a lot of tricks in the DM's toolbox to use, even in that worst-case scenario of an abusive loophole you create.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 16, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> *shrug* Even if some rule element does spiral out of the GM's control into unexpectedly broken territory, it's not the end of the world. Talk with the player, ratchet it down, make it an adventure, or pump up the enemies to compensate. It's not like you can't challenge someone who can make a candle's heat at will. You've got a lot of tricks in the DM's toolbox to use, even in that worst-case scenario of an abusive loophole you create.




Then again, had you stuck with the rules none of this would be needed in the first place... 


This is also why I disagree with basing rule sets off of the author's "view of the world."

The problem I see is one man's view tends to be completely different then another's, so what makes complete sense to one, might be absolutely inane to another. This ends up causing countless arguments as to what the most "logical" way to handle the situation should be.

Shrug.


----------



## Rel (Feb 16, 2010)

My answer to the issue about letting creative stuff work or not is two fold.

First, sometimes good ideas are just good ideas and need no further justification than that.  In the example in the video I wouldn't let Darkfire melt ice but I would allow a power with the Fire key word do so, commensurate with the severity of the power used.

For other situations I make extensive use of the Action Point, or "The Say Yes Button" as I sometimes call it.  This was my first and best house rule for 4e and I'm finding that it fits well with most other systems too.  When situations crop up where a player wants to bend the rules then the expenditure of an Action Point pretty much guarantees that I'll say "Yes!".

The reasoning for this is that I don't want the whole of our gaming experience to be one adjudication of a creative solution after another.  That get's difficult and tiresome after a while.  But requiring the expenditure of a limited resource means that you don't need to worry as much about setting a precedent since the action is only repeatable to the extent that players have action points.  It also means that you're spreading the opportunity for such "stunts" evenly around the party, assuming that you hand out Action Points equally.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 16, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> The player makes an argument, the referee makes a ruling, and and the game moves on. It doesn't take a printer's bale of rules.




Exactly! What's 'wrong' is not the ruling about Darkfire, which is clearly at the GM's discretion, but the overall gameplay.

And it's only 'wrong' if you're trying to present RPGs as exciting. If a bunch of aged beardies want to sit around stroking Gandalf manes for a couple of hours between actual play and they're good with that then why not? Just don't expect loads of kids to rush out and buy RPGs after watching.

Won't matter whether it's 3e, 4e, Pathfinder or Buffy, kids aren't that patient (either in terms of mincing on about rules or Gandalf manes). 

However, (in the spirit of being pedantic that has consumed a potentially interesting debate on RPGs and the media) the spellcaster would have a fair idea of what the spell was capable of when learning the spell, so the appropriate step would have been to advise the player that something in the back of his mind reminds him that Darkfire isn't like standard fire.

Thereby giving the player the choice of picking a different option before his turn was wasted unnecesarily, i.e. the new player ends up feeling he's dealing with a Byzantine rule set made for the initiated instead of getting to take a useful action.

But that still doesn't make Chris guy 'wrong', because it's a game and GMs can't be 'judged', if they ever should be, on the basis of a couple of encounters.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Feb 16, 2010)

SkidAce said:


> But if they are attempting to chop down a shrubbery with a herring, it just won't work.




You could always make the DC really high.  Like, 50.

But then what happens if they roll a 20...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 16, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> You could always make the DC really high.  Like, 50.
> 
> But then what happens if they roll a 20...




Since DCs relate to Skill Checks...nothing. There is no "critical success" on a Skill Check for that very reason (3E or 4E).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 17, 2010)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Then again, had you stuck with the rules none of this would be needed in the first place...




Hehe, true, but what you might possibly have to deal with at some hypothetical point down the road should never stop you from doing what is going to be fun for people now, should it?



			
				Rel said:
			
		

> For other situations I make extensive use of the Action Point, or "The Say Yes Button" as I sometimes call it. This was my first and best house rule for 4e and I'm finding that it fits well with most other systems too. When situations crop up where a player wants to bend the rules then the expenditure of an Action Point pretty much guarantees that I'll say "Yes!".
> 
> The reasoning for this is that I don't want the whole of our gaming experience to be one adjudication of a creative solution after another. That get's difficult and tiresome after a while. But requiring the expenditure of a limited resource means that you don't need to worry as much about setting a precedent since the action is only repeatable to the extent that players have action points. It also means that you're spreading the opportunity for such "stunts" evenly around the party, assuming that you hand out Action Points equally.




I super-love this idea. Yoink.


----------



## Psion (Feb 17, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Since DCs relate to Skill Checks...nothing. There is no "critical success" on a Skill Check for that very reason (3E or 4E).




One reason why I lean to Fantasy Craft over either these days.


----------



## Garmorn (Feb 17, 2010)

Psion said:


> One reason why I lean to Fantasy Craft over either these days.




This is a very strange thread for me.  I have watched the video and think it would be a great game to play in.  It is just my style.  So where is the problem?


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Feb 17, 2010)

Garmorn said:


> This is a very strange thread for me.  I have watched the video and think it would be a great game to play in.  It is just my style.  So where is the problem?




Lots of experienced DMs in one place overanalyze an ingame decision. Some of them looking at the clouds, seeing playstyle-differences and edition-problems instead of castles and dragons. Some bragging involved.

It´s an ENworld thing, mostly - on other boards i visit, we talked about a couple of of fun videos and that was it. No "make the game your own, find your own playstyle, be a creative DM - but when you put a video of your session online, i will write a 30.000 word post, detailing what you did wrong, what i would do better, and where your problems are rooted."


----------



## Garmorn (Feb 17, 2010)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Lots of experienced DMs in one place overanalyze an ingame decision. Some of them looking at the clouds, seeing playstyle-differences and edition-problems instead of castles and dragons. Some bragging involved.
> 
> It´s an ENworld thing, mostly - on other boards i visit, we talked about a couple of of fun videos and that was it. No "make the game your own, find your own playstyle, be a creative DM - but when you put a video of your session online, i will write a 30.000 word post, detailing what you did wrong, what i would do better, and where your problems are rooted."




I thought so.  I have found the only good measure of a gaming night is the players reactions on the way out of the door.  My last game night seemed to be a bust.  It was lot of setup for the over all campaign.  More talking to NPC then my novice players have done period.  We had one battle I threw in at the request of a player.  (She did a off comment about wanting to kill things so I added something that fit the campaign on the fly).

Up till and in the battle they actually seemed bored.  The post game response was quite different.  They just got 2nd level and where talking about canceling plans to out with friends so they could level their characters.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 17, 2010)

Garmorn said:


> I have found the only good measure of a gaming night is the players reactions on the way out of the door.



Well said.

This has historically been a contentious issue, but as I get older I'm slowly coming around to the view that a game of D&D *is* all about the players. It doesn't matter how much fun I have behind the screen, if the the players are deflated and/or bored and/or disinterested, I can't look back on the session as a success. These guys come to my place to escape for a few hours, to live a life impossible. The more years I GM, the more convinced I am that it's my job to enable that for them. If I had a good time in the process, which much more often than not, I do... well, all's good in the world.


----------



## Psion (Feb 17, 2010)

(Quoting posts that led to this point to provide context)



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Since DCs relate to Skill Checks...nothing. There is no "critical success" on a Skill Check for that very reason (3E or 4E).






Psion said:


> One reason why I lean to Fantasy Craft over either these days.






Garmorn said:


> This is a very strange thread for me.  I have watched the video and think it would be a great game to play in.  It is just my style.  So where is the problem?




Er, was this supposed to be somehow related to my post which you quoted?

To answer your question generally: if it seems like fun to you, you are doing it right (for you). But obviously, a lot of us saw that specific bit as being un-fun in certain ways.

As to the specifics of my post, I was responding to Vyvyan Basterd's rule-ism specifically. Critical hits are fun. But I like my fun gameplay to extend beyond stabbing the bad guy, and think that criticals outside of combat can/should have flashes of excitement as well, so I think skills SHOULD be able to critical. Thus my comment about why this is one reason that Fantasy Craft has risen above D&D 3e or 4e for my fantasy gaming needs.

Make sense?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 17, 2010)

wedgeski said:


> Well said.
> 
> This has historically been a contentious issue, but as I get older I'm slowly coming around to the view that a game of D&D *is* all about the players. It doesn't matter how much fun I have behind the screen, if the the players are deflated and/or bored and/or disinterested, I can't look back on the session as a success. These guys come to my place to escape for a few hours, to live a life impossible. The more years I GM, the more convinced I am that it's my job to enable that for them. If I had a good time in the process, which much more often than not, I do... well, all's good in the world.




The DM is a player too and is entitled to have a fair share of the fun. My view of the expectations of gaming is that it isn't the DM's "job" to simply entertain the players and it isn't the players "job" to amuse the DM at the expense of thier own fun. 

Instead, I believe that a game runs best when everyone at the table does thier best to ensure that all participants have a good time. 

Lets face it, a DM who isn't having a good time will eventually spoil the fun for the rest of the group. Running games takes more energy and effort than simply playing and if the game isn't fun for the DM too then why should they be expected to keep running?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2010)

So, just so I got this straight.

DM makes a call that is 100% legal by the rules, is actually pretty in keeping with the spirit of the rules and he's a bad DM because he's not letting his players abuse the rules.

Would that sum it up?

Darkfire doesn't do any damage.  There's nothing in the description to denote that it is actually warm at all.  It's just a 4e version of a Faerie Fire spell.  So, I think we'd all agree that we wouldn't let anyone melt ice with Faerie Fire, so, why would we suddenly let them do it with this spell?

So, it's not the actual ruling, but perhaps that he said that you cannot use abilities on objects.  But, again, this is kosher by the rules and it completely forestalls having to explain to someone that while the spell has the word "fire" in the name, it isn't actually hot and would not cause ice to melt.

Having played with the guy who would then proceed to tell me for the next half an hour that the name is stupid/confusing/unrealistic and how he watched some show on Discovery about how you could totally melt ice with St Elmo's Fire, I can totally see that ignoring the flavour explanation in favour of a mechanical explanation could be the right way to go with that player.

So, where's the problem here?  He made a call that fit the mechanics, fit the flavour of the ability.  It's a 100% justifiable call.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, just so I got this straight.
> 
> DM makes a call that is 100% legal by the rules, is actually pretty in keeping with the spirit of the rules and he's a bad DM because he's not letting his players abuse the rules.



Doesn't sound like you got it straight. There was no abuse involved or intended.

The thing seems blown way out of proportion. It doesn't really matter if he used the "target: creature" line or the power description to make his decision. It was his decision to make, he made one, and the game went on.

That's a bad example for bad DMing. It's a good example for bog-standard DMing.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 17, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Doesn't sound like you got it straight. There was no abuse involved or intended.
> 
> The thing seems blown way out of proportion. It doesn't really matter if he used the "target: creature" line or the power description to make his decision. It was his decision to make, he made one, and the game went on.
> 
> That's a bad example for bad DMing. It's a good example for bog-standard DMing.




I didn't even see it as that. I saw it as being on the same level as saying "the monster is now bloodied".

What I saw as a good example of DMing and a quick mind was when he was RPing the part of the dwarf statue, and the player makes a comment about we are exploring this place, and Chris goes "We??"


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 17, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> I didn't even see it as that. I saw it as being on the same level as saying "the monster is now bloodied".
> 
> What I saw as a good example of DMing and a quick mind was when he was RPing the part of the dwarf statue, and the player makes a comment about we are exploring this place, and Chris goes "We??"




I am glad you mentioned that bit.  I loved it...I was running around the track and almost stumbled..lady asked why I was grinning.

Yup, enjoyed it.


----------



## Psion (Feb 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, just so I got this straight.
> 
> DM makes a call that is 100% legal by the rules, is actually pretty in keeping with the spirit of the rules and he's a bad DM because he's not letting his players abuse the rules.
> 
> Would that sum it up?




Um, has anyone here taken the stance that this is the problem? If so, I missed it. This sounds like a bit of a strawman. Most people who have taken in consideration what darkfire _is_--it does no damage, ergo a heatless fire--said that they would have ruled likewise.

I do disagree that you call trying to use their ingenuity to solve a problem _abuse_ of the rules.

What seems to be the problem here is the reason Chris gave, a bit of rules minutia, apparently intended to disambiguate its use during combat, as the root for justification for denying him what he thought was a good idea. A better approach would have to been to discuss what darkfire IS, letting the player know what his character would know: this power really can't meaningfully heat anything.

Now I for one am not calling Chris a "bad DM". I think I'm a good DM, but I'm sure if all my past sessions were taped like this, it would be replete with moments of bad DMing like this.

But I would sure as heck learn something from such tapes.


----------



## MrMyth (Feb 17, 2010)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> NO.
> 
> For some reason, some DMs -- regardless of edition -- are afraid to use common sense.
> 
> If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny because Basic Attacks also list 'one creature' as their valid target -- so apparently you can't even try to smash a door down with your hammer or fists in Chris' game.




You know, I don't like the "it only works on creatures" argument either, but I think there are a lot of assumptions about Chris' game being made based on a single isolated incident - one in which there was plenty of other reasons available to support his ruling. 

Also: I like the name Faerie Fire, and Darkfire as the drow variant. Sorry. It's simple, succinct, and evocative of what it does. I found it several times more interesting and accessible than a lot of the (relatively silly) suggestions for replacing it. I'm not going to claim that my opinion is the only one that matters, but I really don't see the fault with it or it somehow being representative of a fundamental flaw in D&D naming conventions. 

As for this specific situation - I certainly wouldn't have allowed Darkfire to melt the door in any way. What I probably would have done, if the player wanted to use it, was given them a check to cast the Darkfire upon the door - letting the eldritch like spread across it, outlining cracks and weak spots for others to focus on, and giving some bonus on future checks made to open it. Something like that would let the player use their power, while staying true to the nature of the ability and helping overcome the obstacle. 

But while that may well be my call, I don't expect any other DM to feel 'required' to rule similarly, and saying that glowing lights doesn't help get through a frozen door seems entirely within the domain of reason. I don't really like the explanation he gave, but its a single comment about a single moment, and I don't think it merits a full condemnation of his DMing style as the downfall of RPGs.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 17, 2010)

Psion said:


> Now I for one am not calling Chris a "bad DM". I think I'm a good DM, but I'm sure if all my past sessions were taped like this, it would be replete with moments of bad DMing like this.




Quite.  One single rules call does not a "bad DM" or a "mentality" make.

Few indeed are so perfect as to not be vulnerable to carefully picked nits.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 17, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Hehe, true, but what you might possibly have to deal with at some hypothetical point down the road should never stop you from doing what is going to be fun for people now, should it?.




Depends...  Some things aren't really hypothetical, but instead are clearly evident repercussions.

That said, in truth I'm a fan of letting people think up cool ways around issues that might bend/break the rules- but I have to ask... Would just pulling out a random fire power to melt ice really be the "more fun" route?

I'm never really a fan of big issues being solved by a stupid rules loop hole. The old "Oh hey did I mention this feat makes me invincible?" shtick.  

That to me, almost seems like the player version of "no no matter what you do you can't open this door."


----------



## Rel (Feb 17, 2010)

I've decided that in my future games this power will be called, "Kind Of A Purplish Image Of Flames That Outlines A Target Creature But Doesn't Generate Any Actual Heat And You Could Cast It On An Object, Like A Door, If You Really Wanted To But It Certainly Won't Melt Ice".  I think that will both make it clear as to what this power does as well as insure that nobody ever uses it.

KOAPIOFTOATCBDGAAHAYCCIOAOLADIYRWTBICWMI for short.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 17, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Lets face it, a DM who isn't having a good time will eventually spoil the fun for the rest of the group. Running games takes more energy and effort than simply playing and if the game isn't fun for the DM too then why should they be expected to keep running?



I'm aware of the (well-trodden-into-the-ground) debates surrounding DM vs. player entitlement.  I was just saying that as I get older and the game changes to reflect my supposedly-wisening mind, I'm coming to the conclusion that putting player enjoyment at the top of the list of priorities is the best way to ensure that everyone -- including me, the DM -- has maximum achievable fun. Suggest you fork if you want to discuss it any more.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 17, 2010)

Rel said:


> I've decided that in my future games this power will be called, "Kind Of A Purplish Image Of Flames That Outlines A Target Creature But Doesn't Generate Any Actual Heat And You Could Cast It On An Object, Like A Door, If You Really Wanted To But It Certainly Won't Melt Ice". I think that will both make it clear as to what this power does as well as insure that nobody ever uses it.
> 
> KOAPIOFTOATCBDGAAHAYCCIOAOLADIYRWTBICWMI for short.




 This is the kind of definitive, unambiguous power name we need more of!!! 

Of course perhaps all game rules should be translated into Entish.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 17, 2010)

In a game that uses Hero Points, or Action Points, or whatever you want to call them, you can take a page from M&M and allow "creative breaking of the rules" by use of a Hero Point.  This allows the player to be creative, while limiting the long-term fallout of a ruling.

"You manage to use your skill in Arcana to subtly craft the Darkfire so that it actually sheds heat.  It was tricky, and you may or may not be able to duplicate that trick.  (Spend a Hero Point.)"


----------



## Mark (Feb 17, 2010)

Rel said:


> I've decided that in my future games this power will be called, "Kind Of A Purplish Image Of Flames That Outlines A Target Creature But Doesn't Generate Any Actual Heat And You Could Cast It On An Object, Like A Door, If You Really Wanted To But It Certainly Won't Melt Ice".  I think that will both make it clear as to what this power does as well as insure that nobody ever uses it.
> 
> KOAPIOFTOATCBDGAAHAYCCIOAOLADIYRWTBICWMI for short.





Won't fit on a card.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Feb 17, 2010)

This issue is as overblown as the Alabama shooting/D&D link.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Feb 17, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> In a game that uses Hero Points, or Action Points, or whatever you want to call them, you can take a page from M&M and allow "creative breaking of the rules" by use of a Hero Point.  This allows the player to be creative, while limiting the long-term fallout of a ruling.



Yup, agreed.  This is exactly why I use Action points, and am especially generous with them in gritty or low-magic campaigns.  I think it puts a little more flex in the players' willingness to bend rules as well as take no for an answer.  IMHO, it's a good compromise between...







> DM: You see before you a door frozen over with ice.
> Player: I want to melt the ice with my Darkfire!  Bubbling water and steam everywhere!
> DM: You cannot do that: power 'Darkfire' lacks required [Fire] type specification.  Try again.
> Player: I'll strike the door with my Shocking Dagger and send shards of ice flying!
> ...



... and ...


> DM: You see before you a door frozen over with ice.
> Player: I want to melt the ice with my Darkfire!  Bubbling water and steam everywhere!
> DM: Hmmm, well you can't really do that, because it's not really fire, it's just an illusion....
> Player: ZOMG!!11!   U R teh unfunz0rzest DM evar!!111!!
> DM:


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 17, 2010)

*Off Track*

Hi,

This discussion seems to be somewhat off-track.

In the presentation of the 4E rule set, the flavor text is almost entirely irrelevant.  A power description has a ruled effect, and the flavor text is merely one suggestion as to how the power can be described.

Many many postings have suggested that players are free to make their description of a power or ability.  That will leave the power effect unchanged.

That is, if a player wants to describe the power as producing a "shimmering field of entropic energy leached from the target", or as "an echo of the fundamental imprint of the target from the one true reality, a sharpening of their shadow, so to speak", they are free to do so.  None of it has any impact on what the power does.

I think if one has a problem with how the power effect was handled, then you have to look to the fundamentals of the 4E design and how that separates power description from power effect.

That does work against the idea of enhancing a power effect using an action point, but if the descriptions are merely suggestions, that doesn't seem to work very well, since the descriptions are too fluid to be reliably amplified.

Edit: I think that if amplified effects are allowed, the end result must be couched in terms of the original effect.  If an effect provides a +2 bonus to attackers, then the amplified effect might be a +4 bonus.  The player is free to fluff this as they prefer, according to the selected description, but the amplified effect is applied to the original effect, not to the power description.

Thx!

Tom Bitonti


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 17, 2010)

Psion said:


> I was responding to Vyvyan Basterd's rule-ism specifically. Critical hits are fun. But I like my fun gameplay to extend beyond stabbing the bad guy, and think that criticals outside of combat can/should have flashes of excitement as well, so I think skills SHOULD be able to critical. Thus my comment about why this is one reason that Fantasy Craft has risen above D&D 3e or 4e for my fantasy gaming needs.




I woudn't have a problem with Skill checks earning you a critical success, but much like 'stabbing the bad guy' a critical success should only be able to be achieved if you hit the target number. Deciding something is nearly impossible and assigning it a DC of 50 is pointless if you allow a 5% chance for the action to succeed no matter what, IMO.

I'm not familiar with Fantasy Craft, so I have some questions to put your comments in context. How does Fantasy Craft handle critical successes on Skill Checks? Does it allow success beyond a character's normal abilities? For example, if I wanted my character to jump to the moon (an action that has a definable, although insanely high, DC in both 3E and 4E) would a critical success in Fantasy Craft allow him to do so?


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 17, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Working on a guide to getting kids into imaginative play and RPGs at present. Bigger task than I thought when I started sketching it out. Was going to be a blog post for Thistle Games but it's well past that now.
> 
> It'll be science not opinion, easy to digest and include more from Coco Wildwolf. Will share for free with ENWorld when it's done.




You may find value in the Young Persons Adventure League.  It's a website dedicated to getting kids into RPGs.


----------



## Psion (Feb 17, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I'm not familiar with Fantasy Craft, so I have some questions to put your comments in context. How does Fantasy Craft handle critical successes on Skill Checks? Does it allow success beyond a character's normal abilities? For example, if I wanted my character to jump to the moon (an action that has a definable, although insanely high, DC in both 3E and 4E) would a critical success in Fantasy Craft allow him to do so?




This is a bit of a tangent, but basically, if you roll a threat (normally a 20), you have the option to spend one or more action dice to invoke a critical success. Effects of the critical success vary, and in some cases are left up to the GM.

In the case of a jump check, a critical gets you the maximum possible distance according to your height (so a 6' tall character would jump 36' on a horizontal jump.) So you couldn't jump to the moon unless you were REALLY tall.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 17, 2010)

I'm pretty much of the opinion that maybe Chris didn't handle things in the most optimal fashion for some playstyles, but classifying him as a 'bad DM' or having 'made a mistake' is far off the mark.  And as Umbran already mentioned, in the context of a group of total newbies to 4E playing a game as part of a marketing video, it works fine.

Like PC said, I'd have tried to find a way to say 'Yes' rather than 'No'....but Chris did a good job of leading the players down the path.  He was instructing them and showcasing the game at the same time.  Its entirely possible in the context of an 'official' game that he made the call to keep it clear how it worked.  I note he did several things in the capacity of training and advising new players and they all clearly were enjoying themselves.

At the end of the day, the question to me is "Did they have fun?  Would they play again?"  That's the mark of a good game.  I'm sure quite a few people would find fault with my DMing and playstyle...and that's OK.  They're not my players, who like my style just fine.  Because I've formulated it around their requirements.  From everything I hear, Chris Perkins does likewise.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 17, 2010)

Nertz.  Double-post.


----------



## MrMyth (Feb 17, 2010)

tomBitonti said:


> In the presentation of the 4E rule set, the flavor text is almost entirely irrelevant. A power description has a ruled effect, and the flavor text is merely one suggestion as to how the power can be described.




It certainly is not a hard and fast rule of how the power works, but it can provide some guidance on what it may be capable of when used in unintended ways. For myself, I actually tend to take a close look at keywords when determining what PCs can improvise with them. [Fire] keyword is an easy way to figure out if something can melt a wall of ice, for example.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 17, 2010)

...and for the record, the only people calling this horrible DMing seemed to have disappeared by page 2 of the thread.

I personally think the call could've been better, that it's an experience to learn from and to try and not repeat, but I've also mentioned that DMs always goof up, that any video is going to catch them, and that it certainly wasn't a game-breaker (though it might've been lame, and if it continued, it might've been more lame). I'm not gonna bash the DM in this case. Though I do think that it _was actually a mistake_, I don't think it was a major one by any stretch of the imagination. I've done worse things without even realizing they were mistakes. I think it's a mistake because the ruling hurt creative power use, just like the OP presumably did. I thought that a clearer name could help with the confusion, which spiraled off in its own direction for a few pages. 

I'm personally more interested in the idea of using video and audio to capture what's going on at the table and find ways to correct it. I noticed a lot of subtleties in watching the video that it's easy to miss when actually doing the running of the game. I think the game could go through a pretty major overhaul if we looked at the way people react to the things they have to do to play D&D, and how we could maximize their engagement and minimize their deep sighs and confusion.


----------



## Squire James (Feb 18, 2010)

I think Chris made an adequate (though perhaps suboptimal) response.

It was DM discretion that allows a "creature" power to target an object.  He read the card, and perhaps decided that an object couldn't grant combat advantage.  So he decided not to make an exception in this case.

Hopefully one of the players will think to ask the DM about that ruling after the end of the session, especially since the first encounter consisted entirely of what the players would consider "non-creatures".


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 18, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> It certainly is not a hard and fast rule of how the power works, but it can provide some guidance on what it may be capable of when used in unintended ways. For myself, I actually tend to take a close look at keywords when determining what PCs can improvise with them. [Fire] keyword is an easy way to figure out if something can melt a wall of ice, for example.




Then, you are back into the rules effect.  The Fire keyword, if present, is tied to the effect.

Even so, a player has a great amount of flexibility in how they describe the effect.

I don't have links, but I'm remembering a lot of posts where it was stated that players are free to "refluff" rules to fit their interpretation of the effect, and that this was viewed as a great value of the rules.

Thx!

Tom Bitonti


----------



## Daern (Feb 18, 2010)

So, in the 8th session Perkins allows the Wizard to control an Arcane Ballista after succeeding in a skill challenge.  There had been much table talk about using the construct and when the player asked, the DM emphatically said YES.  I would imagine this was not necessarily planned for ahead of time...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 18, 2010)

If anyone is interested in the DM's own thought on the session (not necessarily the issue discussed here), this post on the WotC forums contains links to DM commentary: Robot Chicken Videos - DM commentary.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 18, 2010)

Rel said:


> I've decided that in my future games this power will be called, "Kind Of A Purplish Image Of Flames That Outlines A Target Creature But Doesn't Generate Any Actual Heat And You Could Cast It On An Object, Like A Door, If You Really Wanted To But It Certainly Won't Melt Ice".
> 
> KOAPIOFTOATCBDGAAHAYCCIOAOLADIYRWTBICWMI for short.



And if you can't clearly say the full name of the power by the end of the next player's turn, the effect fizzles - right? 

Lan-"how much light do these flames give out anyway - can I use them to illuminate the hall?"-efan


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 18, 2010)

i think there is often too much of a distinction between "flavor text" and "rules text".

In simulationist play why not have flavor text be just as important? After all, the flavor text describes what is happening.

Unfortunately, when the flavor text is poorly written (Dark fire that isn't a flame? Faerie fire that isn't a flame?.......and the description of the power isn't particularly evocative....) then poor flavor becomes just as bad as an unclear or imbalanced rule.


i think the real issue here COULD BE (on a more meta level) that flavor text is made to play second fiddle. If it were "balanced" then it would be clear if, e.g. a fireball temporarily lit up a room or melted ice.


For me, I don't think this is just "I wanna use my power to do something extra, or that it shouldn't" I think some of this is "why can't I use this hot torch to set fire to that dry hay?"  If powers are "real" rather than just "fighting mechanics" they should behave in certain ways in and out of combat.



Remember Adnd where a round was seconds in combat and minutes outside of it? Weird.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 18, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> In simulationist play why not have flavor text be just as important? After all, the flavor text describes what is happening.




Well, for many, the flavor text describes one example of what can happen - it isn't necessarily written in stone that it works that way, and only that way.  

You certainly can use flavor text in that way, but you have to be rather careful when doing so - flavor text is not generally written with the same care and attention to detail as rules content, largely because it isn't intended to be a solid basis for rules-interpretation.  Flavor text is not play tested in the same way rules-content is.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 18, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Remember Adnd where a round was seconds in combat and minutes outside of it? Weird.




The AD&D round was one minute. Usually activities outside of combat or pursuit were measured in turns which were 10 minutes.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 18, 2010)

@ Exploder Wizard. Thanks.     Your memory is better than mine. 


@ Umbran. Agreed, sort of. What you've described is entirely accurate. However, two comments: 

1. I'm dreaming of a game where flavor text IS given as much priority as rules text. I think that would be a game I'd really enjoy.

2. I agree flavor is poorly balanced compared to rules due to the lower priority it is given. However, rules have varying degrees of quality and balance (many of the splats in 3e have very dubious rules). This has been such the case that our group no longer feels comfortable with "anything goes" rules wise or "use these certain books" or somesuch.  Instead, we use common sense when examining appropriateness. I think that, while flavor is even more "imbalanced" the same approach could be taken.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 18, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Unfortunately, when the flavor text is poorly written (Dark fire that isn't a flame? Faerie fire that isn't a flame?.......and the description of the power isn't particularly evocative....) then poor flavor becomes just as bad as an unclear or imbalanced rule.




Well, foxfire isn't a flame either but it's a commonly accepted term. Same with St. Elmo's fire.

There's a balance that should be struck between a descriptive name or description of the effect and a certain amount of art. Using the term fire for something that gives off a glow but doesn't actually create heat is pretty reasonable.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 18, 2010)

WotC just put up the first three episodes of DM commentary by Chris Perkins on the RC video casts.

Part 1 [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdFClW2WVmI[/ame]
Part 2 [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIgdG6FL8ac[/ame]
Part 3 [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAiEFBgsCls[/ame]


----------



## lin_fusan (Feb 18, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Lan-"how much light do these flames give out anyway - can I use them to illuminate the hall?"-efan




Heh, I seem to remember a player asking me back in my 3e (or was it 2e) days if Faerie Fire could be used to illuminate a "dungeon" (since by noun definition, it is a single object), such that every creature would be negatively illuminated and thus easier to hit.

My answer was that a Disintegrate spell hits a single object, such as a party. Everyone roll a Fort save.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 18, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> 2. I agree flavor is poorly balanced compared to rules due to the lower priority it is given. However, rules have varying degrees of quality and balance (many of the splats in 3e have very dubious rules). This has been such the case that our group no longer feels comfortable with "anything goes" rules wise or "use these certain books" or somesuch.  Instead, we use common sense when examining appropriateness. I think that, while flavor is even more "imbalanced" the same approach could be taken.




The issue I see is something I mentioned up-thread (I think it was this thread at least...)  

Everyone's world view is slightly different. How one person interprets flavor might be different then how another does. 

Just like if I told you look for the "big" house, that one is mine...  You might have a different view of what "big house" means then I do.  It's probably better for me to just get to the point and give you an address.

I think the same is true for game rules as well... The rules are the address. Get them right, and the players can muck around with whatever description works best for them (be it yours, or their own) without messing up game play.


----------



## Rel (Feb 18, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> 1. I'm dreaming of a game where flavor text IS given as much priority as rules text. I think that would be a game I'd really enjoy.




I certainly won't argue that you shouldn't have this preference.  But I definitely feel the opposite on this issue.

I feel like games with mutable flavor text, or perhaps no flavor text at all, allow for a lot of flexibility and creativity for the player.  I view that as a good thing.

I'm a big fan of Savage Worlds and in the base ruleset they have a spell called "Bolt".  It allows the caster to do a damaging attack at range using magic.  There is no flavor text as to how this happens.  It could be a bolt of fire or a shadow bolt or a cluster of stinging insects or simply briars that spring out of the ground and tear at your opponent.

I think that's cool because you could have two characters who are mechanically identical but who have very different flavor based solely on how they describe how their powers manifest.  Furthermore I would allow some "special effects" in certain circumstances depending on how these powers are described by the player.  If the Fire Mage wants to use his Bolt to light some tinder or melt some ice then I'd be fine with that.  I might also rule that his bolts are less effective against a Fire Elemental.

I think that 4e is sort of having its cake and eating it by having "default flavor text" for its powers but allowing the player and GM to agree on other interpretations.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 18, 2010)

Saracenus said:


> Ice: Slick ice patches are _*difficult terrain*_. You might also require an Acrobatics check for a character to avoid falling. See the relevant DCs under “Balance” in the Acrobatics skill in the Player’s Handbook (page 180). (DMG, pg. 66)
> 
> _*Difficult terrain*_ = spaces with ice require 2 squares of movement to enter.
> 
> ...



After watching episodes 6 & 7, I think we can definitively say that Chris Perkins isn't following your (correct) interpretation of the rules. Both Kai Nuq Sin and Steel Diamond attack at the beginning of their round (without moving first) and still make Melee Basic Attacks. In addition, after making his attack, Kai Nuq Sin moves over 3 squares, indicating that Chris isn't treating each square of ice as 2 squares of normal movement. It would also seem to argue against your interpretation that he was treating the earlier attacks as attacks at the end of a charge action. It seems clear to me that Chris is having his players use Basic Attacks when they could be using powers.

Perhaps it's intentional since the players are new, but even if it is on purpose, I think it's a mistake. Powers are a big part of what makes 4e unique. I would think you'd want to feature them as much as possible in a demo game.

:note: I am not claiming Chris Perkins is a horrible DM. I would be thrilled to be in that game. It looks like a lot of fun.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 18, 2010)

filthgrinder said:


> And cheating. This video is part 5 of the session, it's not edited down to 10 minutes, it's just minute 40 to 50 of the game session. They didn't pick an encounter and edit it down, the camera is just rolling.




Sure looks edited to me - otherwise how do we get the jump cuts from group shot to closeups of the map if it isn't edited together?

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 18, 2010)

A couple of observations - one is that I've noticed on many occasions on the Penny Arcade podcasts that Chris isn't always on top of the rules, and sometimes misses out on some basic stuff. Some guys are like that. However, he generally has nice characterisation and roleplaying of NPCs which I really like to see. Lots of DMs have problems here and there with details of rules, and often appreciate help from people who naturally retain rules that little bit better.

My other observation is that the power cards the new guys are using might not be the best... I know that the power cards from the character builder include rules text but don't include the 'flavour text' for the power. If the guy had got the flavour text on his power card which said _"A flickering halo of purple light surrounds the target, making it easier to hit"_ He probably wouldn't have even had to ask Chris whether he could use it to do the job. The description would have told him.

So perhaps one moral of the story might be that power cards can benefit from being more complete in their description of what a power does.

Cheers


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 18, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> So perhaps one moral of the story might be that power cards can benefit from being more complete in their description of what a power does.



FYI, they can now include the flavour text.

Edit: And also, for those who don't listen to the commentary and still wonder why the adventure is so rudimentary for being a demo of the game, it's because Snr. Perkins was forced to chuck out the module he'd worked on for days when the marketing department informed him it would be a good idea to play something that tied more into the D&D Encounters promotion.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 18, 2010)

WizarDru said:


> You may find value in the Young Persons Adventure League.  It's a website dedicated to getting kids into RPGs.




Thanks. There's some good points made there.


----------



## knifie_sp00nie (Feb 18, 2010)

Is there anything on this planet that a marketer can't FUBAR?




wedgeski said:


> And also, for those who don't listen to the commentary and still wonder why the adventure is so rudimentary for being a demo of the game, it's because Snr. Perkins was forced to chuck out the module he'd worked on for days when the marketing department informed him it would be a good idea to play something that tied more into the D&D Encounters promotion.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 18, 2010)

wedgeski said:


> FYI, they can now include the flavour text.
> 
> Edit: And also, for those who don't listen to the commentary and still wonder why the adventure is so rudimentary for being a demo of the game, it's because Snr. Perkins was forced to chuck out the module he'd worked on for days when the marketing department informed him it would be a good idea to play something that tied more into the D&D Encounters promotion.




That maybe explains a lot. I'd rather see him running his scenario in his kitchen at 3 am with his mates and a couple of beers.


----------



## The Ghost (Feb 18, 2010)

wedgeski said:


> FYI, they can now include the flavour text.
> 
> Edit: And also, for those who don't listen to the commentary and still wonder why the adventure is so rudimentary for being a demo of the game, it's because Snr. Perkins was forced to chuck out the module he'd worked on for days when the marketing department informed him it would be a good idea to play something that tied more into the D&D Encounters promotion.






The Ghost said:


> I think that there is an expectation that a WotC employee should be a "better" DM than your average DM - regardless of edition. At least, that is the assumption I hold.




That explains my previous thoughts on the matter. There is nothing that takes the wind out of my sails faster than being told to scrap something I had been working on because it doesn't fit the promotion. (This applies to most things I engage in; not just D&D)


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Feb 18, 2010)

Ourph said:


> It seems clear to me that Chris is having his players use Basic Attacks when they could be using powers.



Through episode 7, we have only seen the PCs attack objects: the four statues comprising the trap.  Perhaps Chris is simply being consistent with his ruling that powers that target creatures can only target creatures. We'll know more once we see them attack an actual monster. 

In this particular case, with many of the players having had zero experience beforehand, easing them into the mechanics with basic attacks may have worked out very well.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 19, 2010)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I think the same is true for game rules as well... The rules are the address. Get them right, and the players can muck around with whatever description works best for them (be it yours, or their own) without messing up game play.




Well, true, and this is better if the idea is to _be correct_.

But if the idea is to create a mental picture, saying it's the "big" house is a lot more useful than an address.

Creativity doesn't really exist without some ambiguity. It may create some confusion, but that is the price you pay for a high degree of creativity. It's why 2 + 2 = 4 isn't on display at the Louvre, and why the Mona Lisa is crap for finding out the shortest distance between two points. 

Which kind of gets at the heart of a lot of recent edition dissonance (between 3e and 2e, too, though to a lesser degree). Some people want to approach D&D more like a creative process than like a mathematical one (though the math gets sprinkled on top), but others have a lot of fun with the mathematical process, and like the little bit of creativity sprinkled on top. 

I don't think there'd be much argument if I said that 4e comes down on the "math" side of things pretty hard. For some groups, that's a godsend, because it reduces potential confusion. For other groups, that's a dealbreaker, because it also reduces potential creativity (which can't exist without potential confusion).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I'm dreaming of a game where flavor text IS given as much priority as rules text. I think that would be a game I'd really enjoy.



The game is called HeroQuest 2e. All character abilities are free-form generated flavour text (ie there are no class lists, race lists, spell lists, ability lists, skill lists, equipment lists, etc, and hence no rules text associated with such game elements). Conflicts are resolved by the players pitting the flavour text on their PCs (which is numerically rated) against the GM's flavour text (which is also numerically rated).

If you're interested, there are a few reviews on RPG.net.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think there'd be much argument if I said that 4e comes down on the "math" side of things pretty hard.



I'll disagree as far as skill use is concerned, especially in skill challenges and other non-combat-encounter contexts, but even in combat once DMG p 42 comes into play.

In these cases, it's all about the flavour text (my guy can do Athletic things, my guy is a great Acrobat, my guy is doing this very Stealthy thing, etc) and the GM and players jointly working with and interpreting this.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 19, 2010)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Through episode 7, we have only seen the PCs attack objects: the four statues comprising the trap.  Perhaps Chris is simply being consistent with his ruling that powers that target creatures can only target creatures. We'll know more once we see them attack an actual monster.



The target entry for a Melee Basic Attack is "one creature" as well.



> In this particular case, with many of the players having had zero experience beforehand, easing them into the mechanics with basic attacks may have worked out very well.



A 1st level at-will power isn't really that complicated, especially for melee-focused classes. This may well be his reasoning, but if so, I think it's a bad choice.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 19, 2010)

Ourph - having played recently a session with players who are not adept at adopting rules, and being forced to spend three hours fighting a single ogre and a pair of goblins, I can honestly say that SPEED is the most important thing.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 19, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Which kind of gets at the heart of a lot of recent edition dissonance (between 3e and 2e, too, though to a lesser degree). Some people want to approach D&D more like a creative process than like a mathematical one (though the math gets sprinkled on top), but others have a lot of fun with the mathematical process, and like the little bit of creativity sprinkled on top.




I'd say that I agree with that.

From what I am seeing in the video, the players seem to be limiting their actions to their available powers.  There is some in character playing, but there seems to be a lot of shuffling between power cards.

I'd say that the rigidity is deliberately built into the system, as a way to provide more predictable difficulties for encounters, to create a more uniform game play, and make the game more usable for a pick-up type environment.  Those are clear benefits, while at the same time being a trade-off, in that both improvisation and flavor based readings of rules are limited.

Thx!

Patience, and Peace,

Tom Bitonti


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 19, 2010)

I wrote a post that got deleted/  I have stuff to say but I am so totally ripped right now on two bottles of wine, and 3 fantasitic imperial pints of Belhaven Scottish Ale that I am making no sense even to myself.  I commend myself for creating this edit in english.  The last one wwas not.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 19, 2010)

tomBitonti said:


> I'd say that I agree with that.
> 
> From what I am seeing in the video, the players seem to be limiting their actions to their available powers.  There is some in character playing, but there seems to be a lot of shuffling between power cards.
> 
> ...




Really?  Honestly?  When you first started playing RPG's.  I mean, at your VERY FIRST SESSION, how much "thinking outside the box" did you do?  How much did you go beyond the mechanics?  Judging the game based on the fact that these are completely new players is a bit unfair don't you think?

All I know, is that in my first session of 4e, I pitched my own skill challenge at the DM, who rolled with it and we worked together to use the mechanics to detail out a rather complicated con game that my character wanted to run.

Now, I'm not a new gamer.  Just new to 4e.  So, I have no problem being pretty creative with the mechanics that are there.

But a completely new player?  Fixating on the mechanics is par for the course in my experience.  My Basic Magic User certainly wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary in my first session way back when.  Other than being eaten by stirges as I recall.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> I wrote a post that got deleted/  I have stuff to say but I am so totally ripped right now on two bottles of wine, and 3 fantasitic imperial pints of Belhaven Scottish Ale that I am making no sense even to myself.  I commend myself for creating this edit in english.  The last one wwas not.




GOOD ON YA!

Brothers and sisters...a round of applause for quality editing under the influence!


----------



## SteveC (Feb 19, 2010)

You know, after watching the whole video, I think this is a major tempest in a teapot issue. It looks to be a fairly fun game for everyone involved, and Chris is mostly rolling with the punches. This thread makes a lot more out of the Darkfire issue than the people in the game did.

I noticed a number of rules issues with the game, but the thing was Chris made his decisions and kept things moving...which is a good GM trait. All in all, for not being experienced with 4E (for the most part) the players did fine--and seemed to be having fun. A game session is much more than a single ruling, and this game looks like it would have been _fun_ to be involved with. No, it wasn't perfect, but then again, what game is?


----------



## Beginning of the End (Feb 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But a completely new player?  Fixating on the mechanics is par for the course in my experience.




Assuming that there's an experienced GM, I have found exactly the opposite to be true: New players tend to learn the core mechanics of a game and then really latch onto the concept of "pretend to be your character". The experienced GM can take "I want to do X", translate it into game mechanics, and then tell them how to resolve it.

New players naturally tend towards immersive roleplaying.

(Nor should this be all that surprising: How often have we heard that RPGs are like cops 'n robbers? People roleplay all the time without any mechanical support.)

The exception to this was 4th Edition, where the dissociated mechanics kept forcing the players to focus on the mechanics instead of the game world. (This is because there are too many meaningful decisions to be made regarding mechanics that have no analog to the character's experience. These decisions can't be made while roleplaying immersively, they have to be made at the meta-game level.)

Inexperienced GMs, on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. I find that the less experience a GM has, the more they will appreciate systems which provide encyclopedic answers to the question "how do I resolve this?" in a rote, step-by-step fashion. And they will fall back onto the basic, barebones mechanics of the system frequently. It's a safety-net and a comfort zone.

I obviously haven't played at a table with both inexperienced players and an inexperienced GM in years, but I would imagine that such games would tend to push the inexperienced players into the same mechanical mindset as the inexperienced GM: Since that's the only game to be played, that's what they'll end up playing.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Honestly?  When you first started playing RPG's.  I mean, at your VERY FIRST SESSION, how much "thinking outside the box" did you do?  How much did you go beyond the mechanics?



A rather frightening amount, truth be told.

What first attracted me to the game was the fact you *could* go outside the box...if there was even a box at all.  And once I started playing I ignored rules left right and center; if I could dream it up, I tried it.  Rules were the DM's job; fortunately I had a rational DM who knew when something off the wall might work and also knew when to just say 'no'.


> Judging the game based on the fact that these are completely new players is a bit unfair don't you think?



Judging the entire game system based on that, yes.  Judging the one individual game in question, maybe not.  Set aside that it's a 4e game and substitute any other RPG, it'd still be the same players, the same DM, and the same essential  interactions...and from those, it's possible to get a pretty good idea of what kind of game it's going to be even only a few sessions in.

Lanefan


----------



## fuzzlewump (Feb 19, 2010)

I agree that thinking outside of the box is probably most common during the first sessions.

The game creates a 'box' and with each rule, it becomes a smaller/more rigid/more boxey box. Learning the rules of the game will direct you into particular modes of thought, or, into the box. Once you realize the box, you can then get outside of it, but the box is warm, fuzzy, and generally comfortable, if slightly boring. With no knowledge of the box, i.e. the first sessions, those playing are have a greater tendency to be outside of it.


----------



## bagger245 (Feb 19, 2010)

I've been DMing mostly new players for years and never had a stable group of experienced gamers. I could say that most of them don't care about mechanics of the game and just want to "roleplay" which was the main thing that attracted them to the table in the first place. They don't want to bother reading up rules and such. Chris's way of DMing newbies is really good, but personally I would use a more rules-lighter game since I am fudging miost of the rules for the newbies in the first place.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 19, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Assuming that there's an experienced GM, I have found exactly the opposite to be true: New players tend to learn the core mechanics of a game and then really latch onto the concept of "pretend to be your character". The experienced GM can take "I want to do X", translate it into game mechanics, and then tell them how to resolve it.
> 
> New players naturally tend towards immersive roleplaying.



That's my experience as well. New players are the ones with the most creative ideas because they've not yet been influenced by knowing the rules.

They'll just try anything that makes intuitive sense to them.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Honestly?  When you first started playing RPG's.  I mean, at your VERY FIRST SESSION, how much "thinking outside the box" did you do?  How much did you go beyond the mechanics?




Now, keeping in my mind VERY FIRST SESSION was circa 1978, which means I don't have too many concrete examples, I can honestly say we did go outside the box. We had to. The only book we had was the basic D&D blue book, and I'm not certain that was complete since we found it in a desk at school. I do remember my first character, a dwarf named Korbok, had several WWI-era potato masher grenades.

Pretty sure there weren't any rules for those.

My experiences with my son (Giant Boy here on the boards) is that rules come secondary to cool ideas. Of course, this is hardly a representative sample and is certainly skewed since his playstyle is undoubtedly influenced by watching me game.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Really? Honestly? When you first started playing RPG's. I mean, at your VERY FIRST SESSION, how much "thinking outside the box" did you do? How much did you go beyond the mechanics? Judging the game based on the fact that these are completely new players is a bit unfair don't you think?




I hadn't even gotten a chance to peruse the rulebook in my earliest games. My friend gave instructions on how to roll up a character, I had a sheet with some numbers on it that supposedly represented a big strong guy with a sword, shield, and chainmail armor and off he went.

I had no idea about what I could or couldn't do by the rules. Being a warrior, I was spoiling for a fight. Ten minutes later I had gained valuable information. Picking a fight in a tavern with two city guards is not a wise move. My knowledge of the game at that point consisted of: 1)roll a d6 when you feel the urge to hit something, 2)roll a d20 to try and get a shot at your opponent and 3) die in an orderly proficient military manner.

My first trip into a dungeon was completely out of the box. All of my decisions were made in character because I had nothing else to go on.
It was a very fun experience as a player to not have to deal with mechanics. I didn't have to worry about whether or not I was "playing right".  

My first 6 months of gaming was pretty much as player learning the game through discovery. I got my own basic & expert sets and read through them. I finally understood the reasoning behind what had been happening at the games and immediately started wanting to DM. 

I still enjoy trying new games as a player without any knowledge of the mechanics. The freedom of making all choices in character without the nagging concerns that come with metagame knowledge is a rare treat these days.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 19, 2010)

All I can say is wow.  My experiences were pretty much the polar opposite.  Regardless of edition.

IME, new players in a system, the first question they ask is, "I want to do X, how do I do that?"  And they get told, roll this die, or spend that whatever.  Most people are used to playing games.  Games have rules.  You don't suddenly start skipping squares in Monopoly because you feel like it - that would be cheating.  

And, IME, most people come from that position.  The rules of the game define what you can do.  Different strokes I guess.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Ourph - having played recently a session with players who are not adept at adopting rules, and being forced to spend three hours fighting a single ogre and a pair of goblins, I can honestly say that SPEED is the most important thing.



I agree, which is why I would have the players use powers, which usually do more damage and/or have a better chance of hitting than basic attacks. A fight against an Ogre and two goblins would be a tedious, grind-fest if the players relied on nothing but basic attacks the whole fight.


----------



## awesomeocalypse (Feb 19, 2010)

Way back when I first played D&D, I was 11 and 2nd edition had just come out. The internet didn't exist, the only people I knew with any interest in D&D were me and my friends, and none of us had ever seen the game played before. We had NO idea what we were doing, we just thought the books looked cool.

I'm pretty sure we got like 95% of the rules completely wrong. The players just created characters using the character creation chapter in the PHB, and from there on out I (the DM) just sort of winged everything/pulled what I thought looked cool out of the books. I think at one point we invented a mechanic to use saving throws as a resolution mechanism in noncombat encounters (e.g. okay...so you're trying to talk this dude into helping you out, and he just failed his save vs. charm, so you succeeded! he's gonna help you).


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> IME, new players in a system, the first question they ask is, "I want to do X, how do I do that?"




I think that's the point others are trying to make. A new player just tells you what he wants to do. He doesn't know if it's possible, how difficult it is, what the risks are. He just thinks it is something his character would do. Some more experienced players get trapped in the rules, thinking that the things defined by the rules are the only thing their character can do.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 19, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Some more experienced players get trapped in the rules, thinking that the things defined by the rules are the only thing their character can do.




Or, worst of all, roleplayers of any experience get trapped into thinking their options are limited to the words printed on a few cards and a character sheet. Such a constrained range of possibilities is the antithesis of roleplaying gamery.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Feb 19, 2010)

Ourph said:


> The target entry for a Melee Basic Attack is "one creature" as well.



Ah, I sit corrected. I also see that later in the same encounter, we see a player use a power against one of the statues, although without any guidance from the DM.

Nevertheless, I still hypothesize that the DM didn't encourage power use because he saw the statues as objects not creatures, making it less clear how to adjudicate things like forced movement and status effects.  That said, even if the at-will powers wouldn't have gained the PCs much, they could have benefitted from using their encounter powers to deal more damage.


----------



## bagger245 (Feb 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> All I can say is wow.  My experiences were pretty much the polar opposite.  Regardless of edition.
> 
> IME, new players in a system, the first question they ask is, "I want to do X, how do I do that?"  And they get told, roll this die, or spend that whatever.  Most people are used to playing games.  Games have rules.  You don't suddenly start skipping squares in Monopoly because you feel like it - that would be cheating.
> 
> And, IME, most people come from that position.  The rules of the game define what you can do.  Different strokes I guess.




I think its due to coming to rpgs with a boardgame perspective, which I never did. What attracted me to rpgs is that the boundaries are broken. Monopoly confines you to move as much square as the dice shows. In rpgs, I want to travel to the next town, I just do. Now for combat, that is a different issue where codified rules and DM fiat clash for different editions of D&D.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 19, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Quoted for truth. When I started roleplaying it was all about 'pretending to be the character, and describing what I wanted to do in character'. It has been the same with everyone that I've ever seen introduced to role playing too.

Now, I've not tried introducing anyone new to 4e, but my group of very experienced gamers quickly fell into 'power card paralysis' with 4e. The example I watched in the video seems like the typical "new player wants to do something that seems sensible to him, but DM says 'no' and people get the clear impression that what they can do is down to what is on the cards in front of them".

Cheers


----------



## Scribble (Feb 19, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think that's the point others are trying to make. A new player just tells you what he wants to do. He doesn't know if it's possible, how difficult it is, what the risks are. He just thinks it is something his character would do. Some more experienced players get trapped in the rules, thinking that the things defined by the rules are the only thing their character can do.




I think at this point though it's 6 of one, 1/2 a dozen of the other...

I mean when a new player says "I want to do X" isn't he really just relying on the experienced player's better knowledge of the rules to provide for how X is done?

I wouldn't say he's really making that statement based on the fact that he can do "anything" but rather based on the idea that he doesn't really have a clue WHAT he can do in this game medium (as well as how well it will work.)

When a player becomes more experienced, he looks back to the rules, because he's looking for what's hopefully the most "tried and true" method.

I'd say the same is true in real life as well... There might be a million different ways to say, climb a mountain, but we generally seek the "best" way to go about it.


In my opinion, a good game has rules that cover "most" situations, without becoming overbearing, and a good guidance system to help the DM arbitrate those rare situations that come up outside of the "box" in a mostly fair and consistent manner.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 19, 2010)

Scribble said:


> When a player becomes more experienced, he looks back to the rules, because he's looking for what's hopefully the most "tried and true" method.




I agree, that's why I said "some," not "most" or "all." A good balance can be struck between the tried-and-true method and still trying methods that aren't covered in the rules. For example, when there is no "best" method to deal with a situation you may want to look outside the codified rules.

Specific example:
[sblock]In 1E we were ambushed by a Wolfwere. Most of our weapons proved ineffective against the creature, except for the magic-user's magic staff. And his swings proved relatively ineffective against the creature's defenses. My character tried to help the magic-user by tackling the wolfwere. There weren't very good rules at that point for accomplishing a specific unarmed combat maneuver, but it was worth a shot compared to my fighter's only rules-codified action (i.e. attack).[/sblock]


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2010)

Hahaha, I think the difference of experiences has basically made my case for me.  Some people gravitate to the imagination side (which _must have ambiguity_), and some people gravitate to the mathematical/rules side (which is better served with the least possible ambiguity). 

IMXP, new players latch onto the creative side of the game much quicker than the rules of the game, and the rules of the game, also IMXP, tend to be the factor that drives a lot of "casual people" away, because 900 pages of rules is _friggin' intimidating_, unless you dork out on that stuff like I'm sure a lot of us here at ENWorld do.

It leads me to believe the more creativity the game wants and encourages (and the more ambiguity it has), the better it will attract new players, who easily latch onto "game of make-believe," but might not be so eager for "game of mathematical chess with story."

But that's just my experience with newbies. And part of that might be because that's how I generally view the game. 

Perhaps Chris comes down on the "address" over the "big house" side. It could be that his position as a designer sort of requires it. It's his JOB to help eliminate confusion and make rules easy to understand, it would make sense that he would be more comfortable with a rules-based exclusion than with an ambiguous solution.


----------



## tuxgeo (Feb 20, 2010)

Re: Who is a good DM . . . 



S'mon said:


> Well, I've seen a lot of praise for Chris Perkins (until this thread!); Kevin Kulp/Piratecat is universally praised by those he's GM'd for, and Mike Mearls sounds like he must be a pretty good GM too.



In reading some of the fairly recent "Confessions . . ." articles by Shelly Mazzanoble in Dragon magazine, I saw her make two references to this sort of thing within WotC itself. First, when she had to do her first DMing, she went straight to James Wyatt for advice (because his name is listed as the author of the DMG), and he replied that there were better DMs within the sound of his voice in the cubicles nearby. Second, she mentioned that she had a New DM (Chris Youngs?), and that was great, but everybody always really wanted to get to play in the (Iomandra?) campaign run by Chris Perkins.


----------



## guivre (Feb 20, 2010)

awesomeocalypse said:


> Way back when I first played D&D, I was 11 and 2nd edition had just come out. The internet didn't exist, the only people I knew with any interest in D&D were me and my friends, and none of us had ever seen the game played before. We had NO idea what we were doing, we just thought the books looked cool.
> 
> I'm pretty sure we got like 95% of the rules completely wrong. The players just created characters using the character creation chapter in the PHB, and from there on out I (the DM) just sort of winged everything/pulled what I thought looked cool out of the books. I think at one point we invented a mechanic to use saving throws as a resolution mechanism in noncombat encounters (e.g. okay...so you're trying to talk this dude into helping you out, and he just failed his save vs. charm, so you succeeded! he's gonna help you).




Err, the Internet definitely existed when 2nd edition came out... it predates D&D. In fact IIRC 2nd edition and the opening of the Internet to commercial entities happened round about the same time. Something that was banned for quite a while. 

Regardless, that's the way many people played as kids, and still do as adults, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with playing rules heavy either. There's a prevailing attitude that rules light is somehow qualitatively better, it's not. 

The explanation for why Dark Fire wouldn't work makes me cringe too, but it's nothing more than a difference in styles... not in quality.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 20, 2010)

When I first started playing, I didn't even know what the rules were.  Then again, I was, like, 10, and the party was made of Link, Merlin, Aragorn, and some rogue who had a name with "Butts" in it.

Chris probably isn't a bad DM.  Can't watch all those videos now, unfortunately.  He just made a bad call.  We all do it.  And it wasn't a bad call because he wouldn't let them use the power, he just gave a bad reason for it.  In of itself?  Not a big deal.

The issue is what the bad call can become.  When the call is "no, look at how specific these mechanics work," the new player is being shut down due to mechanics, and that becomes the focus.

I'm seeing an issue now in a SWSE game I'm in.  One player is a jedi consular, but can't think outside the box at all and is always upset that he feels he can't contribute to anything outside of combat, which has me scratching my head, since he probably has the *most* things he can do outside of combat other then the scoundrel.  But the issue is, he's not looking past his mechanics.  He doesn't go "Can I try Use the Force to _____?"  He says "Well I have Power X, Power Y, and Power Z, and I can't think of what to do with them :I"

Being or feeling caged in by mechanics is terrible, because it limits the very reason tabletop games are awesome - you aren't limited to pre-programmed scenarios, you can jump around on your own thing.  In said SWSE game, we found ourselves aboard a ship run by a small time crime lord who used the Force to enslave others and then sell them.  When we came across a group of servants wearing collars who came down to check up on the engine room, we decided that they were under mind control and that we'd disarm them and then free them.  The GM later told us that planned for them to be just run of the mill enemies, but decided to go with our plan in spite of that.  There weren't any mechanics for us to break them free of the mind control other then one or two very specific powers that were "sortas," but he let us give it a try anyways.

If all you're going to do is play *strictly* by the mechanics and never try doing your own thing, _regardless _of the edition?  Just play a video game.

That's why this thread is such a big thing - the issue wasn't one of creativity, and it wasn't even an issue of them trying to use a power to do something they couldn't - the issue is the reason he gave, which was rule minutia to the goddamn _max_.  I don't think this is an X Edition Only thing, but getting caught in rule minutia and closing the box around is a problem.


----------



## Primal (Feb 20, 2010)

As I watched the debated scene in the video, it did indeed look like Chris is a "bad" DM -- however, after watching the whole clip I have to say that his comments are taken out of context. Yes, he could have explained it better by describing the nature of the power and not given a bland mechanical reason why it doesn't work. Still, I see nothing in saying 'No' in this case, because letting 'Darkfire' melt the ice could potentially open a whole new can of worms about "creative" use of powers.

I also wouldn't reveal the whole complex map to my players (they'd have to map it room by room), and I felt that although it was nicely drawn, it wasn't particularly exciting or interesting for a dungeon map (as compared to maps in Paizo products, for example). 

The only "mistake" he made happened when he role-played the dwarven spirit (Chris contradicted himself on the spirit not having talked to anyone in centuries, although the dwarf had already mentioned the other adventuring party) but that is a classic mistake for DMs who ad-lib a lot; I've done it more than a few times myself. Also, regardless of what the campaign guide says, I don't think a Melairkyn dwarf -- or any dwarf, for that matter -- would accept the idea of a drow entering a dwarven tomb in Undermountain.  

That doesn't make him a "bad" DM, however. On the contrary -- after watching all the 'Robot Chicken plays D&D' clips, I'd love to sit at that game. Or any other game Chris would run. And I don't even particularly like 4E.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 20, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> If all you're going to do is play *strictly* by the mechanics and never try doing your own thing, _regardless _of the edition?  Just play a video game.
> 
> That's why this thread is such a big thing - the issue wasn't one of creativity, and it wasn't even an issue of them trying to use a power to do something they couldn't - the issue is the reason he gave, which was rule minutia to the goddamn _max_.  I don't think this is an X Edition Only thing, but getting caught in rule minutia and closing the box around is a problem.




You hit on the key difficulty with the future of tabletop RPGs. We distinguish ourselves from videogames through open-ended roleplaying and the options and flexibility that come with negotiating and patching rule sets, i.e. we have human imagination and co-operation on our side.

However, our rule sets have become increasingly like videogames to the point where I've seen GMs unpack a suitcase full of rule books and spend most of the game inside them.

The closer we move towards the videogame model and tie-in, the closer we move to losing our unique selling point/ character.

You would think, hope, tabletop players would recognise this and opt for/ demand rule sets that encouraged novelty and roleplaying but we're dragged towards the videogame model and the 'DRM' that goes with it.

This puts us in the position of kids receiving the handed down wisdom of marketing departments, instead of partners who shape and optimise play with open rule sets that are edited and moderated by players and GMs.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 20, 2010)

Ourph said:


> I agree, which is why I would have the players use powers, which usually do more damage and/or have a better chance of hitting than basic attacks. A fight against an Ogre and two goblins would be a tedious, grind-fest if the players relied on nothing but basic attacks the whole fight.




That would be true, except the fight only lasted FOUR ROUNDS.  That's right, it took THREE FRICKIN HOURS to play out four rounds of combat.

Because a couple of players, in a scene much like the one here, would spend half an hour doing a turn, because they had NO IDEA how their character worked or what they could do.

In this case, saying, "Ok, just attack, and we'll move on" would have cut the combat down to about half the time.  And then spent some time between sessions, with the player tied to a chair, his eyes pinned open and forcibly made to read the bloody rules of his character at the very least.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> That would be true, except the fight only lasted FOUR ROUNDS.  That's right, it took THREE FRICKIN HOURS to play out four rounds of combat.




Where did you get the time scale from Hussar?  

I count 7 episodes at 10 minutes each, so at the most it would be an hour and 10 minutes, and not everything on each episode was the battle?

Did I miss a clock in the background or something else obvious?

No malice intended, genuinely curious...


----------



## Derren (Feb 20, 2010)

Did I get this right?
Because Chris didn't ignore a rule most people say it is silly, he is a bad DM?

Wouldn't you rather say that the problem is with the rule and not with the DM who decides to follow the rules?


----------



## Mark (Feb 20, 2010)

Derren said:


> Did I get this right?  Because Chris didn't ignore a rule most people say it is silly, he is a bad DM?





No.




Derren said:


> Wouldn't you rather say that the problem is with the rule (. . .)





Yes.




Derren said:


> (. . .) and not with the DM who decides to follow the rules?





Maybe


----------



## tylerthehobo (Feb 20, 2010)

nedjer said:


> WTF? Did I just watch someone spend about a month not opening a door. Wasn't even an interesting door. I assume the guy who left the table popped out to hang himself.
> 
> Was playing rules light with a kid last night. In almost the same amount of time as that video she knocked out a couple of goblins, then wounded, healed and befriended a timber wolf, duelled with a goblin shaman, interrogated another goblin who told her to drink from a fountain. Didn't drink from the poisoned fountain but evaporated some of the water to form a blade venom and . . .




Bingo - and that's the problem I'm finding the more and more I run 4e.  It becomes about "but I have a card that does this" rather than, "Wouldn't it be cool if I tried this action that's vaguely justified by this elaborate game of pretend we play?"


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2010)

Primal said:
			
		

> Still, I see nothing in saying 'No' in this case, because letting 'Darkfire' melt the ice could potentially open a whole new can of worms about "creative" use of powers.




But in a one-shot with newbies, the idea goes, creative use of powers, in general, is probably a good thing, because it encourages them to do what they probably have the most fun doing, thus making them more likely to play the game again, rather than intimidating them with rules minutiae. I'd even say this is _especially_ true with a one-shot, since the limits of abuse are rigidly defined.



			
				nedjer said:
			
		

> You hit on the key difficulty with the future of tabletop RPGs. We distinguish ourselves from videogames through open-ended roleplaying and the options and flexibility that come with negotiating and patching rule sets, i.e. we have human imagination and co-operation on our side.
> 
> However, our rule sets have become increasingly like videogames to the point where I've seen GMs unpack a suitcase full of rule books and spend most of the game inside them.




I 100% agree. I think for tabletop games to keep an expand their base against videogames and the like, they need to leverage what they do that videogames don't. I've got an ENWorld blog post about this, too, the idea that the game should fit the medium it is played in best. It's something that's crossed my mind a lot while working on FFZ, since it is a tabletop game derived from a videogame, and the differences there are key to why you would bother playing a tabletop version. Namely, you get to create your own world, your own characters, your own villains, and run them however you decide to do it, rather than following a videogame script.

Creativity (and ambiguity) need to rise to the surface.



			
				tylerthehobo said:
			
		

> Bingo - and that's the problem I'm finding the more and more I run 4e. It becomes about "but I have a card that does this" rather than, "Wouldn't it be cool if I tried this action that's vaguely justified by this elaborate game of pretend we play?"




I think this is an issue that transcends editions, and it's still possible to do 4e without this problem, but the fact that 4e does come down more often on the "address" side than the "big house" side, and has unambiguous rules results and flexible flavor, subtly shifts this from where it was in previous editions.  I don't think it's a catastrophic shift, but I do think that players looking at cards trying to pick the right power is something I do not ever really want to see at my table.


----------



## ScottS (Feb 20, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think it's a catastrophic shift, but I do think that players looking at cards trying to pick the right power is something I do not ever really want to see at my table.




Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Print (Rob Heinsoo) might interest you if you haven't already read it (in particular the "Powers for Everyone" section, which I think strongly implies that picking through power cards is exactly what they had in mind as being the "fun" part of the game).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2010)

ScottS said:
			
		

> Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Print (Rob Heinsoo) might interest you if you haven't already read it (in particular the "Powers for Everyone" section, which I think strongly implies that picking through power cards is exactly what they had in mind as being the "fun" part of the game).




I don't see it.

I see thinking that everyone should have powers, but, heck, 3e already had that basic concept (Cleave was a power, as was Whirlwind Strike, as were a lot of fighter feats), and it's a good idea to have specific abilities you can look forward to. 

I, in fact, see that they stepped BACK from "lots of powers." Not far enough, IMO, but still.

I don't think that Rob was envisioning a situation like this, where the game stops while people debate which abilities they can actually use to overcome an obstacle. That's as bad as a newbie with a level 20 wizard in earlier editions.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 20, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think that Rob was envisioning a situation like this, where the game stops while people debate which abilities they can actually use to overcome an obstacle.



The game doesn't "stop" when that's going on. That's part of the game. Some of the best times I have had playing RPGs were when the other players and I were strategizing about how to overcome challenges.


----------



## ScottS (Feb 20, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think that Rob was envisioning a situation like this, where the game stops while people debate which abilities they can actually use to overcome an obstacle. That's as bad as a newbie with a level 20 wizard in earlier editions.




If "3E's spellcasting characters" were the fun-model they were following, then it stands to reason that the end product would be PCs that play very much like older-edition wizards/sorcerers, i.e. their power selection/"spell list" is essentially their interface with the world. Beyond shooting off your powers to resolve a given situation, the only other mechanical options they gave us are: magic items (which are now just a subset of your power deck), and skill checks (which involve either a very vanilla d20 roll on a chart for a few set tasks; or else a process of free-associating a particular function out of the broadly defined skills, "Mother May I" negotiation with the DM, and page 42...). Rituals only count if we restrict the "obstacle" to something with a longer time frame, and in any case don't really change the "spellbook" nature of 4e PC abilities (i.e. if you know you have 5+ minutes to solve the problem, you go from flipping through your power deck to flipping through your list of known rituals).


----------



## Turtlejay (Feb 20, 2010)

ScottS said:


> If "3E's spellcasting characters" were the fun-model they were following, then it stands to reason that the end product would be PCs that play very much like older-edition wizards/sorcerers, i.e. their power selection/"spell list" is essentially their interface with the world. Beyond shooting off your powers to resolve a given situation, the only other mechanical options they gave us are: magic items (which are now just a subset of your power deck), and skill checks (which involve either a very vanilla d20 roll on a chart for a few set tasks; or else a process of free-associating a particular function out of the broadly defined skills, "Mother May I" negotiation with the DM, and page 42...). Rituals only count if we restrict the "obstacle" to something with a longer time frame, and in any case don't really change the "spellbook" nature of 4e PC abilities (i.e. if you know you have 5+ minutes to solve the problem, you go from flipping through your power deck to flipping through your list of known rituals).




I'd say this is a pretty unfair characterization.  A generalized one that makes a lot of assumptions about one's DM as well.  I think you'll find that most games do not involve any kind of Mother May I.

Jay


----------



## Derren (Feb 20, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But in a one-shot with newbies, the idea goes, creative use of powers, in general, is probably a good thing,




How is letting a power do something it can't do considered creative?


----------



## fuzzlewump (Feb 20, 2010)

Derren said:


> How is letting a power do something it can't do considered creative?



I believe he's talking about the player's creativity, not the DM's creativity. Beyond that, not everyone is going to agree on what a power can and cannot do. In this case, I agree that Darkfire cannot be used to melt ice.

Always saying "yes" is just as bad as always saying "no" in my mind.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2010)

SkidAce said:


> Where did you get the time scale from Hussar?
> 
> I count 7 episodes at 10 minutes each, so at the most it would be an hour and 10 minutes, and not everything on each episode was the battle?
> 
> ...




Sorry if it wasn't clear.  That was 3 hours in my campaign, not in the video.

The players in the game I play in (not DM) spent 3 hours doing four, maybe five rounds of combat.  

Sigh.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 21, 2010)

Ahh I see, sorry for misunderstanding.


----------



## filthgrinder (Feb 21, 2010)

IF you got to the youtube channel, they have the first couple of episodes up with DM commentary. I think watching those and listening to Chris talk about the game and the playing circumstances really sheds a lot of light on the game, and some of the issues brought up in this thread.

First, he planned out an adventure 2 weeks in advance, when he was asked to scrap it by the marketing team and set it in Undermountain, the locale of the new D&D encounters program. So he had to rewrite the entire adventure on the plane ride and in his hotel room the day before. He also had to fly down to CA, so he could only bring a certain amount of stuff. They were playing in a weird area above a club, that was leaking with the heavy rains they were having. He specifically chose not to hide portions of the map, since he thought having the whole map out would look better on camera than covering up pieces with paper or other things. He also brought the wet erase map instead of dungeons tiles because it would be easier to travel with and set-up quickly.

I think the commentary tracks are really interesting to give the game a lot of context, and frame the choices that were made.

But people can still nitpick because they aren't playing the way someone else plays so they must be doing it wrong.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Sorry if it wasn't clear.  That was 3 hours in my campaign, not in the video.
> 
> The players in the game I play in (not DM) spent 3 hours doing four, maybe five rounds of combat.
> 
> Sigh.




Were you guys stoned?


----------



## fuzzlewump (Feb 21, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Were you guys stoned?



I second this question.

3 hours sounds like you didn't spend 3 hours fighting, you spent an hour rolling dice and deciding actions and 2 hours on "whoa...dude..I have..like..hands.." Just kidding, but seriously, what was the hold up?


----------



## nedjer (Feb 21, 2010)

filthgrinder said:


> But people can still nitpick because they aren't playing the way someone else plays so they must be doing it wrong.




It doesn't seem nitpicking to recognise the difference between hours spent in combat based around highly tactical rules, (i.e. a wargame played with spells), and roleplaying, (i.e. an interactive story involving characterisation, exploration, plot development, negotiation and combat).

The first is a mechanical process, the second an imaginative process. Any game that is played in a way that includes a series of hour long combats with an occasional nod to the other areas can be mislabelled a roleplaying game, but it is, nevertheless, a tactical wargame.

To claim otherwise seems comparable to identifying Modern Warfare 2 as an RPG because there's a thin veil of characterisation and plot alongside hour after hour of brutal combat.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Were you guys stoned?






fuzzlewump said:


> I second this question.
> 
> 3 hours sounds like you didn't spend 3 hours fighting, you spent an hour rolling dice and deciding actions and 2 hours on "whoa...dude..I have..like..hands.." Just kidding, but seriously, what was the hold up?




Oh, dude, don't get me started.  Just, don't go there.

I recently got to play 4e with a brand new DM and a group of mixed experience - myself and one other with almost no experience with the system and one guy with a fair bit - and what an eye opener.  Similar sort of encounter - 4 or 5 kobolds holed up at a farm and the combat took about 30 minutes.  Maybe 40.

Having seen what an enormously huge difference it can make whether you have a DM and players who are on the ball and those who are not, it's bloody eye opening.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 21, 2010)

Turtlejay said:


> I'd say this is a pretty unfair characterization.  A generalized one that makes a lot of assumptions about one's DM as well.  I think you'll find that most games do not involve any kind of Mother May I.




All games involve Mother May I.  That's the primary game mechanic any time there isn't a clear rule.  There are really only two ways to handle any situation:  The rules way and the Mother May I way.

Rules way: "I jump over the pit.  The rules say I can jump 10 feet with a DC 20 Jump check.  My bonus is +15, I rolled a 10.  I make it."

Mother May I way: "The rules don't say exactly how far I can jump.  Can I jump over this 10 foot pit, DM?"

The same thing applies in almost any situation:

Rules way: "This power says it affects only creatures.  I can't use it on this door."

Mother May I way: "The book doesn't say what this affects.  It just says it creates a ball of fire.  Does that ball of fire melt through 24 inches of ice, DM?"

Now, often in the Mother May I style of play everyone at the table agrees with the answer given by the DM so it doesn't become a problem.  That doesn't make the style any less Mother May I.  It's just that when I ask "Can I bash down the door with my 20 strength?" and the DM says "Yes", everyone at the table says "He's strong, I don't see any reason he couldn't bash down the door".  On the other hand if I say "Can I use fireball to melt 2 feet of ice?" and the DM says no....well, some people will feel they are at the mercy of their DM and their rulings.  Which they always were.  The players just disagree with the ruling this time.

I prefer to use the rules 99% of the time and resort to Mother May I a lot less often.  This is one of the few times in the 4e rules that the rules explicitly give DM fiat.  He said no, that's perfectly acceptable.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Oh, dude, don't get me started.  Just, don't go there.
> 
> I recently got to play 4e with a brand new DM and a group of mixed experience - myself and one other with almost no experience with the system and one guy with a fair bit - and what an eye opener.  Similar sort of encounter - 4 or 5 kobolds holed up at a farm and the combat took about 30 minutes.  Maybe 40.
> 
> Having seen what an enormously huge difference it can make whether you have a DM and players who are on the ball and those who are not, it's bloody eye opening.




Glad you experienced 4e as some of us experience it finally


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 21, 2010)

Heh.

I'm wondering how many people didn't experience the "well, you said it was ok before, so why can't I do it again" style of gameplay that the "say "YES if it seems cool" style of DMing encoruages at times.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 21, 2010)

nedjer said:


> The first is a mechanical process, the second an imaginative process. Any game that is played in a way that includes a series of hour long combats with an occasional nod to the other areas can be mislabelled a roleplaying game, but it is, nevertheless, a tactical wargame.




That is highly offensive.  But baring the extreme amount of opinion you are throwing around as fact in your post, a roleplaying game is one in which you play the role of a character.  If that character's primary motivation is killing monsters and taking their stuff, it does NOT make it a tactical wargame to spend your time in the game focusing on those aspects.  It is simply a roleplaying game that focuses on different things than you like.

Nor is playing that way any less imaginative.  I imagine my character swinging his sword, yelling out battle cries, blocking blows, and so on.  I imagine his motivations when I take every action.  Do I kill that enemy or try to knock him unconscious?  How will that effect the plot beyond this encounter?  The WHY I am killing them comes up on a regular basis.

Contrast that to tactical wargaming.  I don't much care why I am killing anyone.  It's a game and I'm killing them because if I wasn't there would be no game.  The results of this battle likely won't factor into any future scenarios.  And if the do, it will be just to determine how many troops I have to start the next battle with.  I don't think about the motivations of my troops because I don't care what their motivations are.  My job as a player in a tactical war game is to win using the best tactics.

Now, there are elements of tactical wargaming in D&D.  That's what makes combat fun.  I spent too many years where combat was not tactical and consisted of the DM pointing at me and I called out "AC 5 for 14 damage" and then he pointed at the next person in initiative.  I wouldn't exactly call that imaginative.  But it moved quickly and got us back into the exploration portions of the game in no time at all.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 21, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I prefer to give up DM control in a situation like this. Let them get away with blasting the door with fire or attacking it with weapons or whatever. It's clearly fun to use these elements in new ways, so encourage the fun. Just ramp up the difficulty of the next part, if you thought they got through it too easily. You're the DM, after all, nothing you haven't already said is set in stone.




But sometimes what the players THINK is the most fun isn't.  The thing is, sometimes it's fun to use a fireball to melt your way through ice.  Sometimes it's more satisfying to stand in front of the door, have your wizard make an Arcana check to point the trap at the door, attract the attention of a trap with an Acrobatics check and succeed on your Athletics roll to jump away at the last second in order melt the ice.

What players might get disappointed by("What do you mean my fireball can't melt the ice?") ends up being MORE fun for them in the end.  Mostly because they had a chance to fail and succeeded anyway.  This is especially true when a solution obviously favors one class or player over another.  It sucks to be the fighter when you realize that a Wizard can simply say "I use a fireball, that solves everything and we go".  Some people see that as creative.  I see it as simply looking at your character sheet and picking a power.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 21, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> That is highly offensive.  But baring the extreme amount of opinion you are throwing around as fact in your post, a roleplaying game is one in which you play the role of a character.  If that character's primary motivation is killing monsters and taking their stuff, it does NOT make it a tactical wargame to spend your time in the game focusing on those aspects.  It is simply a roleplaying game that focuses on different things than you like.
> 
> Nor is playing that way any less imaginative.  I imagine my character swinging his sword, yelling out battle cries, blocking blows, and so on.  I imagine his motivations when I take every action.  Do I kill that enemy or try to knock him unconscious?  How will that effect the plot beyond this encounter?  The WHY I am killing them comes up on a regular basis.
> 
> ...




Is it really so offensive to be objective and accept that a game primarily focused on killing monsters/ enemies, through labyrinthine mechanical processes, is a tactical wargame rather than a roleplaying game?

You can be as imaginative as you like about the combat but a game in which "why am I killing him?" and "yelling battle cries" are a recurring feature of play is a long way removed from imaginative, open-ended roleplaying. It is essentially 'Call myself Rommel, target a Sherman tank with an 88mmm gun at 800 yards, check the thickness of the armour plating, roll, repeat'.

Describing or 'imagining' the shell slam into the tank's armour, the sights and sounds of buckling metal and flesh, splashing gore around the inside of the tank and the pop as everyone's eardrums burst does not make it roleplaying.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> All I can say is wow.  My experiences were pretty much the polar opposite.  Regardless of edition.
> 
> IME, new players in a system, the first question they ask is, "I want to do X, how do I do that?"  And they get told, roll this die, or spend that whatever.  Most people are used to playing games.  Games have rules.  You don't suddenly start skipping squares in Monopoly because you feel like it - that would be cheating.
> 
> And, IME, most people come from that position.  The rules of the game define what you can do.  Different strokes I guess.




This was my experience as well.  New players mostly show up at the game and say "What can I do?  How do I do it?"  If we try to tell them "Anything you can think of, you are a big strong guy.  What would you do?" they often get confused, not knowing how you can play a game where ANYTHING is allowed.

Often the first couple of questions are something like "So, if I wanted to kill the elf, I could do that?" and then you have to explain to them the concept that killing the other people in the party is no fun for them and not to do it.  Then they want to know if they go and kill the guards in town, if that is allowed.  And then you have to explain there are people in the world who are better at fighting than they are and that they could die and need to roll up another character.  Then after that they want to spend their free time hitting on women in bars and cheating people out of money.

It's been my experience that it's best to give new players much more limited options and slowly expand them as they get more used to the rules and the concepts of a roleplaying game.  We've had the most success with telling new players "If you want to use a skill roll a d20 and add your skill.  If you want to use a power, tell me which one to use and roll a d20 and add the modifier on your power card.  If you have another idea on what you want to do, let me know and I'll tell you how it works."

And for the most part, they stick to their skills and powers.  They feel a lot more comfortable not leaving the rules.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 21, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> ...and 2 hours on "whoa...dude..I have..like..hands.."




"They call them fingers, but I never see them fing."


----------



## fuzzlewump (Feb 21, 2010)

@nedjer

Objectivity may require people to agree on what the game is primarily focused on, which as you can see, will not happen.

Judging by the amount of words spent on describing combat and combat related accessories, then D&D is incredibly combat-focused. But, is it true that the more rules that go into roleplaying the less fluid and more contrived it becomes? In other words, by not devoting a ton of the book to roleplaying, is D&D actually making roleplaying a more legitimate focus? It's counter-intuitive, but I find the more mechanics attached to speaking and describing in-character the more 'tactical wargame' it becomes. A tactical war of words, as it were.

So, is the purest role-playing game actually a game with no rules at all? Maybe not even a GM of some sort?

My opinion: The line where RPG meets tactical wargame well, isn't really a line at all. When I was still a kid, not many years ago, I would play the game Super Smash Brothers with my friends as a roleplaying game. I kid you not, we would pick characters and basically create movies despite the game itself only supporting the ability to fight.

Same thing, in a different way, I had this play-arcade basketball game made out of plastic tubing. My friends and I took it apart and created "swords" and "axes" and jumped around on my trampoline and roleplayed. Obviously, we were using both of these games outside of what we can perceive as their intentions. But, can you objectively say that we were playing a Fighting Game and we were playing a Sports Game?

Even if you still say yes, the point is, not everyone will agree.

So, what do you think, does having a game primarily focused on 'roleplaying' in terms of mechanics actually just make the game a different sort of tactical 'wargame?' Not in physical combat, strictly, but some sort of tactical conflict? What is the ideal role-playing game, if something like Call of Duty 2 let's say is the ideal wargame?


----------



## nedjer (Feb 21, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> @nedjer
> 
> So, what do you think, does having a game primarily focused on 'roleplaying' in terms of mechanics actually just make the game a different sort of tactical 'wargame?' Not in physical combat, strictly, but some sort of tactical conflict? What is the ideal role-playing game, if something like Call of Duty 2 let's say is the ideal wargame?




Good question  To me the ideal roleplaying game is one where instead of the game constructing your imagination, your imagination constructs the game.

Videogames have great difficulty offering truely open-ended, imaginative roleplaying, because the game constructs so much of the players' experience of the game.

I guess I'd say that titles like MW2 and Borderlands, offer too little variety of roles, plotting and gameplay to be considered RPGs. While Darksiders or Oblivion go some way towards being open-ended the best I've seen, oddly, is Free Realms.

The combat is pretty mince but the advancement, exploration, mix of gameplay, immersive settings, player customisation and moderated chat gives players massive freedom in terms of how they interact with the game.

There would need to be level creation and editing to let players' own imaginations have free rein to roleplay but I'll take a couple of hours with my kid on Free Realms over COD5 or HADDOCK 7 anytime.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2010)

Wow, that7s a whole lot of video games I've never really heard of.  MW2?  Borderlands?  Darksiders?  COD5?  HADDOCK 7?

Aren't those fish?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 21, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> That is highly offensive.




Considerably less offensive than your characterising anything non-rules like as 'Mother may I'.

Just saying.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 21, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Is it really so offensive to be objective and accept that a game primarily focused on killing monsters/ enemies, through labyrinthine mechanical processes, is a tactical wargame rather than a roleplaying game?



I don't think your statement was offensive.  But I do dispute your claim that this is an objective position.

I don't consider WOW to be remotely the same kind of "roleplaying" that I consider my home D&D game to be.  But WOW is certainly a roleplaying game.  You may subjectively disagree, but this is subjective.  

In D&D, I enjoy *being* a character in a fantastic setting.  I believe my D&D experience matches your limited definition of roleplaying.  

When I was playing WOW (clean and sober 7 months), I enjoyed the sense of being in the person of a fantastic and powerful avatar.  It isn't the same thing at all.  But it is most absolutely roleplaying, just a different degree of roleplaying.    

I believe that the great majority of WOW players are in the same basic level of RP as I was.  But there are a few who really get into character and play the part of someone who cares about their quest and its impact on their character's values.  I think these players are pretty rare, but they certainly exist.  And despite the fact that WOW mechanics constrain their ability to express their roleplaying, the RP exists between their ears and is quite real.  I also know that their are players who just want to kill Boss X because it might drop Epic Y.  I think these players are probably a step below the avatar step, but are still RPing.  And there are other players who just want to "win" the encounters as a tactical exercise.  This last group is very possible not RPing at all.  

I read an article about wow players.  (sorry, no link).  Some psy researchers measured the active parts of the brain when talking to players.
When discussing themselves, the part of the brain that relates to self was active.
When discussing their friends the part of the brain that relates to others was active.
When discussing friends' characters, the part of the brain that relates to imagination was active.
When discussing their own character, the part of the brain that relates to *self* was active.  (!!!)

If you want "objective" data, then these WOW players were OBJECTIVELY roleplaying.

All D&D does not have to be the same roleplaying.  I've known "beer and pretzels" groups that I think fall much more under the "powerful avatar of orc-ass-kicking" class than the RPing I look for.  But that is still roleplaying.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Wow, that7s a whole lot of video games I've never really heard of.  MW2?  Borderlands?  Darksiders?  COD5?  HADDOCK 7?
> 
> Aren't those fish?




Don't even think about buying HADDOCK 7, it's not nearly as good as HERRING 3, which comes with free batter and breadcrumbs


----------



## darjr (Feb 21, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Heh.
> 
> I'm wondering how many people didn't experience the "well, you said it was ok before, so why can't I do it again" style of gameplay that the "say "YES if it seems cool" style of DMing encoruages at times.




I have. I'd like to think I let it go most of the time, there certainly were a lot of gimmicks and tricks that my players would gear up for. In the right circumstances it can be really cool. But there were plenty of times where I just had to let a tactic fail miserably.

Like the time the green slime went into spasms, flailing about and splashing a toxic mixture of burning oil and green slime. Though I think that one was just for my own fun.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 21, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I don't think your statement was offensive.  But I do dispute your claim that this is an objective position.
> 
> I don't consider WOW to be remotely the same kind of "roleplaying" that I consider my home D&D game to be.  But WOW is certainly a roleplaying game.  You may subjectively disagree, but this is subjective.
> 
> ...




Great answer and I'd have to agree on principle that everything's subjective.

However, WOW is a resource-based, combat-orientated game, which is largely defined by the game's designers. It, therefore, incorporates features of roleplaying but does not, in my opinion, offer a roleplaying game where players develop open-ended characters and contexts drawn largely from their own imaginations.

By way of an analogy. Playing Basic D&D and Classic Traveller immediately puts players in the position of having to build on an imaginative framework. In contrast Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader offer an elaborate setting, which encourages GMs and players to define their roles in terms of the setting.

The personal example that comes to mind for me is of buying a stack of Lego blocks on eBay and buying a Lego pre-pack designed to build a lion.

The lion was an exercise in following instructions and, though we could have just used the bits, the specialist blocks and the challenge presented by the lion shaped the 'gameplay'. The lion was only made once.

The lego blocks have made every animal, tower, castle, dinosaur . . . that ever came into our imaginations.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2010)

> I'm wondering how many people didn't experience the "well, you said it was ok before, so why can't I do it again" style of gameplay that the "say "YES if it seems cool" style of DMing encoruages at times.




I roll with it. 

What's the worst that could happen? "Oh no, I can't throw challenges like X at the party anymore because I was too broad back there a few sessions ago, now I'll just have to *use some other of my trillions of DM tricks to challenge the party*, how awful."

If people are having fun (and being cool is part of the fun), I don't give a frig. 

I think a lot of DMs are too paranoid of powerful characters, with the ability to shape the story and bypass threats. It is not like "frozen shut doors" are the only things that can challenge your party. Even if they get a free pass on every door that is frozen shut for the rest of the campaign (and in a one-shot, that's not much time), and perhaps even some other ice-encrusted things, so what? 

Though this is my view only. I like rolling with powerful characters, reacting to the wrenches they throw into my plots, letting them feel powerful and making their enemies _even more powerful_ in order to threaten them. 

Perhaps the next frozen door I want to challenge them with is shut with Levistian Ice from a glacier the Nine Hells in which a rouge devil is trapped for eternity. It takes more than mortal magic to unfreeze it.

Perhaps I just don't hurl frozen doors at them anymore.

I get that some DM's panic over the prospect, but for me, at least, it makes the game MORE fun.


----------



## Rel (Feb 21, 2010)

Yeah, nedjer, I think you're starting to stray a bit into "badwrongfunism" with that sweeping generalization.  Are you saying that Rogue Trader is less of a roleplaying game than Traveller?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 21, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Great answer and I'd have to agree on principle that everything's subjective.



 Thanks, but I would not agree that "everything" is subjective. 



> However, WOW is a resource-based, combat-orientated game, which is largely defined by the game's designers. It, therefore, incorporates features of roleplaying but does not, in my opinion, offer a roleplaying game where players develop open-ended characters and contexts drawn largely from their own imaginations.



Again, the objective data remains that WOW players are fully in the role of their character.  I think the distinction here is that while I would agree with you that WOW is not a very *good* roleplaying game, a *good* roleplaying game is not a prerequisite for players to role play*.  

Even the *good* part is subjective.  
A bad DM can easily impose the exact same limitations on a game of D&D that you cite for WOW.  And while that makes it quite reasonable that you may look for a better DM, it in no way makes D&D not an RPG, nor does it prevent players role playing within this substandard condition.



* - For the record, I'm not commenting on the overall quality of WOW.  I am only commenting on it as an RPG compared to PnP.  I played WOW for two years and it was much fun.  Not looking to slam WOW or hijack into that.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 21, 2010)

Rel said:


> Yeah, nedjer, I think you're starting to stray a bit into "badwrongfunism" with that sweeping generalization.  Are you saying that Rogue Trader is less of a roleplaying game than Traveller?




Rogue Trader is very much a RPG but the game places play in a 'tight' setting, i.e. Gross Emperor, Inquisitors, bolters, . . . The game is very open to roleplaying with that setting. However, part of the players' imaginative input is handed off to the setting. That's not necessarily bad, it may fit exactly the role you wish to play.

Traveller players start out with less source/ setting material and less specific roles, so often paint their own backdrops and structures. You can get the same gameplay with either system but they don't start from the same default.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 21, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I don't consider WOW to be remotely the same kind of "roleplaying" that I consider my home D&D game to be.  But WOW is certainly a roleplaying game.  You may subjectively disagree, but this is subjective.
> 
> In D&D, I enjoy *being* a character in a fantastic setting.  I believe my D&D experience matches your limited definition of roleplaying.
> 
> When I was playing WOW (clean and sober 7 months), I enjoyed the sense of being in the person of a fantastic and powerful avatar.  It isn't the same thing at all.  But it is most absolutely roleplaying, just a different degree of roleplaying.




I've been playing WoW way, way, too long.  My main character has just under 144 days played.  For those who don't play, that's 144 entire 24 hour periods.  I have 2 other level 80s and various other characters in the 60s and 70s.  Yes, I need help.  That said, I really don't consider WoW an rpg.  There's not a lot of role playing involved.  In WoW, we call each other by our character's names, but that's about the extent of the role playing.  Otherwise, it's just a tactical video game.  A fun game, but hardly an rpg imo.


----------



## Mark (Feb 21, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I've been playing WoW way, way, too long.  My main character has just under 144 days played.  For those who don't play, that's 144 entire 24 hour periods.  I have 2 other level 80s and various other characters in the 60s and 70s.  Yes, I need help.  That said, I really don't consider WoW an rpg.  There's not a lot of role playing involved.  In WoW, we call each other by our character's names, but that's about the extent of the role playing.  Otherwise, it's just a tactical video game.  A fun game, but hardly an rpg imo.





I think some people consider the playing out of those tactics as roleplaying because they, themselves, are not personally doing it but rather through a character/avatar.  I would disagree but I understand the position.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 21, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Again, the objective data remains that WOW players are fully in the role of their character.  I think the distinction here is that while I would agree with you that WOW is not a very *good* roleplaying game, a *good* roleplaying game is not a prerequisite for players to role play*.
> 
> Even the *good* part is subjective.
> A bad DM can easily impose the exact same limitations on a game of D&D that you cite for WOW.  And while that makes it quite reasonable that you may look for a better DM, it in no way makes D&D not an RPG, nor does it prevent players role playing within this substandard condition.




It's the objective data that demonstrates the limitations of WoW in terms of roleplaying. The skills and 'fun' connect to cognitive activities and rewards based on a 'slay and shop' model. The limited roles available are inherently combative and geared towards material outcomes. Essentially, the game's settings, rewards and mechanics are all structured towards making you play the role of a first rate consumer.

D&D in all versions, and most other tabletop systems, are streets ahead in terms of the options for open-ended, imaginative play and connecting to cognitive activities and rewards that go beyond a focus on combat, treasure, spend; combat, treasure, spend.

As a result, for me, roleplaying ideally includes a blend of many roleplaying features which come together to make the sum more than the parts. A heavy emphasis on slaying monsters in any RPG is, therefore, taking play away from the full range of skills and fun roleplaying can offer.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2010)

nedjer said:


> As a result, for me, roleplaying ideally includes a blend of many roleplaying features which come together to make the sum more than the parts. A heavy emphasis on slaying monsters in any RPG is, therefore, taking play away from the full range of skills and fun roleplaying can offer.



Well said, but I'm going to at least partly disagree.

Slaying monsters is often the heavy emphasis during any adventure, which is just fine.

*Why* you're slaying the monsters is often the heavy emphasis between adventures; that's where the role-play comes in, which is also just fine.

Both are as much fun as you want to make them.

Lanefan


----------



## fuzzlewump (Feb 21, 2010)

@nedjer

Sure, and the converse is also true, that a heavy focus on non-combat takes away from the the full range of skills and fun that combat offers. I'm not sure your terminology is very useful, either, because it seems quite true that something can be both a role-playing game and a tactical war game. Namely, well, Dungeons and Dragons. This is especially true for Dungeons and Dragons because it identifies itself as a role-playing game and puts a fair amount of focus on the roleplaying aspect of the game.

So, roleplaying game and tactical wargame should not be on a continuum. Maybe something like: non-combat drama game versus tactical wargame. At any one time you can either be doing something combat related or non-combat related, even within seconds of eachother. "*I roll for attack,* _screaming 'You shall not pass'"_ But, the entire time you are playing the role of something or someone, thus, roleplaying.



			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> *Role-play·ing*
> 
> /ˈroʊlˌpleɪ
> 
> ...


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Rogue Trader is very much a RPG but the game places play in a 'tight' setting, i.e. Gross Emperor, Inquisitors, bolters, . . . The game is very open to roleplaying with that setting. However, part of the players' imaginative input is handed off to the setting. That's not necessarily bad, it may fit exactly the role you wish to play.
> 
> Traveller players start out with less source/ setting material and less specific roles, so often paint their own backdrops and structures. You can get the same gameplay with either system but they don't start from the same default.




Hang on a second though.  Are you saying that someone playing in a heavily defined setting is less capable of role playing than someone who plays in a less defined setting?

Wouldn't that mean that everyone who plays Forgotten Realms is no longer role playing?  Is there a setting out there that's as heavily defined as FR?  Thousands and thousands of pages of setting info, that's about as well defined a setting as you can get.

Sure, it might not fit the role you want to play, but, that's also not a requirement for role playing.  If I'm playing the Avalon Hill 007 game, I'm GOING to be an MI6 agent.  If I don't want to be, I should play another game.  Or, if I'm playing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I'm going to play an anthropomorphic animal.  

Does that mean these games are somehow less roleplaying?

Isn't that like saying free verse is somehow "more poetry" than a sonnet?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 22, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Being or feeling caged in by mechanics is terrible, because it limits the very reason tabletop games are awesome - you aren't limited to pre-programmed scenarios, you can jump around on your own thing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't think this is an X Edition Only thing, but getting caught in rule minutia and closing the box around is a problem.





ScottS said:


> Beyond shooting off your powers to resolve a given situation, the only other mechanical options they gave us are: magic items (which are now just a subset of your power deck), and skill checks (which involve either a very vanilla d20 roll on a chart for a few set tasks; or else a process of free-associating a particular function out of the broadly defined skills, "Mother May I" negotiation with the DM, and page 42...). Rituals only count if we restrict the "obstacle" to something with a longer time frame, and in any case don't really change the "spellbook" nature of 4e PC abilities (i.e. if you know you have 5+ minutes to solve the problem, you go from flipping through your power deck to flipping through your list of known rituals).



There is a modern approach to RPG design that tries to straddle the divide between _rules_ and "_Mother may I_", by giving the PCs broadly defined, open-ended capabilities and by giving the GM sound rules advice on how to set difficulties for conflict resolution that will (i) fit well with the PCs' capabilties and (ii) produce an outcome that is reasonably satisfying for the players at the table, both in gameplay and narrative terms.

Probably the poster-child for this sort of design is HeroQuest. But D&D 4e also has a go at it, via the rules on p 42 of the DMG and the (not ideally implemented, but nevertheless there) Skill Challenge mechanics.

I have two players in a group of 5 - one playing a Wizard, the other a CHA Paladin - who use p 42 on average probably once each per session. They have done things like cleansed altars of dark gods, dispelled zones of darkness created by enemies, and prayed for boons from their gods (both in combat and out of combat). I normally resolve these things by staking some damage on a skill check failure against some benefit (clearing the zone, getting combat advantage) on a skill check success. In yesterday's session the Wizard's player initiated an impromptue Skill Challenge that invovled modifying a Delay Affliction ritual so that it would lift the binding placed on the soul of a just-defeated vampire, ensuring that the soul went straight to the Shadowfell rather than lingering to cause more suffering in the mortal world.

By the standards of mainstream fantasy RPGs, I think 4e gives reasonable support for this sort of thing  - certainly better than B/X D&D, for example, which has only a brief discussion of assigning a percentage chance for a PC to jump up and grab a lever; or AD&D, which I don't recall having an account of how to resolve ad hoc actions at all. (Remember that _better_ here means not just mechanically more robust, but also contributing in a fun way to the gameplay and to the story. This is part of the strength of the Skill Challenge mechanic.)



nedjer said:


> However, our rule sets have become increasingly like videogames to the point where I've seen GMs unpack a suitcase full of rule books and spend most of the game inside them.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You would think, hope, tabletop players would recognise this and opt for/ demand rule sets that encouraged novelty and roleplaying but we're dragged towards the videogame model and the 'DRM' that goes with it.



I think 4e goes some way towards this, as explained above.



tylerthehobo said:


> Bingo - and that's the problem I'm finding the more and more I run 4e.  It becomes about "but I have a card that does this" rather than, "Wouldn't it be cool if I tried this action that's vaguely justified by this elaborate game of pretend we play?"



I think that 4e supports "wouldn't it be cool", as explained above.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2010)

To be 100% honest, a given player's experience with a system, any system, will depend FAR more on the guy behind the GM's screen than any ruleset.  The idea that you have to bring a suitcase full of books to the game is a GM thing, not a system thing.  That the system provides the books, does not necessarily mean that those books be used.

Heck, 2e had FAR more supplements than WOTC 3e and 3.5 did.  And, a lot of those supplements were pretty crunch heavy, not just setting guides.  Does that mean that 2e is the closest D&D has come to the "video game model and the DRM that goes with it"?


----------



## Primal (Feb 22, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> I believe he's talking about the player's creativity, not the DM's creativity. Beyond that, not everyone is going to agree on what a power can and cannot do. In this case, I agree that Darkfire cannot be used to melt ice.
> 
> Always saying "yes" is just as bad as always saying "no" in my mind.




I'm with you there. If 'Darkfire' had the Fire keyword, I'd agree with KM; however, it doesn't produce "real" flames as it is the 4E version of 'Faerie Fire'. Maybe Chris should have described what the power actually does, instead of proclaiming that it can only target actual creatures but still I think he made the right call in this situation. Yeah, the player in question tried to be creative, but allowing any power or ability with the word 'fire' in its name to do actual fire damage is a bad idea, IMO. What if he had would say on the next session "You know guys, I can just burn down that inn with my 'Darkfire', so we can let the bad guys roast in there"? By always saying 'yes' you can easily end up in situations in which you have to make decisions that contradict your previous rulings.

I think this looks like a great adventure... as I said, I don't like the map and I would never reveal the whole complex/level to my players (instead, they need to map it room by room and corridor by corridor). Also, Chris said he had very little time to prepare, but I wouldn't have guessed it based on his DMing. Even though I'm a dedicated PF fan, these videos actually got me mildly interested in trying out 4E.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2010)

Primal - from what I understand, you've touched on the sticking point.  No one is really saying that Chris made a wrong ruling, just that he used a very mechanical, meta-game explanation.  Some people find that jarring and there is some question as to whether or not it's a good way to introduce the game to beginners.


----------



## MrMyth (Feb 22, 2010)

nedjer said:


> It doesn't seem nitpicking to recognise the difference between hours spent in combat based around highly tactical rules, (i.e. a wargame played with spells), and roleplaying, (i.e. an interactive story involving characterisation, exploration, plot development, negotiation and combat).
> 
> The first is a mechanical process, the second an imaginative process. Any game that is played in a way that includes a series of hour long combats with an occasional nod to the other areas can be mislabelled a roleplaying game, but it is, nevertheless, a tactical wargame.
> 
> To claim otherwise seems comparable to identifying Modern Warfare 2 as an RPG because there's a thin veil of characterisation and plot alongside hour after hour of brutal combat.




Yeah, let's just say I disagree with you and continue to find it offensive when people tell me I'm not playing a roleplaying game, or that I'm playing it 'wrong', or whatever. I'm fine if you don't prefer a certain style of play, but I'm sorry, claiming an objective claim to truth over other people's games is both insulting and incorrect.


----------



## MrMyth (Feb 22, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> But sometimes what the players THINK is the most fun isn't. The thing is, sometimes it's fun to use a fireball to melt your way through ice. Sometimes it's more satisfying to stand in front of the door, have your wizard make an Arcana check to point the trap at the door, attract the attention of a trap with an Acrobatics check and succeed on your Athletics roll to jump away at the last second in order melt the ice.
> 
> What players might get disappointed by("What do you mean my fireball can't melt the ice?") ends up being MORE fun for them in the end. Mostly because they had a chance to fail and succeeded anyway. This is especially true when a solution obviously favors one class or player over another. It sucks to be the fighter when you realize that a Wizard can simply say "I use a fireball, that solves everything and we go". Some people see that as creative. I see it as simply looking at your character sheet and picking a power.




Maybe yes, maybe no. A fireball doesn't solve 'everything', but does seem a pretty obvious solution for a wall of ice. 

I'm not going to disagree entirely, as there is honestly some truth to what you say - I talked before about how I often use keywords on powers as guidance for what creative stunts those powers might be used for. And I did quickly realize that arcane and divine powers typically come loaded with a lot more keywords than martial powers - should that mean the casters can simply do more stuff? I've worried about it less since seeing that martial characters tend to be more capable of physical stunts using acrobatics and athletics, but I can still see the fear that too much leeway falls back into 'casters can overcome everything, and no one else needs to show up.'

But in the end, stunts and creative use of skills and powers is subject to enough DM ruling that you can usually keep things in balance. 

To address your original question - is it more fun to fireball the wall of ice, or get to try out the trick of setting off the trap and then dodging out of the way as it burns through the wall of ice? I honestly don't know. I do know that situations with _only one solution_ are a bad thing, and here is a very good article on why.

For any given obstacle, it is perfectly fine to plot out what the best option might be for the PCs to overcome the obstacle. Using a trap to blast through a frozen door, or joining the city watch to be allowed into the quarantined part of the city, or finding the secret password to get past the guards. Go ahead and set these up as the easiest solutions, or ones that provide extra benefits if the PCs go through with them. Feel free to emphasize them and steer the PCs towards them. Make other options really challenging to pull off, sure. But the second you decide there is only one option, and everything else fails... you've made a mistake. 

Because it will be frustrating when the PCs try to do something else, that should work, and you shut it down. Because they aren't getting to play the game anymore, but simply following a carefully prepared script for you - which you might be really excited about, and think will make for great scenes that everyone will enjoy! And maybe it will - maybe you can even get away most of the time with convincing the party that they had choice in the matter. But I've seen a lot of games where players get frustrated as they do discover their lack of agency. 

"But sometimes what the players THINK is the most fun isn't."

This could well be true. But I really recommend against deciding _for_ the players what will be the most fun, and forcing it upon them.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 22, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Well said, but I'm going to at least partly disagree.
> 
> Slaying monsters is often the heavy emphasis during any adventure, which is just fine.
> 
> ...




So during the adventures you're using the procedural subset of rpg game cognitive skills associated with frequent combat most of the time. Between adventures you're using the more sophisticated executive cognitive skills associated with a fuller range of rpg gameplay.

Consequently, you're using the full 'skill set' during play as a whole but rarely, or less frequently, bringing the entire skill set to the game at the one time. That seems a major improvement on battle, battle, battle but while you're using all the parts, it seems it remains unusual for you to be in a position to realise the sum of the parts, because they're not in play at the same time.

I appreciate that I'm generalising on the basis of your account but the principle appear true: what you describe is one set of skills/ fun switched on, when the other set of skills/ fun is switched off.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 22, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> @nedjer
> 
> Sure, and the converse is also true, that a heavy focus on non-combat takes away from the the full range of skills and fun that combat offers. I'm not sure your terminology is very useful, either, because it seems quite true that something can be both a role-playing game and a tactical war game. Namely, well, Dungeons and Dragons. This is especially true for Dungeons and Dragons because it identifies itself as a role-playing game and puts a fair amount of focus on the roleplaying aspect of the game.
> 
> So, roleplaying game and tactical wargame should not be on a continuum. Maybe something like: non-combat drama game versus tactical wargame. At any one time you can either be doing something combat related or non-combat related, even within seconds of eachother. "*I roll for attack,* _screaming 'You shall not pass'"_ But, the entire time you are playing the role of something or someone, thus, roleplaying.




I see it as a continuum, because our cognitive processes are cascading and hierarchical. Which involves, during roleplaying games, engaging a pyramid of skills. At the bottom we have static, procedural reflex, win mentality orientated skills. Found in Chuck Norris movies, counter wargames, mechanical approaches to tabletop RPGs and other lowest cognitive common denominator activities like MW2.

Further up we get complex cognitive interactions involving executive skills such as collaborative decision making, Bayesian risk analysis, systemic and predictive thinking, putting thought into action: aka as learning and fun golddust. These are found in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction,Yossel the graphic novel, any tabletop RPG that is not played (or draws you into playing) mechanically and those legendary moments when tabletop RPG play transcends other media at moments of collaborative, for want of another word, 'epiphany'. This is what makes tabletop play most unique and valuable, because there are more opportunities to create your own Pulp Fiction and live it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 22, 2010)

nedjer said:


> So during the adventures you're using the procedural subset of rpg game cognitive skills associated with frequent combat most of the time. Between adventures you're using the more sophisticated executive cognitive skills associated with a fuller range of rpg gameplay.




How can it be the "fuller range of rpg gameplay" if it doesn't include the combat part of it? How do you define "fuller"? Is their a measurement method for determining that? 
Where does your value judgment come from? 

What do you mean with "procedural" subset? How would you describe it from "non-procedural" in context of roleplaying games? 

Does it even matter what's "fuller" and what's not? Doesn't it matter more which one you find more enjoyable? Does this have anything to do with "fuller"? Isn't this more a matter of preference and mood?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 22, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Further up we get complex cognitive interactions involving executive skills such as collaborative decision making, Bayesian risk analysis, systemic and predictive thinking, putting thought into action: aka as learning and fun golddust.



So, this is not what you do in tactical combat and only "between" them?


----------



## nedjer (Feb 22, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a second though.  Are you saying that someone playing in a heavily defined setting is less capable of role playing than someone who plays in a less defined setting?
> 
> Wouldn't that mean that everyone who plays Forgotten Realms is no longer role playing?  Is there a setting out there that's as heavily defined as FR?  Thousands and thousands of pages of setting info, that's about as well defined a setting as you can get.
> 
> ...




The players are entrusting part of the creative and imaginative side of the game to whoever makes the setting. That doesn't mean they won't roleplay but it makes it likely that they won't get as involved in the design and personalisation of the game as a GMs who build their own campaigns based on their own and their players' imaginative input.

If the game's played at the end of everyone's working day, after a drive and in the middel of winter it's much easier to reach for the pre-packaged. Nothing wrong with that, especially if you wouldn't have a game otherwise.

At the same time though, part of what roleplaying games offer has been lost in asking others to help out.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 22, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Yeah, let's just say I disagree with you and continue to find it offensive when people tell me I'm not playing a roleplaying game, or that I'm playing it 'wrong', or whatever. I'm fine if you don't prefer a certain style of play, but I'm sorry, claiming an objective claim to truth over other people's games is both insulting and incorrect.




I kind of flew the white flag on the objective thing earlier but there is a great deal of scientific evidence about games, skills, roleplaying and the cognitive functions linked to the performance of particular in game skills. This is drawn from psychology, education and design.

It, not me, clearly notes a massive difference between the skills used in a driving or shooting game, and the skills used in open-ended, imaginative.

The same kind of science notes that players become emotionally attached to driving games? I suspect the same applies to shooters and 'hack and slay' videogames when they tap into 'lower', often subconscious, reward systems but that's an opinion.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 22, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> How can it be the "fuller range of rpg gameplay" if it doesn't include the combat part of it? How do you define "fuller"? Is their a measurement method for determining that?
> Where does your value judgment come from?
> 
> What do you mean with "procedural" subset? How would you describe it from "non-procedural" in context of roleplaying games?
> ...




I don't recall saying you can't roleplay combat? I even gave examples earlier. I'm not 'anti-combat', I simply enjoy many other parts of roleplaying games.

I've 'defined' measurment in terms of the cognitive functions used during different types of play. These can and in some cases have been mapped.

'Procedural' could be taken as a cognitive process which is serial rather than parallel. E.g. we use parallel processing to pull together talking but we have specialised language 'stores' for serial processing of the vocabulary.

Possibly. If play doesn't attract new, younger players because play mimics first person shooters and 'hack and slay' videogames; if the range of skills are a major part of the 'fun' for many; if the game is handed on and new players are funnelled away from the features that make tabletop roleplaying games different from videogames?


----------



## nedjer (Feb 22, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So, this is not what you do in tactical combat and only "between" them?




Tactical combat is usually procedural and trained. Same subset of skills used over and over like learning tables. Following a flow chart is maybe not the same as understanding or designing a flow chart.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 22, 2010)

guivre said:


> Err, the Internet definitely existed when 2nd edition came out... it predates D&D. In fact IIRC 2nd edition and the opening of the Internet to commercial entities happened round about the same time. Something that was banned for quite a while.




I think it's safe to say he didn't mean the Internet as a whole entity/concept.  He was specifically referring to general access to it and to the web, FTP and e-mail....and possibly really only the web.  And the first time I saw the web was in 1992 at a lab.  Yahoo had 896 pages indexed (including three RPG pages, one of which was dedicated to Empire of the Petal Throne) and was run by two college kids.

In 1989, USENET was still using UUCP and the Internet wasn't on anybody's mind.  It was generally unavailable to the public and virtually unknown.  Only hardcore geeks, some college students and people at high-tech firms knew what it was.  Gamers certainly weren't using it to compare notes.  We had to wait for the next 'forum' section of Dragon for that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 22, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Tactical combat is usually procedural and trained. Same subset of skills used over and over like learning tables. Following a flow chart is maybe not the same as understanding or designing a flow chart.



I am not sure if it was joethelawyer or howandwhy99 that likes to describe RPGs as "pattern-matching" or something like that. Which seems to be very "procedural", in that you try to find a pattern that matches to find your solution.

That's the kind of stuff you do all the time when you solve problems - be it finding a way to kill those 5 goblins and survive, or a way to solve a murder mystery, a riddle, avoid the deadly traps or a way to convince the Prince to lend you his troops. 

I am not sure if this is parallelized or serialized "thinking" or something orthogonal to it.


----------



## Primal (Feb 22, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Primal - from what I understand, you've touched on the sticking point.  No one is really saying that Chris made a wrong ruling, just that he used a very mechanical, meta-game explanation.  Some people find that jarring and there is some question as to whether or not it's a good way to introduce the game to beginners.




Yeah, I definitely agree that he could have handled the situation a bit better by explaining what the keywords mean. While I understand it's important to encourage thinking outside the box -- especially to new players -- it's equally important to teach them the rules. In this case if I were a new player and the DM would always let me circumvent the rules with "creative" use of powers, I'd feel a bit confused if another DM would state that Darkfire "is not actually fire, so you cannot use it that way". Having said that, I would be totally fine if the player had suggested using Fireball as a variant version, such as a burning ray instead of a fiery explosion.

Anyway, this is just my opinion, but I feel this is a bit unfair towards Chris, as it was taken out of context; I think people should watch the whole clip before making judgements on whether he is a good or a bad DM.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 22, 2010)

> Anyway, this is just my opinion, but I feel this is a bit unfair towards Chris, as it was taken out of context; I think people should watch the whole clip before making judgements on whether he is a good or a bad DM.




I don't think anyone still posting in this thread thinks Chris is a bad DM.

The worst anyone is saying is that it was a bad call.

Which, as you point out, is pretty subjective anyway. 

I think his rep is safe, though.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 23, 2010)

nedjer said:


> So during the adventures you're using the procedural subset of rpg game cognitive skills associated with frequent combat most of the time. Between adventures you're using the more sophisticated executive cognitive skills associated with a fuller range of rpg gameplay.
> 
> Consequently, you're using the full 'skill set' during play as a whole but rarely, or less frequently, bringing the entire skill set to the game at the one time. That seems a major improvement on battle, battle, battle but while you're using all the parts, it seems it remains unusual for you to be in a position to realise the sum of the parts, because they're not in play at the same time.



So?

In real life I don't use all my skills at once either.

When I'm at work I use my work-related skills.

When I'm in my car I use my driving skills.

When I'm doing this I'm using my typing skills* and-or diplomacy skills*.

And so on.

Yet I suspect I still add up to roughly the sum of my parts.  The same goes for the game...its various parts add up to the sum total game.  It says much about the game, in fact, that it even has such disparate parts to it; most games don't present nearly this much diversity within themselves.

* - there are persistent and probably accurate reports that suggest I am in fact possessed of neither of these skills; but for the sake of argument let's this time say I am, and carry on. 

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Feb 23, 2010)

nedjer said:


> The players are entrusting part of the creative and imaginative side of the game to whoever makes the setting. That doesn't mean they won't roleplay but it makes it likely that they won't get as involved in the design and personalisation of the game as a GMs who build their own campaigns based on their own and their players' imaginative input.
> 
> If the game's played at the end of everyone's working day, after a drive and in the middel of winter it's much easier to reach for the pre-packaged. Nothing wrong with that, especially if you wouldn't have a game otherwise.
> 
> At the same time though, part of what roleplaying games offer has been lost in asking others to help out.




Wow.  Just wow.  So, people who don't spend hours out of game creating their own settings are now lesser roleplayers.

Nice.  It couldn't possibly be that setting creation just holds no interest to some people and they don't want to engage in it.  No, it's we're having less fun than those who create their own ships in a bottle.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 23, 2010)

or... a rephrase?

People who spend hours upon hours working on roleplaying...are incredible roleplayers?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 23, 2010)

Setting building =/= roleplaying IMO.  One is a solitary endevour, creative as all get out, yes, but not roleplaying which requires at least two people.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 23, 2010)

nedjer said:


> The players are entrusting part of the creative and imaginative side of the game to whoever makes the setting. That doesn't mean they won't roleplay but it makes it likely that they won't get as involved in the design and personalisation of the game as a GMs who build their own campaigns based on their own and their players' imaginative input.
> 
> If the game's played at the end of everyone's working day, after a drive and in the middel of winter it's much easier to reach for the pre-packaged. Nothing wrong with that, especially if you wouldn't have a game otherwise.
> 
> At the same time though, part of what roleplaying games offer has been lost in asking others to help out.




I would say that this viewpoint isn't a universal truth. Some groups of players just won't care about the history of a podunk town they stroll into or any of its lovingly crafted NPC's. It won't matter if the DM picked it off a shelf of wrote every word personally.  In fact, the DM who puts all that effort into worldbuilding for a group that doesn't care is wasting huge amounts of time. 

Even within published settings there is room to create plenty of original material. If the DM is lucky enough to have a group that loves getting really into the setting then all that work can really enhance the game.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 23, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Tactical combat is usually procedural and trained. Same subset of skills used over and over like learning tables.



This _may_ be true of Runequest, where there are no round-by-round choices to be made about how combat skills are allocated (although there is the choice of whether to parry or to dodge).

It is not true of RPGs like 4e or Rolemaster, where the combat mechanics are designed to require round-by-round choices to be made by the players (eg choice of action in 4e, parry/OB split in RM).

In 4e there is also the need for the player to consider the range of options that p 42 of the DMG opens up in any given round.

Certainly, in play, it doesn't feel "procedural and trained".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 23, 2010)

Actually, I wouldn't necessarily say that. You develop certain "procedures" to make decisions. But my point would be that you do that all the time. But I fail to see where there is ever a situation where you don't do that? 

Standard Operating Procedure for meeting an NPC
- Fight, Flight or Talk?
- If Talk, Exchange Greetings
- Identify NPC
- Exchange information about respective goals. 
- Convince other side of your goals, if any.
- Decide whether to help NPCs achieving his goals or fulfill his conditions
- Come to an Agreement


----------



## Primal (Feb 23, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think anyone still posting in this thread thinks Chris is a bad DM.
> 
> The worst anyone is saying is that it was a bad call.
> 
> ...




Oh, yes; he could have handled that particular instance a bit better. Still, if you ask me, it's just a minor "glitch" in an otherwise fun session. I've watched all the clips, and I think he does a pretty good job with running the adventure for a group that includes several newbies.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 24, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> So?
> 
> In real life I don't use all my skills at once either.
> 
> ...




And that was the long held scientific view. Add enough procedures until you get incredibly complex routines that solve really complex problems. Trouble was this didn't cover how consciousness operates. A procedural approach, i.e. a long chain gang, would be too slow, too inflexible and too uncoordinated to result in consciousness and solve compelx problems.

As scanners got better this was largely confirmed, as brains lit up like Christmas trees when handling complex tasks, (especially at speed). It seems to follow that when you're driving along a straight road in good weather you can afford to go on 'auto-pilot'. However, when it's snowing, there are hungry kids in the car and you're hurtling down a motorway all kinds of skills can and may be called on. Some are driving skills but many more are transferable skills.

Basically, you're kind of underestimating yourself. You can play on autopilot and enjoy it but you're also easily capable of exploiting all that "diversity" and playing roleplaying games in a way that is more 'intense'.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Wow.  Just wow.  So, people who don't spend hours out of game creating their own settings are now lesser roleplayers.
> 
> Nice.  It couldn't possibly be that setting creation just holds no interest to some people and they don't want to engage in it.  No, it's we're having less fun than those who create their own ships in a bottle.




That's a tabloid rewrite if ever I saw one. Nevertheless, home cooking tastes so much better than TV dinners.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 24, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Nevertheless, home cooking tastes so much better than TV dinners.




To continue you with your analogy...not if you don't have the skill and/or time to create better meals than the creators of TV dinners. Or maybe you actually like the taste of TV dinners better than home-cooked meals.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Wow.  Just wow.  So, people who don't spend hours out of game creating their own settings are now lesser roleplayers.
> 
> Nice.  It couldn't possibly be that setting creation just holds no interest to some people and they don't want to engage in it.  No, it's we're having less fun than those who create their own ships in a bottle.




Shut up! You're doing it wrong!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 24, 2010)

nedjer said:


> That's a tabloid rewrite if ever I saw one. Nevertheless, home cooking tastes so much better than TV dinners.






Vyvyan Basterd said:


> To continue you with your analogy...not if you don't have the skill and/or time to create better meals than the creators of TV dinners. Or maybe you actually like the taste of TV dinners better than home-cooked meals.




I think that discussion has one as far as it can, folks. Lets drop this one now.

Thanks


----------



## nedjer (Feb 24, 2010)

If a moderator asks you to drop a discussion, you need to drop it. -  Thanks. Plane Sailing


----------



## ScottS (Feb 24, 2010)

pemerton said:


> There is a modern approach to RPG design that tries to straddle the divide between _rules_ and "_Mother may I_", by giving the PCs broadly defined, open-ended capabilities and by giving the GM sound rules advice on how to set difficulties for conflict resolution that will (i) fit well with the PCs' capabilties and (ii) produce an outcome that is reasonably satisfying for the players at the table, both in gameplay and narrative terms.
> 
> Probably the poster-child for this sort of design is HeroQuest. But D&D 4e also has a go at it, via the rules on p 42 of the DMG and the (not ideally implemented, but nevertheless there) Skill Challenge mechanics.




I'm not sure whether you're correct about this, because I don't know many examples of the type of "modernity" you're talking about. (I'm vaguely familiar with the R. Laws version of Runequest you mention, particularly the "characters get to loosely define their own special competencies at the start of the game, then negotiate with the GM how and when they get to use those improved skills during gameplay" thing, but I never saw the entire core rules, and I wasn't aware that there wasn't some sort of larger, more traditionally defined skill system that that mechanic worked into.)

My own (perhaps ill-informed) take on it is that they changed skills the way they did because they didn't want to deal with skill systems any more (or they felt that the customers didn't), not out of some urge to "modernize". See Heinsoo's interview describing fantasy simulation as "tedious", Mearls talking about making everything in the game a simple stat check, etc. I also find it strange that the "modernization" process didn't incorporate more straightforward post-D&D innovations, such as folding the combat and magic systems directly into the skill system (e.g. "cast-a-spell" and "swing-a-sword" skill checks instead of related-but-not-really-the-same "to-hit" rolls), and any real form of "degree of success" with skill checks (e.g. being able to "crit" with skills, or having the amount of damage you do in combat be directly linked to your hit roll). Sacred ground beef they didn't want to grill, I guess?

edit: ninja'd by the mods if we're actually shutting the whole thread down, my apologies if that's the case


----------



## nedjer (Feb 24, 2010)

nedjer said:


> If a moderator asks you to drop a discussion, you need to drop it. -  Thanks. Plane Sailing




missed your post. Wandered off before posting and didn't refresh when I came back. Message received


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 25, 2010)

nedjer said:


> missed your post. Wandered off before posting and didn't refresh when I came back. Message received




OK, I understand. Thanks for explaining.

Cheers


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 25, 2010)

nedjer said:


> And that was the long held scientific view. Add enough procedures until you get incredibly complex routines that solve really complex problems. Trouble was this didn't cover how consciousness operates. A procedural approach, i.e. a long chain gang, would be too slow, too inflexible and too uncoordinated to result in consciousness and solve compelx problems.
> 
> As scanners got better this was largely confirmed, as brains lit up like Christmas trees when handling complex tasks, (especially at speed).
> 
> Basically, you're kind of underestimating yourself. You can play on autopilot and enjoy it but you're also easily capable of exploiting all that "diversity" and playing roleplaying games in a way that is more 'intense'.



You're assuming that I play in order to exercise my brain.

Quite often, I play with the specific intention of turning my brain *off*.   It's been on all week!  Same goes for when I'm DMing - if I've prepared it right, the game will pretty much run itself and thus I can mostly auto-pilot that too.   (my current problem is the DM whose game I currently play in expects us to think, and for some reason some of the other players seem to think I'll do much of said thinking; but this doesn't work so well after I've knocked back a couple of beers and just want to get on with the killin' and lootin'...)

Lan-"unless playing a Cleric, Wisdom is always my dump stat"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Feb 25, 2010)

Lanefan - No cookie for you.  You're doing it all wrong.  Go back to gaming school and learn to do it right!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 25, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> You're assuming that I play in order to exercise my brain.






Hussar said:


> Lanefan - No cookie for you. You're doing it all wrong. Go back to gaming school and learn to do it right!




This is funny stuff.

The DM/Player expectations can often differ so much that the two sides of the screen are, in effect, playing two separate games. 

Lanefan , you mentioned that your DM expects the players to think (the horror!). What do you think he/she means by that? Is this a game heavy with puzzles and mysteries that the players need to work out on thier own? Also, when you are the DM do you enjoy the game more,less, or the same when your players are actively thinking about the game world & events therein during play? 

I have been thinking a lot lately about the DM's role in the group and what makes the experience satisfying and fun. 

I understand that sometimes just switching off the brain for some good old hack n slash is exactly what is desired from the player perspective. I am more curious to find out what makes such games attractive to DMs.


----------



## Gimby (Feb 25, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I understand that sometimes just switching off the brain for some good old hack n slash is exactly what is desired from the player perspective. I am more curious to find out what makes such games attractive to DMs.




From my perspective, its partly about the simple enjoyment that players get from a dose of the old ultraviolence and partly about the satisfaction of the craft of designing a fun hack'n'slash adventure.

Think about the old shooter DOOM for example.  Gameplay is very simple - very limited puzzles and the core of gameplay is walking from one end of the map to the other murdering everything you come across.  However, map creation was relatively easily accessable to the user.  The quality of these user created maps varied wildly and there was a decent amount of kudos associated with creating a really fun one.  To do so, you need to pay in mind pacing of monsters, theme of surroundings, pacing of weapon/ammo drops and implementation of clever gimmicks.

Playing a simple hack and slash isn't very demanding on the player, but creating a *good* hack and slash adventure can be pretty demanding on the DM and there is a certain amount of intellectual satisfaction in being able to meet that demand.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 25, 2010)

Gimby said:


> Playing a simple hack and slash isn't very demanding on the player, but creating a *good* hack and slash adventure can be pretty demanding on the DM and there is a certain amount of intellectual satisfaction in being able to meet that demand.




Thanks for sharing. Do you find this sort of satisfaction sustainable over the course of a campaign?


----------



## Gimby (Feb 25, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Thanks for sharing. Do you find this sort of satisfaction sustainable over the course of a campaign?




As with all things, depends on your campaign.  No experience, but I think it's doubtful that its sustainable over a 20 year mega-campaign in the same way other styles may be 

That said, over the course of a strongly episodic relatively short campaign (say, 20 sessions or so)? Sure.  Personally, its somewhat reliant on techniques that may not be suited for other campaign styles - a certain amount of railroading to allow for strong set-pieces can be helpful, for example, but given the players have the stated aim of going from point A to point B murdering everything between, that's less of an issue than it would be in a more exploration focussed game.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 25, 2010)

Gimby said:


> From my perspective, its partly about the simple enjoyment that players get from a dose of the old ultraviolence and partly about the satisfaction of the craft of designing a fun hack'n'slash adventure.




I second this. I enjoy my players' reactions to the challenge, whether that is a puzzle or yet another wave of screaming zombies. We play d20 D&D (more or less). The rules tend to emphasize combat and reward builds that match that emphasis. Consequently, it's nice to give the players a chance to cut loose and revel in the carnage.



ExploderWizard said:


> Do you find this sort of satisfaction sustainable over the course of a campaign?




In small doses, sure. The trick is setting things up so that the players will enjoy crushing their enemies, seeing them driven before them, and hearing the lamentations of their women when that time comes.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 25, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> OK, I understand. I'll just delete that post rather than leave it there with red letters in it.
> 
> Cheers




Gimme back my Red Badge of Courage dude


----------



## ST (Feb 25, 2010)

For me it's a matter of what "fits", I guess. Hack and slash and puzzle stuff, I get my fix hanging out with my wife playing computer and console games. So I like the stuff that involves a group of people in person to be more about the social and character development elements.

I totally get the "beer and pretzels game" scene, though, it makes sense.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 25, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Gimme back my Red Badge of Courage dude




Since you ask so nicely, I'll undelete it


----------



## Turtlejay (Feb 25, 2010)

So 24 pages in, it feels like this thread has mellowed a little, right?  No more rage about what happened, though it seems like the prevailing opinion is that the call was fine, but the reasoning was flawed.  I think D&D's strength lies in the human moderator.  The ability to stretch and bend the rules to make things smoother.

The video game connection, where you must have tab A in slot B, is kind of hard to break sometimes.  In fact, I think the labelling of video games as RPG's is kind of flawed.  It has come to mean a system where the character advances in power, through levels or power aquisition.  Do you play a role in RPG's more than you do in other video games?

Jay


----------



## Gimby (Feb 25, 2010)

ST said:


> For me it's a matter of what "fits", I guess. Hack and slash and puzzle stuff, I get my fix hanging out with my wife playing computer and console games. So I like the stuff that involves a group of people in person to be more about the social and character development elements.
> 
> I totally get the "beer and pretzels game" scene, though, it makes sense.




Theres an interesting side point here actually in terms of what DM's get out of hack'n'slash games.

We can mostly agree that computer games do that niche in a faster and more accessable fashion for the players.  However, *creating* content for a computer game is generally massively more time consuming than for a tabletop game.  If your desire is to create, then, you will get more satisfaction from the tabletop game than the computer game.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 25, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Lanefan , you mentioned that your DM expects the players to think (the horror!). What do you think he/she means by that? Is this a game heavy with puzzles and mysteries that the players need to work out on thier own?



The whole overarching plot in that game is a massive mystery, stretching back to the same DM's old campaign from 1981-90 (which a few of us were in).  We're nearly 3 years into this new campaign, and are slowly starting to make some headway...but there's little if any opportunity to "just go bash some Giants". 







> Also, when you are the DM do you enjoy the game more,less, or the same when your players are actively thinking about the game world & events therein during play?



I enjoy it when they're thinking about the game world, the plot, and so on; but it doesn't matter much to me if they go bash Giants instead, as long as they're having fun.  That said, when they drop the plot for a while it's usually so they can bash each other...always fun for me, as I don't have to do very much.  



> I understand that sometimes just switching off the brain for some good old hack n slash is exactly what is desired from the player perspective. I am more curious to find out what makes such games attractive to DMs.



Hackin' and slashin' right back at 'em! 

Lanefan


----------



## nedjer (Feb 25, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> The whole overarching plot in that game is a massive mystery, stretching back to the same DM's old campaign from 1981-90 (which a few of us were in).  We're nearly 3 years into this new campaign, and are slowly starting to make some headway...but there's little if any opportunity to "just go bash some Giants". I enjoy it when they're thinking about the game world, the plot, and so on; but it doesn't matter much to me if they go bash Giants instead, as long as they're having fun.  That said, when they drop the plot for a while it's usually so they can bash each other...always fun for me, as I don't have to do very much.
> 
> Hackin' and slashin' right back at 'em!
> 
> Lanefan




I can see why you'd appreciate a bit more hack and slay. My personal dislike is elaborate puzzles - and I'm gonna want to use a spell or a lethal sword if I went to a lot of trouble to get it.

Too little in game action maybe feels like going to Center Parcs and realising you forgot to book the Laserquest.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 25, 2010)

nedjer said:


> I can see why you'd appreciate a bit more hack and slay. My personal dislike is elaborate puzzles - and I'm gonna want to use a spell or a lethal sword if I went to a lot of trouble to get it.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 25, 2010)

mark chance said:


>



lmao


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Thanks for sharing. Do you find this sort of satisfaction sustainable over the course of a campaign?




Well, that depends.  What do you mean by campaign?  Something like Lanefan is playing?  Not so much for me.  I think I'd get pretty bored of it.

But, when I did the World's Largest Dungeon, which is pretty high hack, I think the players really enjoyed it.  It was story light, plot light, and lots and lots of combat.  Now, the combat did have a purpose (usually) but, it was mostly puzzles, traps and tactics.

To answer your question, I think the mega-dungeon shows that yes, it is sustainable over the course of a campaign.  Whether it's Temple of Elemental Evil (one I didn't care for) or WLD (which I obviously did  )  you can certainly have a great time playing D&D without a great deal of drama.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 26, 2010)

ScottS said:


> I'm not sure whether you're correct about this, because I don't know many examples of the type of "modernity" you're talking about. (I'm vaguely familiar with the R. Laws version of Runequest you mention, particularly the "characters get to loosely define their own special competencies at the start of the game, then negotiate with the GM how and when they get to use those improved skills during gameplay" thing, but I never saw the entire core rules, and I wasn't aware that there wasn't some sort of larger, more traditionally defined skill system that that mechanic worked into.)



HeroQuest has no skill lists. PCs consist of descriptions, with numbers attached. Conflict resolution difficulty is set by the GM based on considerations of dramatic pacing. There are rules for making challenges more difficult for a PC whose skill descriptons are broad relative to the other PCs - this is (i) to maintain balance between PCs, and (ii) to encourage rich detail rather than generic blandness in PC descriptions.

So, to give some examples taken from a review on RPGnet:


A player can pitch his skill Hard to Kill against a fast advancing Massive Garbage Truck.


Or Burn Lies can be pitched against the Shrewd Tactics of a villain in an interrogation.


Practical Joker can be used against a serious Summoning of Otherworldly Horror.


Always having the last Word can mock the authority of a Stone Cold Mafia Boss.


See through Walls can be used to look inside Unbreakable Safe.

In the last example, if another PC has Expert Safecracker as an ability, then See through Walls (which is more generic in relation to the safe challenge) would suffer a penalty. And in the summoning example, if the GM took the view that using practical joking to defeat a summoning is a bit of a stretch, a penalty would also apply.

This isn't "mother-may-I", but it's not "rules" either, in quite the way that D&D, or Runequest, or Traveller, or Rolemaster, or Ars Magica, or Hero, or etc is.

Spelling out how it differs from mother-may-I is not trivial. But one important difference is that, by giving a PC an ability like "practical joker", the player has already stipulated that _in this game_ some challenges can be overcome by practical joking. The GM does not have sole authority over what counts as a possible happening in the gameworld. Thus the resolution of conflicts does not depend entirely on "mother-may-I".

The design of 4e is not as elegant as this, but the inclusion of broad skills on the skill list, plus p 42 of the DMG which sets the range of DCs by level for actions that are possible in the gameworkd, also goes some way to reducing the degree of "mother-may-I".



ScottS said:


> My own (perhaps ill-informed) take on it is that they changed skills the way they did because they didn't want to deal with skill systems any more (or they felt that the customers didn't), not out of some urge to "modernize". See Heinsoo's interview describing fantasy simulation as "tedious", Mearls talking about making everything in the game a simple stat check, etc.



I think that they were expressly influenced by the sort of indie design that Heroquest exemplifies. I think this because at the time Heinsoo said as much. This approach - avoiding the "tediousness" of fantasy simulation - is precisely the sort of modern approach to RPGs that I was referring to.



ScottS said:


> I also find it strange that the "modernization" process didn't incorporate more straightforward post-D&D innovations, such as folding the combat and magic systems directly into the skill system (e.g. "cast-a-spell" and "swing-a-sword" skill checks instead of related-but-not-really-the-same "to-hit" rolls), and any real form of "degree of success" with skill checks (e.g. being able to "crit" with skills, or having the amount of damage you do in combat be directly linked to your hit roll). Sacred ground beef they didn't want to grill, I guess?



I don't really see these as modern approaches to design. They are at least as old as Rolemaster, which is to say close to 30 years old (ie when D&D was itself less than 10 years old).

That said, 4e does have a system for non-combat degrees of success, but rather than linked to invidual skill checks it is linked to the number of failures accumulated over the course of a skill challenge, or the number of successes accumulated before reaching 3 failures (as per the DMG2 and some of the examples therein). This is also an appraoch which draws on the indie RPG ideas exemplified by HeroQuest.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 27, 2010)

Now the dust's settled we seem dangerously close to a consensus 

Regardless of the rule set it should be down to GMs/ players how the rules are interpreted.

Tabletop RPGs offer loads of options for different kinds of gameplay. Different options use different 'skills'/ gameplay to get different kinds of enjoyment/ 'fun'.

Ultimately, it's up to players to decide which types of 'skills' and 'fun' they want to include in their games.


----------



## Windjammer (Mar 2, 2010)

Now that the dust is settled, we can perhaps return to the OP. How about this question:

*Do you play with errata? Because WotC' own Creative Director doesn't.*

From the first roll of errata for the 4E PHB,

*Target*

Page 57: Replace the first paragraph with the following
text.

If a power directly affects one or more creatures or
objects, it has a “Target” or “Targets” entry. Some
powers include objects as targets. At the DM’s discretion,
a power that targets a creature can also target an
object, whether or not the power identifies an object
as a potential target.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 2, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Now that the dust is settled, we can perhaps return to the OP. How about this question:
> 
> *Do you play with errata? Because WotC' own Creative Director doesn't.*
> 
> ...



I think you have been ninjaed. By dozens of pages, probably.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 2, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Now that the dust is settled, we can perhaps return to the OP. How about this question:
> 
> *Do you play with errata? Because WotC' own Creative Director doesn't.*
> 
> ...




How is he not playing with errata when the errata specifically mentions this is entirely at the DM's discretion?

In fact, he _does_ use it since he later has them bashing apart statues just fine. Ruling that magical light that outlines a person can't target a smooth wall seems perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Windjammer (Mar 2, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> How is he not playing with errata when the errata specifically mentions this is entirely at the DM's discretion?




Easy. When he explains to the player why powers can't target a door he's referencing the rules text instead of his DM discretion.

Pre-errata: 'powers target creatures only' is RAW
Post-errata: 'powers target creatures only' is a matter of DM discretion


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 2, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Easy. When he explains to the player why powers can't target a door he's referencing the rules text instead of his DM discretion.
> 
> Pre-errata: 'powers target creatures only' is RAW
> Post-errata: 'powers target creatures only' is a matter of DM discretion




Does he really need to go into that much detail for an intro session? Especially given that in another encounter, he lets them use powers that target creatures to target objects?

Look, I'm entirely in agreement that it was a poor explanation to give for the situation at hand and a bad example to set. But I just don't agree with or approve of using one isolated incident to try and claim that "WotC's own Creative Director doesn't" "play with errata".


----------



## Nikosandros (Mar 3, 2010)

I really like Chris style as a DM, but I noticed several other "mistakes".

1) No mention is made of second wind when the players ask about recovering hit points during combat.

2) He doesn't point out to the players that the bard could boost their healing surges between encounters.

3) Darkfire is a minor action, not a standard one.

4) If you ready an action, your initiative changes.

That said, I'm enjoying the videos a lot and I'd love to play at Chris' table. He might make a few mistakes on the rules, but from the videos he seems like a great DM (and I love his maps).


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 3, 2010)

Nikosandros said:


> 4) If you ready an action, your initiative changes.




Yea, I was actually looking forward to hearing him explain it to the player and then was like "waaa" when it didn't happen.

Still love the videos of the games and thumbs up to his adventures...


----------



## nedjer (Mar 3, 2010)

Nikosandros said:


> I really like Chris style as a DM, but I noticed several other "mistakes".
> 
> 1) No mention is made of second wind when the players ask about recovering hit points during combat.
> 
> ...




But are those really mistakes, or someone trying to adapt a very complex system to make it playable for new/ newer players? Add the four points to the considerations that were used and every GM goes straight past the limit for human working memory. Without an actual checklist it is pretty much impossible to remember to apply so many conditions on every occasion.

Which suggests that while complex systems aren't necessarily broken in themsleves, they are bound to break the limits of our brains' capacity to handle several things at once. Sure provides a sound explanation for why new players and GMs are relatively thin on the ground.


----------



## Primal (Mar 3, 2010)

Nikosandros said:


> I really like Chris style as a DM, but I noticed several other "mistakes".
> 
> 1) No mention is made of second wind when the players ask about recovering hit points during combat.
> 
> ...




It's likely that he's streamlining things a bit not to overwhelm "newbies" with too much rules information -- I think this is pretty evident, as most PCs (apart from the bard and the wizard) are simply using basic attacks (as far as I can tell) most of the time. Also, the skill check DCs are surprisingly low; I'm no 4E DM, but either they've been officially revised, or Chris is just trying to keep the game flowing? 

As I already said, I don't really like the map itself; it's beautifully drawn, but even the natural caverns seem a bit too "square-y" for my taste.

All in all I think Chris does a pretty good job, and the clips are (IMO) a nice way to promote D&D.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 3, 2010)

Nikosandros said:


> 4) If you ready an action, your initiative changes.




Are you saying that he _did_ change the character's initiative? Because in 4E a readied action allows you to use a standard action as an immediate interrupt, your initiative does not change. Delaying your action does change your initiative.


----------



## ST (Mar 3, 2010)

I think when the people who make the game play fast and loose with the rules it's just another indicator that tabletop rulesets are guidelines, not gospel.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 3, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Nikosandros (Mar 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Are you saying that he _did_ change the character's initiative? Because in 4E a readied action allows you to use a standard action as an immediate interrupt, your initiative does not change. Delaying your action does change your initiative.



Actually, it does change.



> Reset Initiative: After you resolve your readied action, move your place in the initiative order to directly before the creature or the event that triggered your readied action.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 3, 2010)

Nikosandros said:


> Actually, it does change.




Huh. I thought I specifically read it as different than the previous version. Been doing that wrong for almost two years now! Thanks.


----------



## Windjammer (Mar 3, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Does he really need to go into that much detail for an intro session? Especially given that in another encounter, he lets them use powers that target creatures to target objects?




To be honest, I'm just confused by his stance, if he lets the players use powers on inanimate objects aka scenery later on. What's more though, it's not just the actual video itself, but also the concomitant director's commentary (timed link) which indicates that he's really approaching this 'can target creatures only' as RAW, not as a matter of DM discretion.



MrMyth said:


> Look, I'm entirely in agreement that it was a poor explanation to give for the situation at hand and a bad example to set. But I just don't agree with or approve of using one isolated incident to try and claim that "WotC's own Creative Director doesn't" "play with errata".




Part of my phrasing (esp. when parsed as 'C.P. doesn't play with _any _errata') was really more aimed at rhetorical emphasis than anything else. I concur that it'd be a pretty huge inductive leap to go from one sample to a full generalization.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 4, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> To be honest, I'm just confused by his stance, if he lets the players use powers on inanimate objects aka scenery later on. What's more though, it's not just the actual video itself, but also the concomitant director's commentary (timed link) which indicates that he's really approaching this 'can target creatures only' as RAW, not as a matter of DM discretion.



FWIW, he also mentioned in the commentary that the session was recorded last year. How old are the relevant errata?

I also remember one of the game designers mentioning they're often not a good person to ask about a current ruling, since they've designed and playtested dozens of rule variants, some of which didn't make it into the game or will be released at some later date.

E.g. considering the forthcoming Rules Compendium I could imagine it will contain some rule changes nobody outside of WotC knows about yet.


----------



## ScottS (Mar 4, 2010)

pemerton said:


> HeroQuest has no skill lists. PCs consist of descriptions, with numbers attached. Conflict resolution difficulty is set by the GM based on considerations of dramatic pacing. There are rules for making challenges more difficult for a PC whose skill descriptons are broad relative to the other PCs - this is (i) to maintain balance between PCs, and (ii) to encourage rich detail rather than generic blandness in PC descriptions.(...)This isn't "mother-may-I", but it's not "rules" either, in quite the way that D&D, or Runequest, or Traveller, or Rolemaster, or Ars Magica, or Hero, or etc is.




Like I said, I was sort of familiar with the way the mechanic worked. What I was looking for information to help pin down this supposed "modern trend" a bit further. I'm assuming it's possible that there are a bunch of non-rulesy-rules systems out there that I just haven't seen (the only "new" games I've played in the last 5 years have been RM, D&D4e, M&M, and oWoD VtM, or at least that's all I can recall; I do check out rules-lite pdf's and other free releases, though). On the other hand, it's also possible that calling what they did to the non-combat portions of 4e "modern design" might just be a figleaf...

So, if anyone could answer the following questions, I think it would help the conversation:

a) What are other RPGs/systems that use mechanics similar to the "mother may I" skill checks in 4e? What systems did the designers say were direct influences? (The RH interview that pemerton posted wasn't particularly helpful, since he didn't drop names, just said something at the end about "only indie games can get away with what we did". I checked another interview ,and he mentions Heroquest, Everway, Feng Shui, and Over the Edge, as well as Runequest and Champions which obviously aren't good examples... Heroquest was discussed above. Everway seems close (loosely defined traits plus tarot deck interpretation). Feng Shui has some sort of 'shtick' mechanic which I don't know the details about. Over the Edge looks like a standard trait+skill system with some form of 'hero points'. ...So are those three/four games what we're calling the "modern trend"? Is it even a trend if RPGs continue to not go in that direction, as RH admits?)

b) If 4e was supposed to be an indie/modern showcase, why did it end up in its weird hybrid final form, i.e. flimsy/non-existent out-of-combat rules, super-glued onto the back of a relatively uber-crunch minis combat system? Doesn't devoting so much page-count to the part of the game that they didn't "modernize", kind of negate whatever trendsetting they're trying to do with the "indie" parts? Sub-systems unification isn't "modern"?



pemerton said:


> I don't really see these as modern approaches to design. They are at least as old as Rolemaster, which is to say close to 30 years old (ie when D&D was itself less than 10 years old)(...)
> That said, 4e does have a system for non-combat degrees of success, but rather than linked to invidual skill checks it is linked to the number of failures accumulated over the course of a skill challenge, or the number of successes accumulated before reaching 3 failures (as per the DMG2 and some of the examples therein). This is also an appraoch which draws on the indie RPG ideas exemplified by HeroQuest.




(Just as a side note, skill challenges don't count as a degree-of-success mechanic. They're still pass/fail... They don't even count as a "group skill check" in most cases, because the players are invited to BS their way into using non-relevant skills in the test. They wind up being something close to a "everybody-use-their-best-skills-and-make-up-a-narrative-to-justify-it" check and as a result don't test anything specific about the characters. Kinda like an "average level check" to defeat the encounter's "SR"...)


----------



## pemerton (Mar 5, 2010)

ScottS said:


> if anyone could answer the following questions, I think it would help the conversation:
> 
> a) What are other RPGs/systems that use mechanics similar to the "mother may I" skill checks in 4e?
> 
> ...



Skill challenges are pass/fail on the individual chekcs, but give degrees of success for the overall challenge based on number of failures accrued when success occurs, or vice versa - see the examples in DMG 2.

As to "everybody-use-their-best-skills-and-make-up-a-narrative" - that's roughly what I meant by referring to a modern trend in RPG design. In practice, the pre-existing narrative is likely to place constraints on what can be added on, which then means that the best skill may not always be useable. But the notion of reasonably broad skills/attributes, and of players contributing to the ingame reality in a way that frames their skill use and thus helps determine the consequences of success or failure, is what 4e seems to me to be about. It's quite different from an approach in which the player roles a skill check, gets a result, and then hands all narrative power to the GM to decide what that result actually means in the gameworld.

Other games that work more-or-less like this would include The Dying Earth (which is also Robin Laws, I think), Sorcerer and (I think) Burning Wheel, as well as more avant-garde games like My Life With Master or Nicotine Girls.



ScottS said:


> b) If 4e was supposed to be an indie/modern showcase, why did it end up in its weird hybrid final form, i.e. flimsy/non-existent out-of-combat rules, super-glued onto the back of a relatively uber-crunch minis combat system? Doesn't devoting so much page-count to the part of the game that they didn't "modernize", kind of negate whatever trendsetting they're trying to do with the "indie" parts?



I agree that there is a tension between these two parts of the game (skill challenges and combat resolution) but I don't think that what you've said quite captures it.

Like skill challenges, the combat mechanics assume that players will be working with the GM to frame the narrative and the stakes and then uses their powers within that context - otherwise, powers like Come and Get It make no sense (ie it's not literally the case that, in the gameworld, the fighter makes all his enemies charge him once per encounter - rather, by using this power the player of the fighter is entitled to explain, in the narrative, what happens such that all his enemies close in) and nor do a lot of interrupts. Nor, for that matter, do hit points and healing surges, which can't possibly be treated as physical damage a la Runequest or Rolemaster or (some people's readings of) 3rd ed D&D.

Where the incongruity occurs, at least in my experience, is that there is only very patchy guidance for the GM (none in the DMG, a little bit in DMG2) on how to integrate the two sorts of resolution systems together. For example, a skill challenge I am likely to be running in my next session involves finding a goblin stronghold in a hidden valley and sneaking into it. As part of that challenge, it would makes sense for the ranger to try and pick off lone sentries with bow fire. But the rules are extremely vague on how this should be resolved within the mechanical context of the challenge - ie can an attack be made in lieu of a skill check, and if it's a success then the sentry is dead, but if it's a failure then the sentry notices and begins to raise the alarm? Or is the attack an attempt to aid another at stealth? The DMG2 is very sketchy on this, but (given the intricate mechanical balance of 4e) it would be nice to be given much more concrete advice on how to run it. (I'm taking it for granted that this is not something that one would want to resolve using the actual combat mechanics - those are for serious fights, not picking off lone sentries. In this respect there is at least a degree of resemblance to the distinction, in HeroQuest, between simple and extended contests.)


----------



## nedjer (Mar 6, 2010)

pemerton said:


> For example, a skill challenge I am likely to be running in my next session involves finding a goblin stronghold in a hidden valley and sneaking into it. As part of that challenge, it would makes sense for the ranger to try and pick off lone sentries with bow fire.




I can't see anything in there to even pause over, let alone look in a book.

Roll attack
12
Roll damage
14
The arrow pierces the goblin's armour. It's body pirouettes and pitches forward into the moat.
Check to see if the splash is heard.
The guard at the gate looks over - but not in time to see the corpse hitting the water.
Thief tries to get past the guard without being noticed.
Done

Do we really need rules to tell us so much about how we play?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 6, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I also remember one of the game designers mentioning they're often not a good person to ask about a current ruling, since they've designed and playtested dozens of rule variants, some of which didn't make it into the game or will be released at some later date.
> 
> E.g. considering the forthcoming Rules Compendium I could imagine it will contain some rule changes nobody outside of WotC knows about yet.




Exactly.  You get a good sense of this if you listen to the Q&A Podcast from last month with Mike Mearls.  He pretty much admits he has no idea how the push rules work.  He just assumes that the push has to be in a straight line.

It kind of comes from designing in a group.  One designer comes up with a rule which they all discuss and decide is the best rule to put into the book.  But individual designers had their own temporary rules for their own game.  They forget about the one they all agreed on.  This is especially true when the rule went through a lot of changes.

However, in this case, the rules say you can only creatures with it.  I have no problem with the ruling exactly as it happened.


----------



## Oldtimer (Mar 6, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> However, in this case, the rules say you can only [target] creatures with it.  I have no problem with the ruling exactly as it happened.



Unless, of course, you have picked up PHB2 and read the glossary on page 223.


			
				PHB2 said:
			
		

> *attacking objects:* With your DM’s permission, you can use a power that normally attacks creatures to attack objects.



That brings it back to stingy DM territory.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 7, 2010)

I just watched the first several episodes of this (just came out on my ipod).  I have to say that the fact that Bluebell, the player in question, is a complete newbie to role playing, never mind D&D, has to factor heavily in this discussion.

In the designer notes, Chris mentions quite explicitly that his goal is to keep things moving.  These players had about 2 minutes to pick their pregens and they had no time to preview any rules.  Bluebell's player is playing 100% blind.

Could Chris have given an ingame ruling - that darkfire isn't really fire and thus can't burn things?  Sure.  No problem.  But, he chose to end any conversation and keep the game moving by just relying on a mechanical reason.  Is it the choice I would have made?  Probably not.  But, then again, I can't think of the last time I played with someone who had zero gaming experience.

Trying to explain to a complete newbie why darkfire isn't really fire might have taken longer than just saying, "sorry, targets creatures only."

Depends on the DM's priorities.  Which is more important?  Keeping things moving or explaining it "right"?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 8, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> Unless, of course, you have picked up PHB2 and read the glossary on page 223.
> 
> That brings it back to stingy DM territory.




I'm aware of the rule.  But that says to me that the general rule is that they cannot target objects.  And that exceptions can be made.  But, IMHO, exceptions should be exactly that....exceptions.

I expect that the DM would use his discretion in rare circumstances.  Not simply because someone says "Can I use this power on that object?"

For instance, I often allow players to target objects when those objects are firing at them(like traps).


----------



## pemerton (Mar 8, 2010)

nedjer said:


> I can't see anything in there to even pause over, let alone look in a book.
> 
> Roll attack
> 12
> ...




Well, 14 damage won't kill a goblin (other than a minion) in 4e. One option, of course, is to make the sentry a minion. On the other hand, suppose that things go wrong and the PCs find themselves confronting 5 sentries who have assembled in formation, I'm not sure I want to treat that as a combat vs 5 minions - it would be more interesting as a combat vs 5 real goblins.

If I do treat the sentry as a minion, then how does killing it factor into the skill challenge? A success? A +2 to someone else's Stealth check? This is the sort of mechanical advice I think a rulebook could provide (eg DMG2 suggests, without being entirely clear about the balancing issues, that using an attack power against the sentry will grant a +2 bonus only if the power used is an Encounter power). 



nedjer said:


> Do we really need rules to tell us so much about how we play?



I can't speak for anyone else but me. But speaking for myself, where the point of the rules is to achieve some sort of mechanical balance across the spread of options for each player, and the maths is not transparent just on inspection, then yes, I do want rules to help me.

Of course I can wing it - I was a Rolemaster GM for 20 years, and GMing Rolemaster involves constantly deciding on, and then adjudicating, house rules for action resolution.
But part of the reason my group has switched from Rolmeaster to 4e is because 4e is mechanically much tighter and plays much better - less handling time, less swingy overall but more dramatic becuase often _more_ swingy round-by-round. This is due to the mechanics. And I want more mechanics to help me achieve this in parts of the game (ie the combat/skill challenge interface) which are currently poorly developed.

A comparison: if I sat down with a pen and paper for a few hours I might be able to work out sensible success numbers for an extended contest in HeroQuest, but the book helps by having Robin Laws do the maths and write it up in a handy table - and according to the credits he's even playtested it! I don't think it's too much to ask for 4e to offer the same mechanical support.


----------



## nedjer (Mar 10, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Well, 14 damage won't kill a goblin (other than a minion) in 4e. One option, of course, is to make the sentry a minion. On the other hand, suppose that things go wrong and the PCs find themselves confronting 5 sentries who have assembled in formation, I'm not sure I want to treat that as a combat vs 5 minions - it would be more interesting as a combat vs 5 real goblins.
> 
> If I do treat the sentry as a minion, then how does killing it factor into the skill challenge? A success? A +2 to someone else's Stealth check? This is the sort of mechanical advice I think a rulebook could provide (eg DMG2 suggests, without being entirely clear about the balancing issues, that using an attack power against the sentry will grant a +2 bonus only if the power used is an Encounter power).
> 
> ...




If you're going to present sensible, reasoned arguments like that I'd have to accept the point you're making. Without any rules we'd be winging everything/ exhausted, and while I like a pile of timber to build with, you're enjoying starting with a timber frame and building from there.


----------

