# My take.



## Celebrim (Feb 29, 2008)

I'm pretty solidly in the 4E critic camp.  Getting actually crunchy previews hasn't changed that, and yet it has.

I haven't got a chance to play, but I think we have enough rules that I can play in my head and have a good idea of how the game works.  That sentence itself ought to be revealing.  Two days I wouldn't even have cared to try playing 4E.  Looking at the rules, it does seem like combat will be as fun as advertised.  The core gameplay seems appropriately complex, with a large number of decisions and potential synergies.  But at its heart, it seems to me to be a board game and I would most enjoy playing it like a board game.  It looks like it would be great fun for occassional more casual gaming.  I wouldn't even want to role play in a serious manner.  Roleplaying would be a distraction from its core game experience, which involves pushing minatures around a map, doing crazy things, and generally just doing the 'beer and pretzels' sort of thing.  It is a game which is fundamentally suited for playing like a traditional game.  Play it like you would play Settlers of Cataan, Sorry, Roborally, or Decent.  Worrying about the game reality is in context really silly.  What do hit points represent?  Doesn't matter.  They are a game resource, and thats really all that matters.  Worrying about the larger universe in which the game is taking place is fundamentally pointless.  Does the game imply a universe where people are never injured for more than a few hours?  Sure, but in the context of the game, so what?  And that is as a design is just fine for a game.

But for me part of the joy of role-playing is imagining the game world to be a real place with much of the complexity of the real world.  To really get into roleplaying I have to be able to walk in the shoes of the character I'm creating and see through there eyes a world that is in some fashion believable.  Now, you can do that without a system and indeed with any system, so its not like roleplaying is impossible with 4E.  But it does seem to me that 4E doesn't do alot to encourage that sort of play, and perhaps even deprecates it.  I can't see myself wanting to start up an actual campaign using the 4E rules.  I can't see myself wanting to play this system for years and years except as an occasional break from something else.  DMing more fun?  Maybe, depending on how you look at things.  It makes me more want to play than DM, maybe because it appeals so strongly to my gamist/tactician side.  I definately can see groups using a rotating DM for 4E, and playing the game in a semi-competitive way.

Honestly, I think 4E would be most fun on a computer with a random dungeon generator of some sort.  Generate a random dungeon, let one player take the baddies, and then see how well you can do against the dungeon master.  I'd definately play that way.

But design a campaign world with 4E?  It seems kinda ridiculous.  All the sudden the venerable gentlemen in my campaign world with 3 Str, 3 Dex, 3 Con, 18 Int, 18 Wis, and 18 Chr are all Cohen the Barbarian, intelligence is only really useful if you are a librarian, six hours rest cures all evils, every trained fighter is a supernatural force, and children can reasonably allowed to play with sharp objects because it takes overwhelming force to do more damage to someone than can be healed in 5 minutes.  Sure, I can ignore that by just saying that none of the rules apply to anyone who isn't a PC, but then welcome to the world of unlimited DM fiat.  And contrary to some claims, DM fiat is just a headache even for the DM.  It's alot less work having some rules to help you make decisions.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Feb 29, 2008)

Hey smile now you're not alone here..  

I agree, based on all the stuff coming out of DDXP it looks like a very fun game, but so purely gamist it's hard to see where the R in RPG enters the picture.  Probably all that if you treated it as a squad level skirmish game but just too out of sink with even a slightly simulationist perspective.


----------



## withak (Feb 29, 2008)

For me, the important parts of role-playing are the ability for the PCs to: interact with people and institutions in the game world; affect the story/plot; and make interesting/difficult decisions, as they pertain to either the plot or strictly to character development. Making combat more or less "gamist" would have very little impact on these things.

So I'm a bit confused as to why making D&D more tactical, more skirmish-y, and more gamist would detract from the ability for players to role-play. Could you guys expand on this point a bit? I'm not sure where you're coming from.


----------



## Craw Hammerfist (Feb 29, 2008)

Keep in mind that damage has gone up with HP.  And in what 3e universe did all ills not dissappear after the cleric had a night's rest?  More gamist?!  D&D has been a 100% gamist system from the get go.  Nothing has changed in that regard.  If the game is now more fun to play, then it is better.  Full stop.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Feb 29, 2008)

withak said:
			
		

> For me, the important parts of role-playing are the ability for the PCs to: interact with people and institutions in the game world; affect the story/plot; and make interesting/difficult decisions, as they pertain to either the plot or strictly to character development. Making combat more or less "gamist" would have very little impact on these things.
> 
> So I'm a bit confused as to why making D&D more tactical, more skirmish-y, and more gamist would detract from the ability for players to role-play. Could you guys expand on this point a bit? I'm not sure where you're coming from.



I'm somewhat confused by this approach as well. I suspect that the disappointment is because of a wish to have the _game rules_ do the simulating rather than the _players_.

Essentially, the game rules for combat run the results of particular narrative events in the combat, not particular sword swings or even particular wounds. The hit point damage that characters take is not directly related to physical damage, but rather to the ability of the character to pursue different options or paths within the narrative of the game. Thus, the game rules are not simulating a particular sequence of cause and effect and players must, from the given narrative outcomes, create their own simulated world that corresponds to these outcomes.

Games that include combat details essentially become games where combat is the preferred method of conflict resolution. Thus the focus of the game will most often revolve around the behaviour of these rules systems. For this reason, I suspect that because the rules don't simulate cause and effect within combat, it is condemned.

It is worth noting that while 3.5 may bee taken to have a rule that simulates all aspects of combat, this is perhaps going too far. Certainly editions of D&D prior to 3rd edition had no pretense of simulating combat events.

The is some confusion around the meaning of "simulationist," of course. Some take it too mean that the purpose of play is to be true to cause and effect within the game world. Yet since there is almost no cause and effect specified by the rule system for combat, I have a hard time understanding how the rules system could conflict with this meaning of simulation.


----------



## techno (Feb 29, 2008)

I agree with Celebrim's comments. The "resting six hours cures all injuries" thing really bothers me. It reminds me of hitting the Rest button in Neverwinter Nights.


----------



## JeffB (Feb 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm pretty solidly in the 4E critic camp.




I was the first coupla months , but had very much warmed up to what I was hearing about the new edition in recent months...until the rogue article showed up, and now all this DDXP surfaced...

why?




			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Looking at the rules, it does seem like combat will be as fun as advertised.  The core gameplay seems appropriately complex, with a large number of decisions and potential synergies.  But at its heart, it seems to me to be a board game .




I was trying to put my finger on how I felt since yesterday and reading up all I could coming out of DDXP, and your assessment just put into words what I am feeling.

I'm sure it will be a fun game, but    I'm so dissappointed in what I've been hearing/reading. Its not shaping up how I thought it would.  I cancelled my pre-order and I'll take a VERY thorough look at the PHB when it hits the shelves instead. 

Sorry for the hijack.


----------



## eleran (Feb 29, 2008)

Huh?   How in any way shape or form does the new ruleset preclude, disgorge, or eliminate the roleplaying aspect of D&D?  

I am serious!  I don't see it.  I am planning a brand new campaign for 4e and honestly the previews we have gotten so far have made me more anxious rather than less.  Is there something I am not born with that makes me believe that the R in RPG comes from the members of the play group (ie players + DM) using their collective imaginations to hash out an ongoing story, which includes combat, info gathering, socialization, interaction and all-around derring do?


Honestly folks, what is it about the 4e rules that doesn't allow roleplaying?


----------



## Kirnon_Bhale (Feb 29, 2008)

While I am very decidedly pro-4e, I think that I see where you are coming from. I did however want to point you to Part 2 of the review which talks specifically about being able to run a completely non-combat game with the guidelines from the DMG. I know that the op is pro-4e as well but I trust that he is also a long time player who seems well informed.

The article draws the game away from combat and shows a bigger picture of the game that helped excite me a little more.


----------



## Clavis (Feb 29, 2008)

withak said:
			
		

> For me, the important parts of role-playing are the ability for the PCs to: interact with people and institutions in the game world; affect the story/plot; and make interesting/difficult decisions, as they pertain to either the plot or strictly to character development. Making combat more or less "gamist" would have very little impact on these things.
> 
> So I'm a bit confused as to why making D&D more tactical, more skirmish-y, and more gamist would detract from the ability for players to role-play. Could you guys expand on this point a bit? I'm not sure where you're coming from.




The problem is that a tactical game, with many PC powers that can interact in unpredictable ways, is much harder to write for as DM. 4th edition look to give the DM many more powers that he has to account for when creating suitable challenges for the characters. Consequently, the DM is forced to either buy pre-packaged adventures (created by prefessionals who can afford to spend time doing the required math), or spend his time creating suitable combat challenges _rather than making good NPCs or interesting adventure hooks._ Personally, I think that's the point - to make the game so hard to write for (while all the while telling us its easier) that homebrewing DMs will simply give up and buy their adventures and game worlds. 

As a DM, I see 4th Edition's promises of faster prep and easier DMing as akin to the scams a lot of store pull at Christmas time. They raise their prices by 20%, and then have a 15% off sale. All people see is the sale, and they forget that they're actually paying more than they did for the same items in November. 3rd edition (especially at high levels) made DMIng so hard compared to previous incarnations of the game, that anything will seem easier. I won't compare 4th edition to 3rd edition; that's the comparison WOTC wants me to make. Instead, I can pull out my old AD&D and Rule Cyclopedia material, and compare it to them. And you know what, 4th Edition is going to be a headache to DM, if you are  a homebrewer.

I don't want to play in WOTC's world. I don't want them to make flavor decisions for me. From the first time I read the Moldvay Basic rules as a boy, I knew that I wanted to create an imaginary world and watch players interact with it. I wanted to play the villains, and watch the PCs try to spoil my nefarious plots. I wanted to create exciting locations filled with pitfalls, and watch PCs either cunningly avoid them, or die horribly. I bought modules and the original World of Greyhawk, not beacuse I wanted to run them, but to learn from them. I do not want to be reduced to a mere rules referee. I feel like that's what WOTC wants DMing to be.

The worst way 4th edition is going to negatively impact roleplaying is that there will be fewer creative DMs, the kind who create and love to play exciting NPCs. Roleplaying certainly suffers when there's nobody to play your role to.


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 29, 2008)

withak said:
			
		

> So I'm a bit confused as to why making D&D more tactical, more skirmish-y, and more gamist would detract from the ability for players to role-play. Could you guys expand on this point a bit? I'm not sure where you're coming from.




For me, it's like the ability of a mid-level 3.5 character to fall off a vertical 100' cliff, brush himself off, and walk away - it makes no sense, there's no way to rationalize it, the game rules just poke right through the scenery - but you do your best not to think about it and maintain your sense of immersion in the world.

From what I've seen, that seems to be a much more common thing in 4E, and I'm not interested in that level of abstraction in an RPG. Sure, I could still try to roleplay as much as ever, but I can't imagine it being especially rewarding.


----------



## mhensley (Feb 29, 2008)

> Roleplaying would be a distraction from its core game experience, which involves pushing minatures around a map, doing crazy things, and generally just doing the 'beer and pretzels' sort of thing.




This has been true ever since 1973.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Feb 29, 2008)

My feelings are pretty similar to Celebrim's.  It looks like a fun miniatures boardgame, but I don't think I'd want to play it very often.


----------



## nutluck (Feb 29, 2008)

For the most part I agree with the OP. I am actually a bit more interested in 4e now than I was a month ago. But not for a serious long term game but more for something fun to do occasionally. Though the price of the DDI and having to buy virtual mini's to get anything other than 2d counters for monsters is a more than a bit of a turn off. Since the DDI for playing with other people I know that live far away was one of the things I was hoping would be a selling point for me. Now it is looking like the oppiste.


----------



## Ovinnik (Feb 29, 2008)

Clavis said:
			
		

> The problem is that a tactical game, with many PC powers that can interact in unpredictable ways, is much harder to write for as DM. 4th edition look to give the DM many more powers that he has to account for when creating suitable challenges for the characters. Consequently, the DM is forced to either buy pre-packaged adventures (created by prefessionals who can afford to spend time doing the required math), or spend his time creating suitable combat challenges _rather than making good NPCs or interesting adventure hooks._ Personally, I think that's the point - to make the game so hard to write for (while all the while telling us its easier) that homebrewing DMs will simply give up and buy their adventures and game worlds.




I actually believe that it will be much easier than previous editions to create and balance your own encounters, just as they're claiming.  Sure, everyone has some cool abilities now, but, so far at least, none of those abilities seem truly game-breaking.  In 3rd edition spellcasters had so many options that there was really no way for a DM to counter them all except with antimagic spheres.  In 2nd edition a 1st level wizard could catch himself a pet which could last a month or more before it even got a chance to break free (Charm Person).  Everything I've seen about 4e makes it seem much easier to keep your campaign from being 'broken' by any individual player(s).

I also don't agree that any game system is inherently 'better' for role-playing than other.  I've heard many WoD fanboys state that the Storyteller system is, by default, more RP-oriented than D&D, etc.  Many of those fanboys then go on to create their characters with 4 Dex, 4-5 in Firearms, and whatever good combat merits they can afford.

4e is indeed very 'gamist', but all versions of D&D (and all class-based level-based abstract-HP systems) are very 'gamist'.  Being 'gamist' doesn't inherently detract from role-play, any more than 'realistic' systems (such as GURPS) or 'RP-focused' systems (such as, supposedly, Storyteller) inherently add to it.  Its all in the people playing, 100%.

Just my humble opinions.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 29, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> Honestly folks, what is it about the 4e rules that doesn't allow roleplaying?



There are three justifications you'll see floating around.  Note that I am not defending them- in fact I think they are rather dumb.

1) "These rules are all about combat!  The game is all about combat!  I don't want to play some hackfest!  I want to roleplay!  Obviously this isn't the game for me!"

The problem with this reasoning is that the need for combat rules is greater than the need for roleplaying rules, because roleplaying tends to be freeform.  Its also a bit of a zero sum fallacy- there seems to be an underlying conviction that the better the combat rules are, the lower the quality of the roleplaying rules.  This is of course silly, but I do not think that Celebrim is making this very silly argument.

2) "The rules for 4e are so focused on combat that only combat hungry munchkins will play 4e (and/or it turns the people who play it into munchkins)!  If I want mature, roleplaying based games, I'd better play something with crappier combat rules."

The problem with this, of course, is that it implies that the presence of cool combat choices turns you into a worse roleplayer.  Roleplaying is then portrayed as something people do because sweet combat rules haven't seduced them away.  This argument almost makes you feel sad for the person making it, because they apparently view roleplaying as what you do when you can't do something better, and yet they have some sort of self flagellation urge that makes them want to keep doing it.  Think of this as the "cool combat rules = pornography" analogy.  They want it, but they don't WANT to want it, and they're convinced that everyone else has been seduced by it.  I do not think that Celebrim is making this argument either.

3) "The rules for 4e combat are too abstract.  If I take them literally, then it leads to silly conclusions about the rules and physics of the gameworld.  This disrupts my ability to roleplay.  (Hidden argument, sometimes made- it disrupts YOUR ability to roleplay, too, but you just aren't sensitive enough to notice)"

This is the argument Celebrim appears to be making.  The best I can say about this is that I disagree.  I've never found that silly consequences of good gamist rules really ruined my ability to run or play in a cool, roleplaying focused game.  If this premise were true, then previous editions of D&D were absolutely sucktastic.  The contortions necessary to explain healing magic in previous editions were absolutely beyond me.  But fortunately, we could just ignore them and go play the game, roleplaying and all.


----------



## Cobblestone (Feb 29, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> Huh?   How in any way shape or form does the new ruleset preclude, disgorge, or eliminate the roleplaying aspect of D&D?
> 
> I am serious!  I don't see it.  I am planning a brand new campaign for 4e and honestly the previews we have gotten so far have made me more anxious rather than less.  Is there something I am not born with that makes me believe that the R in RPG comes from the members of the play group (ie players + DM) using their collective imaginations to hash out an ongoing story, which includes combat, info gathering, socialization, interaction and all-around derring do?
> 
> ...



 THere's nothing in Monopoly preventing me from role-playing either, but I wouldn't call it a role-playing game.

I haven't looked through all the sample characters posted, but for the few I've looked at, I haven't seen a single ability that could be used outside a fight. Whatever the social-interaction sytem is, it's well-hidden so far.

C-stone


----------



## Lobo Lurker (Feb 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But design a campaign world with 4E?  It seems kinda ridiculous.  All the sudden the venerable gentlemen in my campaign world with 3 Str, 3 Dex, 3 Con, 18 Int, 18 Wis, and 18 Chr are all Cohen the Barbarian, intelligence is only really useful if you are a librarian, six hours rest cures all evils, every trained fighter is a supernatural force, and children can reasonably allowed to play with sharp objects because it takes overwhelming force to do more damage to someone than can be healed in 5 minutes.  *Sure, I can ignore that by just saying that none of the rules apply to anyone who isn't a PC,* but then welcome to the world of unlimited DM fiat.  And contrary to some claims, DM fiat is just a headache even for the DM.  It's a lot less work having some rules to help you make decisions.




Emphasis mine.  Didn't WotC already come out and say that the rules for the PCs ARE different than they are for everyone else in the game world? The little bit of flavor text they released for the fighter (sorry, no link) a few months ago indicated that Fighters were on a level beyond the normal warriors of the game world.  DnD, especially in 3rd/3.5 edition, has been something of a superhero game and it looks like they're running with it.

Besides, what's wrong with unlimited DM fiat?   I know that in the games I run, the rules are always secondary to what I want to happen (though, admittedly, not where they concern the PCs and their abilities).


----------



## Wiseblood (Feb 29, 2008)

I can agree with the OP in that the speed and ease of play will not be the only thing that chages in 4e.

One of the things that is impacted by the way things are handled in combat (oddly enough the rules will have more say in the storytelling than the actual combat) is that combat "may" feel more like a sports event. (bear with me here) If you can rest up for a few minutes or hours and go right into the next encounter with 99.9% of your resources then the previous encounter did what exactly? It's ease or difficulty has had 0.1% of an impact on this encounter. This disjoins combat from the role-playing or story-telling aspect. It then becomes a "roll the dice to get to chapter 2" where the only thing that will affect the next encounter is death. (or perhaps some off screen changes enacted by the DM)


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 29, 2008)

Cobblestone said:
			
		

> I haven't looked through all the sample characters posted, but for the few I've looked at, I haven't seen a single ability that could be used outside a fight. Whatever the social-interaction sytem is, it's well-hidden so far.



You'll find it under "Skills."

Is it that you're expecting some kind of, I don't know, big elaborate social interaction system with special per encounter powers like "Cunning Lie" and at will "Little Fibs?"

Allow me to make a prediction about which I am darned near certain.  The social encounter system is 1) skills just like in 3e, plus 2) DM advice on how to design social encounters that 3) mimics the flowchart type rules you'll find in other areas of the game such as in Heroes of Battle for designing war encounters.


----------



## mhensley (Feb 29, 2008)

Cobblestone said:
			
		

> I haven't looked through all the sample characters posted, but for the few I've looked at, I haven't seen a single ability that could be used outside a fight. Whatever the social-interaction sytem is, it's well-hidden so far.




Hmm... I see:

insight, diplomacy, bluff, streetwise, history, religion, arcana, nature
charisma, alignment, languages

It's really not very well hidden.  Maybe you have low Perception.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 29, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> I'm somewhat confused by this approach as well. I suspect that the disappointment is because of a wish to have the _game rules_ do the simulating rather than the _players_.
> 
> Essentially, the game rules for combat run the results of particular narrative events in the combat, not particular sword swings or even particular wounds. The hit point damage that characters take is not directly related to physical damage, but rather to the ability of the character to pursue different options or paths within the narrative of the game. Thus, the game rules are not simulating a particular sequence of cause and effect and players must, from the given narrative outcomes, create their own simulated world that corresponds to these outcomes.
> 
> ...




I wish I could sig this entire post.  I've been trying to frame this argument in my head for the last two days, and you said exactly what I wanted to say.  Thank you.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 29, 2008)

Strange.  I had a conversation with my group recently about my frustrations GMing 3e.  One of the big ones is that 3e is very, very poorly suited to any character-driven storyline or one that doesn't put most of the burden of improvement on combat.  I see nothing to indicate that 4e has made this any more true.  If anything, it's only just stopped pretending, though, I doubt even that.

Honestly, I'm a bit excited about the possibility for roleplaying in 4e.  It's been explicitly stated, more than once, that we'll be getting some sort of resolution mechanics for non-combat challenges that give structure to negotiations, traps, and even library research; taking each of these beyond a single die roll.  That's awesome -- in 3e, my options were threefold: 1) meta-game and let the players use their abilities/knowledge rather that that of their characters, 2) use a single roll against a set DC and have the negotiation with the king/attaining access to the ancient library/etc. be anti-climactic, or 3) GM fiat lots and lots of stuff.  How does 4e make any of those worse?

I do agree with you, somewhat, about healing and injury.  Then again, I can't remember ever having permanent effects from injury in D&D, unless the group was using house/supplemental rules.  The only thing that happened is that you marked off some time and checked for wandering monsters.  4e just has fewer rolls and ticky marks.


----------



## eleran (Feb 29, 2008)

Cobblestone said:
			
		

> THere's nothing in Monopoly preventing me from role-playing either, but I wouldn't call it a role-playing game.
> 
> I haven't looked through all the sample characters posted, but for the few I've looked at, I haven't seen a single ability that could be used outside a fight. Whatever the social-interaction sytem is, it's well-hidden so far.
> 
> C-stone




Which abilities from 3e, that are usable outside of combat, would you like to see in 4e?


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 29, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I agree, based on all the stuff coming out of DDXP it looks like a very fun game, but so purely gamist it's hard to see where the R in RPG enters the picture.  Probably all that if you treated it as a squad level skirmish game but just too out of sink with even a slightly simulationist perspective.




Only for certain values of R.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 29, 2008)

"The rules for 4e combat are too abstract. If I take them literally, then it leads to silly conclusions about the rules and physics of the gameworld."

That's mostly it, but the problem isn't that they are too abstract.  D&D has always been abstract about things like hit locations and injuries.  The problem is that they are not intended to have any level of 'casual realism'.  

Take the 'Cohen the Barbarian' problem.  To a certain extent, the game has always had this problem, and 'Cohen' I think owes something in his conception to D&D.  But with intelligence providing Reflex/AC, charisma providing Will, and presumably something like wisdom providing Fortitude the upshot of these rules is that any NPC that acquires attributes also acquires some unwanted attributes.  Feeble accountants, aged octogenerians, and little old ladies suddenly are as strong of combatants in thier infirmity as they were in thier youth.  This strongly discourages me from treating non-combatant NPC's as even having attributes.  Certainly I can't have them following any sort of consistant rules.

And there are dozens and dozens of problems like that.  I just don't feel inclined to work out how the implied game world actually works.  It is a silly world.  I don't feel inclined to make house rules in it.  I don't feel inclined to think about how the different parts of the world interact.  Why do I not feel inclined to do any of these things?  Because quite obviously the designers didn't feel so inclined either.  What I saw as the hinderances to role play in D&D weren't even on the list of designer's concerns.   I'm not going to dig back through that list, because I made it several times back when 4E was first announced.  I'm not going to try to talk anyone out of liking 4E.  Just take my word for it that 4E feels fundamentally different to me than previous editions, and to the extent that it does feel like previous editions it is highlighting the system integrity problems that drove me from D&D initially back in the mid-90's.  

Perhaps it would explain something to say that I think the use of minatures at all detracts from the role-playing experience.  I didn't use minatures at all until 3rd edition.  The problem with minatures is that they tend to provide an external reference for the imagination, so that you are continually distracted from imagining the described events happen to you, and instead spend your time imagining the described events happening to the minature on the table.  I consider this a less satisfying role-playing experience than experiencing events in 'first person'.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 29, 2008)

I tend to agree with the OP. I'm just not feeling this whole "All your abilities are directly relevant to combat and nothing else" deal which 4E seems to be putting out.

I can actually handle the healing surges etc., and I can even go with NPCs not getting them, it seems kind of Feng Shui-ish. It's just the apparent hyper-focus on combat, combat, combat, combined with the really "illogical", completely gamist nature of some of the abilities (shielding smite, for example) turns me off.

Don't get me wrong, it's unlikely I won't get 4E, unlikely in the extreme, and probably have good fun playing it too, but if the new GSL lets a company make a game that incorporates some of the more attractive aspects of 4E whilst focusing a little less on combat, and making the magic a bit more "magical" and less "Woot awesome ability that only makes sense from an out-of-character perspective", I'd be pretty happy, and probably play that in preference to "vanilla" 4E.


----------



## vagabundo (Feb 29, 2008)

I really don't see how, if you have been able to role play in 3e, you would not be able to roleplay in 4e. 4e has more in common with 3e than it has differences.

If you could role play with hps, cleave and manyshot, why not with hps, cleave and split the tree?

The story of the same encounter in 3e or 4e would pretty much sound very similar.

I get the vibe of an implied: "if you like 4e you dont roleplay" from the OP. But since most of it relates to directly how you feel and only one sentence is about other groups maybe that wasnt your intention.

EDIT: I'd just like to point out that there is a lot we have not seen yet. Obviously the DND XP stuff is the lite version of 4e.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Feb 29, 2008)

Celebrim, it seems like the root of your issues are the battlemat focus (lots of positional abilities) and the healing system.

Battlemat, well, yes it's inherently boardgame-like. You move in squares, you push figures around, you flank when the target is between you and an ally, etc. A lay person looking at a battlemap, dice, & figures will think "oh I'm familiar with this; it's a boardgame". 

I think that's a *good* thing. It makes the game more accessible, more familiar, and reduces uncertainty/silly arguments about position. Plus, even though the figures are on the board the actual gameplay is the same as ever. Put a tape recorder on the table for an OD&D game, and one on the table for 4E, and you'll hear the same thing: players describing their characters' actions, reacting to events, and so on. 

The healing thing is terrific system in that it lets the players get on with things. If everyone gathers 'round the table each Sunday to play a game of heroic fantasy, it just makes sense to keep the game moving. I think few people want to play a game where combatants take weeks or months to recover from a single fight. No, they want to fight to within an inch of their lives, win, recover overnight, and then do it all over again the next day. Spending time rolling dice to pick locks, cleave heads, flimflam barkeeps, or find secret doors is much more fun than rolling dice to reduce fever, stave off infection, or change bedpans.

Plus, we don't have the full rules on recovery. I'm sure mummy rot, certain poisons, vile curses, and other flavorful maladies are still in the game. Sometimes extraordinary injury *is*  fun to roleplay (see the Man In Black's recovery in _The Princess Bride_) and I have faith the designers have included them in the game.


----------



## Jayouzts (Feb 29, 2008)

*Better games*



			
				eleran said:
			
		

> Honestly folks, what is it about the 4e rules that doesn't allow roleplaying?




4E may allow role-playing, but there are other systems out there better suited for it.  The same could be said about 3E.  

I play 3E not because it is my favorite system but because it is the one I am most likely to find games for.  Now that 3E is being replaced, the question is do I see anything that makes me want to invest the time (forget money for a moment) to learn the new system.  For me, the answer is a resounding no.


----------



## Ovinnik (Feb 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But with intelligence providing Reflex/AC, charisma providing Will, and presumably something like wisdom providing Fortitude the upshot of these rules is that any NPC that acquires attributes also acquires some unwanted attributes.  Feeble accountants, aged octogenerians, and little old ladies suddenly are as strong of combatants in thier infirmity as they were in thier youth.  This strongly discourages me from treating non-combatant NPC's as even having attributes.  Certainly I can't have them following any sort of consistant rules.




It's Str or Con helps Fortitude, Dex or Int (representing quick thinking and the ability to think on your feet) which helps Reflex and (possibly) AC, and Wis or Cha (representing your ability to overcome effects using sheer force of personality or Self) which helps Will.  When you think about them, these things make some sense, and feeble accountants and old ladies tend to have low Str and Con both, so they'd still have a low Fort defense.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 29, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> Which abilities from 3e, that are usable outside of combat, would you like to see in 4e?




This is an unfair and illogical question, I'd suggest. A very large percentage of the abilities we've seen so far in 4E simply did not exist in 3E, or existed in an entirely different fashion.

I mean, Cleave goes from being a special-condition Feat, to an at-will ability. It wasn't an ability before. If we ignore you wording, and look at y'know anything that existed in 4E, I don't think it'd be unreasonable for people to have hoped to see, say, a Fighter "Utility" ability called "Intimidating Glare", which might have both an in-combat AND out-of-combat use (perhaps even different ones), or for some of various bonus to diplomacy or bluff or the like Feats to have become active abilities along the lines of Cleave, but for social situations. I could go on.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But with intelligence providing Reflex/AC, charisma providing Will, and presumably something like wisdom providing Fortitude the upshot of these rules is that any NPC that acquires attributes also acquires some unwanted attributes.




Do you have a scoop on the NPC creation rules, or are you just speculating?


----------



## vagabundo (Feb 29, 2008)

Ovinnik said:
			
		

> It's Str or Con helps Fortitude, Dex or Int (representing quick thinking and the ability to think on your feet) which helps Reflex and (possibly) AC, and Wis or Cha (representing your ability to overcome effects using sheer force of personality or Self) which helps Will.  When you think about them, these things make some sense, and feeble accountants and *old ladies* tend to have low Str and *Con* both, so they'd still have a low Fort defense.





Hmmm You should see some of the Oul'-ones that live here in Ireland. They are built like tanks.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 29, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I mean, Cleave goes from being a special-condition Feat, to an at-will ability. It wasn't an ability before. If we ignore you wording, and look at y'know anything that existed in 4E, I don't think it'd be unreasonable for people to have hoped to see, say, a Fighter "Utility" ability called "Intimidating Glare", which might have both an in-combat AND out-of-combat use (perhaps even different ones), or for some of various bonus to diplomacy or bluff or the like Feats to have become active abilities along the lines of Cleave, but for social situations. I could go on.




I agree.

Maybe there will be space for some kind of 3rd-party "role-playing" book.


----------



## Snarls-at-Fleas (Feb 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> It is a game which is fundamentally suited for playing like a traditional game.  Play it like you would play Settlers of Cataan, Sorry, Roborally, or Decent.  Worrying about the game reality is in context really silly.  What do hit points represent?  Doesn't matter.  They are a game resource, and thats really all that matters.  Worrying about the larger universe in which the game is taking place is fundamentally pointless.




Hmm. We are quite different people them I guess. Reading those charcter sheets & power descriptions I just couldn't stop imaginging how those things are going in the game reality. And they are so clear and simple that you can drop all thoughts about the system and concentrate on your imagination instead. Well I can.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 29, 2008)

I have only a funny link to add to this conversation to sum up my feelings on the matter:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1235

As for prior editions of D&D, they had no rules for serious roleplaying other than making Charisma or skill checks.   Imagine if they were previewing 2e or 3e, and giving sneak peeks of the rules.  Of course there would be more attention paid to the various options your character would have in combat.

As for the more subtle idea that having effective tactical rules and placing the game balance to the point where you can be expected to face most challenges without dying... well I simply don't have patience with that argument.   

It is true that in 2e as opposed to 3e you spend more time trying to do things other than combat, but that was because you spent all your time without spells and down to 5 hit points, stuck in a dungeon between monsters you ran away from and monsters you know you couldn't fight.  Now this might be okay if you have a DM who simply allows you to use trickery and diplomacy and is nice enough to allow your crazy ideas to succeed, but I don't think most DM's allowed for fiat rules in your favour.  

In our 2e nostalgia campaign that we are playing now, we have one or two combats then we wander around the dungeon looking for a safe enough place to rest and trying to amuse the DM enough to let us pull off crazy schemes to stay alive.   That's pretty much what I remember the experience being from 2e campaigns back when I was a teenager as well.  That's not a roleplaying feature, that's a wargaming application that doesn't know what to do with itself between skirmish battles.

In 3e, especially when you got to higher levels, diplomacy all but vanished when you could pretty much ensure that you could take anything the DM could throw at you because you bought complimentary magical items, had various types of bonuses stacked together, and had maximized your damage output.   Judging by what I've seen so far, 4e has more effects, but I don't think it makes the impossible more commonplace.

I also fail to see how 4e discourages roleplaying more than 3e.  Quite the opposite, with the new social rules for handling roleplaying, it will allow the player to shine as a roleplayer even when all the DM's characters are as stubborn and uncooperative as he is.

The objection that fighters abilities are too wire-fu, perhaps this will help.  4e just seems to be putting in game mechanics to explain how exactly your fighter has been able to kill storm giants, red dragons, and astral dreadnaughts all these years.   You certainly described it using wire-fu in the past in order to sustain your suspension of disbelief.  The only thing different is you say "I'm using my Leaping Salmon technique" rather than "I swing my sword at it", and then the DM does a long spiel of exactly how you hit the dragon in something other than the ankle.

Unless you think that fighters should be plain ordinary guys while wizards shoot pure  awesomeness out of their fingertips.  If that's the case, be prepared for an all wizard party in every one of the games you DM. 

As for the healing surges, I think it really comes down to a choice.  Ypu have healing surges to keep yourself going until you clean out the dungeon, or you sleep in the monster infested hell hole to recover your healing spells.  Which one snaps the suspension of disbelief again?


----------



## Derren (Feb 29, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Do you have a scoop on the NPC creation rules, or are you just speculating?




When you read the rest of the critique you will see that building NPCs differently from PCs is also a bad option so it doesn't really matter if the NPC build rules solve this problem because if they do they create a other problem.

Imo 4E sacrifices too much believeability and "realism" for, game speed. 4E makes a nice miniature game but to roleplay in a believable world you have to ignore much more inconsistencies and silliness than in 3E.


----------



## brehobit (Feb 29, 2008)

I largely agree with the OP.  3e has the same problem IMO.

The issue is that newer versions of D&D have each had more options and powers for the players.  From a gamist viewpoint, this is clearly a good thing, and 4e appears to have done a very nice job with it.

The problem is that IME, in Basic, 1st, and 2nd edition,  every fighter was pretty much the same and simple to play.  So what we did was roleplay.  In the 3e games I've played and run, wacky abilities have been made the focus.  

So my basic claim is that the more rule-complex and option-complex the game is, the harder it will be to roleplay as the other aspects take over.  I know one group that has done a great job with roleplaying 3e.  I played in any number of good RP 2e games and ran a few.  

The other problem I have is that a few of the abilities don't seem to make in-game sense.  The cleric and paladin seem the worst of the lot that way.  Sure it's "just magic" but even the roleplaying justifications given above for the paladin's marking ability seem stretched.  The Bo9S took me a while to get comfortable with, but the powers largely seemed acceptable.  The damage to a baddy, no save, because he attacked someone else seems odd....

It looks like a really good board game thus far....


Mark


----------



## FadedC (Feb 29, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> This is an unfair and illogical question, I'd suggest. A very large percentage of the abilities we've seen so far in 4E simply did not exist in 3E, or existed in an entirely different fashion.




Well I think the point is just that there is no way to say that there is LESS roleplaying in 4e then 3e when you have at least the same tools you had before. If your saying that D&D in general has less of a roleplaying focus then some other games, then I can't really deny that. But I wouldn't expect a new edition to dramaticaly change that. And many might debate if having "one per social encounter" abilities would necesarily be a good thing from a roleplaying perspective.

But it's also worth noting that we don't know what types of utility powers and feats there are. Assuming the demo is mostly about killing kobolds I wouldn't expect to see the demo characters with social feats or anything, while it appears that most utility powers don't come until later levels.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 29, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When you read the rest of the critique you will see that building NPCs differently from PCs is also a bad option so it doesn't really matter if the NPC build rules solve this problem because if they do they create a other problem.




It may create another problem if your preferences align a certain way, sure.

Saying "I can't build an NPC like this!" when you have no idea if that's true or not isn't a fair critique of the game.


----------



## Ulthwithian (Feb 29, 2008)

Well, for those using the DDXP information to infer a lack of role-playing options in 4E...

Since we know that we're not seeing everything in 4E, why are you assuming that the characters we have seen are the sum total of what's available?  I mean, if the dungeon delves are pure combat encounters, then giving all kinds of information on non-combat options in this sort of environment is counterproductive.

Also, consider what happens if you create non-combat Powers.  (IOW, you use the Power system in non-combat situations the same as for combat situations.)  No matter how you implement this, you violate one of the core mechanical issues of 4E.  If you mandate that you get one pool of powers, and these must be split between combat and non-combat powers, then you achieve a number of options:

1) Pro: People can choose to specialize between combat and non-combat.
2) Con: Should someone wish to specialize in one of the two, they are left doing very little in the other. (Violates 'everyone doing something every round')
3) Con: Even if you don't specialize, you will have so fewer options on a round-by-round basis that you 'do the same thing every round' (Violates 'choices matter')

Now, on the other hand, you could create a side-by-side system.  The drawbacks are lower here, but you still have some:

1) Everyone has equal access to combat and non-combat powers, per class.  (IOW, no specialization)
2) More options can lead to more confusion.

There is always the 'works in both' power option.  Cause Fear, out of combat, allows for a substantial bonus to Intimidation checks, etc.  However, you then still need some sort of 'round-by-round' framework for social encounters that many people find stultifying in the extreme.

And then there is the option that apparently WotC took, which is that different systems in game handle combat and noncombat situations.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 29, 2008)

Rules don't do simulationism. Rules are for gamism.

The best simulationist system possible is - 'DM decides' - because that will never break verisimilitude. Or, slightly more complicatedly - 'Players and/or DM raise an objection whenever they feel something implausible might occur. DM has final say on what is plausible'. Any rules set (of reasonable size) will, from time to time, produce implausible results.

It would take a very, very complicated set of rules to simulate a world. Much more complicated than could possibly fit in an rpg. In fact only a computer simulation could come anywhere near doing the job.

Small rules sets, such as are found in rpgs, are only appropriate for games, not sims.

Now the way D&D works is there's a game and a sim. The game is the boardgame/wargame of combat and dungeon bashing, which is covered in detail by the rules. The sim is the rest of the world, which has always had light to non-existent rules in every edition. What happens in this sphere is decided by objection raising and DM ruling, as described above.

What was so great about 3e, and it seems to be even more true of 4e, is that the boardgame part covered by the rules actually works as a game. It's the only rpg I've ever encountered which is tactically interesting. Which actually contains a fun and functioning game.

This is the purpose of game designers, to write the best wargame they can. It has taken them a long time to realise this and many still don't.

The freewheeling, just people talkin', sim part of the 'game' has always worked and always will. It doesn't require rules to make it work. If there were really complicated rules describing this part people would hate it. They'd complain the rules weren't letting them roleplay.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 29, 2008)

Celebrim, while I largely feel you're onto something, I also feel that you might be being a bit narrow in your application.

My guess is that rather than not think about these things, we'll just have to think about them in 'different ways.'

For me, what breaks it in a lot of ways is monster/pc divisions. I just can't grok using special rules only for the characters you're controlling that no other entity in the world gets. It breaks my world wide open if my villains don't get healing surges, for instance. 

This isn't NECESSARILY a 4e dealbreaker, but it's going to take some persuasive words to get me to embrace it as-is instead of heavily retconning it into my own 3.75e. They'll have to convince me that thinking about it in a different way is worth it, and that I gain more than I loose. 

Which is kind of too bad, because there's a LOT of 4e that's REALLY quite good.

I just think you can fix a lot of the problems with 3e without embracing a lot of the design philosophies that I kind of baseline disagree with.  :\


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 29, 2008)

Remember, try to avoid comparing bad stuff in 4E to bad stuff that already existed in 3E (or any other RPG). It's quite possible that the OP or anyone else annoyed by this stuff didn't like it any better previously, and the fact that it against isn't changed in 4E isn't exactly an argument for it.

That said, I think there is "bad stuff" you just can't avoid.

For the "role-playing" part of the game, how much rules do you want? How much rules can a game have for the role-playing stuff until the actual interaction on a personal level is replaced with rolling dice and adding modifiers? 

You could come up with a very complex social combat system, where people could use powers like "Intimidating Glare" or "sudden topic change" or "create straw man"-powers, but I think most people would agree that this that is no longer role-playing, but only a game.
The same could be made for any other kind of non-combat stuff, like general problem-solving. "I roll my Jump to Conclusions skill to beat the Level 12 Evidence challenge and figure out who killed our suspect before we got to him."
Or even worse. "I roll a Happyness check to see if my character is happy now after he has defeated his arch nemesis. Defeating him grants me a +10 accomplishment bonus" *roll* "Damn, a natural 1. Failed again. Let's roll on the Life Goal table to see what my character wants to do next." 

The role-playing stuff cannot be replaced by mechanics. It is something "between" the rules. A fighter focusing on battle axes can be described by game-mechanics. But the reason why he likes battle axes, and the screams he yells while hacking goblin hordes together are the role-playing part. 
A character good at social skills might seem like a good role-playing character, but he's only if the player actually uses the skills in character. "Frank could try to appease to the Black Guard so he let's him through. A diplomacy check should be enough. But he hates people aligning themselves with evil, no way he tried that. I'll try to bluff him instead." 

There are aspects of role-playing that are defined in the rules. Your stats and the skills you choose say something about your character. What he is good at it, what he's bad at. But how to really role-play this stuff is not part of the rules. What you want to role-play determines your decision on how to create your character (25 point buy), or the way your character was created (roll 3d6 in order) informs how you role-play him, but the actual role-playing is not implemented in the rules.

But there is still another matter. 
How much time do you devote to the role-playing part, how much do you devote to the game?
Games with little rules usually mean you devote a lot of your time to things outside the rules. That might lead to people role-playing more. But don't count on that. 
Games with a lot of rules invite people to use them. So you might get less role-playing. But don't count on that.
In the end, people actually do the stuff that is the most fun to them. Some people enjoy he game part more then the role-playing part. Some people enjoy he role-playing part more the the game part.

D&D 4 can't stop a "role-player" from role-playing. His group can, though. If enough people love to concentrate on the rules, and interject little role-playing in between, the role-player will feel hindered. But then, the group can also make the "gamer" stop playing the game. If most people love to play out the interactions of the characters with each other and the NPCs, rarely using rules to solve anything, well, the gamer will feel hindered.


----------



## kclark (Feb 29, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> This is an unfair and illogical question, I'd suggest. A very large percentage of the abilities we've seen so far in 4E simply did not exist in 3E, or existed in an entirely different fashion.
> 
> I mean, Cleave goes from being a special-condition Feat, to an at-will ability. It wasn't an ability before. If we ignore you wording, and look at y'know anything that existed in 4E, I don't think it'd be unreasonable for people to have hoped to see, say, a Fighter "Utility" ability called "Intimidating Glare", which might have both an in-combat AND out-of-combat use (perhaps even different ones), or for some of various bonus to diplomacy or bluff or the like Feats to have become active abilities along the lines of Cleave, but for social situations. I could go on.




Your correct in that a lot of passive abilities like Cleave are being reimaged into active powers. I think that is a good thing as it involves the player more than merely remembering to use his passive abilities.

I would say that using the Intimidate skill could satisfy your "Intimidating Glare" ability (if you ignore the language requirement). Assuming 4e skills are similar to 3e skills it has both in combat and out of combat uses, ones that are rather different.

I fully expect to see feats that will boost out of combat things like the Skill feat the wizards took to be trained in stealth. That could have been taken in Diplomacy and then you would have all the noncombat abilities involved with the Diplomacy skill. Now if 4e fails to provide an actual noncombat system other than the nearly nonexistant 3e one of make a single diplomacy roll, then you may have a point.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 29, 2008)

3e did a very bad job as a simulism RPG, if you want that play rolemaster.

Really, at higher levels... 5 shots with a (cross)bow in 6 seconds (with rapid reload)?
no facing...

i rather have an ultimate combat advantage i can easily use to apply for attacks from the back than deciding which rule i use (flanking, flatfooted, or my prefered invisible attacker bonus)

IMHO the strength of ADnD 2nd edition was very fast and simple, combat from which you could recover quickly. 3e did aways with that.


----------



## Derren (Feb 29, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> 3e did a very bad job as a simulism RPG




Yes, 3E was not perfect, but it seems that 4E will be worse.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But design a campaign world with 4E? It seems kinda ridiculous.



The purpose of the rules is not to design a world and never ever has been.

Look at the core concepts of D&D - class, level, alignment, hit points. Does that look like an attempt to simulate reality or to produce a fun, functioning game?


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Feb 29, 2008)

So you haven't actually played the game, but based on secondhand reports from a convention DUNGEON CRAWL you've decided that it's too "gamist"?

Okay.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But at its heart, it seems to me to be a board game.



Twas ever thus.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Feb 29, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> I wish I could sig this entire post.  I've been trying to frame this argument in my head for the last two days, and you said exactly what I wanted to say.  Thank you.



Glad to help! Thanks for the post.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Feb 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Take the 'Cohen the Barbarian' problem.  To a certain extent, the game has always had this problem, and 'Cohen' I think owes something in his conception to D&D.  But with intelligence providing Reflex/AC, charisma providing Will, and presumably something like wisdom providing Fortitude the upshot of these rules is that any NPC that acquires attributes also acquires some unwanted attributes.  Feeble accountants, aged octogenerians, and little old ladies suddenly are as strong of combatants in thier infirmity as they were in thier youth.  This strongly discourages me from treating non-combatant NPC's as even having attributes.  Certainly I can't have them following any sort of consistant rules.



I really don't like the underlying antisemitism of this example. I'm sure it's not intended; but this thought experiment identifies the weak, clerk-type person with a Jewish name and also identifies this person as a problem. Not good.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 29, 2008)

> The role-playing stuff cannot be replaced by mechanics. It is something "between" the rules.




Actually, it's not. 3e had some very sketchy, but very key role-playing rules built into it. Part of that was the skill system (which 4e seems to be keeping but developing a little bit further). Part of that was the NPC system (which 4e is totally scrapping). Part of that was the monster system (which 4e is totally scrapping). Part of that was the system of spells and powers (which 4e is reimagining). Part of that was the system of treasures and rewards (which 4e is reimagining). 

The Storyteller system has rules for morality.

To me, having rules for playing the role is the very essence of a roleplaying game.

Now, I know, especially with D&D, that part of the role I'm playing is a combat part. That's awesome and I'd embrace that fully for what it is. 

But the reason I *actually* enjoy D&D is not because of the combat. It's because I get to be Achilles or King Arthur or Indiana Jones or Harry Potter or whatever. That's the essence, for me, of a *heroic role-playing game*.

D&D4e has shown that it's definatley going to let me play the role of a Striker or a Defender or a Controller or a Leader. Heck yeah it will! 

But it hasn't shown me that it will let me play as these character archetypes.

Because these archetypes involve combat, oh yes, they definately do, and it's important to have that.

But they're not JUST combat, that's not the focus, that's not the reason.

There can and should be mechanics for these archetypes outside of combat.

The 3e skill system let me be an amazing diplomat or an intimidating warrior or a master crafter or a lore-filled sage or a master of exotic dance, and it let me do that *mechanically*. The 3e NPC system let me be uniquely powerful, above and beyond what the other people of the world could do, and it let me do that *mechanically*. The Storyteller system lets me fall from grace or struggle with sin, and it lets me do it *mechanically*. 

It might just be that we haven't seen it all yet, but there's going to have to be a LOT more that they're not showing us to smooth this perception over.


----------



## Just Another User (Feb 29, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Hey smile now you're not alone here..
> 
> I agree, based on all the stuff coming out of DDXP it looks like a very fun game, but so purely gamist it's hard to see where the R in RPG enters the picture.  Probably all that if you treated it as a squad level skirmish game but just too out of sink with even a slightly simulationist perspective.




^this.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 29, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Well I think the point is just that there is no way to say that there is LESS roleplaying in 4e then 3e when you have at least the same tools you had before. If your saying that D&D in general has less of a roleplaying focus then some other games, then I can't really deny that. But I wouldn't expect a new edition to dramaticaly change that. And many might debate if having "one per social encounter" abilities would necesarily be a good thing from a roleplaying perspective.
> 
> But it's also worth noting that we don't know what types of utility powers and feats there are. Assuming the demo is mostly about killing kobolds I wouldn't expect to see the demo characters with social feats or anything, while it appears that most utility powers don't come until later levels.




Let me be clear - At no point have I said anything about, nor do I care about whether 4E is "better for roleplaying", so like, okay, whateverrrrrr in regards to that, you're arguing with yourself there mate.

What I'm concerned with is OUT-OF-COMBAT abilities. I like abilities which can be used in situations that DO NOT INVOLVE PHYSICAL COMBAT. I like these games with their "social combat" and so on. Maybe they're worse for role-playing, maybe they're better. I don't give a hoot. I just think it's really maximally retardo to make a game chock-full of "kewl powerz" and then make ALL the damn kewl powerz be combat abilities.

Of course, I'm being a bit misleading. The Wizard has Ghost Sound, Light, and Mage Hand, all of which are not particularly combat oriented. I just think it's a bit wierd that he, of all people, is the ONLY one who has ANY abilities which aren't combat-oriented. It's not even clear if an ability like the Pally's LoH would even be usable out of combat, given it's limit on usage is "per encounter" (so can you freely hand out your "healing surges" if you're out of combat? Or do three and then sit for five mins then do another three or what?).

And you may be right, maybe we see some more GENUINE utility abilities and so on at later levels. That'd be fine with me, but for now, it just seems a little lame to confine kewl powerz to combat, and combat alone.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 29, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Celebrim, while I largely feel you're onto something, I also feel that you might be being a bit narrow in your application.
> 
> My guess is that rather than not think about these things, we'll just have to think about them in 'different ways.'
> 
> ...



I don't know if it helps you in any way, but, for the scientifically inclined:

The rules of the game are an abstraction of the "real" rules of the fictional game world. It is a model. In fact, they are two models. One model is representing the NPCs, one the PCs. They are both incomplete. There is actually an underlying set of laws that explains both. But it's too complicated, or we haven't yet figured out a good way to describe it.

Such things exist in the real world, too. 
The Relativity Theory and the Quantum Theory both give a model of our world. The Relativity Theory on the larger scale (big masses, spacetime), the Quantum Theory on the smaller scale (atoms, quarks). Both are part of the scientific model of our reality, and unfortunately, are are at odds if you try to to apply the rules of the one to the stuff described by the other. Scientists are working on unifying these aspects. (String Theory). That's one example of two different models trying to describe the same world. 

Another example of such "dualistic" explainations might be the particle/wave duality of small parts. You can use the model of particles or the model of wave to describe them both, depending on when you want to describe them.
There are elemental particles/wave for the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Quantum Theories tell us that, that at a certain (high) energy level, these three "thingies" turn out to be the same particle. (Super Symmetry)

And there are countless of other examples where we use simpler models for certain aspects, totally ignoring the fact that we know that the stuff is a lot more complex. For practical reasons, we might forever be forced to use simpler models (and get good reslts with it, too), but some say that these models might actually be fundamentally correct and we don't need to go in further details. They are describing "emergent" laws, laws that can hardly be determined from looking at quarks and gluons, but are nevertheless "true". 

Well, after this short excursion to the wonderful world of science: 
The differences in NPC and PC rules are just part of the limited world of the real world model we use. It's not bad to do it, as long as we get the results we want from the rules. There might be corner cases where the model feels inadequate, but that's the nature of any model.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 29, 2008)

> The rules of the game are an abstraction of the "real" rules of the fictional game world. It is a model. In fact, they are two models. One model is representing the NPCs, one the PCs. They are both incomplete. There is actually an underlying set of laws that explains both. But it's too complicated, or we haven't yet figured out a good way to describe it.




This would be an example of how they could make it palatable for me. I don't mind simplifications and abstractions, what I've got a problem with are contradictions and exceptions. 



> The differences in NPC and PC rules are just part of the limited world of the real world model we use. It's not bad to do it, as long as we get the results we want from the rules. There might be corner cases where the model feels inadequate, but that's the nature of any model.




Part of where the game has an edge on the Real World is that there don't need to be models that fall apart at the corners. 

Especially if those "corners" actually come up fairly regularly, depending upon the user of the model.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 29, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> (On Simulationism) Yes, 3E was not perfect, but it seems that 4E will be worse.




See, I still don't see how wire-fu wasn't around in prior editions.   How else to explain a fight between a human and a giant?  A human and a wyrm dragon?   I mean dig out your old TSR novels from 10-20 years ago, long before D&D 3e, and look at the novel characters.   The fighters and rogues totally were super strong, super skilled, or super ninja.   Here is a list of people who had supernaturally good skills, and it would be longer if I read more pulp fiction. 

Forgotten Realms makes the easiest case:

Drizzt & Zaknafein Do'Urden
Thibbledorf Pwent
Wulfgar
Alias & Dragonbait - watch the two combats between the great wyrm Mist
Arilyn Moonblade, Elaith Craulnober
The Knights of Myth Drannor

Dragonlance:  

Ariakas the Dragon Emperor - Could throw a spear clean through a horse and strangle a minotaur with his bare hands
Caramon Majere - probably stronger than Ariakas
Porthios of Qualinesti - Took down three dragons and their riders
Dhamon Grimwulf
Linsha Majere

Greyhawk
Everyone in the Scarlet Brotherhood
Lord Robilar
Gord the Rogue

Dark Sun - Everybody

Planescape - Everybody

I would not think a conversion to 4e would exagerate any of these character's abilities.


----------



## Andor (Feb 29, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> I really don't like the underlying antisemitism of this example. I'm sure it's not intended; but this thought experiment identifies the weak, clerk-type person with a Jewish name and also identifies this person as a problem. Not good.




Err... Cohen the Barbarian is a character from Terry Prachett's Discworld books. And he's scrawny and skinny 'cause he's about 100 years old. But in his youth he made Conan look like Don Knotts if it makes you feel any better.   

Incidently being ancient and scrawny hasn't made him any less dangerous, in one of the Discworld books Cohen and his sliver hoarde (All 4 of them) conquer the equivilent of China.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Feb 29, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Err... Cohen the Barbarian is a character from Terry Prachett's Discworld books. And he's scrawny and skinny 'cause he's about 100 years old. But in his youth he made Conan look like Don Knotts if it makes you feel any better.
> 
> Incidently being ancient and scrawny hasn't made him any less dangerous, in one of the Discworld books Cohen and his sliver hoarde (All 4 of them) conquer the equivilent of China.




A paraphrase from a vaguely-remembered conversation:

"He's an old barbarian, yes?"
"Yep."
"That means a lot of people and things have tried to kill him, and failed?"
"Yep."
"Oh, my."

Brad


----------



## BryonD (Feb 29, 2008)

I also agree with the OP.

I see some really great ideas in there.  I see some things I will certainly steal for my own game.
But I see lots of other things that just confirm the things I have become aware of over the past few months.  It looks a lot closer to what I would consider a pure minis battle game or a board game than a roleplaying game.  Sure, you can roleplay on top of this game, but that was true of DDM 2 years ago.  

I look at the characters and the texture is greatly lacking.  And yeah, I understand that they are 1st level, and I'll cut some slack on that account.  But they look a lot alike to me.  Everything is just +x attack for y damage and maybe a move effect.  All the texture of one thing being different than another is gone.  They've been bragging about the unified mechanic for a while now.  And I'll admit, they did that big time.  And I miss the differences already. And I haven't even played the game yet.  Everything works exactly the same and I got bored just reading it.

And the monster is the same.  Again, some slack for first level, but it is just a one dimensional battle pawn.  And I'll readily admit that 9 out of 10 kobolds in my 3X game are bags of HP with a spear.  But not only is there that 10th time, but the kobolds are always there in a way that represents a lot more.  

Have they built a better minis battle game?  Is 4E combat more fast and furious than 3x?  It may be so.  And yeah, I just might find it really fun to kick back and slay some nameless beasts with this system.  I probably would in the same way I enjoy Descent and Tannhauser now.  I like roleplaying games AND other games.  And if I stop trying to judge it as a roleplaying game I think I can give 4E high marks.  But I'm still not seeing anything that provides a fraction of what I want in terms of grit and substance for a get into the character's head roleplaying game.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Feb 29, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Twas ever thus.



The text on the cover of the 1983 Red Box Basic Set: "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in the player's imagination with dungeon adventures that include monsters, treasures and magic."

Prior to 3e, D&D was not a miniatures boardgame.  Yes, you could use minis to represent positioning.  Yes, you could use some optional rules to make combat a miniatures wargame.  However, the game was designed to run just fine without minis.


----------



## Andor (Feb 29, 2008)

OK. Now on topic, my take on 4e and Roleplaying. 

I do think 4e seems to fall flat on it's face from a simulationist perspective. What I mean by that is this:

While I could easily imagine playing 4e as a computer game (Indeed I would love to see a Final Fantasy Tactics style game made with 4e rules) I cannot imagine what it would be like to actually exist in such a world. 

Suppose you were actually in Greyhawk 4.0 watching a fight from the sidelines with an exposition fairy sitting on your shoulder explaining what was going on. How exactly is the fairy to going to describe the Paladin's marking ability? And once that has been explained how does she explain the Paladin's supernatural mark being superceded by the fighter's purely mundane one?

Does 5 minutes of rest really seem like enough time to go from death's door to all better? And why is it the cleric's prayers could heal you before you ran out of healing surges, but once you rested and burned them up his prayers are no longer answered?

Basically if the game produces a situation that would cause you to break your suspension of disbelief if you were reading about it in a fantasy novel, then how do you suspend your disbelief to roleplay that game?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 29, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> I really don't like the underlying antisemitism of this example. I'm sure it's not intended; but this thought experiment identifies the weak, clerk-type person with a Jewish name and also identifies this person as a problem. Not good.




Please enlighten yourself.


----------



## Grog (Feb 29, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Twas ever thus.



True. Everyone seems to forget that movement rates in 1st edition were given in _inches_, for crying out loud.


----------



## Just Another User (Feb 29, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes, 3E was not perfect, but it seems that 4E will be worse.




That is because 3e at least tried, 4e officially don't give a damn about it.


----------



## Just Another User (Feb 29, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> I really don't like the underlying antisemitism of this example. I'm sure it's not intended; but this thought experiment identifies the weak, clerk-type person with a Jewish name and also identifies this person as a problem. Not good.




Never read discworld? Shame on you.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 29, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The 3e skill system let me be an amazing diplomat or an intimidating warrior or a master crafter or a lore-filled sage or a master of exotic dance, and it let me do that *mechanically*. The 3e NPC system let me be uniquely powerful, above and beyond what the other people of the world could do, and it let me do that *mechanically*.




I think I would say that 4e will still allow you to specialize, but allows for a much greater amount of flexibility in roleplaying.  I guess the best example would be the NWP from 2e of the Etiquette and Heraldry proficiencies to allow you to move in high society.   The etiquette skill was bundled up into Diplomacy in 3e, which allowed you not only to know what fork to hold, but also how to be a good dealmaker.    The problem was that you had the odd thing of being good at diplomacy but perhaps horrible at bluff (because you're a paladin) or not good a sense motive (because you're wisdom is low).   4e takes measures to solve problems like these by bundling more skills together, and by allowing some reasonable proficiency as you go up in levels.   So now, you may be better at dealmaking, but you still have a decent ability to bluff or sense motive, which makes a lot more sense.

I can see an objection being made to characters being allowed to do too many things, like being able to ride horses as a city thief, or ballroom dance as a barbarian fighter.   I would say the best solution would be to simply allow the player to opt out of his abilities that he doesn't want until a suitable training time is given.  

However, I see too much good in the more flexible spell system.  It will be great to have an aristocratic PC fighter who can dance, knows how to eat politely, has a passing familiarity with the noble families of the region, and can seduce the blonde haired daughter of the Viceroy without nerfing his dungeon and athletic skills that he needs out in the field.   As well, I also approve of moving unlikely skills that a player will not need or use to a general proficiency so that he doesn't waste it in preparation for a situation that never arises.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 29, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> I really don't like the underlying antisemitism of this example. I'm sure it's not intended; but this thought experiment identifies the weak, clerk-type person with a Jewish name and also identifies this person as a problem. Not good.




That be some old-skool trollin' KK


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 29, 2008)

> ...So now, you may be better at dealmaking, but you still have a decent ability to bluff or sense motive, which makes a lot more sense.




Yeah, that's cool. That's a good thing. 



> I would say the best solution would be to simply allow the player to opt out of his abilities that he doesn't want until a suitable training time is given.




Bah. It shouldn't come with baggage we don't want. There's a happy medium between 3e's preponderance of skills and allowing barbarians to ballroom dance because they have a high Dex. 



> It will be great to have an aristocratic PC fighter who can dance, knows how to eat politely, has a passing familiarity with the noble families of the region, and can seduce the blonde haired daughter of the Viceroy without nerfing his dungeon and athletic skills that he needs out in the field. As well, I also approve of moving unlikely skills that a player will not need or use to a general proficiency so that he doesn't waste it in preparation for a situation that never arises.




And I agree.

My issue lies mainly with the fact that we can see how Achilles and Odysseus are different in the fray, but once the war is over, they begin to look boringly similar.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 29, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> True. Everyone seems to forget that movement rates in 1st edition were given in _inches_, for crying out loud.




Were they also that way in OD&D? I was under the impression they used feet or yards, and that AD&D 1st was actually a change from that.


----------



## DamnedChoir (Feb 29, 2008)

I sort of have to agree with the OP on this, more or less.

It feels to me the game is becoming more of a battle mat tactics and skirmish game than anything else, and I've never used miniatures or battle mats for roleplaying games before, Not even in 3E, but none of my friends were munchkins or grognards, either.

It feels like keeping track of every ability, most of which are hard to even explain in non-gamist terms, is going to be a hassle, and that combat in general will be it's own game.

Yes, yes, for all of you who are violently and vehemently attacking the OP and defending 4E, /you/ certainly like 4E, but your methods for convincing others otherwise aren't really doing much.

It just doesn't seem like it's for me and my group for a RPG, but we might end up playing it off and on with a beer or something, like Munchkin, from time to time. Still, we've already begun to move away from D&D 3.5 in the first place and look for other systems like Shadowrun or Storyteller which are much less hard to explain in simulationist terms and are more flexible.

Anyways, I'm still liking alot of what I see about D&D...but it doesn't seem like a Role-Playing Game anymore.


----------



## Imp (Feb 29, 2008)

What annoys me a lot about this new edition is that it seems to be run by theoryheads who believe that ideological purity on, for example, the gamist vs. simulationist axis or class/level vs. point-buy is so important it overrides other concerns. Not really giving a crap about either of these dichotomies, but just wanting a reasonably convenient and fun system that's not completely risible in too many places, I feel left out in the cold. It's a shame, because there seem to be a lot of good things about the system: more varied combat, at least a few well-conceived classes, and shorter stat blocks for easier prep, among other things.

I've seen little to suggest that the new edition would get in the way of role-playing as such.


----------



## Delta (Feb 29, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> 3e did a very bad job as a simulism RPG, if you want that play rolemaster.
> 
> Really, at higher levels... 5 shots with a (cross)bow in 6 seconds (with rapid reload)?
> no facing...




I'll pitch in with this -- this is at least the third time in this thread that someone has said "3E also did a very bad job" and offered as an example something specifically from the 3.5 Edition.

Rapid Reload, Multishot, 10x10' Face horses... none of those existed in the 3.0 core rules. Personally, I was pretty happy with the level of granularity & fantasy in 3.0, and I got off the ride when 3.5 came out, over a host of issues like Rapid Reload. It's not too surprising that 4E is continuing the larger trajectory of 3.5, and therefore it's even less appealing to some players such as myself.


----------



## Henry (Feb 29, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> Rapid Reload, Multishot, 10x10' Face horses... none of those existed in the 3.0 core rules. Personally, I was pretty happy with the level of granularity & fantasy in 3.0, and I got off the ride when 3.5 came out, over a host of issues like Rapid Reload. It's not too surprising that 4E is continuing the larger trajectory of 3.5, and therefore it's even less appealing to some players such as myself.




The first two were from splatbooks (I think Song and Silence, and Epic Handbook, in particular) in 3e, before 3.5 came along.


----------



## Delta (Feb 29, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> True. Everyone seems to forget that movement rates in 1st edition were given in _inches_, for crying out loud.




Actually, what I find more commonly forgotten is that the inch-scale ranges could _not_ be used as ground scale for maps in 1E AD&D. You can debate about that indicates for how closely miniatures were actually tied to the game.

1E DMG, "Use of Miniature Figures With the Game", p. 10:


> Figure bases are necessarily broad in order to assure that the figures will stand in the proper position and not constantly be falling over. Because of this, it is usually necessary to use a ground scale twice that of the actual scale for HO, and squares of about 1 actual inch per side are suggested. Each ground scale inch can then be used to equal 3-1/3 linear feet, so a 10’ wide scale corridor is 3 actual inches in width and shown as 3 separate squares... If you do so, be certain to remember that ground scale differs from figure scale, and when dealing with length, two man-sized figures per square is quite possible, as the space is actually 6 scale feet with respect to length.


----------



## Delta (Feb 29, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> The first two were from splatbooks (I think Song and Silence, and Epic Handbook, in particular) in 3e, before 3.5 came along.




Right, that's why I said "none of those existed in the 3.0 core rules" above. Those supplement options were, likewise, not allowed in my group's 3.0 game.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 29, 2008)

*Rapid Reload (3E version from Sword & Fist)*
"You can reload a hand crossbow or light crossbow as a free action that provokes an attack of opportunity. You may reload a heavy crossbow as a move equivalent action that provokes an
attack of opportunity. *You can use this feat once per round.*"

I don't see five shots with a crossbow in 6 seconds. At least not with this feat. What am I missing?


----------



## Simplicity (Feb 29, 2008)

I'm sorry, but I find this to be a terrible argument.  The OP suggests that 4e is such a good tactical game that it can't be a good roleplaying game because everything will tend to devolve into tactics.  You're basically calling 4e bad because the game designers did a good job with combat.  Looking at the converse of your argument, if this were true, it would imply that all good roleplaying games then must have annoying combat mechanics in order to avoid encouraging players from fighting.  Ummmm... no.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 29, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> What am I missing?



The 3.5 PHB version.


----------



## Simplicity (Feb 29, 2008)

Oh, and the reason 6 hours of rest heals all wounds is that regardless of how many barriers the game system puts into resting, players don't go forward with the adventure until they are at full resources.  If it required a week of rest, players would be resting for a week half way through a dungeon.  Rather than breaking every adventure out there whenever players run into trouble, it's easier to make the bar low for parties to heal up.  You can believe that a player can get 4x hp in healing surges a day, but not that 6 hours of rest can heal them?

Also, just because the PCs get this, doesn't mean that NPCs do.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 29, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Bah. It shouldn't come with baggage we don't want. There's a happy medium between 3e's preponderance of skills and allowing barbarians to ballroom dance because they have a high Dex.




Well, I'd be happy to hear what that is.  If you handle everything by ability checks for example, it amounts to much the same game mechanic.   

I just know I don't want to blow ranks in knowledge (nobility) or Craft (brewing) or Profession (sailor) if I never get a chance to use it.   Giving away free skill points (as background points or something) didn't quite solve the problem because it was still scattershot whether you would get to use your skills or not.   I'd rather have a little extra spice and do some neat things as opportunities present themselves.   For example, if I'm playing Age of Worms and I'm trying to socialize in the High Society of Prince Zeech's court, then why not let everyone have a go and trying to be good at it?   It would certainly be nice as a change of pace.   I'm sure a player who is determined to be an obnoxious, drunken, frothing barbarian with no social graces will just not bother to roll, or take a -15 circumstance bonus.  That's actually a good simulation of life actually.  People could behave better if they put the effort into it, but just don't bother to. 



> My issue lies mainly with the fact that we can see how Achilles and Odysseus are different in the fray, but once the war is over, they begin to look boringly similar.




Well, outside of combat Achilles and Odysseus are rather similar, but I get your point.  I think that people will be defined by what they do well, rather than what they do half decently.   When you had a bard in the party, nobody cared that the paladin had Diplomacy too.  I think that will likely be the case with overlapping skills in 4e.   Odysseus trained in Diplomacy.   Achilles can do a little diplomacy (such as the scene with Priam) but usually he is just a pushy loudmouth, so he has more scenes like the ones where he berates Agamemmnon and stomps off sulking.


----------



## Derren (Mar 1, 2008)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I find this to be a terrible argument.  The OP suggests that 4e is such a good tactical game that it can't be a good roleplaying game because everything will tend to devolve into tactics.  You're basically calling 4e bad because the game designers did a good job with combat.  Looking at the converse of your argument, if this were true, it would imply that all good roleplaying games then must have annoying combat mechanics in order to avoid encouraging players from fighting.  Ummmm... no.




That the game has a good tactical combat system is not the problem. The problem is that in order to achieve such a good tactical system the game sacrifices too much believability.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 1, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> 10x10' Face horses... none of those existed in the 3.0 core rules.




5'x10' horses were a violation of the very rules 3.0 presented, since facing was nonexistent and having to align your horse either horizontally (either facing west or east) or vertically (either facing north or south) implied facing. So, yeah, introducing in your core a number of creatures that directly violate your "no facing in this system" premise is a huge oversight.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 1, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Please enlighten yourself.



So because you're borrowing (and expanding upon) someone else's bad example, it's OK?

I don't really care all that much, but using examples that look like they are about the problem that weak, Jewish men look tougher than young (Austrian?) men doesn't seem all that productive.


----------



## Lackhand (Mar 1, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> So because you're borrowing (and expanding upon) someone else's bad example, it's OK?



Exactly.

You don't understand how badass Cohen's Silver Horde is, do you?


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 1, 2008)

Just a couple of scientific points.


			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Such things exist in the real world, too.
> The Relativity Theory and the Quantum Theory both give a model of our world. The Relativity Theory on the larger scale (big masses, spacetime), the Quantum Theory on the smaller scale (atoms, quarks). Both are part of the scientific model of our reality, and unfortunately, are are at odds if you try to to apply the rules of the one to the stuff described by the other.



Most of quantum theory includes the special theory of relativity. It is in the general theory of relativity that cannot be made into a quantized theory in a generally acceptable way.


> Another example of such "dualistic" explainations might be the particle/wave duality of small parts. You can use the model of particles or the model of wave to describe them both, depending on when you want to describe them.
> There are elemental particles/wave for the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Quantum Theories tell us that, that at a certain (high) energy level, these three "thingies" turn out to be the same particle. (Super Symmetry)



Quantum theory tells us that these entities are quanta and neither particles nor waves. This is not directly related to the idea of supersymmetry.  

However, the general idea that there are scientific levels of description that are different yet are still equally valuable, depending on the application, is a good one.


----------



## hong (Mar 1, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Quantum theory tells us that these entities are quanta




Quantae.


----------



## PeterWeller (Mar 1, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 4E makes a nice miniature game but to roleplay in a believable world you have to ignore much more inconsistencies and silliness than in 3E.




I hate this argument because it assumes that roleplaying has to take place in a "believable" world.  Now, I'm pretty sure you mean internally consistent more than you mean realistic when you say, "believable," but still, the argument stands, why do you give two craps about believability when you're shooting magic lasers at dragons?  Dungeons & Dragons is a game about heroic adventures.  I think you burden that when you try to make the world too believable.  In fact, I feel it's detrimental to roleplaying a heroic adventurer when you strive for believability because then you spend you're time concerning yourself with banalities instead of pretending you're an adventurer or creating heroic narratives and situations.  The 3E focus on modeling everything with rules was detrimental to DMing because it forced you to think about how stuff would work with the rules instead of providing a framework with which to develop interesting and exciting stuff.  I think you're own thread about magic-less dragons illustrated this nicely.  You ended up pigeon holing a lot of really great ideas because they wouldn't "work."

It looks to me that while 3E made an attempt to consistently model a world where fantastic adventures could take place, it ended up failing at both of these because focusing the rules around the former ended up actually limiting the latter, and now 4E is trying to simply model fantastic actions and letting the whole, "so, just how does all this interact, actually?" bit slip back into the background.  This appears to be a return to earlier editions.  In fact, aside from the changes to healing and magic, 4E looks more like TSR's editions than 3E.


----------



## Jhulae (Mar 1, 2008)

If I'm not mistaken, early editions didn't even *have* rules for any kind of social encounters or even skills really. I guess there was some table for a 'background' thing like Carpenter or Farmer, but NWPs weren't introduced for a while.

Yet, somehow, people managed to -*gasp*- roleplay. 

I really do see the fallacy of "The more structured a game's combat mechanics are the worse the RP is going to be".  That just doesn't wash.  Not one bit.


----------



## hong (Mar 1, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Take the 'Cohen the Barbarian' problem.  To a certain extent, the game has always had this problem, and 'Cohen' I think owes something in his conception to D&D.  But with intelligence providing Reflex/AC, charisma providing Will, and presumably something like wisdom providing Fortitude the upshot of these rules is that any NPC that acquires attributes also acquires some unwanted attributes.  Feeble accountants, aged octogenerians, and little old ladies suddenly are as strong of combatants in thier infirmity as they were in thier youth.




It's kung fu, d00d.



> This strongly discourages me from treating non-combatant NPC's as even having attributes.  Certainly I can't have them following any sort of consistant rules.




Clearly by taking the trouble to stat out aged octogenarians, such a character must have a significant role to play in the ongoing tale of your campaign. If an aged octogenarian does not have a significant role to play, you can treat them as a minion and (if the stats for the D&DXP kobold minion are to be believed) they will have no hit points at all.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 1, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Clearly by taking the trouble to stat out aged octogenarians, such a character must have a significant role to play in the ongoing tale of your campaign. If an aged octogenarian does not have a significant role to play, you can treat them as a minion and (if the stats for the D&DXP kobold minion are to be believed) they will have no hit points at all.




So, in 4e, you really can clear out a village just by dropping cats on it.

How do those poor kobold minions survive to adulthood? How many die in childhood from the simplest of wounds?


----------



## hong (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, in 4e, you really can clear out a village just by dropping cats on it.
> 
> How do those poor kobold minions survive to adulthood? How many die in childhood from the simplest of wounds?




By obeying Hong's 2nd Law.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 1, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> By obeying Hong's 2nd Law.




And what happens when clever PCs decide to just herd a bunch of badgers down the kobold lair, knowing that any damage is fatal?

(Hell, the townsfolk know that, too, and probably surround their villages with angry cats.)

In minion-on-minion fights, winning initiative is important, as the first blow struck is also the last. Thus, I expect that in any long-lived campaign world, all minions will have evolved obscenely high initiative scores.


----------



## hong (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And what happens when clever PCs decide to just herd a bunch of badgers down the kobold lair, knowing that any damage is fatal?




They have failed to obey Hong's 2nd Law.



> (Hell, the townsfolk know that, too, and probably surround their villages with angry cats.)




The townsfolk would only know that if the DM who acts as their centralised hivemind has similarly failed to obey Hong's 2nd Law.



> In minion-on-minion fights, winning initiative is important, as the first blow struck is also the last. Thus, I expect that in any long-lived campaign world, all minions will have evolved obscenely high initiative scores.




In any long-lived campaign world where the DM fails to obey Hong's 2nd Law, that is.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And what happens when clever PCs decide to just herd a bunch of badgers down the kobold lair, knowing that any damage is fatal?




Do you ever produce examples that aren't predicated on the players and the DM completely lacking common sense? How about something sensible, instead of immediately resorting to the absurd?


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Mar 1, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When you read the rest of the critique you will see that building NPCs differently from PCs is also a bad option so it doesn't really matter if the NPC build rules solve this problem because if they do they create a other problem.
> 
> Imo 4E sacrifices too much believeability and "realism" for, game speed. 4E makes a nice miniature game but to roleplay in a believable world you have to ignore much more inconsistencies and silliness than in 3E.




You mean it's more "believable" and "realistic" and more "role-playing oriented," for that matter, for a fighter to have no options in a fight except to stand in front of his opponent and go, "I hit, I miss. I miss. I hit."  Rather than being able to push your opponent back, concentrate your energies for a mighty finishing blow, or doing some other kind of maneuver to try to change the course of the fight and add some dash and interest to it?

Sorry, but I don't see 30 minutes of "I hit. I miss. I hit. I miss. I hit. I hit. I miss." as being either very good role-playing or a very 'believable' simulation of something as dynamic and chaotic as a melee.


----------



## hong (Mar 1, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Do you ever produce examples that aren't predicated on the players and the DM completely lacking common sense? How about something sensible, instead of immediately resorting to the absurd?



 Lizard is not "resorting to the absurd". He's operating from the basic premise that people in the game world are living, breathing entities, aware of cause-and-effect and how the rules arbitrate the results of actions.

This is slightly different to the basic premise that people in the game world are actors on a stage, aware of what makes dramatic or narrative sense in the context that the game is emulating a given genre of storytelling.


----------



## Jhulae (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, in 4e, you really can clear out a village just by dropping cats on it.
> 
> How do those poor kobold minions survive to adulthood? How many die in childhood from the simplest of wounds?




If I'm not mistaken, a cat could kill a commoner in *any* edition of D&D.  How the heck have commoners (or children or 'baby kobolds') managed to survive in *all* past editions?


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Mar 1, 2008)

*Enter the World of Magehammer!*



			
				HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I agree, based on all the stuff coming out of DDXP it looks like a very fun game, but so purely gamist it's hard to see where the R in RPG enters the picture.  Probably all that if you treated it as a squad level skirmish game but just too out of sink with even a slightly simulationist perspective.



I also agree with the verisimilitude posse. Point and CLICK tabletop leaves me cold.

-Samir Asad


----------



## Lizard (Mar 1, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Do you ever produce examples that aren't predicated on the players and the DM completely lacking common sense? How about something sensible, instead of immediately resorting to the absurd?




This seems to mean "Please pretend the people who live in the world and grew up in the world don't know how the world works and won't act accordingly."

Yes, badgers are a joke. That's why I used "badgers". They rate a 5.1 on the Laffer Scale. Only weasels rate higher, at least among the small mammals.

But if you have creatures who die if they take ANY damage, you have to ask how any of them survived their childhoods to face the PCs. Or at least *I* have to ask this. Because I ask these things. Because I like my worlds filled with fire-breathing vampire dragons to make sense. 

OK, obviously, they don't "really" have no capacity to take damage. It's a pure game convention. They exist to be mowed down in waves. Off-stage, they can stub their toe without exploding. (I hope...) But the cavalier dismissal of even the merest pretense of verisimilitude rankles.

I suspect that, in play, if a Minion ever survives an encounter and interacts with the PCs, I will deftly swap his stat block with a more viable breed...


----------



## Lizard (Mar 1, 2008)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken, a cat could kill a commoner in *any* edition of D&D.  How the heck have commoners (or children or 'baby kobolds') managed to survive in *all* past editions?




It used to be at least 50/50 if the cat or the commoner would die.  Then again, if we assume small animals are as vulnerable as kobold minions, it still is. But the cat will likely have a higher initiative...


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> OK, obviously, they don't "really" have no capacity to take damage. It's a pure game convention. They exist to be mowed down in waves. Off-stage, they can stub their toe without exploding. (I hope...) But the cavalier dismissal of even the merest pretense of verisimilitude rankles.




Meh--D&D has _always_ required the cavalier dismissal of verisimilitude, so I really don't see this as a particular problem endemic to 4E. Your mileage may vary, of course--but consider that Order of the Stick is based on exactly the kind of knowledge of the game rules and how they govern the world, and it's generally considered a satire of D&D. 

Actually, I think hong nailed it--some people want the characters in their world to be real people, others want them to be actors in a role. Neither approach is badwrongfun or poor roleplaying, but 4E is definitely sliding toward the latter.



> I suspect that, in play, if a Minion ever survives an encounter and interacts with the PCs, I will deftly swap his stat block with a more viable breed...




Now you're thinking with 4E!


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> But the cavalier dismissal of even the merest pretense of verisimilitude rankles.




Maybe you'd get more interaction, and less "cavalier" dismissal if you used arguments that aren't predicated on such ridiculous ideas and assumptions. Maybe if you actually presented your "hypothetical" players as the moderately intelligent D&D gamers we've all met, instead of some cartoon caricature, you'd get somewhere.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 1, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Maybe you'd get more interaction, and less "cavalier" dismissal if you used arguments that aren't predicated on such ridiculous ideas and assumptions. Maybe if you actually presented your "hypothetical" players as the moderately intelligent D&D gamers we've all met, instead of some cartoon caricature, you'd get somewhere.




Actually, I'm portraying them as the loophole hunting, rule exploiting, vicious little bastards I've come to know and love in just under 30 years of playing the game with more groups than I can recollect..

If you've got a bunch of players who'll say, "Well, we could easily wipe out this next of kobolds by doing X, but we won't, since our characters, despite growing up in this world, have no idea of how it works", well, you've got some very interesting players. Mine assume they know how the world works. If you tell them a 12th level NPC fighter got knifed in a tavern brawl, they won't take it as background detail -- they're figure an equally high-level assassin is involved. They won't talk about 'levels' and 'classes' in character, but they do know "The captain of the watch, who survived three orc assaults, does not simply die from a common thug's knife. Period."

Whatever. D&D always used to veer between gamist and simulationist; it was never narrativist. Now it is.


----------



## Darkthorne (Mar 1, 2008)

"Don't sweat the small stuff" I believe this is the end goal for 4th ed. 3.5 rules were extremely complex and to get newbies to learn the basics before they get to the "good stuff" and that alone created it own issues. From what I read of what the staffer's have posted they refer these sessions as delves. Delves I take as Dungeon delves or dungeon crawls (sorry if I am pointing out the obvious) which I took as pure combat. If what they are displaying is pure combat how much RP aspect of the game do you expect to see? Now with that being said I think getting many people psyched up about the game is through its combat aspect (our need for immediate gratification). I don't remember where there was a chart in 3.5 that told me what my xp breakdown was for social encounters, however they have stated they are giving xp guidelines for non combat (social) encounters as well as overcoming traps and I believe there may have been a third area as well. I see this encouraging people to do more non combat activities than the thought of but unspoken trait of "I'm not going to bother doing that there's no xp in it for me". Unfortunately there are people out there that need a rule to explain every possible scenario that could take place and how to deal with them and w/o those predetermined rules they believe the system is broken. It also strikes me as funny that people would have an issue with the fact the game mechnic for an ability/power/spell is identical across the board. Just because something is an arcane spell it should have a more complex mechanic? To me that's like saying rolling a d4 I shake in my right hand, d6 I have to toss with my left (more damage), 4d6 I have to spin around 3 times and use both hands (more dice this time) But hey this is just my pov


----------



## hong (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Whatever. D&D always used to veer between gamist and simulationist; it was never narrativist. Now it is.




To be precise, D&D is now a game designed by buttkickers, as opposed to tacticians.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Whatever. D&D always used to veer between gamist and simulationist; it was never narrativist. Now it is.




Or maybe they aren't obsessively fixated on the divide between gamist-simulationist-narrativist, because they just care about making a fun game without caring about it crossing 'gameplay borders.' G-S-N is like alignment: sure, it can help describe things, but in the end, it's meaningless since real people are far more complex than it allows.


----------



## Jhulae (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> <snip> verisimilitude <snip>




To be honest, D&D hasn't had this since the very beginning.  

HP and the fact that a dagger strike at 1st level can kill while at 10th level it's but a mere scratch?  

Armor that doesn't prevent you from being hurt, but protects you from being hit? (At least 1st edition had it that some weapons could penetrate armor better, but still... the binary Hit/Miss of AC is hardly 'authentic'.)

For any attempt at verisimilitude, D&D just isn't the game to be playing.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 1, 2008)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> For any attempt at verisimilitude, D&D just isn't the game to be playing.




Quoted for truth.

Verisimilitude is the "quality or state of being verisimilar."

Verisimilar is "having the appearance of truth; depicting realism."

D&D has never depicted realism, and if that was it's intent, then it has failed utterly for over 30 years.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 1, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> To be precise, D&D is now a game designed by buttkickers, as opposed to tacticians.




Then why does it seem to have more tactical options than any previous version? Feng Shui, this ain't.


----------



## hong (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then why does it seem to have more tactical options than any previous version? Feng Shui, this ain't.



 To be precise, tactical options that enable you to kick more butt. Tactical options that preclude the kicking of butt are right out.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then why does it seem to have more tactical options than any previous version? Feng Shui, this ain't.





 Feng Shui does have loads of butt kicking options.


And the badger example doesn't work too well as a counter argument since being able to unload a horde of magically conjured angry Badgers into any Barracks in any era of DnD or RL would be a horrificly effective tactic.

Though for my money blood sucking weasels are still the most effective counter.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 1, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Feng Shui does have loads of butt kicking options.
> 
> 
> And the badger example doesn't work too well as a counter argument since being able to unload a horde of magically conjured angry Badgers into any Barracks in any era of DnD or RL would be a horrificly effective tactic.




As it turns out, a single summoned badger helped us defeat a bone devil way, way, back when...



> Though for my money blood sucking weasels are still the most effective counter.




Badger vs Weasel! TO THE DEATH!

(Feng Shui has lots of butt kicking, but little detail; IIRC, gun damage is purely a function of narrative role. It's been a while since I read it, but I seem to recall it all comes down to 'describe a cool action, the cooler it is, the more butt you kick'. This is very different from 4e's plethora of detailed, crunchy, rules. Mmm....crunch....)


----------



## Campbell (Mar 1, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> And the badger example doesn't work too well as a counter argument since being able to unload a horde of magically conjured angry Badgers into any Barracks in any era of DnD or RL would be a horrificly effective tactic.




Gnomes might come after you. They take the treatment of their minions very seriously.


----------



## Zelc (Mar 1, 2008)

I think the point of minions not having HP is why waste space printing an HP value that probably won't be needed?  When it is needed, just put in something reasonable.  If it's a minion vs. a PC/important NPC, the minion is going to die.  If it's something like the bag of cats thing, either ad-hoc it or you can suddenly give the minions a reasonable amount of HP and roll it out (the latter sounds awfully complicated to me).  Honestly, what would you do if they released a bunch of housecats on a group of commoners in 3.5?  Ad hoc it, or say the commoners all die?


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 1, 2008)

Zelc said:
			
		

> I think the point of minions not having HP is why waste space printing an HP value that probably won't be needed?




Interesting theory, but it requires more space to print "The minion dies when it takes any hit point damage" than "*HP:* 2."


----------



## Zelc (Mar 1, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Interesting theory, but it requires more space to print "The minion dies when it takes any hit point damage" than "*HP:* 2."



Well, if they print that line for every minion, then I suppose not.  But with the former, you don't have to keep track of their HPs.  It's simpler to use for a DM, and when it doesn't make sense, it's easily fixed.

I guess it's not just paper space, but "mind space".


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 1, 2008)

Zelc said:
			
		

> Well, if they print that line for every minion, then I suppose not.  But with the former, you don't have to keep track of their HPs.  It's simpler to use for a DM, and when it doesn't make sense, it's easily fixed.
> 
> I guess it's not just paper space, but "mind space".




I know, I was just being a smart alec.  The minion rule is probably one of my favorite 4E additions so far--I've used it in other games, and it always adds a ton of fun to combats.


----------



## tsadkiel (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> (Feng Shui has lots of butt kicking, but little detail; IIRC, gun damage is purely a function of narrative role. It's been a while since I read it, but I seem to recall it all comes down to 'describe a cool action, the cooler it is, the more butt you kick'. This is very different from 4e's plethora of detailed, crunchy, rules. Mmm....crunch....)




You do not RC.  The main Feng Shui book has seven pages devoted to various gun stats (not counting the full pages of various gun silhouettes) and not one, not two, but six different types of crunchy combat power.

EDIT - you may actually be thinking of Wushu, which works just as you describe.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 1, 2008)

Sherman, set the wayback machine to 1999.

Is this one iota different than the screeds we saw ten years ago before 3e hit the bricks?  That the game would be the "death of roleplaying" and whatnot?

Y'know, roleplaying, like Science Fiction, has been on life support for so long, it's shocking that it's still kicking around.  We've heard how this or that will be the death of roleplaying, how the new thing will only appeal to the lowest common denominator and how the latest thing will be the death of creativity so often and for so long it's amazing that we actually managed to do anything anymore.

You could hold up the OP side by side with any number of identical opinions spouted off ten years ago and, they'd be nearly identical.

And identically accurate as well.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 1, 2008)

Yeah, but does anybody appreciate how much hard work has gone into keeping roleplaying alive despite the best and nastiest attempts of the industry? No. People treat it as if it's natural that people still roleplay with D&D, while it's the result of the sweat, blood and tears of countless DMs trying to wrangle some semblance of roleplaying from the cold, dry numbers of modern games.  


...what?


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 1, 2008)

I agree with the OP's opinion that 4e looks alot like a board game. 3e added alot of miniature emphasis to the combat, and 4e has taken that to the extreme. Pretty much everything we've seen are combat powers, with a heavy emphasis on squares, etc. Pretty much everything I've seen emphasises the board. When I started roleplaying, I never used any kind of board. It was all in our imagination, with an occasionally scribbled map for visual reference. Now, I can't even imagine trying to play 4e without a board. 4e really does seem to be a glorified version of the D&D miniatures game. Where's the social abilities? Where's any sense of roleplaying beyond naming your character?

And while I understand that any game must try to balance realism vs playability in its own way, 4e has pretty much abandoned any sense of reality at all. Hit points are now a complete abstraction that seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with a character's actual physical condition. Characters can spontaneously heal themselves every fight without magic. "Martial" characters, even at 1st level, can do very magical things (like causing their arrows to duplicate mid flight). Why even have different power sources when they all effectively do the same thing - magic? The difference seems to be nothing more than fluff.

And from a mechanical standpoint, I'm already very unhappy about alot of the things I've seen. Dex bonus to damage on ranged attacks? Con or Str for fortitude saves, Cha or Will for Will saves? Why should a ranger even bother getting Strength at all anymore? Why should a Warlock get wisdom? Heck, why should anyone but a Wizard get intelligence at all? Instead of resolving the "dump" attribute problem, they've compounded it, making it far easier to simply ignore the attributes that don't go with your cookie-cutter class. This is, to me, a leap in the wrong direction.

And skills? I absolutely hate the dumbed-down, 1/2 level to everything SWSE style skills. I'm not happy at all to see that system being used in 4e. I was never a great fan of 3e's skills, but the only real problem with them was that the skills were too narrow and characters got far too few skill points. But again, I think they went in the wrong direction here. Every character automatically gains ranks in EVERY skill as they level, even skills that make absolutely no sense for the class or character to have? The 20th level desert ranger is better at swimming than a 1st level islander? Really? And not only that, you have to take a feat to train in a skill after 1st level? If I do end up playing 4e, the skills will be the very first thing I houserule. I just hope that mechanic isn't so ingrained in the system that it would be nigh impossible to change it.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 1, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And identically accurate as well.



Or it could be identically accurate to the screeds of 2e (which were different only in that mass internet hype part wasn't there). 

There have been plenty of long discussions already about the fundamental differences between what happened at the time of 3E and what is happening there.  Trying to whitewash everything as just a repeat might be a comfortable blurb, but it doesn't make it so.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 1, 2008)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> To be honest, D&D hasn't had this since the very beginning.
> 
> HP and the fact that a dagger strike at 1st level can kill while at 10th level it's but a mere scratch?
> 
> ...



You post makes me think you don't actually know what the word really means.
If you add "4E" to your last sentence, then yeah, you are right.
But if you are claiming that it applies to what I've been doing in recent years, then you simply have no idea what you have been missing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 1, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Actually, it's not. 3e had some very sketchy, but very key role-playing rules built into it. Part of that was the skill system (which 4e seems to be keeping but developing a little bit further). Part of that was the NPC system (which 4e is totally scrapping). Part of that was the monster system (which 4e is totally scrapping). Part of that was the system of spells and powers (which 4e is reimagining). Part of that was the system of treasures and rewards (which 4e is reimagining).
> 
> The Storyteller system has rules for morality.
> 
> ...



It's not roleplaying to roll your "Perform (Exotic Dance)" skill. It is role-playing to decide to use it, to describe what your character wants to dance. That is the "real" roleplaying part.

Does it become more role-playing if you can dance an exotic dance and use your "per dance" power "Stunning Jump" that causes the audience to take 1d6+CHA points of impression damage?

I agree that such skills should exist in a game, and that the rules should work for it. But it makes little sense in making the rules more complex for them and pretending that means you have more role-playing now. You have just using people using a different part of your game system more. (I'd say it's okay to want making the rules for them more complex - if that makes the game mechanically more interesting. But I'd say that from all mechanical systems, combat systems are probably the most useful for a game that is played with multiple players that want to share the _mechanical_ game experience)


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Mar 1, 2008)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken, early editions didn't even *have* rules for any kind of social encounters or even skills really. I guess there was some table for a 'background' thing like Carpenter or Farmer, but NWPs weren't introduced for a while.
> 
> Yet, somehow, people managed to -*gasp*- roleplay.
> 
> I really do see the fallacy of "The more structured a game's combat mechanics are the worse the RP is going to be".  That just doesn't wash.  Not one bit.




I concur. Logically, poor combat rules =/= good roleplaying, nor do good combat rules = bad roleplaying. And there's little objective evidence that 1st edition was anything but a tactical wargame with a lot of horrendously mismatched rules. Heck, it was a long time before 1st edition AD&D even acknowledged that anything outside the dungeon existed, other than as a vague place you went to sell your loot, and once outside stuff did appear, it was mostly charts for overland travel rates, IIRC, and how frequently you should roll for random combat encounters.   

If combat rules were contrary to roleplaying, then the most successful roleplaying game would simply consist of role-playing rules and would have a combat system that consisted of "high roll wins." Except that then, people would complain about the RPG rules interfering with their roleplaying.

Personally, I've always run campaigns that are probably 80-90% roleplaying, and 10-20% combat. But it's nice to know that the combat portions of my games will no longer be the tedious slugfests that they have always been before in D&D. I bought Bo9S and loved the maneuvers in it, but they only served to make two types interesting in combat -- fighter types and wizard types. Now, it finally looks like rogues and rangers -- in fact, every class -- are going to be able to use maneuvers that will add some interest to the "I hit, I miss, I hit, I miss" b.s. that combat used to consist of. 

Oh, yes, and maybe fights will be memorable. "Hey, do you remember that time Fred the Fierce shoved the evil overlord backwards into his own trap using his tide of iron .... " After all, who remembers, "I hit the evil overlord. I missed the evil overlord. I hit the evil overlord. I missed the evil overlord." And that will add to the roleplaying richness of the situation -- after all, warriors' tales of their exploits really* are * part of who they are!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 1, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Or it could be identically accurate to the screeds of 2e (which were different only in that mass internet hype part wasn't there).
> 
> There have been plenty of long discussions already about the fundamental differences between what happened at the time of 3E and what is happening there.  Trying to whitewash everything as just a repeat might be a comfortable blurb, but it doesn't make it so.




And blowing off comments comparing the similarities between the rants over 3e and 4e is equally comforting I'm sure.

Are you honestly saying that you NEVER saw anyone talk about 3e as being too much of a board game, taking away too much creative power from the DM and too difficult to "truly" role play in?  Gimme a break.

Heck, you yourself are guilty of claiming that "truly creative" DM's won't play 4e.


----------



## Delta (Mar 1, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> Heck, it was a long time before 1st edition AD&D even acknowledged that anything outside the dungeon existed, other than as a vague place you went to sell your loot, and once outside stuff did appear, it was mostly charts for overland travel rates, IIRC, and how frequently you should roll for random combat encounters.




You might have to clarify what you mean by "a long time". The original OD&D boxed set had rules for dungeons, wilderness, ships, and castles all in the same volume. The 1E DMG expanded on all the same stuff. I see a lot less of that in 3E/4E materials.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 1, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> You might have to clarify what you mean by "a long time". The original OD&D boxed set had rules for dungeons, wilderness, ships, and castles all in the same volume. The 1E DMG expanded on all the same stuff. I see a lot less of that in 3E/4E materials.




Sort of.

The 1e DMG had a whole bunch of random tables for dealing with what monsters you'd meet if you wandered around.  It had random tables to determine the lay of the land as well, if you wanted to go exploring.

What it didn't really have was a whole lot of reason to actually go out there.  The focus was certainly the dungeon.  While there may have been extra stuff, it's not a stretch to say that 1e focused on the dungeon.  Heck, the whole "back to the dungeon" schtick of 3e was based entirely on that idea.

So, saying that 1e was primarily focused on dungeon crawls and combat isn't really a large stretch.  Until pretty late in 1e, with Dragonlance and the Wilderness Survival Guide, you don't get a whole of of emphasis anywhere else in the published material.

Now, what you did around your table is a whole 'nother story.


----------



## Branduil (Mar 1, 2008)

I don't understand why people are acting like HP being abstract is a new thing.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Mar 1, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> You might have to clarify what you mean by "a long time". The original OD&D boxed set had rules for dungeons, wilderness, ships, and castles all in the same volume. The 1E DMG expanded on all the same stuff. I see a lot less of that in 3E/4E materials.




Well, if rules for wilderness means --

-- overland travel speeds and tables showing random combat encounters;

If rules for ships means --

-- a list of gold piece costs and some sort of tactical wargame rules for them ramming each other;

And if rules for castles means --

-- how many cubic feet of mud, hard soil, soft stone, and hard stone that gnome, gnoll, ogre, etc. sappers can excavate in a day or week; 

-- all using different rulesets for what were basically tactical minigames, then I agree with you, and our memory corresponds. 

So the lack of these clumsy and never-used tactical minigames somehow reduces the *role-playing* validity of 3e and 4e? I don't agree with that.


----------



## Ovinnik (Mar 1, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> 4e really does seem to be a glorified version of the D&D miniatures game. Where's the social abilities? Where's any sense of roleplaying beyond naming your character?




We haven't seen all the powers, nor the feats (I expect more social feats than powers) nor have we seen the 'social combat system' which has been promised (and, based on the most recent podcast, sounds a lot like Exalted's social combat system).  Just adding some kind of decent social conflict system puts 4e one big step up from any other edition, which had pretty much nothing.



			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> And while I understand that any game must try to balance realism vs playability in its own way, 4e has pretty much abandoned any sense of reality at all. Hit points are now a complete abstraction that seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with a character's actual physical condition. Characters can spontaneously heal themselves every fight without magic. "Martial" characters, even at 1st level, can do very magical things (like causing their arrows to duplicate mid flight). Why even have different power sources when they all effectively do the same thing - magic? The difference seems to be nothing more than fluff.




D&D has always had a complete abstraction of HP.  Always.  When a high level character can leap off a cliff, land on a pile of sharp rocks, and then get up and walk away with no _serious_ injuries (not below 1/2 HP, no broken legs or other crippling wounds), then the system is pretty abstract.  The 'self healing' is just the evolution of that abstraction.  If HP is more than just physical toughness, why can't someone get a heroic burst of energy at just the right moment?  See it often enough in movies, read it often enough in books.

And the ranger's arrows don't duplicate in mid-flight, he/she fires two arrows which separate and hit two targets (who have to be near each other).  That's not even all _that_ hard to believe, all things considered.  And none of the other martial exploits we've seen so far are obviously magical, just cinematic.  Its another thing we've seen in movies and/or books, and no one yelled "OMG MAGIC!" then.


----------



## helium3 (Mar 1, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Were they also that way in OD&D? I was under the impression they used feet or yards, and that AD&D 1st was actually a change from that.




And D&D evolved out of war-games set in the medieval period, right? So, D&D started off moving away from the battlemat and now it's moving back. It's the natural progression of things I'd imagine. I suspect the next iteration will be just as or slightly more battlemat centric, and that by sixth edition or so the pendulum will be swinging back towards less reliance on it.


----------



## Grog (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> But if you have creatures who die if they take ANY damage, you have to ask how any of them survived their childhoods to face the PCs. Or at least *I* have to ask this. Because I ask these things.



Did you ask the same question about all the 1HP kobolds, goblins, and orcs back in 1st edition and/or Basic D&D?


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Mar 1, 2008)

Uh huh. Everyone would do well to consider the differences in the state of 2e when 3e came out and 3.5e  now that 4e is coming out. 2e needed a rulebook of houserules to be playable. 3.5 is still quite playable without more than a page or two of house rules. The 4th edition transition is driven by economics rather than the system being played out.

That, in itself should be enough reason to consider that some of the criticisms that didn't hit the mark against 3e could be on the mark about 4th. They're different games.

People would also do well to consider that there have actually been a number of games where new editions were in fact not as good as their predecessors. Some argue that 2nd edition D&D was such a game. Though I didn't play them, there are some much-hated editions of Cyberpunk and Shadowrun IIRC. And leaving the pen and paper realm, Ultima IX and Master of Orion III were actually every bit as dreadful as their predecessors were good. Ditto for the X-Com sequels which fell away from the glory of the original just like the Matrix movies failed to live up to their promise.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> And blowing off comments comparing the similarities between the rants over 3e and 4e is equally comforting I'm sure.
> 
> Are you honestly saying that you NEVER saw anyone talk about 3e as being too much of a board game, taking away too much creative power from the DM and too difficult to "truly" role play in?  Gimme a break.
> 
> Heck, you yourself are guilty of claiming that "truly creative" DM's won't play 4e.


----------



## helium3 (Mar 1, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Science Fiction, has been on life support for so long




Science Fiction is on life support?


----------



## Zelc (Mar 1, 2008)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Uh huh. Everyone would do well to consider the differences in the state of 2e when 3e came out and 3.5e  now that 4e is coming out. 2e needed a rulebook of houserules to be playable. 3.5 is still quite playable without more than a page or two of house rules. The 4th edition transition is driven by economics rather than the system being played out.



You were doing well until that last sentence.  Just because 3.5e is playable without too many houserules does not mean it does not have serious flaws, or that the release of a better ruleset is solely an economic decision.  I see a TON of improvements to the game being made in 4e that I think will make for a better playing experience.


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 1, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Science Fiction is on life support?




Well technically they are bacta tanks.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 1, 2008)

> It's not roleplaying to roll your "Perform (Exotic Dance)" skill. It is role-playing to decide to use it, to describe what your character wants to dance. That is the "real" roleplaying part.




Why d'you say that?

See, playing a role is what it means to put your mind in the frame of another being and act as if that being were to act. 

In a role-playing game, your actions in that role require you to play a game to resolve in the world. A game using rules. 

In D&D, this means rolling dice.

Rolling for a Perform (Exotic Dance) skill or for a Morality check, or taking damage because of an alignment...

All of these are the very essence of a Role Playing Game. 

Without the game, without the dice roles or the rules, you're just role-playing. Which is fun, but definitely not what I'm playing D&D for. 



> Does it become more role-playing if you can dance an exotic dance and use your "per dance" power "Stunning Jump" that causes the audience to take 1d6+CHA points of impression damage?




Sure. It means that the role that you play affects the world by giving the spectators an impression. If that impression damage makes them more likely to, I duno, give you money, then the game models playing the role of a dancer who persuades his audience to tip him. This makes sense in the context of the role of a performer, so it helps you play your role better. 



> I agree that such skills should exist in a game, and that the rules should work for it. But it makes little sense in making the rules more complex for them and pretending that means you have more role-playing now. You have just using people using a different part of your game system more. (I'd say it's okay to want making the rules for them more complex - if that makes the game mechanically more interesting. But I'd say that from all mechanical systems, combat systems are probably the most useful for a game that is played with multiple players that want to share the mechanical game experience)




The idea that mechanics aren't role-playing (and vice-versa) is a wildly inaccurate and false idea. In a role-playing game, mechanics are the only way you truly _play_ your role in both senses of the word (that you are playing a game and playing a role at the same time).


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 1, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> And skills? I absolutely hate the dumbed-down, 1/2 level to everything SWSE style skills. I'm not happy at all to see that system being used in 4e. I was never a great fan of 3e's skills, but the only real problem with them was that the skills were too narrow and characters got far too few skill points. But again, I think they went in the wrong direction here. Every character automatically gains ranks in EVERY skill as they level, even skills that make absolutely no sense for the class or character to have? The 20th level desert ranger is better at swimming than a 1st level islander? Really? And not only that, you have to take a feat to train in a skill after 1st level? If I do end up playing 4e, the skills will be the very first thing I houserule. I just hope that mechanic isn't so ingrained in the system that it would be nigh impossible to change it.




This is the one criticsm I disagree with quite strongly. A lot of people seem to focus on the outlying case (a.k.a 20th level Athasian fighter better at swimming/crafting than a 1st level islander basketweaver) but I prefer to look at the general case (namely, the REST of the skills).

The SWSE skill system IMO captures not only "realistic" skill acquisition but it works better for the game as well.

Looking at the 3.5 list, the ONLY skills I think a "normal adventurer" (a.k.a one that doesn't adventure in a non-standard D&D world, say an Athasian PC) doesn't get better at naturally would be the Craft/Profession skills.

Look at the skills.

Appraise - You've been stealing/confiscating how many gems/paintings/diamonds since 1st level? Hell, IIRC, in one of the latter Conan novels, pre-King Conan, Conan tries to fence a gem from his latest adventure and the fencer tries to stiff Conan. Conan laughs in his face and simply points out all the characteristics and flaws of the ruby and it makes sense given HOW many gems/precious objects have passed through his hands. Even Conan at the end was knowledge about spellcraft.

Use Rope - You mean to tell me that a wizard at 20th level who has been hogtied/camped/been adventuring/tying up people for 20 levels now is NOT naturally going to be better at Use Rope than he was at 1st level?

The examples I listed were for non-class skills and even moreso WITH class skills (Paladin that doesn't know jack about the planes etc).

For an Athasian campaign, my houserule would simply be "Swim isn't available as a skill".


----------



## Bandreus (Mar 1, 2008)

gosh, we're getting to pretty useless thoughts here...
Just say this, for a good RPG game you only trully need a good GM and some good Players, it's just that, really.


----------



## Stoat (Mar 1, 2008)

I'm confused.  I thought 4E was going to be too _videogamey_.  Now it turns out its too _boardgamey_?  

Tell me its at least some kinda of anime boardgame.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 1, 2008)

Bandreus said:
			
		

> gosh, we're getting to pretty useless thoughts here...
> Just say this, for a good RPG game you only trully need a good GM and some good Players, it's just that, really.




Just in case you may forget, I am explaining why I won't change from 3.X.  

Hense, the claim, "for a good RPG game you only trully need a good GM and some good Players", if I were to accept it as true would not in any fashion lead me to accept the alternate proposal, "I should switch from my existing system."  In fact, if it were true, it would be a very strong argument for not switching from a system to any other.

Be careful about calling other people's thoughts useless.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 1, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This is the one criticsm I disagree with quite strongly. A lot of people seem to focus on the outlying case (a.k.a 20th level Athasian fighter better at swimming/crafting than a 1st level islander basketweaver) but I prefer to look at the general case (namely, the REST of the skills).
> 
> The SWSE skill system IMO captures not only "realistic" skill acquisition but it works better for the game as well.




One of my favorite all time mechanics is the method of skill improvement in Chaosium Call of Cthulu.  You can only improve those skills you actually use, and the more you improve the harder it is to continue improving.  It's one of the most elegant if not the most elegant experience systems ever devised.  And, despite your argument, the skill system in 4E is nothing like it.

The problem with your argument is that the 'edge case' is generally more common than the non-edge case.  That is its generally more likely that from 1st to 20th level, in most DM's campaigns, the player character would not have used the skills that are mysteriously improving than it is that they would have made alot of use of them.  In particular, skills like 'use rope' and 'appraisal' that you are using as examples, most proponents of 4E would also say are 'useless' skills that almost never came up in play.  How many swim checks are the characters really making between 1st and 20th level in most DM's campaigns if you play 3.X according to the style assumed by the core books?

I won't tell you that a 20th level wizard who has been hogtied/camped/been adventuring/tying up people repeatedly over a 20 year long adventuring career is NOT naturally going to be better at Use Rope than he was at 1st level.  I will tell you that most 20th level wizards in 3.X haven't been using alot of rope and haven't been making alot of 'Use Rope' skill checks, and hense won't have any cause to be skilled in 'Use Rope'.  If in fact, the 20th level wizard had been repeatedly using rope where the results of the check mattered, thier player probably would have invested some skill points in 'Use Rope'.  Players invest skill points only in the areas that they think they are going to use, and if they have cause to believe that its important thier characters will get better at that skill.  

Similarly, the career of your average 3.X character doesn't look anything like the career of Conan, and the career of your average 4E character is going to look even less like the career of Conan.  I don't think that there is any evidence that 4E is aiming for some sort of Conan versimilitude.  It's not an exageration to say that you can go from 1st to 30th level in about 3 weeks of game time in 4E.  How is that enough time to become broadly skilled at everything?

At its heart, the whole argument is disingenious.  You can read the 4E rules and quite easily see that the primary reason for adopting changes to the rules was not attempting to be more realistic.  You can argue over whether or not this is a good thing.  You are quite free to believe that 4E benefits from the lack of realism.  However, if you believe that, don't hypocritically preach to me about how much more realistic the rules are.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 1, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Did you ask the same question about all the 1HP kobolds, goblins, and orcs back in 1st edition and/or Basic D&D?




Back when I played those games, I tended not to think about such things.

3e's 4hp kobolds(+not dead until -10) were much more survivable, but could still be killed by a single weapon attack, like its commoners. (Cat attacks not withstanding.)

Actually, the greatly buffed HPs of 4e makes modeling children and the like more viable. In 3e, a child basically had 1-2 HP, making them amazingly fragile creatures, yet still half as tough as their parents.


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 1, 2008)

techno said:
			
		

> I agree with Celebrim's comments. The "resting six hours cures all injuries" thing really bothers me. It reminds me of hitting the Rest button in Neverwinter Nights.




Yep. This one definitely gets house-ruled in my game.


----------



## Hathorym (Mar 1, 2008)

Maybe I'm missing something about the argument in this thread, but we have only seen the combat rules for the system, and then a narrow view of even that.  Who is to say, (as was implied in part 2 of manawyrm's post) that there isn't a more robust system for other situations that occur in gaming, outside of combat?  It appears to me that there's more cart before the horse reaction here, rather than any consideration of things we have yet to see.


----------



## Derren (Mar 1, 2008)

Imo it does not matter how the out of combat system is. The combat rules throw out believability in favor a streamlined (imo too streamlined) combat. Examples are 6 hour instant heals, Cuthulu geography and 50/50 saves. That puts a big dent into believability which is quite important for some people when they want to roleplay. The world should feel real, even with its fantastic inhabitants.
And please don't come with "3E also had such rules". 3E did indeed have such rules but a lot less than 4E. 3E not being perfect does not mean that 4E can throw believability out of the window.

To counter that the out of combat rules must be really great, but thanks to the consolidated skills and the "PCs can do everything automatically" skill system I doubt that is the case.
Such things are good for a board game, but not so good for a immersive RPG.


----------



## Jhulae (Mar 1, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> But if you have creatures who die if they take ANY damage, you have to ask how any of them survived their childhoods to face the PCs. Or at least *I* have to ask this. Because I ask these things.




So, how did you explain away low level critters and 0 level commoners in OD&D, AD&D 1st, AD&D 2nd, and BECMI surviving cat scratches (because a cat scratch could kill them in those edititons).  How did you explain away 1st level commoners and experts surviving cat scratches in 3rd edition (again, because a cat scratch could kill them there, too)?

I honestly don't see an issue.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 1, 2008)

Just use HP = constitution for them whenever they are faced alone. The die when hit, is just convenience so that you don´t have to track down 357 different hps.

What may actually work quite good would be: they are dead if you deal more than their constitution score, otherwise they are bloodied on first hit and die if you hit them a second time.


----------



## Hathorym (Mar 1, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 3E not being perfect does not mean that 4E can throw believability out of the window.



You realize, of course, that you are demanding 'believability' in a fantasy role playing game?  To me, it seems as if you are attempting to justify your decision to dislike 4e based on a portion of the game, rather than wait and turn a critical eye to its entirety.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 1, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Such things are good for a board game, but not so good for a immersive RPG.




I agree.  I think this means that 4e isn't going to be as useful for all play styles as 3e was.  Is this a good design decision or not?  Only time (and sales) will tell.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 1, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Yep. This one definitely gets house-ruled in my game.




Normally with a new game system I'm spending alot of time doing house rules.  With 4E, I can't get up the motivation.  

However, I think that the six hour resting day could probably be 'fixed' by deciding what percentage of hp represented actual injury (say 33%) and counting this as 'vitality points' or something else.  'Vitality Points' would differ from 'hit points' in that the could not be healed by the characters own healing surges.  Thus, if you got took down below 33%, some percentage of your hitpoints would not come back immediately without magical aid.

You might also limit the rate at which healing surges were restored, but the problem there is with 4E's emphasis on starting every encounter at nearly 100% you'd have to do some rebalancing.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 2, 2008)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> So, how did you explain away low level critters and 0 level commoners in OD&D, AD&D 1st, AD&D 2nd, and BECMI surviving cat scratches (because a cat scratch could kill them in those edititons).  How did you explain away 1st level commoners and experts surviving cat scratches in 3rd edition (again, because a cat scratch could kill them there, too)?
> 
> I honestly don't see an issue.




The issue is 'a cat scratch could kill many humans' was a nagging flaw in 1st edition which together with various similar nagging flaws ended up driving many of us away from D&D towards other systems.  Bringing up past flaws in no way defends current ones.  Remember, if you are taking the contrary position in this thread, then presumably you are arguing against my reason for not switching.  Saying that 4E is at best just as bad is not an argument for switching to 4E.  But more than that, the issue is that clearly to the designers of 4E, these sorts of problems were non-issues, and as such they've designed an edition with more of these (to me) nagging flaws rather than fewer.

Now, you obviously agree with the 4E.  Great.  Have fun with 4E.

As for how I explained it away in 3E?  I changed the rules regarding the minimum damage for a weapon such that cats rarely do even a single point of damage.  Between that and the fact that medium sized creatures don't die until -10 hit points, and that in general, most of the time a cat is scratching it's owner it's merely issuing a warning (that is, it is deliberately dealing non-lethal damage) allows the problem to be less of a problem.  (I changed the rules for 1E to, but the mechanic I came up with was highly inelegant.)

As for why you should care about an edge case like a 0-level human fighting a house cat, it is because the edge case is itself merely an exageration of the problem of a house cat interacting with a PC.  If the interaction between house cats and commoners is obviously broken, it implies that the interaction between house cats and armored guys with swords is also broken, just in a less obvious way.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Mar 2, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Imo it does not matter how the out of combat system is. The combat rules throw out believability in favor a streamlined (imo too streamlined) combat. Examples are 6 hour instant heals, Cuthulu geography and 50/50 saves. That puts a big dent into believability which is quite important for some people when they want to roleplay. The world should feel real, even with its fantastic inhabitants.
> And please don't come with "3E also had such rules". 3E did indeed have such rules but a lot less than 4E. 3E not being perfect does not mean that 4E can throw believability out of the window.
> 
> To counter that the out of combat rules must be really great, but thanks to the consolidated skills and the "PCs can do everything automatically" skill system I doubt that is the case.
> Such things are good for a board game, but not so good for a immersive RPG.




Do you mean to say that it's more "believable" in some way that hit points become larger as you rise in level because someone can eventually take the physical damage of 10 or more killing blows with a longsword and not die? And then you wait overnight, rather than 6 hours, so that your priest can heal you?   

The fact that you can recover hit points faster makes it seem MORE believable to me.  This implies that hit points are NOT the physical meat that you're made out of increasing its density over time, but your ability to survive additional attacks in every sense. In other words, if hit points are both physical condition AND combat readiness, then recovering them makes sense. If it's just that you get the ability to take a billion hits with a sword and not die, then that's hardly increasing the game's "believability," IMO. Quite the opposite.

In other words, has someone who's take 95 out of 100 hit points damage REALLY been cut in half 12 or 13 times, yet somehow kept fighting? Or are they just so battered, exhausted, and generally beaten up that they aren't going to be able to deflect or avoid that final, wounding strike which they could have parried with ease earlier? I prefer the second, and being able to recover your hit points underlines the fact that they aren't cuts in your basic meat. After 6 hours, you should be fighting fit again if you haven't received more than scratches and bruises. 

I'm not even sure what "Cuthulu geography" is, so I'm not going to comment on that one.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 2, 2008)

Ovinnik said:
			
		

> D&D has always had a complete abstraction of HP.  Always.




I'm aware of that. It's always been something about D&D that I have disliked, but 4e is taking it to a ridiculous extreme.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> This is the one criticsm I disagree with quite strongly. A lot of people seem to focus on the outlying case (a.k.a 20th level Athasian fighter better at swimming/crafting than a 1st level islander basketweaver) but I prefer to look at the general case (namely, the REST of the skills).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## helium3 (Mar 2, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I agree.  I think this means that 4e isn't going to be as useful for all play styles as 3e was.  Is this a good design decision or not?  Only time (and sales) will tell.




I think it's great. A lot of what people dislike about D&D comes from it trying to be everything to everyone.


----------



## Imp (Mar 2, 2008)

And a lot of what BRINGS people to the game is how much you can make it what you like.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 2, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> Do you mean to say that it's more "believable" in some way that hit points become larger as you rise in level because someone can eventually take the physical damage of 10 or more killing blows with a longsword and not die? And then you wait overnight, rather than 6 hours, so that your priest can heal you?
> 
> The fact that you can recover hit points faster makes it seem MORE believable to me.  This implies that hit points are NOT the physical meat that you're made out of increasing its density over time, but your ability to survive additional attacks in every sense. In other words, if hit points are both physical condition AND combat readiness, then recovering them makes sense. If it's just that you get the ability to take a billion hits with a sword and not die, then that's hardly increasing the game's "believability," IMO. Quite the opposite.
> 
> In other words, has someone who's take 95 out of 100 hit points damage REALLY been cut in half 12 or 13 times, yet somehow kept fighting? Or are they just so battered, exhausted, and generally beaten up that they aren't going to be able to deflect or avoid that final, wounding strike which they could have parried with ease earlier? I prefer the second, and being able to recover your hit points underlines the fact that they aren't cuts in your basic meat. After 6 hours, you should be fighting fit again if you haven't received more than scratches and bruises.




This whole rant could have been avoided had you simply read the 1st edition DMG when the justification for hit points was laid out.  Hit points have always been both your ability to sustain physical damage and other intangible factors.  However, the outcome of that assumption is not what you think it is.

Moreover, I think you miss the point.  The problem isn't that hit points are abstract, since everyone knows that they always have been.  Hardly anyone that cares to play D&D is worried about abstract wounds.  If they were, they would move to a system that uses hit locations and/or actual injuries of some form rather than having hit points.  The root of the complaint is that in 4E they are 100% abstract rather than being merely 60% or 80% or whatever.  It's not merely that injuries are abstract.  It's that in 4E, there is no such thing as a non-lethal injury at all - abstract or otherwise.  Per the mechanics, all wounds are either superficial or else lethal.  I think that is what people are objecting to.


----------



## outsider (Mar 2, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But design a campaign world with 4E?  It seems kinda ridiculous.  All the sudden the venerable gentlemen in my campaign world with 3 Str, 3 Dex, 3 Con, 18 Int, 18 Wis, and 18 Chr are all Cohen the Barbarian




How many people are there like this in your world, really?  I've never read anything about Cohen the Barbarian, but we've seen nothing to indicate that those stats would give any sort of physical offensive capability.  About all we know is that these guys would have a good will save(totally reasonable), and a good reflex save(a bit odd, yes).




			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> intelligence is only really useful if you are a librarian




Or if you want a good reflex save and intelligence is more appropriate to your character than dexterity.  Also, just because we haven't yet seen any other globally useful advantages to int, it doesn't mean there aren't any.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> six hours rest cures all evils




Does six hours rest remove all negative effects, or does it just cure hitpoint damage?  I'm curious about this, as I've been busy with work, and the "6 hour cures all" thing is something I've heard of, but haven't had time to research yet.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> every trained fighter is a supernatural force




What is supernatural about:
You hit one enemy, then cleave into another
With each mighty swing you bring your shield to bear and use it to push your enemy back
You strike at one foe and let your momentum carry you into a second strike against a second foe
or
You shatter armor and bone with a ringing blow?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> and children can reasonably allowed to play with sharp objects because it takes overwhelming force to do more damage to someone than can be healed in 5 minutes.  Sure, I can ignore that by just saying that none of the rules apply to anyone who isn't a PC, but then welcome to the world of unlimited DM fiat.




Is it DM fiat if the book explicity tells you that some specific rules are meant to be applied to pcs only?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> And contrary to some claims, DM fiat is just a headache even for the DM.  It's alot less work having some rules to help you make decisions.




Agreed.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 2, 2008)

outsider said:
			
		

> Or if you want a good reflex save and intelligence is more appropriate to your character than dexterity.  Also, just because we haven't yet seen any other globally useful advantages to int, it doesn't mean there aren't any.




Relying on the old "people will just nerf themselves happily " argument is pretty weak. Because we all know it's not true. Most people will either not nerf themselves, or nerf themselves and be permanently low-level-annoyed about it. That we've seen no advantages to Int does indeed not necessarily mean there aren't any. It just means the odds that there are any are staggeringly low.



			
				outsider said:
			
		

> Does six hours rest remove all negative effects, or does it just cure hitpoint damage?  I'm curious about this, as I've been busy with work, and the "6 hour cures all" thing is something I've heard of, but haven't had time to research yet.




We've seen 0 negative effects that last beyond combat (except by depleting resources, which you could argue is that). I mean, not a single one (unless you call outright death a "negative effect"), and as 6 hours regens every single "resource" you have exception Action Points (which it sets to 1), then yeah, actually that is a perfect cure. I like it, some loathe it, but it's certainly the case. I do find the lack of long-term negative effects somewhat concerning.



			
				outsider said:
			
		

> What is supernatural about:
> You hit one enemy, then cleave into another
> With each mighty swing you bring your shield to bear and use it to push your enemy back
> You strike at one foe and let your momentum carry you into a second strike against a second foe
> ...




What's the non-supernatural explanation for hitting an Iron Golem once, then when it's moved into another room, you're still applying a -2 to all it's attacks? What's the non-supernatural explanation for marks overwriting each other?



			
				outsider said:
			
		

> Is it DM fiat if the book explicity tells you that some specific rules are meant to be applied to pcs only?




Indeed not, but it can make a game unplayable as anything but a combat game. Whether this is true of 4E remains to be seen, imho.


----------



## helium3 (Mar 2, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> What's the non-supernatural explanation for marks overwriting each other?




Because if they didn't it would be broken?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 2, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Because if they didn't it would be broken?




That's exactly my point. It's *blatant* game-rules-comes-first-ism, the kind the damages suspension of disbelief _for a lot of people_ (not everyone, to be double-ly clear).

My thinking is that if you have to have an ability in the game, it needs a rational in-game explanation, or it shouldn't be in the game. Obviously that's not a philosophy at play here.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Mar 2, 2008)

This has been an interesting read.

Lots of people are saying there will be less RP in 4E - based on how many games that the person making their claim has played of 4E? Because those who have played seem to be reporting more fun and more RP. I certainly see nothing about 4E that will lead my players to do less RP, in fact I'm thinking of pursuing a group for the purpose of getting more RP done because I think 4E will be better for it.

Mostly I think lots of people are over obsessing about the terms used - I played through most of 3.X without using the battlemat, nothing I see in the 4E character sheets shown or the Rogue rules previewed  suggests that I will not be able to do the same in 4E. They do suggest that like in 3.X it will be easier in 4E if I do use the battlemat though.

I think the 4E rules are going to be the best DnD ruleset to date for making a high action adventure game - which is great because that's the reason I play DnD for the High Fantasy Sword and Sorcery stuff.

In other words for me the reasons I see people saying "I'm not changing" seem to be the reasons my players are anxious to change. I guess time will tell how many people don't change.


----------



## helium3 (Mar 2, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> That's exactly my point. It's *blatant* game-rules-comes-first-ism, the kind the damages suspension of disbelief _for a lot of people_ (not everyone, to be double-ly clear).
> 
> My thinking is that if you have to have an ability in the game, it needs a rational in-game explanation, or it shouldn't be in the game. Obviously that's not a philosophy at play here.




Right. See, this is why I keep saying that I think it's a good thing that D&D stops trying to be all things for multiple play styles.

Some people care. Some people don't. Some care but don't care enough.

By being more solidly in one camp over another, it frees the people that care to seriously consider finding a different game to play.

I just think that's a good thing. I'm tired of D&D as a "Big Tent."


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 2, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I just think that's a good thing. I'm tired of D&D as a "Big Tent."




Fair enough, at least I understand that opinion. I just think this sort of thing isn't actually likely to grow D&D's base, and it irks me personally because I like so much about 4E, but I can also see scads more I'll have to alter or house-rule or find alternate rules for than in previous editions, and honestly I hate doing that. It's not fun for me.

And no-one will ever suggest a game that would be more suitable for what I want, it seems they always dodge the question. Oh well. I sure as hell can't go back to 3E after seeing the fruits of 4E. I can't go back to Spellbot 3000 after seeing Harry Dresden Wizard.


----------



## outsider (Mar 2, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Relying on the old "people will just nerf themselves happily " argument is pretty weak. Because we all know it's not true. Most people will either not nerf themselves, or nerf themselves and be permanently low-level-annoyed about it. That we've seen no advantages to Int does indeed not necessarily mean there aren't any. It just means the odds that there are any are staggeringly low.




You are assuming that Dex is mechanically superior to Int in 4e.  What does Dex add to in 3e?  Reflex save, AC, missile attack bonus, initiative, and some skills.  Int now adds to Reflex and some say it adds to AC as well.  To hit bonuses are typically derived from your class's prime attributes in 4e.  That leaves initiative as it's only advantage over Int, as I'm sure some skills will be modified by Int.  Are we even sure that Dex still affects inititative at this point?  Do we know that Int didn't get any sort of bonus to replace the bonus skills it lost from 3e?





			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> We've seen 0 negative effects that last beyond combat (except by depleting resources, which you could argue is that). I mean, not a single one (unless you call outright death a "negative effect"), and as 6 hours regens every single "resource" you have exception Action Points (which it sets to 1), then yeah, actually that is a perfect cure. I like it, some loathe it, but it's certainly the case. I do find the lack of long-term negative effects somewhat concerning.




Agreed.  I don't mind a full hp recover in 6 hours, as  I don't think hp is a terribly good mechanic to represent long term injury.  I'd find it a little odd myself if there's no long term(but not incurable) negative effects in the game.  Wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me though.




			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> What's the non-supernatural explanation for hitting an Iron Golem once, then when it's moved into another room, you're still applying a -2 to all it's attacks?




Do we know that breaking line of effect doesn't break a mark as well?



			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> What's the non-supernatural explanation for marks overwriting each other?




That would depend on the mark, I think.  A fighter's mark may be a "distraction" type power.  He's doing something to draw the monster's attention.  If somebody else marks it, then presumably the monster starts paying attention to the new marking guy, rather than the original, thus negating the original's bonus.




			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Indeed not, but it can make a game unplayable as anything but a combat game. Whether this is true of 4E remains to be seen, imho.




D&D has -always- been a combat game.  If combat isn't a primary focus of your game, why are you using the D&D rules?  You can do more with D&D than combat of course.  It just seems a little odd to use D&D if you don't intend to get into alot of combat.  Also, if you don't use combat in the game, why exactly does it matter that pcs have combat advantages over npcs?


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 2, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> And no-one will ever suggest a game that would be more suitable for what I want, it seems they always dodge the question.




Make your own.

Before you think this is just a snide remark, let me explain. In the late 1990s, I became dissatisfied with both of the major games I was play: Vampire and D&D. D&D's system left me cold, while I didn't always like the real-world modern setting of Vampire. So, I did what any other amateur game designer who is frustrated with his options would do: I merged them. Using Vampire's system (along with bits stolen from other WoD games), I built myself a fantasy heartbreaker for me to run with my friends... and it worked beautifully. In fact, it worked so well, that when I brought one of the players from those games into my current group, he asked me when we were going to play PoD (the acronym for the game) again. I was more comfortable running my own homebrew, cobbled-together fantasy game than I have been running any other game system.

Sometimes, when you can't find a path you want to follow, you have to blaze your own.


----------



## themilkman (Mar 2, 2008)

outsider said:
			
		

> Do we know that breaking line of effect doesn't break a mark as well?




The GMs in my LFR preview games said that marks were only broken when the encounter ended, you used the same power to mark another creature, someone else marked the same creature, the creature died, or you died.  Even going unconscious or near-death was not enough to undo a mark.

Line of sight and line of effect were flagrantly broken by our cowardly (but tactically-clever) Paladin on multiple occasions, and the mark stayed in place.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Mar 2, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> It's that in 4E, there is no such thing as a non-lethal injury at all - abstract or otherwise.  Per the mechanics, all wounds are either superficial or else lethal.  I think that is what people are objecting to.



Exactly.  From what we know so far (I would stop using that language, but as soon as I do, someone will come back with "you haven't seen the whole system yet!"), there's absolutely no middle ground in 4E.  You can be knocked down to 1 HP away from death, and six hours later you are literally as good as new.  1 HP is the dividing line between "not hurt in the slightest" and "dead."

People can talk about abstract HP and compare this to previous editions all you want ... but this is new to 4E.  In previous editions, if you were 1 HP from death, you needed either magical healing or significant time to fully recover.  In 1E and 2E it could be weeks.  In 3E it was usually days.  As I said before, "days, good as new" I can accept; "six hours, good as new" I just can't.


----------



## outsider (Mar 2, 2008)

themilkman said:
			
		

> The GMs in my LFR preview games said that marks were only broken when the encounter ended, you used the same power to mark another creature, someone else marked the same creature, the creature died, or you died.  Even going unconscious or near-death was not enough to undo a mark.
> 
> Line of sight and line of effect were flagrantly broken by our cowardly (but tactically-clever) Paladin on multiple occasions, and the mark stayed in place.




Interesting.  I don't have a good in character explanation for that one.  Depends on the flavor they attach to marking though.  It's possible there's something I'm not thinking of.  It's also possible they just said "It just makes for a better game", which is good enough for me.


----------



## Baron Opal (Mar 2, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> One of the more defining things about characters isn't what they're good at, it's what they aren't. It encourages teamwork. It makes people cooperate to balance each other's shortcomings. But in a system like this one, where everyone will excel at every endeavor, that becomes much less important.




With my experience with SWSE, this is not the case. All heroic characters are competent in every skill and excel in a select few. Everyone can ford the stream, but only the swimmers can reach the wreck. Everyone has a chance to sneak past the bored guard, but only the rogues can slip inside the audience chamber.


----------



## Derro (Mar 2, 2008)

Hathorym said:
			
		

> *You realize, of course, that you are demanding 'believability' in a fantasy role playing game?*  To me, it seems as if you are attempting to justify your decision to dislike 4e based on a portion of the game, rather than wait and turn a critical eye to its entirety.



 (Emphasis mine)

Oh, man. 

Can't... breathe... choking... on... own... disbelief.

The demand for believability has nothing to do with the kind of game you are playing. The demand for believability has to do with what is plausible within the confines of the setting. If something breaks that plausibility it breaks the whole suspension of disbelief and ruins the game play experience.

To address the OP. I wouldn't be too concerned with the role-playing elements of the game being removed or having a reduced presence. Examine, if you will, the 3.x model of ruled role-playing. What do you have? Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Information, Intimidate, Perform, Sense Motive, and arguably Speak Language. Then there are feats and spells that improve or alter your results gained with these skills.

As far as I can see there are all of these things in one form or another in 4e. I imagine that the "social combat system" will have plenty of special abilities for talky rogues, uppity wizards and what have you.

I mean really the role-playing aspect of any games is little more than play acting anyway.

Ex:

Player: I threaten the punk with my dagger and get him to tell me where his boss is.
GM: Make an Intimidate check against his social defense.

or

Player: Listen, dog, this is 18 inches of Cimmerian steel. It could take a man's head clean off. You gotta ask yourself, do you feel lucky, punk? Well do ya? Now spill your guts before I do it for you. Where's your boss?
GM: Make an Intimidate check against his social defense. I'll give you a +2 circumstance bonus for the speech.

I don't see how the system would alter the presentation or outcome of either scenario. Now if your concern is that the system will reduce social interaction to little more than competitive dice rolling then your that would be more valid. But that is where the GM and players hold their fates in their own hands. Those dice are going to be rolled either way. What happens pre- and post- system is the where the RP is.

Good and bad role-playing happen. Whatever system you are playing the opportunities are there. 

As far as the hit point/mook/healing surge issues are concerned I can't really comment without actually seeing this stuff implemented. Personally I like mook rules. It's cinematic which is good. Unless you want to play a gritty game. And that brings me to the real meat of the matter.

4e will not do gritty without substantial re-writes and adjustments of the RAW. I'm making that bold, sweeping and totally unsubstantiated statement and standing firmly by it. My reasoning is this. All of the stuff that I have seen from the development team indicates that they want a fast-playing, intuitive, butt-kicking game. That's not gritty.

I think it was stated somewhere earlier in this thread but I'll reiterate it because I think it is succinct and apt. 4e is no longer the fantasy toolkit that D&D has been for a long time. There is now a very distinct flavor tied to the core rules. That is not the D&D I have been playing for 20 years. And that is the reason I won't be switching.

Edit: Wording


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If the interaction between house cats and commoners is obviously broken, it implies that the interaction between house cats and armored guys with swords is also broken, just in a less obvious way.




1. No.

2. The obvious solution to this problem is to have your armoured guys interact with things more interesting than housecats.


----------



## Ovinnik (Mar 2, 2008)

Derro said:
			
		

> 4e will not do gritty without substantial re-writes and adjustments of the RAW. I'm making that bold, sweeping and totally unsubstantiated statement and standing firmly by it. My reasoning is this. All of the stuff that I have seen from the development team indicates that they want a fast-playing, intuitive, butt-kicking game. That's not gritty.
> 
> I think it was stated somewhere earlier in this thread but I'll reiterate it because I think it is succinct and apt. 4e is no longer the fantasy toolkit that D&D has been for a long time. There is now a very distinct flavor tied to the core rules. That is not the D&D I have been playing for 20 years. And that is the reason I won't be switching.




I agree with the first point, 4e is certainly not 'gritty', and I see no easy way to make it so.  However, I don't think previous editions did 'gritty' very well either, except at rather low levels.  Especially once characters start getting 3rd+ level spells any grittiness goes right out the window.  I also think D&D as a toolkit game never worked very well, and they're finally just admitting to that fact.  If you want a gritty game, or if you want a 'fantasy toolkit', there are some _much_ better choices out there, and that goes for all editions of D&D.  If I want that (and I often do), then I'll use one of the systems which does it better.


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I totally disagree. My Wizard with levitate, fly, etc has no reason whatsoever to learn how to climb or jump. Heck, even before I had those spells, I would just have the fighter carry me up slopes. Which brings up another big issue I have with this skill system. One of the more defining things about characters isn't what they're good at, it's what they aren't. It encourages teamwork. It makes people cooperate to balance each other's shortcomings. But in a system like this one, where everyone will excel at every endeavor, that becomes much less important.




Skill specialising like this does nothing to encourage teamwork. What it does is force the group, at the build stage, to ensure all the bases are covered in terms of necessary skills; and give players who play specialists a way of contrasting their characters with the others. Fred is the fighter, Joe has Knowledge (Arcana), Mary has Disable Device, etc. Now I guess you could call this "teamwork" in that the players have to coordinate their chargen efforts, but when it actually comes to rolling dice and interacting with the DM and the game world? Not so much.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 2, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> 1. No.
> 
> 2. The obvious solution to this problem is to have your armoured guys interact with things more interesting than housecats.




1.  Yes.

2.  It doesn't matter what you call them.  In this case, the fluff 'housecat' only serves to emphasis how badly the interactions between creatures of different scales are modeled - and in particular how badly D&D handles the problem of small size with 'less than one HD'.  Third edition introduced some explicit size rules, and some suggestions for assigning attributes to creatures of different scales that someone improved the situation compared to previous editions, but the fact that reasonably good stats cannot be created for a housecat proves the general problem still exists.  It doesn't matter if I call the creature a gremlin, an imp, a kobold, a leprechuan, a bat, a rat, a coyote, a hellkite, a grue, a frob, a xyzzy, or anything else.  Painting over the problem with a fluff where people don't have prior expectations of how the interaction works based on experience disguises the problem somewhat, but doesn't fix it. 

3. Ironicly, the small creatures problem is one of the few versimilitude problems that 4E does in fact provide a potential solution to.  It is one of the few areas of 4E design I'm likely to port into my 3.X games, albiet in a somewhat altered form.  (I haven't settled on a final design only because the solution raises other 'casual realism' concerns.)


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 1.  Yes.




No.



> 2.  It doesn't matter what you call them.  In this case, the fluff 'housecat' only serves to emphasis how badly the interactions between creatures of different scales are modeled - and in particular how badly D&D handles the problem of small size with 'less than one HD'.




The obvious solution to this problem is to have your armoured guys interact with things more interesting than creatures of small size with less than 1 HD.



> Painting over the problem with a fluff where people don't have prior expectations of how the interaction works based on experience disguises the problem somewhat, but doesn't fix it.




If the problem is no longer experienced, then it is fixed.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 2, 2008)

hong:

1. Yes.

2. What, there are no small creatures with less than 1HD that you find formidable?  Snakes, spiders, scorpions, jellyfish, wasps, etc. etc. are all fearlessly cradled in your hands?  Who are you, Steve Erwin?

3. I didn't say it wasn't experienced.  I said that it wasn't experienced as quickly or as intensely.  But the problem is still there and still gets in the way.


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> hong:
> 
> 1. Yes.




No.



> 2. What, there are no small creatures with less than 1HD that you find formidable?




There are not many small creatures with less than 1HD that I find interesting, no.



> Snakes, spiders, scorpions, jellyfish, wasps, etc. etc. are all fearlessly cradled in your hands?  Who are you, Steve Erwin?




At this point, there is no horde of snakes, spiders, scorpions, jellyfish and wasps taking over the world/that has stuff to take. As such, I have no reason to cradle them in my hands, fearlessly or not.



> 3. I didn't say it wasn't experienced.  I said that it wasn't experienced as quickly or as intensely.  But the problem is still there and still gets in the way.




The problem is no longer there if you find more interesting things to interact with than small creatures with less than 1HD.


----------



## sukael (Mar 2, 2008)

Ovinnik said:
			
		

> I agree with the first point, 4e is certainly not 'gritty', and I see no easy way to make it so.




Make it so characters only get 1 healing surge back per day - or per week, or whatever longer period - instead of all of them each day.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 2, 2008)

hong:

1. Yes.

2. Here we just have a difference of opinions.  As just one example, I would consider the 'Indiana Jones' tales to have been less interesting adventures if it had fewer snakes, bugs, spiders, rats and the like.  You obviously disagree.

3. Here again we just have a difference of opinion.  I think the game should be more than killing things and taking thier stuff.  You obviously disagree.  I'll continue to play games that let me play in ways I enjoy.  You enjoy 4E!


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Mar 2, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> This whole rant could have been avoided had you simply read the 1st edition DMG when the justification for hit points was laid out.  Hit points have always been both your ability to sustain physical damage and other intangible factors.  However, the outcome of that assumption is not what you think it is.
> 
> Moreover, I think you miss the point.  The problem isn't that hit points are abstract, since everyone knows that they always have been.  Hardly anyone that cares to play D&D is worried about abstract wounds.  If they were, they would move to a system that uses hit locations and/or actual injuries of some form rather than having hit points.  The root of the complaint is that in 4E they are 100% abstract rather than being merely 60% or 80% or whatever.  It's not merely that injuries are abstract.  It's that in 4E, there is no such thing as a non-lethal injury at all - abstract or otherwise.  Per the mechanics, all wounds are either superficial or else lethal.  I think that is what people are objecting to.




Which is exactly the same as 1e, 2e, and 3e. In all those editions, a fighter with 1 hit point left out of 100 is precisely the same in fighting terms as one with 100 hit points left out of 100. Nothing has changed -- except that now you get "bloodied," which I presume is the point where your shield of abilities runs out, you start to take SOME physical damage, and it lessens your capabilities in some way or other. 

Nor was my explanation of my viewpoint a 'rant.' That was a logical and rational explanation, and please stop trying to make disguised ad hominem attacks to lessen the validity of my assertions. Thank you.


----------



## Caliber (Mar 2, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> ...No, your wizard would obviously have a reason to put points into Use Rope, since he uses it so much. My level 14 Wizard has never, not once used the Use Rope skill. We always had our rogue tie people up, since he's the one who has trained in it and is good at it. There's simply no reason for me to automatically learn how to do something that I never use and have no reason to learn....




So that is an example of how things went in 3E. Lets look forward to 4E. Now, the Rogue is still much better at Use Rope than the Wizard (his combination of a higher Dex, and having it Trained, means he "uses rope" 10+ levels better than his Wizardly friend.) His Wizard friend, being a smart guy, however, has managed to pick up some Use Rope basics watching him tie knots/baddies time after time. And to take the focus off DnD and onto the real world, this is pretty much how people pick up a lot of skills. 

You make a point that a lot of skills never get used, like Swim or Climb. I can't speak for everyone, but as a DM I don't use challenges against those skills because I know the vast majority of the party would have no chance at completeting them (or else, everyone would have a chance, with maybe one person succeeding automatically!) If everyone had at least some ability, I'd feel more free to put some water obstacles, or climb-y obstacles, or rope tying obstacles (or what have you).


----------



## pemerton (Mar 2, 2008)

For those who are interested in a fantasy RPG that is gritty and has rules that are intended to model, in a verisimilitude-preserving fashion, in-game causal relations, I mention RM Classic - the re-released version of RM 2 available from ICE's web site.

There is also HARP, available from the same publisher: it has a few incidents of incoherence between simulationist and and non-simulationist design priorities, but probably not enough to interfere with most people's play (certainly no more than any pre-4e edition of D&D).

As for the housecat problem - surely it is not an imputation of a typical fantasy RPG that it doesn't handle housecats very well? As for snakes, scorpions etc: in 4e, give them an attack against Fortitude if a Perception roll is failed and be done with it. Australian farmers and householders kill the worlds most poisonous spiders and most poisonous snakes day in and day out with stick, shovels etc  - not always successfully, sometimes getting bitten, but mostly without too much trouble. 

This includes my grandparents, either of whom could kill a brown snake with a shovel well into their 60s and early 70s, neither of whom ever got bitten, but neither of whom was any sort of warrior (or barbarian, Cohen or otherwise) in D&D's sense. Their killing of a poisonous snake isn't the sort of "combat" that D&D is trying to handle through its BAB, AC and hit points rules, as far as I can tell.


----------



## sukael (Mar 2, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This includes my grandparents, either of whom could kill a brown snake with a shovel well into their 60s and early 70s, neither of whom ever got bitten, but neither of whom was any sort of warrior (or barbarian, Cohen or otherwise) in D&D's sense. Their killing of a poisonous snake isn't the sort of "combat" that D&D is trying to handle through its BAB, AC and hit points rules, as far as I can tell.




Those snakes are obviously using 4e's "one hit = death" minion rule.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 2, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> Which is exactly the same as 1e, 2e, and 3e.




Err, no.  We are dealing with two subtly different concepts - the injury condition, that is to say what effect being injured has, and the injury itself.



> In all those editions, a fighter with 1 hit point left out of 100 is precisely the same in fighting terms as one with 100 hit points left out of 100.




I fully grant you that.  It is a nagging problem many people have had with D&D over the years.  So far as I can tell, fourth edition doesn't seem to be particularly interested in addressing it.  But that isn't really what we are talking about.

In 1st edition, a fighter with 100 hp and 1 hp left is - barring magical intervention - going to require months of bedrest to heal his injuries.  In this manner, we can see that he has something like a real injury.  I grant you, that injury will 'unrealistically' cause the fighter no concrete pain and discomfort, but the injury does require time to heal which is what we'd expect of all but the most superficial of injuries.  (It does cause abstract pain and discomfort, in as much as a person with 1 hitpoint is too discomforted to dodge away from blows that would previously not have been lethal.)

In 4E, nothing requires more than 6 hours to heal.  Hense, there is nothing in the 4E universe that has the quality of a serious injury in requiring a long time to heal.  And this is in fact new.  In 1E, 2E, or 3E you might via fortune in the middle describe some blow that reduced you to 1 hp as having been a signficant injury that narrowly avoided being a lethal blow.  Some players might have objected that such a blow might should cause more pain than that, but that was the principal belief breaking problem in the rules.  Now we have added to that one another equally large one.  Between the lack of an injury condition and the fact that lost hit points are restored immediately, we can safely say that hit points no longer model injuries at all.  That is to say, its no longer ~20% physical damage and ~80% lost luck/providence/confidence or whatever abstract component is involved. The mechanics model hit points as a 100% non-physical component.



> Nor was my explanation of my viewpoint a 'rant.' That was a logical and rational explanation, and please stop trying to make disguised ad hominem attacks to lessen the validity of my assertions. Thank you.




Nothing prevents a rant from being logical or valid.  A rant is merely an argument freighted with emotional content.  That your post was freighted with emotional content was something you felt so important to convey as to include an emote - not that it was necessary.  

My problem with it is that anyone who has played D&D extensively knows that hit points model injuries abstractly.  Your post was patronizing, and yet seemed to me to indicate you had less knowledge of the hit point mechanic than some of the people you were lecturing.  You failed to understand the problem not only the first time, but the second time.  When you say, "This implies that hit points are NOT the physical meat that you're made out of increasing its density over time, but your ability to survive additional attacks in every sense.", you act as if you are hitting upon some new idea or change in the system rather than something that has always been true.

Look at it this way.  If any part of your hitpoints represents physical toughness, then it stands to reason that the hit points from physical toughness are interchangable which come from some other source (skill, divine providence, fate, luck, whatever it is).  We don't make a distinction unless we are using something like a WP/VP system.  If we don't make a distinction, then the two sorts of hit points heal at the same rate.  If at least some of the hit points are said to be from physical toughness, then we expect those to heal at a rate somewhat believable for physical wounds.  Hense it follows if we don't distinguish between toughness coming from physical toughness and toughness coming from other sources, that they all are restored at the same rate (or at least nearly so). 

But given that all ills are now healed in six hours, this is no longer believable.  Hense, in 4E 0% of hit points represent physical toughness and 0% of damage represents physical damage.  This was never true of prior editions.  One reason is that it creates a bit of wierdness.  For example, why do larger animals have more hit points?  Can things without healing surges be truly injured, and how do things without healing surges heal?  And so forth.

In my opinion, if you'd just read the 1st edition DMG (among probably many other sources) where it described the justification of hit points, you wouldn't have the arrogance to write something like:



> In other words, has someone who's take 95 out of 100 hit points damage REALLY been cut in half 12 or 13 times, yet somehow kept fighting? Or are they just so battered, exhausted, and generally beaten up that they aren't going to be able to deflect or avoid that final, wounding strike which they could have parried with ease earlier?




As if the people in this thread you were responding to hadn't considered that hit points represented more than mere physical toughness.  The real source of your confusion is that you built a nice little strawman out of the opposing viewpoint and 'mysteriously' found this strawman too ludicrous to believe.  If you had been the least bit open-minded, you might have instead considered that if something seemed too ludicrous to believe, it's entirely possible that other people didn't believe it and perhaps you might have reflected on what they actually believed.

And though you have no reason to care, pulling the 'I an aggreived party' thing doesn't win you much respect either.  It was pretty easy to see from your post that you thought anyone that didn't see it your way was being stupid and illogical.


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> hong:
> 
> 1. Yes.




No.



> 2. Here we just have a difference of opinions.  As just one example, I would consider the 'Indiana Jones' tales to have been less interesting adventures if it had fewer snakes, bugs, spiders, rats and the like.  You obviously disagree.




And you'll note that I'm not the one with problems.



> 3. Here again we just have a difference of opinion.  I think the game should be more than killing things and taking thier stuff.  You obviously disagree.  I'll continue to play games that let me play in ways I enjoy.  You enjoy 4E!




See, you wouldn't have had to create this thread in the first place if you'd just followed Hong's 2nd Law.


----------



## hong (Mar 2, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In 4E, nothing requires more than 6 hours to heal.




The PCs require no more than 6 hours to heal. Since this is going to be equivalent to what happened in 3E in the vast majority of cases, I see no problem.


----------



## Baron Opal (Mar 2, 2008)

You have laws?


----------



## VannATLC (Mar 2, 2008)

> . Here we just have a difference of opinions. As just one example, I would consider the 'Indiana Jones' tales to have been less interesting adventures if it had fewer snakes, bugs, spiders, rats and the like. You obviously disagree.




Swarms have more than 1HD. >.>

Any tiny vermin category creature in 3.5 should, IMO, be used as a trap or trap-like encounter. The combat rules are not, and should not, be required to deal with them.

Lastly, can it with the yes/no.

Neither of you have laid out anything remotely rational to explain your positions. Its pointless posturing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 2, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The idea that mechanics aren't role-playing (and vice-versa) is a wildly inaccurate and false idea. In a role-playing game, mechanics are the only way you truly _play_ your role in both senses of the word (that you are playing a game and playing a role at the same time).



In that case, there is a third part for me - let's call it acting/thespian or something like that. Which I always believed what people are talking about when they speak about "true role-playing". Rolling the dice according to the game mechanics is not what this is about. It's the stuff when you're talking in character, when you make decisions based on your characters motiviation and experience. Not when you use the mechanics to implement any of your characters decision within the game. 

I agree that it's possible to make a system where you might have "social powers" and "performance powers" or "craft powers". But personally, I would want to limit the mechanical subsystems of this non-combat stuff - with the primary reason that playing some of these things out purely mechanically over a long term just doesn't feel that entertaining to me. Especially if too many of these non-combat parts are not about the whole group interacting with each other and the world. The spot-light stays too long on a specific character, and that makes an unsatisfying game. 
(Contrived Example: Imagine you played Monopoly, and to get out of the prison, you'd have to beat "the bank" at a game of chess!)

All types of encounters are most fun if all players are involved. If you use mechanics to resolve any kind of encounter, you need to be sure that every player has a mechanical ability to contribute meaningful to that encounter. Because using the dice to resolve the encounter will take most of the time then. If you have a complex social encounter system for a game like D&D, every class should have an ability that allows the character to contribute to it. That's something 3.x could easily fail at. 
For social encounters i can see a good chance that 4E could have that (if their is indeed a good social encounter system in the DMG). But it might get more difficult outside this area - Craft, Perform, Profession are normally limited to a single person completing the task, and a system for that should be simple and quick to adjudicate then.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 2, 2008)

> You make a point that a lot of skills never get used, like Swim or Climb. I can't speak for everyone, but as a DM I don't use challenges against those skills because I know the vast majority of the party would have no chance at completeting them (or else, everyone would have a chance, with maybe one person succeeding automatically!) If everyone had at least some ability, I'd feel more free to put some water obstacles, or climb-y obstacles, or rope tying obstacles (or what have you).




This needs to be repeated.  

3e skill mechanics mean that you have one or two guys who automatically succeed and the rest automatically fail.  Full stop.  Put the party on a rolling ship in a storm?  Need balance checks?  Well, might as well just declare everyone except maybe the rogue to be prone and get it over with.  No one else is going to succeed, or at least succeed more than a few times.

No one EVER took Use Rope because it was a total waste of skill points.  So, it might as well not have even been in the books.  The same goes for the vast majority of skills.

Why not give everyone a basic proficiency with most of the reasonable skills and be done with it?  Honestly, when you think about it, this is simply quantifying the way it was done in earlier editions where you justified your ability to do something based on your background.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 2, 2008)

re: Venomous creatures

Isn't the reason why venomous creatures so deadly mainly because we don't notice them until they actually infect us with their venom. I don't consider myself anywhere near an adventurer and I've had no problem killing scorpions as long as I see them.

re: Skills not auto-levelling
Hussar et al point out WHY I tend to prefer auto-levelling. If say for example, I can give a DC that everyone has a chance at, yet isn't automatic for everyone, I'm much more likely to actually use that skill.

I so do not want the Shadowrun effect that happens with Deckers ("ok, I need to break into this computer system, everyone else go get a slice of pizza")


----------



## Hussar (Mar 2, 2008)

And, really, AllisterH, that's what happened.

Oh, there's a chest in the corner, rogue go check it out.  Roll roll roll.  Ok, trap done, what's in the chest?

I have no problem imagining that someone who travels around with Aragorn for a couple of years might pick up a smattering of tracking and wilderness survival.  Conversely, Aragorn might pick up a few things from Merlin and Friar Tuck over there.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 2, 2008)

> In that case, there is a third part for me - let's call it acting/thespian or something like that. Which I always believed what people are talking about when they speak about "true role-playing". Rolling the dice according to the game mechanics is not what this is about. It's the stuff when you're talking in character, when you make decisions based on your characters motiviation and experience. Not when you use the mechanics to implement any of your characters decision within the game.




For me, an ideal role-playing game would have the motivation and experience and character acting still being represented mechanically.

3e did this, to a small extent, with circumstance bonuses and skill checks. Your character's role as, say, a wonderful smooth-talker was determined by your Diplomacy skill. Your character's role as a brilliant performer was determined by your Perform skill. 

It's a slightly flawed system, but it was there. Like Hussar's sig, the dice provided the direction, you provided the performance.

Pure roleplaying in the thespian sense of the word is all well and good, but it's not much of a game, it's more a test of the player's own ability to convince the DM of something, and that's really super-lame in a game. 

It's like determining combat by the player's actual skill with a longsword. 



> I agree that it's possible to make a system where you might have "social powers" and "performance powers" or "craft powers". But personally, I would want to limit the mechanical subsystems of this non-combat stuff - with the primary reason that playing some of these things out purely mechanically over a long term just doesn't feel that entertaining to me. Especially if too many of these non-combat parts are not about the whole group interacting with each other and the world. The spot-light stays too long on a specific character, and that makes an unsatisfying game.
> (Contrived Example: Imagine you played Monopoly, and to get out of the prison, you'd have to beat "the bank" at a game of chess!)




The ways to solve this are, largely speaking, the same way they've 'solved' most of the combat problems. Give people interesting things to do, make a risk and a reward, make it streamlined, but give it interesting effects, and allow for results other than "fail" or "win." This doesn't just apply to situations where you're killing goblins, it also applies to situations where you're trying to win the king's support or convince the sphinxes to let you pass. 



> All types of encounters are most fun if all players are involved. If you use mechanics to resolve any kind of encounter, you need to be sure that every player has a mechanical ability to contribute meaningful to that encounter. Because using the dice to resolve the encounter will take most of the time then. If you have a complex social encounter system for a game like D&D, every class should have an ability that allows the character to contribute to it. That's something 3.x could easily fail at.




Indeed, 3.x's noncombat resolution system wasn't the best. It was leaps and bounds beyond 2e's, though. 4e could easily improve on it, though I have no idea if they have. 



> For social encounters i can see a good chance that 4E could have that (if their is indeed a good social encounter system in the DMG). But it might get more difficult outside this area - Craft, Perform, Profession are normally limited to a single person completing the task, and a system for that should be simple and quick to adjudicate then.




Really, how simple and quick you want the rule to be depends upon what kind of game you want.

If you don't want a game that focuses on combat, there should be a simple and quick adjudication system: roll 1d20, add the levels, bigger one wins. This is like 3e's skill resolution system.

If you want a game that focuses on how the characters manage to build the Nightmare Engine, having Craft rules that are fairly complex and rewarding is a good thing.

Most of the time, D&D characters are concerned about (a) combat and (b) emulating their archetype outside of combat. Sherlock Holmes wants to be able to kill goblins, and to be able to solve crimes. Jack Sparrow wants to be able to slay giants, and to be able to get himself into trouble in the nearest port city. Conan wants to be able to cleave through lizardmen, and be able to bed serving girls and hate on wizards. Leonidas wants to be able to beat up some Persians, and to rule a city-state. Merlin wants to be able to fry up some kobolds with a fireball, and to predict the future and turn into animals. 

For that to be really rewarding, we need a strong system for what your role does when you're not slaying dragons, nuking kobolds, killing goblins, or cleaving lizardmen. 

We haven't really seen anything that promises that 4e will be able to deliver that.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Mar 2, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> This needs to be repeated.
> 
> 
> No one EVER took Use Rope because it was a total waste of skill points.  So, it might as well not have even been in the books.  The same goes for the vast majority of skills.
> ...




then u my friend missed alot of fun and tricks with said skill. just becasue u dont use a skill very often doesnt mean its useless. as for balance and people falling on a ship yeah thats classic story/book/movie sence right there not everyone should be good at every thing i even recall a few time a player craft-basket wever came in handy the dm's job is to make sure the player have fun. throw in an odd skill now and then if they take a so called wasted skill make it come in handy now and then how often in a book /movie has some ones odd hobby or skill came up and saved there ass more then a few i'll tell you so dont write a skill off just becase its not a combat or often used skill.


----------



## DwarvenDog (Mar 2, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why not give everyone a basic proficiency with most of the reasonable skills and be done with it?  Honestly, when you think about it, this is simply quantifying the way it was done in earlier editions where you justified your ability to do something based on your background.





Isn't this more or less modeled by the ability to use a large chunk of 3E skills untrained?  Aren't the DC's of most common tasks within an acceptable random chance for people doing them without training?  The whole point of a specialist "skill-monkey" is to shine in these situations.  

Take your rolling ship example... If the balance DC's to remain standing are within reason, then you are going to have a couple characters who will remain standing because they invested in the balance skill, and the rest are going to be standing or prone on any given round through random chance.

This gives your monk or rogue the chance to get that return-on-investment for developing the balance skill.  Not using encounters like these because a chunk of the group has a chance for failure, robs the skilled characters of opportunities to take the spotlight.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 2, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> Its pointless posturing.




But what would our post counts be like without pointless posturing?


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 2, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Isn't the reason why venomous creatures so deadly mainly because we don't notice them until they actually infect us with their venom. I don't consider myself anywhere near an adventurer and I've had no problem killing scorpions as long as I see them.




This doesn't prove what you seem to think it proves.  You are simply reinforcing the 'house cat' problem by noting its also a 'venomous spider' problem.  Simply put, the 'size' of a hit point is too large to model anything at a fine scale well.  Anytime any feature of the game hits the unit size (1 hp, 1 damage, 1 str, whatever) you run into subtle problems, and this happens fairly often because everything is baselined to numbers like 1HD, 1 die of damage, and average attribute = 10.  

I agree that the system was never really meant to model combat between a human and say ordinary crows, sewer rats, house cats, largish bats, foot long centipedes, ordinary scorpions, ordinary venomous spiders, or anything of that sort.  Nonetheless it has been called on from time to time to actually do so in alot of peoples campaigns including mine, and monsters of these sorts were included in beastiaries since almost the games inception.   Moreover, to the extent that it fails with these sorts of monsters it fails also with things like stirges, giant leaches, undead monkeys, mummified cats, various fey creatures and so forth.  If you don't find these sorts of things interesting, you are entitled to your opinion but I think that any monster that can play off people's real fears is an interesting one. 

I think a combat system ought to be flexible enough to handle creatures of a wide variaty of scales.  One of the great things about 3E is that it made dramatic steps in improving the resolution of combats between creatures of different scales, both from a gamist ('swarm' rules) and simulationist perspective (reach, modifiers resulting from size class, suggested attribute adjustments for changing size class).  I didn't want to roll those improvements back.  I wanted to see them refined.


----------



## Delta (Mar 2, 2008)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> So, how did you explain away low level critters and 0 level commoners in OD&D, AD&D 1st, AD&D 2nd, and BECMI surviving cat scratches (because a cat scratch could kill them in those edititons).  How did you explain away 1st level commoners and experts surviving cat scratches in 3rd edition (again, because a cat scratch could kill them there, too)?




Normal housecats were never given statistics in OD&D or BECMI. It can be argued that their scratches were negligible compared to the scale of damage (1d6 or 1d8) done by a sword, axe, or arrow. Core AD&D 1E likewise didn't assign damage to cat scratches until the MMII came out and a lot of us think that was a distinct mistake. For me it's preferable to go back and switch cat-scratch damage from 1 to 0, then it is to remake the entire infrastructure of how damage and hit points are assessed in D&D.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 2, 2008)

Hunter In Darkness said:
			
		

> then u my friend missed alot of fun and tricks with said skill.



Exactly.  This is just a specific case, but I find that a lot of the complaints against 3E  come down to players neglecting what it offered and then presuming that everyone else was somehow obligated to neglect the same things along with them.


----------



## apiratto (Mar 2, 2008)

Celebrim (and those concerned with believability), though i think your concerns about certain 4e rules are valid, i would suggest you pick your battles, and try not to make your predicament into something larger than it is.

i realize that you are averse to developing the extensive house-rules that would be necessary to realistically represent a system whereby characters could be genuinely inept at certain skills within 4e (for instance).  now, my suspicion is that this matter will not go totally unaddressed in the PHB, but even if it does, this is really nothing a little party consensus and/or DM fiat can't summarily deal with.  if, because of a character's background, it would be wildly implausible that they'd be any good at jumping, swimming, etc. (even after extensive adventuring), then just make the character do a straight ability check. or impose a -5 penalty to the skill roll.  or whatever seems appropriate.

the point here is that formalized house rules are not the only way a group might deviate from the standard rules.  the rules are there as guidelines; in cases such as complex tactical combat, it is important to have well-defined, systematic rules so that the multiplicity of declarations, checks, and rolls can flow together in a way that feels challenging, fair, fun, and not overly cumbersome, but _even in combat_ there are many cases where it makes sense to adjudicate certain events on a more ad-hoc basis than the standard rules might indicate.  this holds even more so for slower-paced or otherwise non-combat related adjudication.  again, in the latter case, it's useful to have rules in place (for social challenges, skill checks, etc.), but they are guidelines above all else.  if they lead to wildly implausible conclusions, the DM and/or party can rule on the matter in an ad hoc fashion.  i'm sure that the 4e core books will say the same thing.

the same goes for dealing with things like snakes or other low-hd creatures.  4e combat rules were developed as they are because they handle most combat situations well.  for outlying cases, use your own discretion.  you don't need formalized house rules to decide how fighting individual small animals is covered (and note that fighting _swarms_ of small animals _is_ covered in the rules); you can simply decide how to handle it when you write the small animal fight into your quest.  or if it's not something you planned for in the quest, just handle it with on-the-fly judgments.  

systematized rules cannot cover everything.  i agree that 'simulation' is part of the fun of an RPG, but rule systems aren't there to do the simulating; they are there to assist with the players' adjudication of their simulation, which really takes place within the narrative frame established by the players.  in some cases (like when the party has the services of a cleric on hand and can thus be reasonably expected to fully heal over the next six hours), the rules will pose no great affront to believability and may as well be followed to the word.  in other cases (like if the fighter has become separated from the party and decides to rest for six hours) the rules will conflict with a believable representation of events, and so must be circumvented.  if you find you have to make the same ad-hoc judgment regularly, then you have a house-rule, but there's no need to try to anticipate every single deviation from the standard rules before it becomes an actual issue, or to try to explain every single ad-hoc judgment by the DM in terms of some universal law that is consistent and integrated with all the other rules.  it's a lost cause for ANY game, not just d&d.

so i can't help but feel that your claim to 'have no desire to make house rules' exaggerates the significance of rules-deviation.  very little effort on your part is actually required to maintain believability in the context of your game.  regular ad-hoc judgments will turn into house-rules (or persistent stat-modifications in the case of PCs' characteristics) organically, with virtually no dedicated work toward this end (except maybe to tweak a house rule a little after it becomes formalized).  ad-hoc judgments which aren't frequently repeated need never be formalized.

meanwhile, the rules that ARE formalized and systematic manage to do a better job than previous editions of handling those game events that formalized, systematic rules are most necessary for.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 2, 2008)

> but even if it does, this is really nothing a little party consensus and/or DM fiat can't summarily deal with.




But "Make Stuff Up" is not a rule.

So, what would we be paying the designers for, again?

And what would be more work, adopting the good parts in 4e for 3.x play, or using the Fiat Machine on 4e whenever it proved to be not up to the task?

I'm thinking the first option is probably more palatable to a lot of people.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 2, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But "Make Stuff Up" is not a rule.
> 
> So, what would we be paying the designers for, again?



While technically true, many of us have been running games with houserules for a great many years.  It is therefore hard for us to dredge up a great deal of sympathy for someone who insists that it is unfair for them to have to houserule a matter of slight and frankly idiosyncratic importance.

It comes across rather like a wealthy child at summer camp complaining bitterly to all his middle and lower class campmates about having to do without his butler.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 2, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Exactly.  This is just a specific case, but I find that a lot of the complaints against 3E  come down to players neglecting what it offered and then presuming that everyone else was somehow obligated to neglect the same things along with them.




Not really IME.

Here's what I want in the skill system. Basically, I want to have everyone involved in the skill system at the same time a la combat instead of the pre 4E Shadowrun system where basically, you get one guy in the spotlight and everybody else simply watching on (and IME, people simply leave the table if it takes more than a couple of rolls). 

An expert should have a high chance of success (but it should not be automatic ~85-95%) while the general case everyone else should be slightly sweating it (40-60%).

Right now, the skill system is akin to everyone going to fight the BBEG yet only 1 guy actually fights the BBEG and everyone else simply watches on. Yeah, yeah, CoDzilla probably could do this and that's a problem there as well   

Furthermore, I want to be able to use the skills even without experts in the party. In a lot of the published adventures, they seem to lack skill checks since I imagine the writers have no idea what is a good skill challenge for a Level X party.

You know what's a challenging but beatable combat encounter for a Level X party and I want a skill system that can do the same for skill challenge encounters.

Now admittedly, Craft and Profession are a problem but then again, those tend to be individual skills that I don't really consider group checks. Those two skills, I wouldn't even mind that they use the 3.X skill system as I do think they that system better models those specific 2 skills.

re: Miniature creatures.
I think BECM and OD&D were on to something by not stating such creatures. Personally, I think an earlier suggestion of Passive Perception check with failure indicating poison being taken. As soon as the person recognizes they've been bitten, do active perception check and a success indicates venomous creature is killed.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 2, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I agree that the system was never really meant to model combat between a human and say ordinary crows, sewer rats, house cats, largish bats, foot long centipedes, ordinary scorpions, ordinary venomous spiders, or anything of that sort.  Nonetheless it has been called on from time to time to actually do so in alot of peoples campaigns including mine
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think a combat system ought to be flexible enough to handle creatures of a wide variaty of scales.



I don't know what "combat" means here.

I mean, last night I engaged in "combat" with my housecat, grappling her and putting her in her night-time room. This morning I engaged in "combat" with some ants, squashing them. From time to time my nearly-2-years-old daughter engages in "combat" with sea gulls and pigeons, chasing them through the park.

I'll reiterate what I and another poster upthread said: scorpions, spiders, snakes etc are traps/hazards, not combat encounters. Likewise swarms of bats or crows, I would think.

And just for extra fun: when it comes to squashing a spider, I think that the hilt of a shortsword would be easier to use then the hilt of a greatsword, and an armoured fist even easier. Do we therefore need "reverse damage rules" to handle these "combats"?


----------



## Mad Mac (Mar 2, 2008)

> In 1st edition, a fighter with 100 hp and 1 hp left is - barring magical intervention - going to require months of bedrest to heal his injuries. In




  Barring magical intervention that never fails to intervene so that the above scenario never actually happens, yes. Is it important to you that highly improbable things that will never effect the players be nonetheless possible?

  The practical effect of making "magical" healing required for everything is to make magical healing trite and taken for granted. Adventurers in 3rd edition didn't lie around in bed for months at a time, they downed miraculous healing potions like gatorade, invested in magic "make-better" sticks, or, if really desperate, hit the sack and gave the Cleric 8 hours to get his magic mojo back so he could, like he did every morning, call upon his phenomenal divine power to make everyone all better again. Even at low levels, the only long-term injuries were stuff like ability damage, and that's only because the party cleric hadn't learned lesser restoration yet. 

  This is a different sort of flavor, but one that I'd hesitate to call flatly superior. At least the healing surge system introduces the notion that there is only so much abuse a persons body can take in a day, no matter how many healing wands and cure-all potions they've got in their backpack.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 2, 2008)

Thanks for the interesting thread.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Worrying about the game reality is in context really silly.  What do hit points represent?  Doesn't matter.  They are a game resource, and thats really all that matters.  Worrying about the larger universe in which the game is taking place is fundamentally pointless.  Does the game imply a universe where people are never injured for more than a few hours?  Sure, but in the context of the game, so what?  And that is as a design is just fine for a game.




The dispute between realism and gamism is really unsolvable. It's a bit like an argument between two political or religious ideology: the two parties have some fundamentally different assumptions that won't make them meet.

I liked D&D since the start as a rule system, but I cannot play with a ruleset that completely defies some element of realism, at least the one which I have on my mind. It's hard to explain, but I know it when I see it!

I'll make an example. 

If I play in a game where they tell me that your characters resurrect automatically every time they die (like in a computer game) albeit with some fastidious penalties, I would hate such game.
If I play in a game where the PCs go to Ysgard, the "afterlife of warriors", where auto-resurrect happens, but that's because those people are already dead and this is how afterlife works... then I'd love an adventure or two in such a place!

But eventually someone will have to tell me how does "everyday life" in Ysgard works, and I expect that to be very different from real life (although it could be just fighting over and over). If someone wanted to fit the auto-resurrect idea into a normal world (even with magic), trying to keep the life unaffected by it, then it simply wouldn't cut it for me.

It's not that I don't like playing abstract games. 

It's just that for me to play a roleplay game means to play a game where you "transpose" yourself into a character and pretend to be there, in the middle of the adventure, yourself.

And to do that, *I expect the rules to serve the adventures and the setting*, and not the adventures and the setting to serve the rules.


----------



## apiratto (Mar 2, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But "Make Stuff Up" is not a rule.
> 
> So, what would we be paying the designers for, again?




you seem to have glossed over the details of my remarks in favor of a straw man, so i'll try to clarify:

the rules are there to provide a framework for adjudicating situations involving conflict or risk of failure.  _systematized_ rules are there to make judgments easier and more consistent.  but ultimately adherence to any particular rule is trumped by narrative and logical considerations, according to the preferences of the gaming group.  that is officially written into the core rulebooks of 3rd edition (as if we needed WotC to tell us that we're free to use the rules selectively!), and we'll surely be reminded of this in the 4th edition PHB.  the rules, as offered, are designed to provide a framework for adjudicating the majority of situations that will come up. the healing rules, for instance, would not be as they are if it were not assumed that there is normally a magical healer in the party.

in most cases, the rules as stated do a fine job.  but there was never any pretense made to their ability to handle every possible circumstance, and for cases where the vision of the gaming group conflicts with what the rules say, adjudicate on the fly.

i always understood the chief virtue of the d20 system to be its flexibility with regard to on-the-fly adjudication.  basically, "when in doubt, roll a d20, apply modifiers based on the character's traits, and compare it against a DC determined by the difficulty of the task".



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And what would be more work, adopting the good parts in 4e for 3.x play, or using the Fiat Machine on 4e whenever it proved to be not up to the task?
> 
> I'm thinking the first option is probably more palatable to a lot of people.




frankly, i don't think you want to argue the question of what would be more work. i'm sure it would be more laborious to try to splice 4e with 3e rules than to use 4e rules with occasional ad-hoc deviations and a house-rule here and there.  indeed, on-the-fly adjudication is an absolutely necessary part of 3e as well, but even if you somehow completely avoided deviating from what is explicitly written in the 3e rulebooks, just playing the game itself involves a ton of work (especially for DMs).  at least on the DM's side of things, it's pretty clear that 4e involves doing much less work (be it designing encounters, awarding loot, creating new monsters and npcs, using traps, etc.).

i have my gripes about 4e for sure, but the "fiat machine" is there whether or not you decide to play 4e.  and compared to 3e, it's looking that in standard cases where complex judgments are required (i.e. combat, social challenges, traps, and most skill checks), 4e seems to afford a higher degree of balance, participation, and ease of management.  niggling points of contention with the standard rules are just a fact of life in any RPG, and, in 4e as much as anywhere else, can be dealt with as the gaming group sees fit, without nearly as much fuss as seems to be being made about it here.

i for one plan to develop house rules to flavor the game to my liking (as i always do), and i'm sure 3rd party publishers (and even WotC) will, over time, present plenty of alternative rule options.  if you prefer 3e, that's great, but as much as i enjoy d&d, i for one find 3e virtually unplayable at high levels, and chock full of rules that need to be changed or circumvented on all levels of play.


----------



## Betote (Mar 2, 2008)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Oh, and the reason 6 hours of rest heals all wounds is that regardless of how many barriers the game system puts into resting, players don't go forward with the adventure until they are at full resources.  If it required a week of rest, players would be resting for a week half way through a dungeon.  Rather than breaking every adventure out there whenever players run into trouble, it's easier to make the bar low for parties to heal up.  You can believe that a player can get 4x hp in healing surges a day, but not that 6 hours of rest can heal them?




I've always thought the "stay in bed until fully healed, no matter how much time it takes" and the dreaded "15-minutes workday" are not rules problems, but adventure designing problems. If your concept of "adventure" is "a dungeon with completely isolated rooms where everybody just stands waiting for somebody to come, kill them and take heir stuff", you will surely face these "problems".

But if you are running a dinamic adventure where NPCs actually *react* to PCs' actions (or, even better, show their own initiative), you begin seeing how PCs start worrying about leaving the dungeon alone to be refilled while they're out, or waiting too much to act and letting the bad guys have their way.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 2, 2008)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Barring magical intervention that never fails to intervene so that the above scenario never actually happens, yes. Is it important to you that highly improbable things that will never effect the players be nonetheless possible?
> 
> The practical effect of making "magical" healing required for everything is to make magical healing trite and taken for granted. Adventurers in 3rd edition didn't lie around in bed for months at a time, they downed miraculous healing potions like gatorade, invested in magic "make-better" sticks, or, if really desperate, hit the sack and gave the Cleric 8 hours to get his magic mojo back so he could, like he did every morning, call upon his phenomenal divine power to make everyone all better again. Even at low levels, the only long-term injuries were stuff like ability damage, and that's only because the party cleric hadn't learned lesser restoration yet.
> 
> This is a different sort of flavor, but one that I'd hesitate to call flatly superior. At least the healing surge system introduces the notion that there is only so much abuse a persons body can take in a day, no matter how many healing wands and cure-all potions they've got in their backpack.




This is the thing I wonder about the various house rules.

In 1e/2e, it took days to heal but what would ACTUALLY happen was
a) Cleric on the next day would simply blow all their slots on healing
b) DM would say "ok a week has passed, everyone is back to full".


No-one actually roleplayed the healing downtime and the only scenario where it became an issue was a time-sensitive one (BBEG is going to complete his ritual in 3 days) but even there, thanks to the cleric, it would usually just take 1 day of downtime.

The only time sensitive one would be a scenario where it happens on the same day but this also works in the 4E "6 hours of rest" healing scheme.

So, if healing actually takes say a week, are these houserules actually going to make a difference in the game itself?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 2, 2008)

> While technically true, many of us have been running games with houserules for a great many years. It is therefore hard for us to dredge up a great deal of sympathy for someone who insists that it is unfair for them to have to houserule a matter of slight and frankly idiosyncratic importance.
> 
> It comes across rather like a wealthy child at summer camp complaining bitterly to all his middle and lower class campmates about having to do without his butler.




The need for house rules is not a reason to buy 4e, though. Indeed, there's enough house rules or even PUBLISHED rules out there that can solve any problem you have with 3e, or even 2e, or 1e, or OD&D. 

To persuade some into the new edition, it needs to require less houserules, or at least less onerous ones than fixing their current game of choice. 

4e does seem to be failing that, largely because some design decisions have abandoned the reason that some people play the game in favor of how WotC sees the majority of people playing the game.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 2, 2008)

Betote said:
			
		

> I've always thought the "stay in bed until fully healed, no matter how much time it takes" and the dreaded "15-minutes workday" are not rules problems, but adventure designing powers. If your concept of "adventure" is "a dungeon with completely isolated rooms where everybody just stands waiting for somebody to come, kill them and take heir stuff", you will surely face these "problems".
> 
> But if you are running a dinamic adventure where NPCs actually *react* to PCs' actions (or, even better, show their own initiative), you begin seeing how PCs start worrying about leaving the dungeon alone to be refilled while they're out, or waiting too much to act and letting the bad guys have their way.




Would though the dungeon refill in one day though?

Say for example you have a dungeon and the PC party after exhausting their healing decides to leave. Unless the Dungeon itself refills in a day (where did these monsters come from in such a short time), the PCs will be back at the dungeon in such a short time frame (two days) that even though the monsters in the dungeon have reacted, the dungeon itself won't be refilled.

Similarly, if this is a time sensitive adventure (BBEG completes ritual and world goes BOOM), you can still do this in the 4E method since you simply shrink the time required for the BBEG. The same thing happens in previous editions since if the ritual only takes 2 days, thanks to healing, the PC still have one full day to stop it.

You basically have to have the time sensitive ritual be stopped on the same day.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 2, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The need for house rules is not a reason to buy 4e, though.



I have two responses to this.

First, the reason to buy 4e is whether you think its better than whatever else you could be playing, relative to the cost of upgrading in money and time.  This is a issue of balancing positives and negatives.  Feeling that you need to houserule something is a negative.  HOW MUCH of a negative is naturally relevant.

Second, I think we can safely agree that we have LONG AGO passed from discussing individual persons' reasons for moving or not moving to 4e, and are instead discussing its qualities as a system.  Or at least its value as a system for a particular playstyle.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 2, 2008)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Barring magical intervention that never fails to intervene so that the above scenario never actually happens, yes. Is it important to you that highly improbable things that will never effect the players be nonetheless possible?
> 
> The practical effect of making "magical" healing required for everything is to make magical healing trite and taken for granted. Adventurers in 3rd edition didn't lie around in bed for months at a time, they downed miraculous healing potions like gatorade, invested in magic "make-better" sticks, or, if really desperate, hit the sack and gave the Cleric 8 hours to get his magic mojo back so he could, like he did every morning, call upon his phenomenal divine power to make everyone all better again. Even at low levels, the only long-term injuries were stuff like ability damage, and that's only because the party cleric hadn't learned lesser restoration yet.




Yeah, they got that wrong in 3e, as well.  The original Death's Door rule, left you bleeding out until healed.  Then you regained one hit point and that was it.  Further healing did no good whatsoever until you had one full day of rest.  And all spells were wiped from your mind from the shock of nearly dying.  Without that full day of rest, you were useless.  This is the way it should be.  Going from the brink of death to full strength, jumping back up and right back into the fray (barring high level magical intervention, such as a heal spell) ruins my suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 2, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Going from the brink of death to full strength, jumping back up and right back into the fray (barring high level magical intervention, such as a heal spell) ruins my suspension of disbelief.




Thankfully for me, this is my idea of a hero:  http://www.the-isb.com/images/ASM33-Lift.jpg


----------



## Betote (Mar 3, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Would though the dungeon refill in one day though?
> 
> Say for example you have a dungeon and the PC party after exhausting their healing decides to leave. Unless the Dungeon itself refills in a day (where did these monsters come from in such a short time), the PCs will be back at the dungeon in such a short time frame (two days) that even though the monsters in the dungeon have reacted, the dungeon itself won't be refilled.




Refilled as in "push reset button"? No.

Fallen combatants attended by evil clerics, traps set to welcome the not-so-unexpected-now intruders? Most probably.

Dungeon inhabitants retaliating by attacking and setting on fire the nearest town, so as the PCs know that all those innocent men, women and children have been slaughtered because of their inaction? If the DM is as sadist as I am, maybe 



> Similarly, if this is a time sensitive adventure (BBEG completes ritual and world goes BOOM), you can still do this in the 4E method since you simply shrink the time required for the BBEG. The same thing happens in previous editions since if the ritual only takes 2 days, thanks to healing, the PC still have one full day to stop it.
> 
> You basically have to have the time sensitive ritual be stopped on the same day.




So, "make the clock tick faster" would be the solution... to a problem that wouldn't exist if the "rest button" hadn't been implemented. My solution would be just not implementing that button, thus not creating the problem in the first place.

Not to forget the "clock" isn't always something easily sped up...
"We have to find the cure before the illness extends" - "Make the illnes kill in minutes"
"The orcs are amassing an army. Let's put them down while they're few" - "The other armies run really fast"
"This is the day the planes align themselves and Cthulhu comes" - "It's Chtulhu Happy Hour".


----------



## Stormtower (Mar 3, 2008)

Clavis said:
			
		

> The worst way 4th edition is going to negatively impact roleplaying is that there will be fewer creative DMs, the kind who create and love to play exciting NPCs. Roleplaying certainly suffers when there's nobody to play your role to.




*delurk* I apologize if I'm breaking protocol by quoting such a early post in a long, mature thread.  I intend to read the whole thread after this reply.

I was at DDXP, delved three times, played both LFR 4e previews, and played in 4 LG modules including the excellent Special... this is my first post upon returning home (was w/o 'net at the con).

I only want to say this: I was, and to a degree, I remain, a 4e skeptic.  However, the game play seems to hold great tactical promise and a greater degree of challenge than can be easily determined without actual play experience.  Whatever you may think of the rules, that's cool... the more I played, the more I enjoyed it.  I've been a 90% player/10% DM in the RPGA so far (2006-2008), but I've been playing D&D since '83.  Since LG is going away, I've dedicated myself to running LFR as a DM exclusively as my 4E involvement.  If you are at my table, there will always be a receptive, RP-friendly DM to "play your role to."  I and many other DM's out there pride ourselves on creating hybrid games that are equally tactically challenging and RP-friendly.  IME, those are the most rewarding games to DM, and in the most gratifying in which to run a PC.

DM's (or anyone, for that matter) who are concerned about loss of creativity in our next generation of younger players could help the situation by teaching them about the history of the game and honoring the narrative traditions of storytelling within the wargame roots of D&D.  It's up to us to transmit our culture and make D&D the game we all want to play... don't stop roleplaying.  There seems to be nothing in 4E's design to discourage it, so play your PCs and NPCs to the hilt.  It only becomes an ultra-gamist "boardgame" type experience if we define the situation that way.  RP traditions in D&D only die if we, the current DMs and players, let it.

Play in the manner of your choosing, in the edition of your choosing.  Having fun among friends and meeting new gamers is the most important part.

I hope this post did not sound preachy... it is not my intent to tell anyone what to do or threadcrap.  I'm off to read the rest of the post.

Sincerely,
Nick


----------



## robertliguori (Mar 3, 2008)

Betote said:
			
		

> Refilled as in "push reset button"? No.
> 
> Fallen combatants attended by evil clerics, traps set to welcome the not-so-unexpected-now intruders? Most probably.
> 
> Dungeon inhabitants retaliating by attacking and setting on fire the nearest town, so as the PCs know that all those innocent men, women and children have been slaughtered because of their inaction? If the DM is as sadist as I am, maybe



Point the first: Simulationist players rapidly adopt death protocols, based on how easy it is to turn an enemy corpse into a threat again (either via reanimation or resurrection).  Good luck turning a pile of neatly quartered corpses into threats.

Point the second: If traps were within the capacity of the monsters before, why aren't they already using them? Also, what happens when the invaders start making ablative runs on the traps, as well as the inhabitants, and simply enter, trigger and then smash the day's traps beyond repair or salvage, and then leave?

Point the third: If the players are camping near the entrance of the dungeon, then the monsters have abandoned the safety of their lair.  This is bad.  Either the players will attack them in the open and take advantage of their PC-ness, or simply wait until they leave, assault the dungeon while the monsters are away (and cleave through it messily on that account), and then ambush them when they attempt to return home.



> So, "make the clock tick faster" would be the solution... to a problem that wouldn't exist if the "rest button" hadn't been implemented. My solution would be just not implementing that button, thus not creating the problem in the first place.
> 
> Not to forget the "clock" isn't always something easily sped up...
> "We have to find the cure before the illness extends" - "Make the illnes kill in minutes"
> ...



This is an excellent way to shift the paradigm away from dungeons-as-invasion-proof; the goal of the dungeon is to delay adventurers past zero hour, not to stop them.  If you can engineer a scenario in 4E where every 5-minute rest (and indeed every time-consuming encounter) is an expenditure of a resource not easily regained, then you're on the right track.  Once, I ran an adventure in which the evil necromancer had kidnapped an entire village, and was casting them alive into a blatant rip-off of the Black Cauldron and reanimating them as nasty templated zombies at a rate of one every few minutes, and would continue until he ran out of villagers.  The PCs tore through the dungeon, and when they got close enough to hear the screams of the latest unlucky villager, the PCs simply ignored the delaying hazards in their way, ending in an epic fight between the zombies already accumulated and the threats streaming in that they had neglected to defeat previously.

But, and this is the important point, once zero hour had passed and the necromancer had run out of villagers, the PCs could have simply chipped away at him endlessly, and reasonably safely.  The trick was to portray having to do that as a lose condition, not as a smart tactic.


----------



## Hathorym (Mar 3, 2008)

Stormtower said:
			
		

> I hope this post did not sound preachy...



Absolutely not - I thought it was very well written and I just want to QFT


----------



## Andalusian (Mar 3, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This is the thing I wonder about the various house rules.
> 
> In 1e/2e, it took days to heal but what would ACTUALLY happen was
> a) Cleric on the next day would simply blow all their slots on healing
> ...



Well, we typically ran 1E/2E games with both indoor and outdoor random encounter tables. I always felt this was fair... you could decide to camp in a location and try to heal up as long as you wanted, but there's a risk that something might come along and potentially hurt you worse (most of the random encounters were designed to be fairly weak, but a small percentage were moderately strong enough to challenge a weakened party). This tended to keep us from waiting around to heal every last HP up. Kind of sucked to be the cleric, though, since he'd usually have to blow all his spell slots on cure spells to get everyone up and running as quickly as possible.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 3, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> If you can engineer a scenario in 4E where every 5-minute rest (and indeed every time-consuming encounter) is an expenditure of a resource not easily regained, then you're on the right track.




That's pretty easy - the dungeon is one encounter.

That means you switch from "an encounter is a unit of time" to "an encounter is an exciting scene", like watching a movie or TV show.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 3, 2008)

Betote said:
			
		

> Refilled as in "push reset button"? No.
> 
> Fallen combatants attended by evil clerics, traps set to welcome the not-so-unexpected-now intruders? Most probably.
> 
> ...




The problem in previous editions - as far as I can tell - is this:
- There isn't always a ticking clock. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense. This invites people to approach threats carefully, including making early retreats. And it's sensible to do so, both from a pure metagame perspective as well as from the role-playing perspective.

- The clock in 3E ticks in 24 hour ticks. If for some reason there is only one encounter in this 24 hour period, the play balance shifts towards those that have a lot of daily resources (traditionally: Spellcasters)

These drawbacks limit your adventure design possibilities - at least if you want to be "fair" to everyone (having the fighters shine as much as the spellcasters, as well as having the party as a whole run a series of encounters they can beat if they don't act to stupid...)


----------



## hong (Mar 3, 2008)

Or, to put it more succinctly: basing your entire ruleset on the assumption that there will always be a ticking clock is bad design.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 3, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Not really IME.



But that was my point, just because your experience misses certain things doesn't remotely mean that everyone else's experience is likewise hampered.



> Here's what I want in the skill system. Basically, I want to have everyone involved in the skill system at the same time a la combat instead of the pre 4E Shadowrun system where basically, you get one guy in the spotlight and everybody else simply watching on (and IME, people simply leave the table if it takes more than a couple of rolls).
> 
> An expert should have a high chance of success (but it should not be automatic ~85-95%) while the general case everyone else should be slightly sweating it (40-60%).



The idea that any and every wizard has a fair chance of climbing any surface that the rogue can climb and any and every fighter has a fair chance to know any arcane fact that the wizard could know is a terrible idea to me.  

Obviously this is just down to difference in opinion.  But it is not at all plausible to me that the meaning of expert would be so constrained.  And secondly, having this avenue for putting real challenges in front of the party removed would be a big negative for me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 3, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But that was my point, just because your experience misses certain things doesn't remotely mean that everyone else's experience is likewise hampered.
> 
> 
> The idea that any and every wizard has a fair chance of climbing any surface that the rogue can climb and any and every fighter has a fair chance to know any arcane fact that the wizard could know is a terrible idea to me.
> ...




In case of the wizard, I like the idea of "flavouring" his physical skill checks differently then that of a martial character. The wizard is actually using magic to help him climb - the effects are subtle, but noticeable. 

I also happen to think that a difference of 8-15 points between untrained and trained characters (due to ability modifiers and training modifiers) is sufficient to model all the scenarios are like:
- The "easy skill challenge". It's unlike that non-trained characters will fail (especially with retries), and trained characters will never fail it.
- The "average" skill challenge. Non-trained characters have a fair (50 %) chance to succeed. Trained characters will almost certainly succeed.
- The "difficult" skill challenge. Non-trained characters have little chance of succeeding. Trained characters have a fair chance.
- The "impossible" skill challenge. Non-trained characters probably don't need to bother to try. Trained characters have a chance to beat it.


----------



## Derro (Mar 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> In case of the wizard, I like the idea of "flavouring" his physical skill checks differently then that of a martial character. The wizard is actually using magic to help him climb - the effects are subtle, but noticeable.




What happens when your flavor is soured by crunch though? Wizards climb poorly in anti-magic zone or under the affects of magic suppression? All of there untrained skills suffer because they can't access there power source? Niggling I know but somewhat valid.

Personally I don't have any specific problems with the new skill system. 3.x just got way too bloated with competence bonuses and magic bonuses and synergy bonuses and gaaah. Skills, if anything, should be simple to figure and simple to use. While the new take does not have the degree of grain that I usually prefer it looks serviceable nonetheless.



> I also happen to think that a difference of 8-15 points between untrained and trained characters (due to ability modifiers and training modifiers) is sufficient to model all the scenarios are like:
> - The "easy skill challenge". It's unlike that non-trained characters will fail (especially with retries), and trained characters will never fail it.
> - The "average" skill challenge. Non-trained characters have a fair (50 %) chance to succeed. Trained characters will almost certainly succeed.
> - The "difficult" skill challenge. Non-trained characters have little chance of succeeding. Trained characters have a fair chance.
> - The "impossible" skill challenge. Non-trained characters probably don't need to bother to try. Trained characters have a chance to beat it.




It also serves to keep DCs under control. The method of scaling skill DCs in 3.x is so opaque. I stopped using the rules a long time ago and just started saying 20 +/- 3-5 for conditions relevant to the task. Within reason of course.


----------



## PeterWeller (Mar 3, 2008)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> And to do that, *I expect the rules to serve the adventures and the setting*, and not the adventures and the setting to serve the rules.




The more "realistic" and inclusive the rules are, the more beholden to them the adventure and the setting must be.  See Derren's problems with magic-less dragons for a good example of this.  They _don't work_ in 3E's interrelated "simulationist" world because the rules won't allow them to survive.  When you stop requiring your rulebooks to model a complete and "realistic" world, you don't have to deal with this sort of nonsense that gets in the way of roleplaying, designing adventures, and having fun.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> In case of the wizard, I like the idea of "flavouring" his physical skill checks differently then that of a martial character. The wizard is actually using magic to help him climb - the effects are subtle, but noticeable.



And you can do that with a particular character in 3E now if you want to build him that way.  But the idea that it is assumed for all wizards rubs completely contrary to the kind of fantasy I enjoy.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 3, 2008)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> The more "realistic" and inclusive the rules are, the more beholden to them the adventure and the setting must be.  See Derren's problems with magic-less dragons for a good example of this.  They _don't work_ in 3E's interrelated "simulationist" world because the rules won't allow them to survive.  When you stop requiring your rulebooks to model a complete and "realistic" world, you don't have to deal with this sort of nonsense that gets in the way of roleplaying, designing adventures, and having fun.



I've used Green Ronin Feral Dragons with no trouble at all.

And I of course reject the idea that simulationism gets in the way of roleplaying, designing adventures and having fun.  To the contrary, I'd say that jarring disconnects with sensibility are the detractors to the kind of immersion based fun that I am looking for.  I'm not saying that getting on with killing the orc in a DDM or Descent style game is some kind of "not fun".  But I am saying that there is a kind of roleplaying experience that is connected to simulation.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Mar 3, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I'd say that jarring disconnects with sensibility are the detractors to the kind of immersion based fun that I am looking for.



Exactly.  And, seriously, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief at the drop of a hat.  (I'm one of those people that go into an objectively crap flick like _AVP-R_ and ignore the goofiness and gaping plot holes if they make the slightest token effort.  And enjoy it.)  But they _have to drop the hat_.

Completely healed from "1 HP from dead" to "100 percent" in 6 hours?  Okay, I completely understand the "why" of it, and I'm even onboard with it, at least mostly.  But you have to tell me _how_.  Is it something as goofy as "all PCs are infused with the spirits of ancient heroes, to the extent that they recover from wounds supernatually fast"?  Okay, good enough for me!

I'm the obverse-Mulder ... *I want to suspend my disbelief*.  But the game system, or movie, or comic book, or whatever needs to give me a reason -- damned near any reason -- to do it.  And from what we've seen of 4E so far, the game designers just don't care about people like me.

That's what so many 4E critics are talking about when they say it feels like a boardgame.  There's no attempt in chess to explain why bishops can move diagonally rather than orthagonally.  It's a boardgame ... no suspension of disbelief required.  There's no attempt to explain what exactly Parcheesi is even modelling.  But it's a boardgame ... no suspension of disbelief required.

D&D is an RPG.  There are lots of us out here that want to be able to suspend our disbelief, because that's exactly what RPGs, like movies and comic books and Stephen King novels, are for.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Mar 3, 2008)

Ovinnik said:
			
		

> I also don't agree that any game system is inherently 'better' for role-playing than other.  I've heard many WoD fanboys state that the Storyteller system is, by default, more RP-oriented than D&D, etc.  Many of those fanboys then go on to create their characters with 4 Dex, 4-5 in Firearms, and whatever good combat merits they can afford.
> 
> 4e is indeed very 'gamist', but all versions of D&D (and all class-based level-based abstract-HP systems) are very 'gamist'.  Being 'gamist' doesn't inherently detract from role-play, any more than 'realistic' systems (such as GURPS) or 'RP-focused' systems (such as, supposedly, Storyteller) inherently add to it.  Its all in the people playing, 100%.




Here, here!!


----------



## Psion (Mar 3, 2008)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> And to do that, *I expect the rules to serve the adventures and the setting*, and not the adventures and the setting to serve the rules.




Now where have I heard that before?


----------



## Darkthorne (Mar 3, 2008)

So far I have seen the arguments for HP/healing as 3.5 more realistic (being actual physical damage in some cases) while 4 is more abstract (being bruises, tended on the fly wounds and mental fatigue). I would say look at what both are setting out to be (from certain people's veiwpoints). 
3.5 I believe is much less accurate in the goal of being a "realistic" measure of damage taken. A fully healed level 1 wizard no con bonus has 4 hp takes 5 hp of damage is dying with his spleen on the floor exposed for all the world to see. However to save our wizard and lack of modesty regarding his spleen 5 level 0 orisons will bring him back to full fighting trim and vigor (damn that's a powerful spell). Now a 16th level fighter with at this point a 17 con say 152 hp takes 16 hp (that's 4 dead wizards!!!) has a scratch ("It's only a flesh wound!!") will not heal fully from that scratch with 5 of the same exact spell that brought our original spleenless wizard back to full fighting form does not seem "realistic" to me. Mind you I think 3.5 is pretty damn cool and is number crunchy and I like number crunchy (I play with excel for fun, I know I'm sick like that).
4th ed however is stating from the get go that hp is more abstract and not actually physical wounds, that it's a combo from above. And wouldn't a spell cast 5 times at level 1 to bring someone back to full health should be able to do the same when cast by someone that is 19 more levels more experienced be able to do the same thing? They also state they have done this so you don't HAVE to have a cleric in the group (Big freaking plus here IMHO, as I don't feel that someone is forced to play something they don't want in order for the group to survive)
As for the ticking clock scenarios, they give the game a sense of urgency when required. But if the group has to leave because they have been chewed into under 20 hps at higher levels, they are not going to camp right outside the dungeon and only spend a day there. They will move considerably farther away (more time spent traveling and not as far due to being wounded or PCs at 0) because Leeroy the bugbear has a friend you didn't kill and Leeroy has lots of friends and family that would be more than happy to scout about the surrounding area and then some to go after the extremely wounded PC's as that is easier to deal with than if they are at full health. Even with only using the one day amount of delay (not enough time for the pc's to fully heal) I would believe that is sufficient time to bring alot of the enemy's strength to bear (think of what the PC's can accomplish in this time). I would expect at that point the dungeon being tougher than the 1st time around. Also if your cleric gets dropped this time is substantially longer, let alone if there is no cleric (The dm doesn't have to make things easier because you have no cleric). 
3.5 partially forces your hand in what you HAVE to be good in for skills, as you are the one that fills THIS niche (The gods help the group if your dead) and all those years before becoming an adventurer you didn't learn anything? I also honestly think it partially forces your group's hand who play what as you REALLY should a healer type and a trapsmith type. *I* know our group should have a cleric or a rogue but everyone is playing what they like, however that by no means the bad guys should become stupid or less optimal than normal because the PC group design wasn't optimal. I seriously like the fact that about 4th ed you don't have to have either in order for the mission to succeed (or more accurately having a decent chance to succeed).
I think the designers looked at it and went "The POV of hp = physical damage at at 40%/60% doesn't work". I think this (the definition of hp) is just a sacred cow they brought out back and shot for something more accurate. But this is my POV


----------



## Derren (Mar 3, 2008)

Personally my problem is not so much with the 6 hours rest but with the spontaneous self healing and especially with the "being cut down by an enemy but then standing up again with 25% health".


----------



## helium3 (Mar 3, 2008)

Betote said:
			
		

> I've always thought the "stay in bed until fully healed, no matter how much time it takes" and the dreaded "15-minutes workday" are not rules problems, but adventure designing problems. If your concept of "adventure" is "a dungeon with completely isolated rooms where everybody just stands waiting for somebody to come, kill them and take heir stuff", you will surely face these "problems".




I've also noticed that a lot of players sort of seem to behave as if each and every minute of game-time must be filled with adventuring. If I were to say, "you all take a month to relax and recuperate from your wounds. Let's take ten minutes to role-play anything interesting that people want to do that doesn't involve adventuring." I hunch some of them would act as if I were stealing levels from them or something.

In reality, all I'm doing is making a statement, consuming ten minutes of out-of-game time and then waving my hands and making a month of in-game time pass.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 3, 2008)

Darkthorne said:
			
		

> 3.5 I believe is much less accurate in the goal of being a "realistic" measure of damage taken. A fully healed level 1 wizard no con bonus has 4 hp takes 5 hp of damage is dying with his spleen on the floor exposed for all the world to see. However to save our wizard and lack of modesty regarding his spleen 5 level 0 orisons will bring him back to full fighting trim and vigor (damn that's a powerful spell). Now a 16th level fighter with at this point a 17 con say 152 hp takes 16 hp (that's 4 dead wizards!!!) has a scratch ("It's only a flesh wound!!") will not heal fully from that scratch with 5 of the same exact spell that brought our original spleenless wizard back to full fighting form does not seem "realistic" to me.



I think the "realism" thing is you primary problem, the issue has been the system never really fully matched it's description of HP as abstract before creating a system disconnect.  But it appears to me that the core of your "realism" issue is the assumption that if HP=physical damage the ability of PCs to survive injury remains at a normal RW human level even as their HP continue to go up.  If the lvl16 fighter with 152 hp took 16 damage it wasn't just a scratch, he did take enough damage to kill 4 1st level wizards, and can eat it like cake.  A 16th lvl fighter is so f*ing metal he gets pincushioned with a half dozen spears, rips them from his body and rams one up the enemy's bum before using him as a screaming bloody mace to beat the rest to death.


----------



## Darkthorne (Mar 3, 2008)

Heaven
The example I was using above is not my POV but what I see as other people's pov that debate 3.5 was/is more realistic in it's approach. I like how 4th ed scales it spells (curative in this line of inquiry) so at higher levels the low level effects at not almost ineffectual at best.
Thanks


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Mar 3, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Personally my problem is not so much with the 6 hours rest but with the spontaneous self healing and especially with the "being cut down by an enemy but then standing up again with 25% health".




Which is why I will never play at your table, and you will never play at mine.

Spontaneous self healing?  Dude, that allows me to do crazy things and not be apron-tied to the cleric.  

As for the "being cut down by an enemy but then standing again," let me tell you about my game on Saturday...

*That session* we agreed to use the 4e death and dying rule.  During the fight, the dwarven fighter, who was mounted on a riding horse, crited the hobgoblin leader and took him down.  In return, the hobo's twin soldiers rolled a 19 and a 20 to hit and reduced the dwarf to -6.  Since his mount was a riding horse --not a warhorse-- with no one to control it the thing spooked and bolted away from combat.  This carried the unconsicous, bleeding dwarf _away_ from the cleric.

2 rounds of rolls later, the player of the dwarf rolled his save... and it came up a natural 20!  The cheering around the table was heartfelt and joyous!  2 more rounds of hard riding and the dwarf was back in the fight, riding down opponents and helping the party mount up and flee before hobgoblin reinforcements arrived.

Under 3.5 rules, because the dwarf was nowhere near a cleric he would have had about 4 rounds to roll a 10% check or be dead, and even if he did stablize the player was still out of the fight.

Here, he managed to make a spectacular recovery and a triumphant ride back into the fray to help save the party.  We had a great time, and the players actually _cheered_ when the player made the roll.  

The player of the dwarf actually e-mailed me after and said the new rules made a tough fight into something he will truly remember.

And that is why I support our new 4e overlords.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 3, 2008)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> Here, he managed to make a spectacular recovery and a triumphant ride back into the fray to help save the party.  We had a great time, and the players actually _cheered_ when the player made the roll.



The first session we used the 4E rules, the party was involved in a pitched battle with a large group of foes. The centaur TWF ranger went down and it was looking grim, with the party outnumbered and bleeding. One natural 20 later, elation filled the room as the centaur rose to his feet with a blade in each hand and proceeded to cut a swath through the enemy. A possible TPK turned into a genuinely exciting moment. One of the better changes for 4E, I'd say.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 4, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I've also noticed that a lot of players sort of seem to behave as if each and every minute of game-time must be filled with adventuring. If I were to say, "you all take a month to relax and recuperate from your wounds. Let's take ten minutes to role-play anything interesting that people want to do that doesn't involve adventuring." I hunch some of them would act as if I were stealing levels from them or something.




Whereas, I have been criticized by my players for not doing mountains of blue-booking between each session covering each and every minute of downtime.

I recently tried an experiment: I told them "You are going to start your next adventure HERE. You are currently THERE. It's a three month trip across hostile terrain; here's some of the known points of interest. If you write a short story -- a page at least -- detailing one adventure you had en route, you get half the XP needed to move you to your next level and a level-appropriate magic item of my choice."

This way, they get to define something of their non-combat time and get material rewards, and I don't have to do . 

I can also be sure anytime they enter a town, at least an entire game session will go by with them running hither and yon meeting every NPC in the place, each according to their own personal interests -- the Oath Of Poverty druid will be looking for oppressed people, the warforged tinkerer will be looking to fix things, the bard will be looking to get laid, etc. I basically need nothing but a bunch of NPCs and agendas, no real 'adventure' at all.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Mar 4, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I recently tried an experiment: I told them "You are going to start your next adventure HERE. You are currently THERE. It's a three month trip across hostile terrain; here's some of the known points of interest. If you write a short story -- a page at least -- detailing one adventure you had en route, you get half the XP needed to move you to your next level and a level-appropriate magic item of my choice."




How many takers did you get on this offer, out of curiosity?


----------



## Lizard (Mar 4, 2008)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> How many takers did you get on this offer, out of curiosity?




Three out of five players.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 4, 2008)

> I'm the obverse-Mulder ... I want to suspend my disbelief. But the game system, or movie, or comic book, or whatever needs to give me a reason -- damned near any reason -- to do it. And from what we've seen of 4E so far, the game designers just don't care about people like me.




Hahaha, I like that.

And +1.


----------



## hong (Mar 4, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> I'm the obverse-Mulder ... *I want to suspend my disbelief*.  But the game system, or movie, or comic book, or whatever needs to give me a reason -- damned near any reason -- to do it.  And from what we've seen of 4E so far, the game designers just don't care about people like me.




Come back to rgfd, Jeff! We care!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And you can do that with a particular character in 3E now if you want to build him that way.  But the idea that it is assumed for all wizards rubs completely contrary to the kind of fantasy I enjoy.




The problem is BryonD, 3e actively penalizes you if you try to do that.  Climb, for a simple example, is a cross class skill for wizard.  So, he has to burn 2 ranks each time.  Say he's got an 18 Int, so, he's burning almost half his ranks every level just to be able to climb.  Now, he still can't do anything else, like stand on the deck of a heaving ship (balance), tie a knot (use rope) or any of the truly useful skills like Spot or Search.

It's a zero sum game and he's being penalized heavily if he goes against it. Considering that DC's almost always scale by level, unless you keep a skill maxed, you might as well not bother.  It's too expensive to keep skills maxed that are cross class, and there are far too many skills to even have a minor chance of success.

Look at what a wizard is pretty much expected to know:

Spellcraft
Concentration 
at least 1 Knowledge skill

Already he's over his skill limits per level.  How can he possibly afford to keep up other skills to the point where they will actually work?


----------



## Ourph (Mar 4, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I recently tried an experiment: I told them "You are going to start your next adventure HERE. You are currently THERE. It's a three month trip across hostile terrain; here's some of the known points of interest. If you write a short story -- a page at least -- detailing one adventure you had en route, you get half the XP needed to move you to your next level and a level-appropriate magic item of my choice."
> 
> This way, they get to define something of their non-combat time and get material rewards, and I don't have to do .



I love stealing ideas that let me improve my game while not doing .   Yoink!


----------



## helium3 (Mar 4, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Three out of five players.




*nod*

I've noticed that if you offer XP in amounts that players actually care about, they'll respond. The way I set it up, the players can do the extra work to get the bonus XP whenever they want. Oddly enough, as soon as the players got close to (but not quite) leveling the background info came pouring in.

In the past, the DM would give out a whopping 150 XP for character background. What a major incentive!!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Whereas, I have been criticized by my players for not doing mountains of blue-booking between each session covering each and every minute of downtime.
> 
> I recently tried an experiment: I told them "You are going to start your next adventure HERE. You are currently THERE. It's a three month trip across hostile terrain; here's some of the known points of interest. If you write a short story -- a page at least -- detailing one adventure you had en route, you get half the XP needed to move you to your next level and a level-appropriate magic item of my choice."
> 
> ...




Lizard - that's great and all.  But, do you think that the rules should assume that every group plays this way?


----------



## helium3 (Mar 4, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Whereas, I have been criticized by my players for not doing mountains of blue-booking between each session covering each and every minute of downtime.




See, I'd just tell my players to piss-off if they tried to give me a hard time about that. I'm talking about IMPORTANT stuff, not every time Lidda has to run to the Latrine. Basically, that time off gives the player-characters a chance to research any Plot Hooks they might have run across. I tend to throw them in quite liberally.

On an aside, it was really funny at first because the players were coming from the perspective that each and every plot-hook must be followed. They were totally overwhelmed until I finally explained that "no, I do not expect you to follow up on every hook, just the ones you think your character would be interested in."


----------



## FireLance (Mar 4, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Personally my problem is not so much with the 6 hours rest but with the spontaneous self healing and especially with the "being cut down by an enemy but then standing up again with 25% health".



As for me, I just assume that no physical healing actually takes place. The character just taps some hidden reserve of willpower and continues fighting _despite_ his wounds. Would replacing the terms "hit points" and "healing surges" with "determination points" and "determination boosts" help?


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 4, 2008)

Full healing from any condition in 6 hours is a complete non-starter for me.

We unintentionally quasi-solved the housecat problem 25+ years ago when we introduced "body points" - a single die roll representing real physical damage that any living thing does once (though a housecat rolls a d1) and adds to its normal hit points (we call those "fatigue points").  A Human rolls d5 for bodies, a Dwarf d6, an Elf d4, etc., and decent Con can force a minimum.  What this does is turn what used to be the 0 h.p.-to-1 h.p. divide into something much larger that housecats can fit into. (this turned out to be surprisingly similar to SWSE's wound-vitality system, only with fewer wound points)

We then introduced rules to the effect that body-point healing via rest worked differently than fatigue point healing, and spells worked differently on the two types as well.

But, if the party can full heal in 6 hours then the bloody monsters better be able to as well!

Lane-"I have a housecat in my lap as I type this"-fan


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem is BryonD, 3e actively penalizes you if you try to do that.  Climb, for a simple example, is a cross class skill for wizard.  So, he has to burn 2 ranks each time.  Say he's got an 18 Int...




Ok.



> Look at what a wizard is pretty much expected to know:
> 
> Spellcraft
> Concentration
> ...




Say what?

I thought you said he had an 18 Int?  Doesn't that mean he could max out 6 skills - 7 if he's human.  And since he really only needs 2 skills, plus some knowledge skills perhaps not possessed by others in the party, he's got alot of skill points left to spend. 



> Considering that DC's almost always scale by level, unless you keep a skill maxed, you might as well not bother.




That is in my opinion, extremely poor design on the part of the DM.  You are punishing players for getting skillful at something, rather than letting them enjoy the rewards of thier skillfulness.  Some DC's should scale with level, but on average walls shouldn't get smoother, floors more slippery, treasure more exotic, objects harder to craft, runes harder to decipher, entanglements harder to escape from, ropes harder to tie, animals harder to handle or ride, weather harder to survive, wounds harder to treat, and so forth simply because the characters are getting tougher.  



> How can he possibly afford to keep up other skills to the point where they will actually work?




That he isn't getting some tangible benefit out of 5 ranks in some skill is the fault of the DM, not the system.


----------



## Imp (Mar 4, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> That is in my opinion, extremely poor design on the part of the DM.  You are punishing players for getting skillful at something, rather than letting them enjoy the rewards of thier skillfulness.  Some DC's should scale with level, but on average walls shouldn't get smoother, floors more slippery, treasure more exotic, objects harder to craft, runes harder to decipher, entanglements harder to escape from, ropes harder to tie, animals harder to handle or ride, weather harder to survive, wounds harder to treat, and so forth simply because the characters are getting tougher.



I wouldn't be that mean, because a lot of the 3e rules sort of imply that sort of thing, but I don't do generally scaling DCs either – just the occasional lock or trap or Big Deal obstacle that's meant to be a hassle or else intentionally divide the party. I encourage characters to spend nominal points (say, up to 5 or so per skill) on cross-class skills.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 4, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Full healing from any condition in 6 hours is a complete non-starter for me.




It's mostly recovering, not just actual healing.  Heroic characters vs. Monsters is equivalent to a fist fight between two normal people, or a boxing match with gloves on between two serious fighters.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Mar 4, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Heroic characters vs. Monsters is equivalent to a fist fight between two normal people, or a boxing match with gloves on between two serious fighters.



Even if this is true -- and it sure seems suspect to me -- is it really your belief that six hours after, say, Frazier-Ali -- _six hours_! -- the two fighters would be perfectly able to go at it again?  And then again, six hours after that?  Really?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



5 ranks mean you invested 10 of your wizard skill points, and you're already a 7th level Wizard. Your friendly neighbourhood Fighter or Rogue already had that 5 levels earlier, at half the cost.

And then there is the problem: What if I want to make a Climb check in interesting challenge to the whole group? I mean, it isn't as if you need a lot of Climb checks per session, so they should probably count for something.

In 3E, there is a very narrow window of opportunity for make Climbing count for everyone - probably the first 1-3 levels. Afterwards, I'll have the untrained, who can succeed at only the most basic task, or the trained, who will still succeed at difficult tasks and fine basic tasks cakewalks. 

There is a reason why HD, BAB and Saves automatically scaled in 3E, and it was a flaw that this didn't apply for skills. If you really want a level based system, make sure that every bit of character advancement is guided by these levels.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Even if this is true -- and it sure seems suspect to me -- is it really your belief that six hours after, say, Frazier-Ali -- _six hours_! -- the two fighters would be perfectly able to go at it again?  And then again, six hours after that?  Really?



Do you expect Ali to go against a Dragon (even a young one) together with 5 boxer friends and survive?


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 4, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Even if this is true -- and it sure seems suspect to me -- is it really your belief that six hours after, say, Frazier-Ali -- _six hours_! -- the two fighters would be perfectly able to go at it again?  And then again, six hours after that?  Really?




Beowulf spends seven days and nights swimming, non-stop, in chain mail and bearing a heavy iron sword. Then he stops to fight a number of sea monsters. And barely loses the race.

Frazier and Ali are cool and all, but they aren't fantastic heroes.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 4, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Even if this is true -- and it sure seems suspect to me -- is it really your belief that six hours after, say, Frazier-Ali -- _six hours_! -- the two fighters would be perfectly able to go at it again?  And then again, six hours after that?  Really?




They would be in much better shape than if someone had been shoving a sword into them or slicing off large parts of their torso or shattering their ribcage.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Mar 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Do you expect Ali to go against a Dragon (even a young one) together with 5 boxer friends and survive?



It wasn't my analogy.



			
				mourn said:
			
		

> Frazier and Ali are cool and all, but they aren't fantastic heroes.



It wasn't my analogy.



			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> They would be in much better shape than if someone had been shoving a sword into them or slicing off large parts of their torso or shattering their ribcage.



It wasn't my analogy.

The poster who made the analogy said that 4E heroic fights are like boxing matches between professional fighters, and that's why 4E heroes can go from "1 HP from death" to "completely fine" in six hours.  I pointed out that professional fighters are _not_ completely fine in six hours.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 4, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> That is in my opinion, extremely poor design on the part of the DM.  You are punishing players for getting skillful at something, rather than letting them enjoy the rewards of thier skillfulness.  Some DC's should scale with level, but on average walls shouldn't get smoother, floors more slippery, treasure more exotic, objects harder to craft, runes harder to decipher, entanglements harder to escape from, ropes harder to tie, animals harder to handle or ride, weather harder to survive, wounds harder to treat, and so forth simply because the characters are getting tougher.
> .




Actually, I would disagree and state in fact that most skills do scale with level in that skill encounters become more dangerous AND the use of opposed checks.

Take Balance for example. At 1st level, forcing a party to fight on a 2-inch wide bridge that is severely sloped, slippery and obstructed (DC 32) would be equivalent to putting the party up against a 15th CR monster. What you put the 1st level party up against is crossing a bridge that's 7-12 inches wide (DC 10). 

The same thing applies to many other skills with multiple DCs. It seems like the designers fully intended for skill challenges to be set for the appropriate level of the party. Sure there are DC 10+ obstacles but just like monsters, they should only show up at the appropriate level for the party.

Then there's the skills that do scale with level DIRECTLY. For example, at first glance, Rope Use doesn't make sense that ropes are harder to tie one could argue.  However, Rope Use is what used to oppose Escape Artist checks and Escape Artist checks itself are also used to get out of grapples which DO scale with level. 

Same thing even shows up with Handle Animal where to rear an animal its tied to the HD of the animal (which is somewhat bogus given that elephants are generally considered much more trainable than say wld cats like lions/tigers)

Similarly, there are opposed check skills like Bluff, Spot and Forgery which have no static DC

Basically, skill challenges SHOULD be more challenging as you increase in levels since this is what it seems like the designers intended for.

True, there are skills like Appraise which has only 1 static DC but even here, I tend to come down on the side that believes that by 20th level, even the barbarian PC should be able to know more about diamonds/rubies than he did at 1st level.

The thing is, he only knows as much as a 1st level Professional Appraiser (a,k.a, has just opened his first shop/still on the last leg of his apprenticeship) using the SWSE which I think is fine/realistic.


----------



## fedelas (Mar 4, 2008)

Clavis said:
			
		

> The problem is that a tactical game, with many PC powers that can interact in unpredictable ways, is much harder to write for as DM. 4th edition look to give the DM many more powers that he has to account for when creating suitable challenges for the characters. Consequently, the DM is forced to either buy pre-packaged adventures (created by prefessionals who can afford to spend time doing the required math), or spend his time creating suitable combat challenges _rather than making good NPCs or interesting adventure hooks._ Personally, I think that's the point - to make the game so hard to write for (while all the while telling us its easier) that homebrewing DMs will simply give up and buy their adventures and game worlds.
> 
> As a DM, I see 4th Edition's promises of faster prep and easier DMing as akin to the scams a lot of store pull at Christmas time. They raise their prices by 20%, and then have a 15% off sale. All people see is the sale, and they forget that they're actually paying more than they did for the same items in November. 3rd edition (especially at high levels) made DMIng so hard compared to previous incarnations of the game, that anything will seem easier. I won't compare 4th edition to 3rd edition; that's the comparison WOTC wants me to make. Instead, I can pull out my old AD&D and Rule Cyclopedia material, and compare it to them. And you know what, 4th Edition is going to be a headache to DM, if you are  a homebrewer.
> 
> ...



 I'm most a DM and 100% homebrewer; my worst problem with 3ed is the amount of prep. it take me,not in creating hooks and story plot ( i can take inspiration in many times: when i drive the car, listen to music, watching a movie etc.etc), but in writing monster stats, balancing combat encounter and so on. Most of the time my well an time consuming "climax combat encounter" ends-up in 3 combat round, very disappointing to me. If 4ed can give my a ways to run a great, exciting AND simple to run combat encounter i'm totally sold. I can think by myself about all the fluff and storyplay of my campaign/world (as i can do in every RPG rules/system).
Also more of my  players ARE gamist people (playing warhammer, miniature games, sometimes TcG ) who liked to "drama queen" abit, so if I can give them a game where they can make signicant tactical decision on the battlefield( this is IMO the rules of the game work's) and exciting roleplaying situations (that's MY work) they will be VERY HAPPY (and me too...).
I don't actually know if 4ed can bring me this, but i liked 80% of what i've seen and in my book, this is good.
Cheers!


----------



## malladin (Mar 4, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> It wasn't my analogy.
> 
> It wasn't my analogy.
> 
> ...




This is particularly funny as one of the people changing the example IS the original poster! If your going to discuss something you believe it's generally form to argue your point, not change it to something completely different as flaws are pointed out. What a laugh


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2008)

> That is in my opinion, extremely poor design on the part of the DM. You are punishing players for getting skillful at something, rather than letting them enjoy the rewards of thier skillfulness. Some DC's should scale with level, but on average walls shouldn't get smoother, floors more slippery, treasure more exotic, objects harder to craft, runes harder to decipher, entanglements harder to escape from, ropes harder to tie, animals harder to handle or ride, weather harder to survive, wounds harder to treat, and so forth simply because the characters are getting tougher.




((Sidebar - on the skill points thing.  I was referring to two different wizards - one specific with an 18 Int and one the base class.  I assumed it was clear in context, my bad.  Will be more specific in the future))

You cannot claim this though.  Most skills do scale.  Knowledge skills, for example, scale based on CR.  Other than a few basic skills, like Appraise, every skill does actually scale by level because the challenges you face get harder as you go up level.

AllisterH makes several very good points.  It's not bad DMing, it's how the rules actually work.  5 ranks in Spot isn't going to do squat against anything that hides after about CR 7.  I would actually say that most skills with 5 ranks won't make any difference after 7th level.  The challenges you face will just overwhelm your skills.  That, or the skill monkey is bored out of his skull because he's cakewalking every challenge.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Lizard - that's great and all.  But, do you think that the rules should assume that every group plays this way?




I'm sorry, I sincerely don't understand the relevance of the question to what I wrote. Most of what I discussed isn't covered by rules, except generally. (It's one reason I'm disappointed by the removal of NPC classes in 4e; I like my important townsfolk to be as mechanically distinct as possible.) But otherwise, things like accounting for downtime and DM-granted XP bonuses can be done in almost any game which has, well, XP and downtime, and it works as well in 4e as it does in 3e.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem is BryonD, 3e actively penalizes you if you try to do that.  Climb, for a simple example, is a cross class skill for wizard.  So, he has to burn 2 ranks each time.  Say he's got an 18 Int, so, he's burning almost half his ranks every level just to be able to climb.  Now, he still can't do anything else, like stand on the deck of a heaving ship (balance), tie a knot (use rope) or any of the truly useful skills like Spot or Search.
> 
> It's a zero sum game and he's being penalized heavily if he goes against it. Considering that DC's almost always scale by level, unless you keep a skill maxed, you might as well not bother.  It's too expensive to keep skills maxed that are cross class, and there are far too many skills to even have a minor chance of success.
> 
> ...



First, for the archetypal wizard this is a good thing.

Second, there are feats out there to let you pick up a new class skill.  Again, I am very much againt the idea that all wizards everywhere are skilled climbers.  So the idea that some price must be paid somewhere else to be the exception is, again, a good thing.

It can be done.  And I haven't even gotten in to magic items, multi-classing, etc...


----------



## Imp (Mar 4, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Actually, I would disagree and state in fact that most skills do scale with level in that skill encounters become more dangerous AND the use of opposed checks.



No. No. They don't have to. You don't have to make a high-level party fight on a greased rope to be level-appropriate; that doesn't even make sense unless you want to separate out the rogue-type (and unless nobody else can fly of course) – otherwise what you're doing there is adding an additional complication to a fight to make it harder, by forcing nonspecialized characters to make basic skill checks.

Even many opposed skill checks don't meet meaningful opposition – use rope vs. escape artist being a big one, bluff vs. sense motive; on the other hand spot/listen vs. hide/move silently do scale very frequently. It depends on the skill really. But there's no special reason that all skill checks have to scale in 3e. "Designer intent" doesn't count.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> First, for the archetypal wizard this is a good thing.
> 
> Second, there are feats out there to let you pick up a new class skill.  Again, I am very much againt the idea that all wizards everywhere are skilled climbers.  So the idea that some price must be paid somewhere else to be the exception is, again, a good thing.
> 
> It can be done.  And I haven't even gotten in to magic items, multi-classing, etc...




Archetypal wizard?  Like Harry Potter?  Quick Ben  (Steven Erikson)?  Lythande from Thieves World?  Or, are we still stuck with Gandalf for yet another decade?  

Burn a feat?  To gain exactly ONE more class skill.  Whoo, there's a good trade.  So, that gets me climb.  How about the half a dozen other skills that would be a good idea for someone who spends his life facing danger to have.

Magic items?  Multi-classing?  Patches at best to spackle over a flaw in the system.  Considering the hue and cry over the dependency on magic items there is already, do you really think that making characters dependent on skill boost items is a good idea?  

Wizard Player- Hrm, I could get a wand of fireball that would really fit with my blowing crap up type of character, but, no, I'll get this rope of climbing that so fits with a wizard archetype.  



> I'm sorry, I sincerely don't understand the relevance of the question to what I wrote. Most of what I discussed isn't covered by rules, except generally. (It's one reason I'm disappointed by the removal of NPC classes in 4e; I like my important townsfolk to be as mechanically distinct as possible.) But otherwise, things like accounting for downtime and DM-granted XP bonuses can be done in almost any game which has, well, XP and downtime, and it works as well in 4e as it does in 3e.




That's my point though.  You were telling how your group wants to spend so much time blue booking.  My point was that that's great for your group, but, the mechanics cannot assume this to be true.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Magic items? Multi-classing? Patches at best to spackle over a flaw in the system. Considering the hue and cry over the dependency on magic items there is already, do you really think that making characters dependent on skill boost items is a good idea?




Well, you have to do the same thing if you want a wizard who can Whirlwind Attack, or a wizard who can Wild Shape.

So why not a Wizard who can climb?

Assuming they just don't take _spiderclimb_, I guess.   



> Wizard Player- Hrm, I could get a wand of fireball that would really fit with my blowing crap up type of character, but, no, I'll get this rope of climbing that so fits with a wizard archetype.




In a lot of my campaigns, this choice works just fine. Of course, my campaigns aren't RttToEE slaughterfests or anything, either, and I tailor my encounters to my party, so if I see a wizard who really wants to climb, and invests in it, I will reward that investment with interesting climbing scenarios. And with the simulationism of the 3e climb skill rules, I have a lot of granularity to work with to make things very interesting. 

I could've sworn that's what running a game was all about.

Heck, in 4e, my wizard won't be able to use a finessed attack, where his agility matters more than his strength for his dagger attacks. He won't be able to do that without multiclassing to rogue. I guess that's just patching over 4e's broken system where my wizard can't learn fancy fighting unless he's a rogue....


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> First, for the archetypal wizard this is a good thing.
> 
> Second, there are feats out there to let you pick up a new class skill.  Again, I am very much againt the idea that all wizards everywhere are skilled climbers.  So the idea that some price must be paid somewhere else to be the exception is, again, a good thing.
> 
> It can be done.  And I haven't even gotten in to magic items, multi-classing, etc...



You're talking about non-core feats as a valid fix? And the magic items can't be also used by the experts, and aren't flaws in and on themselves to make a balanced skill system that you can actually rely on - both as a player and as a DM?

And I am very much for wizards being skilled climbers (even if my personal flavor text describes them using magic) in a game where they are not sitting at home in their library and studying magic, but are travelling the world and fight monsters, climb mountains or explore dungeons. 
It's bad role-playing if you still play a wizard in such a scenario as a book worm that is lost in the wilderness. He might still feel that way, but if he's left to his own devices, his previous experiences in the harsh adventuring world certainly will show compared to a "real" bookworm wizard...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, you have to do the same thing if you want a wizard who can Whirlwind Attack, or a wizard who can Wild Shape.
> 
> So why not a Wizard who can climb?
> 
> Assuming they just don't take _spiderclimb_, I guess.




It's unlikely you pick up something as specific as Whirlwind Attack or Wild Shape up just because you're going around adventuring. But climbing? This has to come up in your typical adventuring career! Even if you have no desire to do so, you will end up climbing sometimes.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It's bad role-playing if you still play a wizard in such a scenario as a book worm that is lost in the wilderness.



That is an absurd comparison.  The wizard Hussar described would be far far away from a book worm lost in the wilderness.  And yet the rogue standing next to him would still be vastly superior at climbing.  The wizard is pretty good, probably significantly better than the average person.  But the rogue is heroic.  
The wizard doesn't have to keep pace with the rogue to avoid being labeled a bookworm.
But for that matter, I'd greatly prefer that the option of bookworms remain as well.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Wizard Player- Hrm, I could get a wand of fireball that would really fit with my blowing crap up type of character, but, no, I'll get this rope of climbing that so fits with a wizard archetype.
> 
> .




Or, uhm, learn spider climb, fly, dimension door, teleport, summon something to carry you...

I've never seen a wizard of any appreciable level having trouble getting from point 'a' to point 'b'. Usually, he's there long before the rogue.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 4, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> No. No. They don't have to. You don't have to make a high-level party fight on a greased rope to be level-appropriate; that doesn't even make sense unless you want to separate out the rogue-type (and unless nobody else can fly of course) – otherwise what you're doing there is adding an additional complication to a fight to make it harder, by forcing nonspecialized characters to make basic skill checks..





Which is kind of why I dislike the 3.x skill mechanics. For example, if I sent an average CR 10 monster against a Level 10 party, the basic assumption is that EVERYONE can contribute in the battle. You have to specifically choose monsters to screw over classes (golems vs mages, undead vs rogues etc). Furthermore, nobody thinks that you should send a CR 1 monster versus the party. Hell, even a CR 5 monster sent against the party would leave many heads scratching

Why is it then that this same design paradigm isn't accepted for skills? Seriously, there's Appraise which has only *1* static DC but most other skills have variables DCs that increase as the task becomes more difficult (Exactly like how monsters are rated) or are skills that EXPLICITLY increase in level (Use Rope is tied directly to Escape Artist which itself is tied to the Grapple mechanics which increase in level)

Focusing on Balance for example, it does seem that the designers wanted skill challenges to be tied to level otherwise there's no reason to have so many variable increasing DCs. You would just need 1 static DC a la Appraise.

Whjat you're talking about (separating rogues and other high skill classes) is the AFTEREFFECT of the 3.x system. At levels 1-3, you can have most skill challenges that involve the entire party (due to the low DCs and the effect of attribute mods) but afterwards, thanks to how the system works, skill challenges become a singular endeavour. 

Which, IMO, is _NOT_ a good thing because many DMs then don't even bother using the skill system in any meaningful way. 

The ability of magic to trump skills so easily and completely is a whole different kettle of fish though.



			
				Imp said:
			
		

> Even many opposed skill checks don't meet meaningful opposition – use rope vs. escape artist being a big one, bluff vs. sense motive; on the other hand spot/listen vs. hide/move silently do scale very frequently. It depends on the skill really. But there's no special reason that all skill checks have to scale in 3e. "Designer intent" doesn't count.




Er, Bluff vs sense Motive in combat is tied directly to level. You add your BAB to your sense motive check to oppose Feinting in combat. How is this NOT a clear example of the designers saying "skill challenges are supposed to scale with level"?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2008)

> In a lot of my campaigns, this choice works just fine. Of course, my campaigns aren't RttToEE slaughterfests or anything, either, and I tailor my encounters to my party, so if I see a wizard who really wants to climb, and invests in it, I will reward that investment with interesting climbing scenarios. And with the simulationism of the 3e climb skill rules, I have a lot of granularity to work with to make things very interesting.




Ok, fine.  The wizard invests in climbing skills.  How about the cleric?  And the fighter?  Sure, the rogue likely has ranks but the other two don't.

See, it's all very well and good to talk about individual players, and snarkily refer to any differing opinion as mindless hack'n'slash, but, it doesn't wash.  Groups adventure as, well, groups.  That means, unless everyone invests, then you cannot throw skill tests at the party.

And, so many skills are so situationally based, that it doesn't make sense to invest heavily.  Why would you invest in, say, climb and not spot?  Spot is going to be used FAR more than climb in any normal campaign.  It doesn't make sense to burn a very limited resource, like those two skill points you get as a fighter, on anything other than things you are going to get the most use out of.  

Take Balance for instance.  A fighter isn't very likely to invest in this since his ACP's are going to bury him so deeply that he'd have to invest heavily just to get back to zero.  Zero's not good enough to do anything.  He's still failing 50% on easy checks.  Same with the cleric.  

Decipher Script, Disguise, heck, even something like Handle Animal requires about a +10 before you've a decent chance of success.  At +5, you're failing about 50% on many checks and 75% on several as well.  You have to invest far too much to get any results.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Archetypal wizard?  Like Harry Potter?  Quick Ben  (Steven Erikson)?  Lythande from Thieves World?  Or, are we still stuck with Gandalf for yet another decade?



  Oh yea, Gandalf is the one and only possible counter-example AND given a choice between supporting multiple styles and kicking the Gandalf version to the curb, exclusion is clearly the path to a better more broadly embraced game.



> Burn a feat?  To gain exactly ONE more class skill.  Whoo, there's a good trade.  So, that gets me climb.  How about the half a dozen other skills that would be a good idea for someone who spends his life facing danger to have.
> 
> Magic items?  Multi-classing?  Patches at best to spackle over a flaw in the system.  Considering the hue and cry over the dependency on magic items there is already, do you really think that making characters dependent on skill boost items is a good idea?
> 
> Wizard Player- Hrm, I could get a wand of fireball that would really fit with my blowing crap up type of character, but, no, I'll get this rope of climbing that so fits with a wizard archetype.



It has worked for me.  



> That's my point though.  You were telling how your group wants to spend so much time blue booking.  My point was that that's great for your group, but, the mechanics cannot assume this to be true.



Assume what to be true?  Your bogus straw man that I spend time blue booking?  I'll just stand by the assumptions that made 3X a very successful game.


----------



## Derren (Mar 4, 2008)

Well, Gandalf did climb a tree in the Hobbit.........
But was he an expert climber?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2008)

> Assume what to be true? Your bogus straw man that I spend time blue booking? I'll just stand by the assumptions that made 3X a very successful game.




That last bit was responding to Lizard, not to you.  Forgot to attribute the quote.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 4, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I've never seen a wizard of any appreciable level having trouble getting from point 'a' to point 'b'. Usually, he's there long before the rogue.



The speed at which magic becomes the best solution to a challenge has always bugged me. 

Which is kinda why I like the lowered cost of skills in 4e --they finally might be priced right-- and the reduction in breath for wizard powers.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Or, uhm, learn spider climb, fly, dimension door, teleport, summon something to carry you...
> 
> I've never seen a wizard of any appreciable level having trouble getting from point 'a' to point 'b'. Usually, he's there long before the rogue.




Gack, that's completely off on a tangent.  

The point is, it makes zero sense for any character to spread skill points around to multiple skills.  It simply doesn't give you enough chance of success and seriously detracts from your core skills.  

The other point about it being poor adventure design is off base as well.  The mechanics scale for many skills.  And, even if the mechanics only scale for a small number of skills, if those skills are important to the role of that PC, then the PC has no real choice but to max those skills.  A wizard needs max concentration and spellcraft.  Probably a couple of knowledge skills in there as well.  Same with the sorcerer who isn't going to be running around with all those bonus Int ranks.

It comes down to a sort of group game where A picks these skills, B picks those skills and C and D pick up the rest.  So, on any given skill challenge, SOMEONE can succeed, but, then the other three players get to sit around twiddling their thumbs.

Remember, the mechanics for SWSE don't mean that you are an expert in all skills.  They mean that, as you go up in level, your basic proficiency in given skills will increase marginally.  You can climb, but, not as well as anyone who is focussed.  Just, your 14th level character can climb better than a 1st level one.

Apparently that's a bad thing.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's my point though.  You were telling how your group wants to spend so much time blue booking.  My point was that that's great for your group, but, the mechanics cannot assume this to be true.




I still don't see how the mechanics enter into it.

If the group doesn't like bluebooking, the DM just says, "OK, three months later..."

Really not seeing any issue or complexity here. Sorry. It's not like the players do nothing for three months of real time.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Gack, that's completely off on a tangent.




I don't think so. Wizards don't need skill points. They can do what they need to do with magic.




> It comes down to a sort of group game where A picks these skills, B picks those skills and C and D pick up the rest.  So, on any given skill challenge, SOMEONE can succeed, but, then the other three players get to sit around twiddling their thumbs.




For the minute, at most, it takes to resolve a skill check. If you game with people with serious narcisissism or ADD, that can be an issue. For everyone else...not so much.



> Remember, the mechanics for SWSE don't mean that you are an expert in all skills.  They mean that, as you go up in level, your basic proficiency in given skills will increase marginally.  You can climb, but, not as well as anyone who is focussed.  Just, your 14th level character can climb better than a 1st level one.
> 
> Apparently that's a bad thing.




I agree. 3x already has the problem of characters who never once engage in melee combat getting better at it over time; now, you get better at *everything*. I think this is why they dropped professional skills -- a 16th level character could do *every possible job* at a professional level of competence. (+8 level bonus, assume a +2 attribute bonus, == a 20 if they take 10.)

I'd solve the problem by having 'core skills' auto increase, letting players pick class skills, and giving out more skill points.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> 5 ranks mean you invested 10 of your wizard skill points, and you're already a 7th level Wizard. Your friendly neighbourhood Fighter or Rogue already had that 5 levels earlier, at half the cost.




Sure, because that's part of thier formal education as fighters and rogues.  Fighters excercise thier muscles, rogues learn to get into tight places.  Doing those things are directly impacted by thier respective class skills, and conversely directly impact thier improvement in class skills.  Learning to climb though has nothing to do with learning to cast magic, unless you are actually casting magic.  Learning to recognize a spell completion has nothing to do with swinging a sword, learning to use your body, or climbing a wall. 

If your wizard wants to take time out of his discipline, his arcane regime, and learning his core class areas, then it's very simple - he can take a level of rogue and learn lots about climbing and other roguish things.  Or he can learn a little bit about climbing on the side, to the expense of say his knowledge of the outer planes, alchemy, or other learning. 



> And then there is the problem: What if I want to make a Climb check in interesting challenge to the whole group?




Why would I want to do that?  That would be almost as bad as making 'cast a spell' an interesting challenge for the whole group.  Instead, I'll probably present several alternative paths to victory (and likely the players will discover a few I didn't think of), and I'll allow the players to use whatever skills they do have to get from 'point a' to 'point b'.  If they decide that involves getting up a wall, then I'll leave it to thier ingenuity how they will do so.  If they are smart, that probably involves sending the best free climber up first - then having him throw a rope back down for the ones less skilled at it.  Afterall, that's the way it is done in real life even by groups of people who all have some climbing skill.  Everyone in the party has a way to deal with walls, it just might not be through the climb skill.  And if they don't have a way to deal with walls, then they'll rely strongly on thier teammates who in turn probably rely strongly on them in other areas.



> I mean, it isn't as if you need a lot of Climb checks per session, so they should probably count for something.




Climb checks are often undertaken voluntarily.  The DC of the wall is what is appropriate to the wall, not what is appropriate to the player's skill.



> In 3E, there is a very narrow window of opportunity for make Climbing count for everyone - probably the first 1-3 levels. Afterwards, I'll have the untrained, who can succeed at only the most basic task, or the trained, who will still succeed at difficult tasks and fine basic tasks cakewalks.




There is nothing wrong with continuing to challenge the party with basic tasks.  If the expert in the party now finds basic tasks to be cakewalks, then that's fine too.  Let him enjoy his reward for being skilled.  Presenting him with nothing but icy smooth walls with no handholds just because he could in theory climb such a surface is DM metagaming.  Presenting him with an occassional obstacle that he and he alone can overcome is not wrong either.  That's what teamwork is about.   What you don't want is, "Gee, I can't open this lock even though I'm the party expert.  Why don't we have the fighter give it a go, he's got only slightly less chance of doing it than I do."  That is, unless by, 'Give it a go.', you mean, open the door with a battleaxe.

What I think is that if you scale all skills by character level, what you end up with is a world where no one really gets any better at anything.  You might as well not advance skills at all, because you live in a world where every time you do advance your skills the world gets tougher by about the same amount.  The flavor is changing, but the actual way you interact with the world isn't.  As a player, that bores me to tears, and as a DM that feels cheap.

You talk about how the class system out to require improvement in every skill as if that was somehow logical.  No point buy system has a similar requirement.  To the extent that you have classes in a point buy system, you have something like templates and they aren't nor do they become skilled in everything.  Rather, you either focus on being good at doing what you do, or you sacrifice some amount of skill at what you do to pick up skills outside that of your template.  That is to say there are tradeoffs.  You don't get something for nothing.  D&D handles that by multiclassing - allowing you to pick from several templates.  Again, there are tradeoffs - you don't get something for nothing.  Could the multiclassing rules be improved?  Undoubtably, but the game is not improved by making everyone good at everything.  Much of the point of having a class based system is that everyone won't be good at everything.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2008)

> For the minute, at most, it takes to resolve a skill check. If you game with people with serious narcisissism or ADD, that can be an issue. For everyone else...not so much.




Possibly.  But, many situations require multiple skill checks.  If I'm playing a naval adventure, for example, I could have a combat on a rolling deck of a ship.  

This will require balance checks.  Several balance checks.  Now, the cleric and the fighter are totally screwed because they don't have the skill points to put into balance to be able to succeed reasonably often.  Since it's only a single adventure, it doesn't make sense for the players to have invested in balance.

So, as DM, I have two choices.  Either I make the skill checks ridiculously easy, so the skill monkeys auto succeed or I sideline two PC's for the duration.  Or possibly kill the PC's as their repeated failures lead them to being washed overboard.

Basically, I'm constrained by the mechanics in what adventures I can make.  I can't make any skill challenge for the entire party because either the skilled PC's autosucceed or the unskilled PC's will always fail.  There's no middle ground.



> I don't think so. Wizards don't need skill points. They can do what they need to do with magic.




Do you think this is a good thing?


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Mar 4, 2008)

Okay, since my attempt to explain my viewpoint was derided as "condescending" and a "rant," I'll try to make it clearer this time.

Hit points in D&D are an abstraction.

When a 1st level fighter takes 10 points of damage, he dies. All of that damage is physical.

When a 10th level fighter takes 10 points of damage, he is barely inconvenienced. He is the same person, but 9 additional levels makes him able to take 10 times more damage before dying.

This *can be seen* as implying one of two things. 

-- One is that the fighter is taking precisely the same amount of physical damage, but is now, in some fashion, able to sustain a dozen or more previously fatal wounds before dying. This idea also assumes that every hit produces an injury, and that very likely, nobody will ever come out of a fight without multiple serious wounds.

-- The other is that the fighter is no more able to sustain damage than he previously was, and that the additional hit points represent his fighting skill and ability to avoid damage. When he loses hit points, he is losing the ability to defend himself from a killing blow. He is placed at a disadvantage, becomes more tired, shows his opponent his defensive style which his opponent is now better able to counter, etc.

The idea of a second wind and all that appears to be a logical extension of the second assumption. Taking months to heal from being progressively tired out and placed at a disadvantage is, under the second assumption, as absurd as the idea that you can second wind your way out of 8 or 9 ordinarily-fatal wounds under the first assumption. 

For an example of this, see the movie "Troy" -- specifically, the fight between Hector and Achilles. Both of them start out with high hit point totals, in D&D terms -- yet Hector is at low hit points before he's even injured, when one blow finally succeeds in killing him. That is why the blow kills him -- his ability to defend himself from the killing blow has been whittled away by the superior skill of Achilles (in short, he's taken more hit point damage, even though he's not physically wounded in every round of melee). 

Yet, if Hector had been able to break off the combat before the killing blow, doesn't it seem probable that he would have been able to go into battle again, if necessary, 6 hours later? All of his 'hit point damage' was in the form of exhaustion and tactical disadvantage (and lessening morale, IMO), up to the point when the final attack dropped him below 0 hit points with physical damage.

The second wind/6 hour recovery mechanic seems to be logical under the assumption that hit point damage is mostly this exhaustion/disadvantage type of damage, which is also an explanation for inflating hit points which I happen to prefer.

It is illogical under the idea that inflating hit points represent increased "meat resilience" of high level heroes. But that idea itself is so unrealistic and problematic, that I submit that it's better to include a mechanic which at least implies inflating hit points represent skill from a realism/verisimilitude viewpoint. 

I agree that it would be even more realistic to have two different pools of hit points -- one representing skill at protecting yourself from harm, which could be recovered by second wind/6 hour recovery effects, and one representing physical damage which could be healed only by magical healing or natural healing over time, and I might even houserule something to that effect. But IMO, this would be far too complex to include in a system like D&D, which has always tried to streamline damage effects to a single form of tracking (i.e. things that raise or lower hit points).


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 4, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, fine.  The wizard invests in climbing skills.  How about the cleric?  And the fighter?  Sure, the rogue likely has ranks but the other two don't.
> 
> See, it's all very well and good to talk about individual players, and snarkily refer to any differing opinion as mindless hack'n'slash, but, it doesn't wash.




Not that I have referred to the differing opinion as mindless hack'n'slash, but if I had it would be no worse than the claim that something I've been doing is impossible.



> Groups adventure as, well, groups.  That means, unless everyone invests, then you cannot throw skill tests at the party.




You can't?  Maybe, as you level up, you can't throw a skill test at the party where everyone has a significant chance of failure, but you can still throw skill tests.

It's also worth noting that a great many challenges you might throw at a group don't lend themselves to group solutions.  Only one guy can attempt to disarm the trap.  If he fails, the trap is sprung.  Only one guy gets the initial attempt to convince the mountain giant to let them pass unmolested.  If he fails miserably and the giant becomes actively hostile, the oppurtunity for anyone else to succeed has probably passed (unless there is someone in the party much more skilled than the first character to attempt diplomacy).  Only one guy needs climb the ice wall.  Everyone else need only climb a rope ladder or knotted rope.  Only one guy needs to recognize the painting is a valuable antique... or a fraud.  Only one guy needs to securely tie the prisoners, while the rest stand around looking intimidating, or grapple the foe, or whatever.  Only one guy actually steers the runaway mine cart through the old mine.  Everyone else is busy fighting off the pursuers.  Only one guy really needs to jump on the horses and bring the run away stage coach to a halt.  You only need one guy to craft whatever it is you needed crafted.  And so forth.  Even when you present a skill challenge rarely is it the case that anyone but the most skillful player's skill is at stake.

The exception are skills like spot, listen, and balance where something is happening in the environment and everyone is to some extent being tested on thier own behalf.  That's why these are some of the skills that you most often see being bought cross class.



> And, so many skills are so situationally based, that it doesn't make sense to invest heavily.  Why would you invest in, say, climb and not spot?  Spot is going to be used FAR more than climb in any normal campaign.




Yes, I agree.  It doesn't make alot of since for a wizard to invest in climb, when he has alternative means of transport and when he doesn't he can rely on the rogue to send down a rope and in the worst case the rogue and the barbarian can pull the wizard up.



> Take Balance for instance.  A fighter isn't very likely to invest in this since his ACP's are going to bury him so deeply that he'd have to invest heavily just to get back to zero.  Zero's not good enough to do anything.  He's still failing 50% on easy checks.  Same with the cleric.




Funny, but I encourage fighters and clerics in my campaigns to invest heavily enough in balance to get back to zero so that they won't be falling down continually when under stress in uneven, slippery, or steep terrain.  A -4 balance check is good enough when you can take 10, and you aren't too worried about stumbling.  But it sucks when you are fighting in a dark muddy cave filled with flowstone and loose breakdown.



> Decipher Script....




How many people need to be able to translate the runes?  Can't the one who is good at it report his findings to the rest?  Why should the fighter have nearly as good of a chance as the wizard?



> Disguise...




If the whole party needs to be disguised, why can't the one good at disguise use his skill to disguise the others?  Isn't that how it generally works?  The master of disguise applies his skill to disguising his comrades?  If you have someone actually good at disguise, why do it yourself?

I don't think people who play differently than me do mindless hack-n-slash.  Heck, I don't even denigrate hack-n-slash.  Monte does very thoughtful hack-n-slash.  But as long as I'm going to be accused of looking down on other people anyway, I might as well risk people thinking that and telling you what I do think.  I think that alot of this argument of how necessary universal skill improvement is is just a front.  I think its just a cover argument, and that people don't want to admit what thier real problem is.  I think that the real problem is that if you want to play a superheroic game, and you want to play a superheroic character that can do all sorts of cool stuff, that you don't want to be inept at anything.  I think that alot of players think that when thier character is inept at something, that it reduces the coolness and therefore the fun.  I think that what you are seeing is perception of ineptitude scale with ability, so that you see people playing characters with 8 or 10 intelligence with exagerrated stupidity, or 8 or 10 wisdom with exagerrated silliness, or 8 or 10 charisma with exagerrated abrasiveness.  And the reason that they do this is that they think of heroic ability as normal, and so anything less than heroic is 'dumb'.  

For example, consider the way that the 'less smart' characters in OotS are played to comic effect.  You would think that these characters have like a 4 Wis or something, especially given how the wiser characters describe thier ability, but from what we can gather from the narrative even someone like Belkar has no worse than an 8 Wis.  That works fine for narrative spoofing the tropes of gaming, but that isn't really what is implied.

In any event, there is nothing wrong with wanting to play a superheroic game where no one is really inept at anything.  However, insisting that that is the only way to play flies in the face of my own experience.


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 4, 2008)

Jayouzts said:
			
		

> 4E may allow role-playing, but there are other systems out there better suited for it.




Yep, like amateur dramatics clubs/workshops.

If you really, really want to get into role-playing/acting, no game system is going to serve you properly.

D&D has always been a combat focused game with a bit of acting sprinkled on top.


----------



## Derren (Mar 4, 2008)

So when you are reduced to 0 HP in combat you just loose your interest in fighting and sit down like a civilian in a german censored Half Life game? And when you really die, you die from boredom or neglect and not from sword wounds?


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 4, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In any event, there is nothing wrong with wanting to play a superheroic game where no one is really inept at anything.  However, insisting that that is the only way to play flies in the face of my own experience.




Superheroic???

Why is it considered superheroic that your skills increase so that at 20th level, AT BEST, you're going to be as good as a 1ST level expert? Yet the fact that a wizard buck naked with a dagger in all previous editions could demolish a 1st level fighter just using basic attacks isn't considered superheroic?

What about that 20th level Ropgue that is a gentleman thief/diplomat that has never raised a hand in violence (considers it beneath him) , even blindfolded wielding a greatsword is going to smash a 1st level fighter into the ground.

How is it not superheroic that somehow, characters get better at dodging/avoiding breath weapons/Reflex saves instinctively (yet their balance skill doesn't rise) so that even a 20th level cleric weighed down in plate armour is as good as the 1st level rogue?

Yet because ADVENTURING SKILLS increase, (which I might add, is more in common with actual fiction) this makes the game superheroic?


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 4, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> The poster who made the analogy said that 4E heroic fights are like boxing matches between professional fighters, and that's why 4E heroes can go from "1 HP from death" to "completely fine" in six hours.  I pointed out that professional fighters are _not_ completely fine in six hours.




It was MY analogy, and I didn't say professional I said serious.  Perhaps a bit vague on my part, but if you get into a five minute sparring match you can, in fact, do it again after a six hour rest.  You won't be QUITE as fresh as 4E characters, but the point of the whole thing is that a fight in D&D does not leave you with gouges and broken bones, it leaves you looking like this:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_01/hattonMS0112_468x509.jpg


----------



## smetzger (Mar 5, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I suspect that, in play, if a Minion ever survives an encounter and interacts with the PCs, I will deftly swap his stat block with a more viable breed...




Reminds me of the time I was DMing RttToEE.  There are a bunch of 1st lvl guards in the dungeon in several locations.  Practically they are just cannon fodder, but they each have a potion of cure light wounds.  On one occasion one of the guards survived an attack by a 7th level Rogue and a charge from a dire bear.  He was the only one of probably 10 encounters and 50 guards who ever was able to drink his potion.  In fact he drank his dead comrades potion also.  About half-way through the fight the PCs start rooting for him even though he was on the other side.


----------



## smetzger (Mar 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The problem with your argument is that the 'edge case' is generally more common than the non-edge case.  That is its generally more likely that from 1st to 20th level, in most DM's campaigns, the player character would not have used the skills that are mysteriously improving than it is that they would have made alot of use of them.  In particular, skills like 'use rope' and 'appraisal' that you are using as examples, most proponents of 4E would also say are 'useless' skills that almost never came up in play.  How many swim checks are the characters really making between 1st and 20th level in most DM's campaigns if you play 3.X according to the style assumed by the core books?




I also do not like the auto-skill advancement.  In 3/3.5 I enjoyed picking a skill or two that were unusual to help define my character.


----------



## Colmarr (Mar 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> It's also worth noting that a great many challenges you might throw at a group don't lend themselves to group solutions.  Only one guy can attempt to disarm the trap.  If he fails, the trap is sprung.  Only one guy gets the initial attempt to convince the mountain giant to let them pass unmolested.  If he fails miserably and the giant becomes actively hostile, the oppurtunity for anyone else to succeed has probably passed (unless there is someone in the party much more skilled than the first character to attempt diplomacy).  Only one guy needs climb the ice wall.  Everyone else need only climb a rope ladder or knotted rope.  Only one guy needs to recognize the painting is a valuable antique... or a fraud.  Only one guy needs to securely tie the prisoners, while the rest stand around looking intimidating, or grapple the foe, or whatever.  Only one guy actually steers the runaway mine cart through the old mine.  Everyone else is busy fighting off the pursuers.  Only one guy really needs to jump on the horses and bring the run away stage coach to a halt.  You only need one guy to craft whatever it is you needed crafted.  And so forth.  Even when you present a skill challenge rarely is it the case that anyone but the most skillful player's skill is at stake.




I'm not sure I agree with this.

What if the trap disarmer (disable device) is unconscious or otherwise out of action? 

What if there's no time to fix a rope ladder or secure a knotted rope (climb)? 

What if the guy steering the cart (profession: miner) gets taken out by archers or is knocked overboard? 

What if the guy chasing the stagecoach (ride) gets attacked by bandits?

Under 3e rules, in each case it's unlikely anyone else can undertake the task. The party "fails" the challenge.

It is possible to craft challenges that target one specific character. In fact, you provided a good list of examples. However, those challenges provide a game design problem: if they are too important (plot-wise) or too long (play-wise), the other players feel that they're no longer contributing.

I would be surprised if a majority of players would choose (1) "being a star in 1 out of 4 encounters and not being a substanital contributor in the others" over (2) "being able to meaningfully contribute to all encounters, but being more likely to succeed in encounters involving your special field".

From what I've heard, 4e goes some way towards ensuring the challenges remain group activities, and IMO that's a good thing.

If 4e is anything like saga, the "realists" can probably take some solace from the fact that skills will have trained uses and untrained uses (perhaps like the old DC thresholds on Disable Device and tracking using Survival).


----------



## Imp (Mar 5, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Which is kind of why I dislike the 3.x skill mechanics. For example, if I sent an average CR 10 monster against a Level 10 party, the basic assumption is that EVERYONE can contribute in the battle. You have to specifically choose monsters to screw over classes (golems vs mages, undead vs rogues etc). Furthermore, nobody thinks that you should send a CR 1 monster versus the party. Hell, even a CR 5 monster sent against the party would leave many heads scratching
> 
> Why is it then that this same design paradigm isn't accepted for skills?



I don't really care? That's consistency for consistency's sake and nothing else. Mind you I don't value the CR system super terribly much. But, in a game where DCs don't scale so much that max ranks are required to be useful, the rogue, bard, whatever gets a chance to spread things around too, take their own cross-class skills, ride horses or something.



> Focusing on Balance for example, it does seem that the designers wanted skill challenges to be tied to level otherwise there's no reason to have so many variable increasing DCs.



Sure, somewhat, but it's quite unnecessary to _only_ confront an experienced rogue with greased ropes to climb on or even totally level-appropriate locks all the time. But you do want the classes to be able to do some of their own things. 



> What you're talking about (separating rogues and other high skill classes) is the AFTEREFFECT of the 3.x system. At levels 1-3, you can have most skill challenges that involve the entire party (due to the low DCs and the effect of attribute mods) but afterwards, thanks to how the system works, skill challenges become a singular endeavour.



Ok, what I'm arguing here is against the assertion that in 3e skills are useless except maxed. That is in the hands of the DM. It is not _necessarily_ how the system works. I'm not particularly arguing against the 4e skill system, which I don't have many huge problems with, and in fact I already do house-rule things to get the whole party in on disarming a trap for example, and provide different things for the Appraise skill to do at higher levels, and divorce monster HD from Knowledge and Animal Handling checks where it makes sense.



> Er, Bluff vs sense Motive in combat is tied directly to level. You add your BAB to your sense motive check to oppose Feinting in combat. How is this NOT a clear example of the designers saying "skill challenges are supposed to scale with level"?



You're right about this and I'm tired. But I simply don't care about designer intent in this case if something else works better.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 5, 2008)

Colmarr said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I agree with this.
> 
> What if the trap disarmer (disable device) is unconscious or otherwise out of action?
> 
> ...




Ok.  Probably so.  What exactly are you trying to say?



> It is possible to craft challenges that target one specific character. In fact, you provided a good list of examples.




Quite the contrary, it is easy to craft challenges that target one specific character.  I wasn't coming up with examples, I was simply listing the most obvious way such skills usually work.  Without much work at all, I could list dozens of similar cases.  On the other hand, coming up with challenges that must be attempted by every member of the party is hard.  It's so hard, that you have to make a special creative effort to do it.



> However, those challenges provide a game design problem: if they are too important (plot-wise) or too long (play-wise), the other players feel that they're no longer contributing.




Any individual challenge is unlikely to be either, or to produce the feeling that the player is extraneous.  It only becomes a problem if you string a whole series of challenges together of the same type.  That's why a good designer will seek some variaty in the challenges.  For example, if you are going to throw alot of undead at the party, 'Trap Filled Tomb' is a good choice of setting because it boosts the rogue's player's sense of importance - which might otherwise be hurt by his inability to contribute as much as he would like in combat.



> I would be surprised if a majority of players would choose (1) "being a star in 1 out of 4 encounters and not being a substanital contributor in the others" over (2) "being able to meaningfully contribute to all encounters, but being more likely to succeed in encounters involving your special field".




I wouldn't be terribly surprised either, but then neither of those options is really on the table.  Third edition doesn't really resemble option one unless you go out of your way to make it so, and fourth edition won't resemble option two unless you confine encounters to mean 'fight monsters'.  Fourth edition doesn't reward or encourage skill monkeys and the difficulty (perhaps even impossiblity) of ensuring skill challenges require substantial contribution from all characters precludes ever obtaining the goal of 100% involvement 100% of the time.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I don't think people who play differently than me do mindless hack-n-slash. Heck, I don't even denigrate hack-n-slash. Monte does very thoughtful hack-n-slash. But as long as I'm going to be accused of looking down on other people anyway, I might as well risk people thinking that and telling you what I do think.




Please reread Kamikaze Midget's post a little ways back.  That is what I was referring to.  He specifically uses the words hack and slash to characterize other campaigns.  Was not referring to you at all.

I find the idea that environmental skill challenges that do not scale with level to be very strange.  I would have thought that it would be fairly obvious that they do.

Take the scenario of sneaking into a camp/stronghold of the enemy.  At low levels, it's an orc camp and the guards, such as they are, are drunk.  At mid levels (say 6-12), you're sneaking into a yuan-ti stronghold.  At high levels, it's a Githyanki fortress on the plane of Limbo.  The skills required to do that would almost have to scale in order to be even remotely believable.

Or, take a scenario where the party is defending their ship from attackers.  At low levels, the seas are fairly calm, maybe some of the attackers climb into the rigging allowing some of the PC's to climb up after them.  At mid levels, the enemies have spell casters dropping Ice Storm, the seas are rough, it's raining, visibility is reduced.  At high levels you are fighting a kracken in a hurricane.

But, realistically, with 3e mechanics, I can't do any of that.  Because the skill DC's for the mid and high level scenarios become auto fails for too many PC's.

There is a vast difference between zero skill and maxed skills.  The new system, purportedly since we haven't seen it yet, gives higher level characters a chance to succeed, but, does not give them automatic success.  At the same time, they do not auto-fail either.  

Would you still say that scaling DC's are bad DMing Celebrim?


----------

