# The "real" reason the game has changed.



## Herschel (Jan 12, 2011)

I had an interesting conversation with my group last night about edition "feel" and felt rather justified in a feeling I've had for a while: time changes everything. 

1E and 2E rocked. Why? Well, they were "simpler" and less bogged down by rules and minutia. Stories and settings were great, especially with the emphasis 2E put on them. It was really magical. I played through college and even spent long family afternoons/weekends with the kids when they were young.

Then came the new editions. In 3E prep time went up exponentially when trying to go from 10th level in 1e/2E to 3E. Time I didn't want to spend nor have. I only have a 3-4 hour segment once per week, if that. I especially didn't want to waste it prepping a BBEG who'd just get offed in a 'save or die' spell 3/4 of the time anyway. The system must be crap, right? 

Then came 4E. Combat's cooler, more tactical. My prep time is way down. Combat takes longer some times because there's no more "I win NOW" spells. I try to have one combat each 3-4 hour game night we play, maybe two if it makes sense and we have the time.  The thing is, the campaign now feels more like a delve string some times. The system must be crap, right?  

And change systems? Why should I have to learn a whole bunch of new stuff just to play a game? Why should I spend my precious free time _learning_ to play a game instead of actually _playing_ it? The new system must be crap!

But wait, what really changed? Sure, the rules did, but is that all?

No.

The kids got older. They had other things of their own starting to happen and new interests. Suddenly the neighbor isn't the rogue, she's a _girl_. 

Relationships changed, jobs changed, people got married, people moved away... For a myriad of reasons we didn't have all those long weekends to just hang and play. It's not just a marathon gaming session waiting to happen any more, life gets in the way. 

Long prep time? not gonna happen. I have a life.

Story lacking? Why bother, I have a life. 

"What happened to the good old days"?

Us. Life. Time.

If you enjoy 3E, you either find more time and/or find more shortcuts.

If you enjoy 4E, you make the conscious effort to give creedence to the story because the system isn't going to push you or remind you. 

Otherwise you either go "back" or just give it up all together. 

People try to say that young gamers are the future, but we're still the present. Games need both. While editions change, in many cases the bigger changes are actually in us. It's just a lot easier, and sometimes more comfortable, to see the changes in the game.

Thoughts?


----------



## Starman (Jan 12, 2011)

<My preferred version> is still _far_ superior to <your favorite version>.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 12, 2011)

Too many damned rules hounds demanding new rules to cover every single situation there is.

And too many damned rules hounds who has to have their own rules and can't accept the rules as is.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 12, 2011)

Says you Starman. My edition would beat up your edition 

Great post Hershel


----------



## Elton Robb (Jan 12, 2011)

I didn't enjoy running 4e.

I couldn't do the things I wanted to do without some player getting all crappy about them.


----------



## amerigoV (Jan 12, 2011)

Herschel said:


> And change systems? Why should I have to learn a whole bunch of new stuff just to play a game? Why should I spend my precious free time learning to play a game instead of actually playing it? The new system must be crap!
> 
> But wait, what really changed? Sure, the rules did, but is that all?
> 
> ...




You are spot on and you are not alone. Savage Worlds grew out of these same thoughts  (and it is not my opinion - this is right from the designer's mouth - http://www.peginc.com/Downloads/SWEX/MakingofSW.pdf ). I don't hate D&D, but it requires more of me than I am willing to give it anymore.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jan 12, 2011)

I see your point Herschel.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 12, 2011)

Totally agree- 

I have a wife (my second, I made a mistake the first time around  ), an 11 yo, a baby on the way, a full time job, and I just bought a house. Almost every night after work, I go pick up my son from school/his moms, take him back to my house, help w/ homework, cook him dinner, drive him home then come back to my home. I have him every other weekend, and on the other weekends, I have to do all the stuff I could not do the weekend when I have my son and the focus is on him.

And D&D is not even my main hobby. 

So I have little time to actually PLAY a game, let alone strive for rules mastery and create tons of mechanical BS through some complicated system. It's a *game*, and shouldn't be work or a chore- I have enough of that/those already.

And then you have to coordinate with the rest of the players- they have lives too with tons of complications. and responsibilities.

I envy the people who have the time and ability to play regularly for hours, and spend 10s of hours each week creating NPCs and such, but I'm not one of them.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 12, 2011)

Very thoughtful post.

And also, very funny how quickly people use your post to crap all over stuff.

Which misses the point a lot.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 12, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Thoughts?




Your experience is... your own?

I've been playing RPGs for over 20 years at this point.  Some of my players are the ones I started with.  Others are friends that have moved away or found other interests.  The new blood are my kids.

Games change, but aside from having stronger opinions about the kinds of games I do, or don't like, and more discretionary income to spend on them little else has changed.

I still need to squeeze prep time amongst competing interests of family, friends, exercise, video games, books, movies, etc.

At the end of the day, however, I'm still coming up with adventures, campaigns, NPCs, monsters, treasure, etc.  Judging from my players, old and new, they're having fun -- just like when I started with RPGs.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 12, 2011)

The Human Target said:


> Very thoughtful post.
> 
> And also, very funny how quickly people use your post to crap all over stuff.
> 
> Which misses the point a lot.




Not sure if this was directed at my post or not, however I'll be first to admit my thoughts even apply to 4E which I LOVE as a system (and own tons of stuff for), but find too much hassle for my schedule. My post was more about complicated systems, rather than complicated editions.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jan 12, 2011)

Sorry, respectfully, I don't buy the "I have a life" angle. If someone out there wants to play D&D (or game system of choice) or wants to prep said game they will find the time. I have yet to meet a gamer who didn't compromise in order to arrange their game and their prep (and that includes one player who has a partner and 3 young kids!).


----------



## shadzar (Jan 12, 2011)

I think the reaon the game has changed recently is based on spending habits and disposable income. That is all. Sure you got older, but if you played older editions you werent really needing to buy to much new stuff after a while. Since the market got satureated with the products of one edition, the edition change was to gain a new market either of the old players that were still willing to spend dispoable income, or with newer players who hadn't bought in yet and had disposable income.

The fact you got older and have les disposable income, however, really makes no sense, as those with kids now are the ones where those kids disposable income is coming from.

There just isnt interest in bridging the ages of players and editions run like fads. When one fades, and new one is needed to pick up the slack.

It really all boils down to the same thing in the end...follow the money.


----------



## engrishonly (Jan 12, 2011)

Just because I don't play D&D anymore doesn't mean I "gave up". I still love RPGs.

I also don't hate D&D.

If I choose another game system, I didn't "outgrow" D&D or change so dramatically that I can't appreciate how awesome D&D is.

D&D is great. It's also big & popular. So what?

If someone chooses to start drinking Pepsi instead of Coke, do you start psychoanalyzing him or her for turning their back on Coca Cola?


----------



## Herschel (Jan 12, 2011)

DragonLancer said:


> If someone out there wants to play D&D (or game system of choice) or wants to prep said game they will find the time. I have yet to meet a gamer who didn't compromise in order to arrange their game and their prep (and that includes one player who has a partner and 3 young kids!).




I think you missed what I was saying. This was part OF my point.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 12, 2011)

JeffB said:


> Not sure if this was directed at my post or not, however I'll be first to admit my thoughts even apply to 4E which I LOVE as a system (and own tons of stuff for), but find too much hassle for my schedule. My post was more about complicated systems, rather than complicated editions.




Nope not at all.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jan 12, 2011)

Herschel said:


> I think you missed what I was saying. This was part OF my point.




Ah, my bad. 

I that case I agree with you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 12, 2011)

> If you enjoy 3E, you either find more time and/or find more shortcuts.




People who prefer 3.X do single a variety of reasons, many of which boil down to "I like the way 3X handles ________."

I respect 4Ed, it's a decent FRPG, but for many reasons, it isn't and will never be D&D to me.  It _feels_ too different from my 1Ed-3.X Ed games.

And it has nothing to do with time or shortcuts.

And while I'm no mindreader, I think the others in my main game group- most of whom are married w/rugrats- feel likewise.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 12, 2011)

Yeah, no.

The "real" reason is the simplest, man.  there's no advanced theory or reason or marketing here.

The "real" reason the game has changed - why any game changes - is because people want to improve on things.

I mean hell, you lump 1e and 2e together, but those were different games.

Sorry, but your "reason" doesn't match my experience.  4e happened because they felt 3e could be improved which happened because they felt 2e could be improved on which happened because they felt 1e could be improved on and etc, etc.

Edit: You lump 2e and 1e together, which tells me "2e fan," because I gurantee I can find people who think 2e was a huge amount of unnecissary set of complications to what used to be the perfect game.  Hell, I could find you people who feel the whole thing started going downhill once the "thief" class was added.


----------



## rounser (Jan 12, 2011)

> The "real" reason the game has changed - why any game changes - is because people want to improve on things.



Mearls said it was to stop RPGs going the way of tabletop wargaming.  This suggests an attempt to make D&D more relevant to a different audience.  This goal can be opposed to improving things for it's current audience.

And what is an improvement is extremely subjective.  The OP wants fast play, whereas you seem to want toned down magic.  I don't want toned down magic, it doesn't suit my imagination of swords and sorcery fantasy worlds.  And you may prioritize the tactical contents of a single encounter where I prioritize speed of resolution (like the OP does) and epic sweep of a campaign arc or exploring enough of a sandbox wilderness in the limited time available.  So no, it's not that simple - for all you know a sub goal is to sell miniatures, which might also be opposed to the goal of improving the game as a version of D&D (rather than as a fantasy miniatures skirmish wargame).


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 12, 2011)

I'm not saying each edition IS improved flat out, simply that with each change to the game, the person making the change did so with the thought of "This makes the game better."

Again, it's not as if changes _only_ started happening with 3e.  Elf used to be a class, after all.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 13, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I'm not saying each edition IS improved flat out, simply that with each change to the game, the person making the change did so with the thought of "This makes the game better."
> 
> Again, it's not as if changes _only_ started happening with 3e.  Elf used to be a class, after all.




Speaking of older editions, making the game better isn't exactly true is it? 1st edition was a move to go away from Dave, 2nd to move away from Gary, 3rd to move away from TSR completely.

There are more than just one game within the editions is the problem. If it was one game, then they would be interchangeable, but between the editions I can count 7 different games all using Dungeons and Dragons in part or all of their names.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 13, 2011)

Good stuff, Herschel. As an aside, it is interesting to note how some folks have misunderstood or nitpicked what you are saying and missed the key element, which is (as I see it) that the game hasn't changed as much as _we _have, as our lives have as we have gotten older.  

I think what you are saying may be _a _major reason, even the biggest reason, that the game has changed (the feel and experience of it), but there are other factors such as, as someone said, the simple desire to better the game system itself. But I think what you are talking about isn't recognized as much and should actually be taken into account in game design itself. 

The mention of Savage Worlds is interesting because it is, in many ways, the type of game that I wish D&D was. I don't play Savage Worlds mainly because I'm hooked on the D&D milieu and just love the whole package of D&Dania, but I have wondered what the whole D&D edifice would be like if it were more like Savage Worlds in terms of being a simpler, core system. In some sense Savage Worlds is like OD&D in terms of simplicity and flexibility, but with 30+ years of design theory and experience behind it. 

I also hold out the hope that the 5E of D&D will take this route, that Essentials is a small stepping stone in that direction. But I doubt it, so I dabble with ideas for my own simple and flexible heartbreaker version of D&D.

Some have and will say that it is a matter of taste, that some like a fast and simple game and others like it to be more complex, that 3.5E, for instance, was the height of D&D design because you could make anything, no matter how long it took. The way I see it, however, is that they are missing the point - that the game can be fast and simple at its core, but with tons of flexible options to customize to your heart's content. The mistake that both 3rd and 4th edition made, imo, was to make the core default game too complex. If we take a scale of 1-10 for game complexity, both start in the 5-6 range and then add on complications that take the game to 8+ (especially 3.5). What they _should _have done, imo, would be to make the core game in the 2-3 range ala Savage Worlds. You can still add whatever complexities you want, make as many optional systems as you like. In other words, it doesn't take anything away from those that like complexity, it just opens the game up and potentially keeps it alive for those of us who want a simpler, faster game.

It would be an interesting exercise to write a simple version of D&D that is compatible with 4E in, say, 20,000 words or less. A complete, usable game, with everything you need to play D&D in 20,000 words. Then you look at the whole corpus of 4E and Essentials books (or 3.x if you like) and say "these are optional." That might mean that Powers and Feats and Skills must all be optional, with Ability scores and class features being the most essential things that a character has. This would mean, of course, that certain powers and feats would have to be converted to class features, but I'll leave it at that for now...

My point is simply this: It is possible, I think, to make a version of D&D for we aging members of the earlier generations of D&D players that no longer have the time to put into hours and hours of preparation, or miss the days when a given combat didn't take two hours. I've veered a bit off topic, but your excellent post inspired this yearning which is, I think, very much related to the essence of what you are getting at. Yes, we have changed, our lives have changed, but we still want to play D&D - just a form that is conducive to our busier, fuller lives.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 13, 2011)

The designers changed too.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 13, 2011)

Wiseblood said:


> The designers changed too.





This very true too.

I've  got the impression since WOTC bought the property that the designers of the last 2 editions, loved the idea of D&D, but were the kind of people who hated the rules as kids (and probably moved on to stuff like Rolemaster, or Champions)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 13, 2011)

JeffB said:


> This very true too.
> 
> I've  got the impression since WOTC bought the property that the designers of the last 2 editions, loved the idea of D&D, but were the kind of people who hated the rules as kids (and probably moved on to stuff like Rolemaster, or Champions)




Man, by the time WotC bought D&D, just about everyone hated the rules.  2e did not have a quiet, dignified death.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 13, 2011)

JeffB said:


> I've  got the impression since WOTC bought the property that the designers of the last 2 editions, loved the idea of D&D, but were the kind of people who hated the rules as kids (and probably moved on to stuff like Rolemaster, or Champions)



Monte Cook designed Rolemaster stuff before he came to TSR. And when 3E came out the first thing I said was "It's more like Champions now!"

Of course, I loved Champions and I loved 3E/3.5E.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 13, 2011)

The game has changed... because we have changed. Yes and no.

Some games are eternal. Once you know poker, you can always play poker. Movies, sadly, are not eternal. The original "Psycho" was a masterpiece. The remake, predictably, was not. And then there are novels; some are original and eternal, some are made into movies, and some are inspired by movies.

D&D floats around in the middle of those metaphors, like glitter in a snow globe. The idea is eternal - knights, dragons, maidens in distress, monsters, treasure. The idea is remade time and time again, seeming at times like a novel based on a movie that the author never actually saw but only heard about secondhand.

Everyone's a critic. Thus everyone sees the same movie yet takes something unique away from the experience. I didn't play every edition of D&D. I skipped 2e as it seemed to take elements away from the game I enjoyed. The same applies to 4e. More about my gaming history HERE

Yes, I grew up. I've been playing D&D in one form or another for over thirty years. I am not a lost boy (despite what my wife might say about my degree of maturity). This does not diminish my enjoyment of sharing a world of my design within a common framework accessible to others. It simply changes the medium.

People play Scrabble in heated face-to-face competitions. People play Scrabble with complete strangers using an app on their iPads. It's the same game. The expectation of what one will get from the game; challenge, frustration, enjoyment, and exhilaration are the same. To enjoy Scrabble face-to-face requires coordinated schedules, a communal meeting place, and a suitable environment to enjoy the game. To enjoy Scrabble via an iPad app, one can be waiting in line for one's turn at the ATM.

This is where I see D&D heading - real imaginations using a new medium. Computer programs, iPad apps, or holographic augmented-reality simulations; the root of the game remains the same.

But then again I may be biased, as I have not played a face-to-face game in over sixteen years.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 13, 2011)

Aeolius said:


> This is where I see D&D heading - real imaginations using a new medium. Computer programs, iPad apps, or holographic augmented-reality simulations; the root of the game remains the same.




You had me until we got to here. The medium of D&D _is _the imagination, not computer programs, iPad apps, or any kind of virtual realities or simulations - all of which are, essentially, the opposite the activity of the imagination. That is primarily what makes D&D different from, say, World of Warcraft or just about any other game in which the focus is on a "thing" of some kind, something that is visible and/or sensible. The palette, the medium, is the imagination itself. That is what makes it so exquisite and so unique. 

Now this may just be my opinion, my bias, but the degree to which D&D moves from imagination-based to simulation-based (of any kind, apps, or programs) is the degree to which it loses its most essential, important, and precious quality.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 13, 2011)

Herschel said:


> "What happened to the good old days"?




[MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION]  

Dude, _Two_ Words: *Elf Wenches*.

Urban Dictionary: Elf Wenches

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4o3yLHCqaI"]YouTube - Wow! You're an idiot! - Rocko's Modern Life[/ame]


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 13, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> You had me until we got to here. The medium of D&D _is _the imagination...




Fine. In your analogy then, the one constant is the imagination. This I agree with. The method of play, however, is amorphous. Whether one plays in a face-to-face game or in a chat room online, that one constant remains.

D&D without imagination is not D&D, IMO, because making things up is half the fun. And that holographic augmented-reality based D&D isn't quite ready for the likes of me, just yet. I enjoy running games on the fly with non-standard monsters, treasures, and magics. WoW can't handle that one, with today's technology.


----------



## engrishonly (Jan 13, 2011)

Aeolius said:


> This is where I see D&D heading - real imaginations using a new medium. Computer programs, iPad apps, or holographic augmented-reality simulations; the root of the game remains the same.
> 
> But then again I may be biased, as I have not played a face-to-face game in over sixteen years.




I think games without software augmentation will go the way of the buggy whip.

You must be able to do things on a Kindle, ipad, smartphone, and in combinations of that.

Holographic sim is one thing, but there's things that can be done now. Running mechanics through a Java craplet, setting aside the dead tree format for e-publications (not crappy PDF!), keeping track of character paperwork through an app.

If you could have a satisfying character application (not just a sheet, but something that tracks all the bits you need to track), wouldn't you rather have that than bits of paper?

As a DM, I want stuff for tracking all the pieces. Not just Excel, but something I can run on my phone with ease.

There are things the companies should be doing. Hex-based wargaming has evolved over time, so why can't pen & paper RPGs?

And, really, WoW is a direct competitor for the entertainment of it. I don't like WoW, but it's more "the hobby" than D&D is anymore.

The fact that I have to build my own Java apps to do the things I want... it shows how far behind the times this hobby is.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 13, 2011)

DragonLancer said:


> Sorry, respectfully, I don't buy the "I have a life" angle. If someone out there wants to play D&D (or game system of choice) or wants to prep said game they will find the time. I have yet to meet a gamer who didn't compromise in order to arrange their game and their prep (and that includes one player who has a partner and 3 young kids!).





Yup. Under the 'I have a life' line of reasoning why not go with Basic? It has low prep time,is an easy to learn system, and can support as much or as little story involvement as desired. For those with limited hobby time it seems like a good choice.

The game has changed due to the industry for the most part. Rules and crunch sell the best so changes are constant in order to keep selling the rules over and over again. Sometimes the fanbase craves detail and complexity and other times desires streamlined simplicity. The specifics of the direction of change are secondary to the change itself. 

Fans want new shiny products to be excited about. Companies that want income give the fans those products.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 13, 2011)

engrishonly said:


> And, really, WoW is a direct competitor for the entertainment of it. I don't like WoW, but it's more "the hobby" than D&D is anymore.




WOW is not part of the same hobby as D&D. They are both fantasy based but very different things. I enjoy them both but do not consider them interchangable types of entertainment.

"The hobby" of which D&D is a part consists of tabletop roleplaying games. These games are appealing because the best content for them comes from the imaginations of the participants. Tech based tools can be used if desired but they are not, nor should they be, required. 



engrishonly said:


> The fact that I have to build my own Java apps to do the things I want... it shows how far behind the times this hobby is.




The hobby is just fine. The imagination is a timeless gift that can never be replaced with gizmos and applications.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 13, 2011)

Herschel said:


> If you enjoy 3E, you either find more time and/or find more shortcuts.
> 
> If you enjoy 4E, you make the conscious effort to give creedence to the story because the system isn't going to push you or remind you.



I completely disagree.

Obviously people's live change and that has an impact.  But that doesn't lead to this conclusion.

First, the implication that 4E enjoyment is tied to making "the conscious effort to give creedence to the story" is bogus.  It don't doubt that it is true for 4E fans.  But, putting it expressly under the 4E column as specifically contrasted to 3E is just a fully flawed assessment of 3E fans.  

I've made my point many times before and I don't have issues with supporting the story; be it in regard to 4E or any system.  But when 4E says that my wizard gets better at climbing as he levels, that is the system imposing itself on the story, not simply failing to remind you of a story.  When 4E says that challenge level defines attacks, damage, defenses much more than what the challenge in question is, that is the system imposing itself on the story, not simply failing to remind you of a story.  Over and over the system is about the game balance and mechanics coming first.  Andy Collins strongly endorsed and praised this as a difference between 4E and other editions saying ". In a lot of editions of the game, classes compared to new classes were designed by [first] imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done" and that for 4E class design the key is instead "why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece."  

You can absolutely role play anything in 4E that you can in any other system.  But, the presumption of 4E is quite different than most any other system that I have played in that it presumes the roleplay will follow the path assigned by the mechanics rather than the other way around.

I believe that the OP doesn't get the non-4E fan perspective on this.

It is also wrong about 3E fans finding more time or making more time.  I have less game time than I did 10 years ago.  I play less and I prep less.  But the time I spend doing it is pretty much the same as it was when I had more.  I just enjoy 15 minutes at a time instead of 2 hours at a time.  It has nothing to do with shortcuts or cutting time out of other parts of my life.

Both points are wrong.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 13, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> WOW is not part of the same hobby as D&D. They are both fantasy based but very different things. I enjoy them both but do not consider them interchangable types of entertainment.
> 
> "The hobby" of which D&D is a part consists of tabletop roleplaying games. These games are appealing because the best content for them comes from the imaginations of the participants. Tech based tools can be used if desired but they are not, nor should they be, required.
> 
> The hobby is just fine. The imagination is a timeless gift that can never be replaced with gizmos and applications.



I agree.  The hobby has ups and downs.  (and this is a down right now) But overall it is fine.  I think people use different measuring sticks and expect to get the same result.  Being a lot smaller than WOW doesn't mean it is any smaller than it was when WOW did not exist.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I completely disagree.
> 
> Obviously people's live change and that has an impact.  But that doesn't lead to this conclusion.
> 
> First, the implication that 4E enjoyment is tied to making "the conscious effort to give creedence to the story" is bogus.  It don't doubt that it is true for 4E fans.  But, putting it expressly under the 4E column as specifically contrasted to 3E is just a fully flawed assessment of 3E fans.




I don't think you understand what he's trying to say.



BryonD said:


> But when 4E says... <snip>




Yes, mechanics have an effect on what happens in the game world.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 13, 2011)

engrishonly said:


> I think games without software augmentation will go the way of the buggy whip.
> 
> You must be able to do things on a Kindle, ipad, smartphone, and in combinations of that.
> 
> ...




Lots cut, but some points and disagreement. They won't because age restrictions for entry into using a lot of technology still means tactile object will be required for games not just digital ones, and some people may not make the move to digital.

NO!, you don't need to be able to do things on your 21st century GameBoys. Most of those TOOLS have been turned into TOYS as is and the technology is being abused. For a D&D/computer geek/nerd to say this may sound wierd but, get unplugged and go outside and get some sun and do something with your hands other than texting/tweeting and their equivalents. All you need from the technology is a calculator. I have been using computers for nearly my entire life and programming since before I was 10, and was even using 100 baud modems. The technology is being abused and the advances are not being made in a helpful way, thus the exoflood theory and reasons being given that are just a money grab and scare tactic. You don't need your phone or an electronic device to do everything for you. I surely don't want an electric device to "wipe" for me. We don't need to turn into the people of Wall-E.

You can make things yourself or cold, but it doesnt mean it has to move in that direction JUST for you. Not everyone wants to use phones for such things, and my games have a "no electronic device" rule. Only a calculator if needed, because people cannot stop being distracted by all the other crap on such devices.

Well I say you can, but I don't know if the phones make you share things, and making something for D&D for a phone and sharing it, would likely get the app shutdown by WotC/HASBRO lawyers. You used to be able to and were suggested to write programs to aid in gaming, but one of the problems with edition changes was the change of hands and direction. With such a heavy push, then you lose options to do such things for yourself as the company will want to control all such activities as it will then be able to make money from said apps. DDi as a good example.

The fact you CAN build your own app, means that there is no problem. Just because they CAN make everything fully digital, it doesn't mean they should. Technology is killing innovation in most places and making them lazier and dumber society. Skilled craftsmen are being lost as well as artisans because the tech is being used as a crutch.

Consider most companies are lazy and wont do the same thing two different ways. The electronic is cheaper and can cover a wider audience, so why keep physical product?

All that aside as food for thought, the game doesnt need anything the GAME doesn't need. No electronic device is required to play the game, and when it is, it will just be another on the pile of the last 3 decades worth of computer games.

Do you WANT these electronic crutches to have "apps" to help you? Yes. Does the game need them? No. That is why the game is changing in that way, because people aren't understanding that your wants don' outweigh the needs.

This is in response to you, but as an example of a larger problem that people don't understand. The game and many other things are changing just to be "hip" or the next fad, rather than an actual improvement to performance of the thing that is changing.

Real people be it using those virtual tabletops or real ones, will be more adaptable than a script written into a computer game. So use the technology as the tool it is, rather than let it use you; and make decisions for yourself rather than let the newest piece of needless tech make them for you.

Take the character builder as an example. Many have stated without it they wouldn't play 4th edition because it is too much work, which means the game even has the tech as a crutch. It doesn't even work right from what I have read, and when it does requires gigs of printer spooling because it prints using an outdated format because it wasnt made for text printing. Building the game around crutches only means you are building a faulty game since it requires those crutches and that should be avoided.


----------



## houstonderek (Jan 13, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Speaking of older editions, making the game better isn't exactly true is it? 1st edition was a move to go away from Dave, 2nd to move away from Gary, 3rd to move away from TSR completely.
> 
> There are more than just one game within the editions is the problem. If it was one game, then they would be interchangeable, but between the editions I can count 7 different games all using Dungeons and Dragons in part or all of their names.




Actually, Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer and rules Compendium can be considered different editions of "Basic" or OD&D, depending on how you want to look at it, and "Essentials" is Essentials"kind of a "half edition" in the 3.0/3.5 vein, and one could argue that AD&D 2e with "Skills and Powers" is a half edition as well, so you're actually looking at 9-12 iterations of D&D.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 13, 2011)

JeffB said:


> I envy the people who have the time and ability to play regularly for hours, and spend 10s of hours each week creating NPCs and such, but I'm not one of them.




You know, I used to feel the same way.  I too used to envy the people who have time to play games for hours each week.

But then I realized something--I really DON'T envy them.  Because if my life revolved around gaming rather than, say, my beautiful family or my intellectually and emotionally fulfilling career, then it would a sad, depressing state of affairs.

Just my two cents.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 13, 2011)

houstonderek said:


> Actually, Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer and rules Compendium can be considered different editions of "Basic" or OD&D, depending on how you want to look at it, and "Essentials" is Essentials"kind of a "half edition" in the 3.0/3.5 vein, and one could argue that AD&D 2e with "Skills and Powers" is a half edition as well, so you're actually looking at 9-12 iterations of D&D.




Technically each one is a different game than the one before, rather than jsut an update to the game because changing the engine makes it a new thing and not fully compatible with the old with just fixes. But I wasnt wanting to go into that much detail where I was jsut talking about the difference from making a new edition being solely based on making it "better" as I was replying to.

We could probably count them up in a new thread, but BECMI alone is different games depending on which parts you use and which is a prerequisite to use another one....


----------



## engrishonly (Jan 13, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Building the game around crutches only means you are building a faulty game since it requires those crutches and that should be avoided.




If the game is "in the imagination", then what's the objection to a mechanical aid? The character sheet is a crutch! Dice are a crutch!

Moving formats from paper to e-formats (with actual usability in mind)? It's just reformatting the flow of the data stream.

It's not that I want to stay plugged in. I have a wife, 2 kids, a full time job... And it's lame that I have to say it to prove my offline-ness. 

I just want mechanical aids that fit our modern era. I get enough lame paperwork at my work. Why should I put up with user-unfriendly data solutions for my gaming?


----------



## shadzar (Jan 13, 2011)

engrishonly said:


> If the game is "in the imagination", then what's the objection to a mechanical aid? The character sheet is a crutch! Dice are a crutch!
> 
> Moving formats from paper to e-formats (with actual usability in mind)? It's just reformatting the flow of the data stream.
> 
> ...



Like I said it was in response to you, but not directed ONLY at you, but a larger problem.

A problem with what you say is not you dont have the time, but the game has so many requirements that you must make the time or need these crutches. Either you need to change games, or the games need to adapt to require less "work".

The crutches wont really help compete with the digital gaming experience, so in order to compete, you must make a game that can inspire without the digital components, and be simple and quick enough in order to grab the attention without having to do all the work to play.

Players REALLY have about as much work to do to play as DMs do now.

You used to jsut be able to go to someone's house and play without bringing anything except maybe a pencil and some paper...you didnt need a book to read to know how to do thing, or some 10 page (1 gig bitmap) character sheet to flip through to play. You jsut made a decision, were handed a die, rolled it to find it your decided activity worked, and moved on to the next thing.

So it isnt you, it is the game posing the major problems in the "need" for these crutches, because it is lame (as in broken leg to go with the crutch analogy).

When the game becomes healthy again it, and you, wont need such crutches.

Your "want" isnt the problem, it is the fact the game has a problem to make you want such things, THAT is the problem.

-status trackers
-power trackers
-all that minutia and bookkeeping/accounting 4th was supposed to remove but left in

These are the problems for the need of the crutches, not that you are busy and have an offline and non-gaming life.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 13, 2011)

Tabletop games have been going downhill ever since the Industrial Revolution butchered the ideal of the single artisan.

*Technology!* *shakes fist vigorously!*


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 13, 2011)

YEAH! TECHNOLOGY IS THE DEVIL'S TOOL!

DOWN WITH TECHNOLOGY!

But then there'd be no paper for our RPGs or fantasy habits...


----------



## Mallus (Jan 13, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Tabletop games have been going downhill ever since the Industrial Revolution butchered the ideal of the single artisan.



The hand-carved d20s and illuminated graph paper of the Middle Ages were truly things of beauty.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 14, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> You know, I used to feel the same way.  I too used to envy the people who have time to play games for hours each week.
> 
> But then I realized something--I really DON'T envy them.  Because if my life revolved around gaming rather than, say, my beautiful family or my intellectually and emotionally fulfilling career, then it would a sad, depressing state of affairs.
> 
> Just my two cents.




Well certainly I have made my choices in life, and would never let gaming (or anything else) stand in the way of my family either. They are THE most important thing to me.

I simply meant that I wish I had time to do it all


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 14, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> You know, I used to feel the same way.  I too used to envy the people who have time to play games for hours each week.
> 
> But then I realized something--I really DON'T envy them.  Because if my life revolved around gaming rather than, say, my beautiful family or my intellectually and emotionally fulfilling career, then it would a sad, depressing state of affairs.
> 
> Just my two cents.



Good for you to have found your niche in life: fuel-powered woodcutting ensorcelled spellcrafting, aka "Lignimancy." 


As for the future of RPG's, I suppose digitilization and/or online supplements are inevitable. But I prefer the Paizo way of publishing to the Warhammer way; WotC doesn't need to put out a new edition every few years.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I've made my point many times before and I don't have issues with supporting the story; be it in regard to 4E or any system.  But when 4E says that my wizard gets better at climbing as he levels, that is the system imposing itself on the story, not simply failing to remind you of a story.  When 4E says that challenge level defines attacks, damage, defenses much more than what the challenge in question is, that is the system imposing itself on the story, not simply failing to remind you of a story.  Over and over the system is about the game balance and mechanics coming first.



It's true that the system sets parameters around the story that can be told (for example, given that your mage can climb and jump, you have to tell a story as to why - perhaps your mage is good at self-telekinesis). But this is true also of AD&D, which precludes telling a story in which a mage wields a longsword - which is a story at least as conceivable, from the point of view of an imagination untutored in game rules, as a story about a non-climbing mage.

That's not to say that there's no difference between the way AD&D and 4e approach the relationship between character building, action resolution and ingame elements. Of course there is - AD&D approximates to simulationism in its outlook, whereas 4e starts with the metagame. And these have implications in play. But to try and describe those implications by saying that only in 4e do the mechanics shape the story is, in my view, a misdescription.

To reinforce this conclusion, I'll pose the question that I frequently do and that is rarely responded to - if metagame-heavy design and play _really_ impeded story, then it would be the case that a game like HeroQuest or The Dying Earth was a weaker vehicle for story-rich roleplaying than a game like Rolemaster, Runquest or 3E D&D. But is there anyone who believes this?


----------



## shadzar (Jan 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But this is true also of AD&D, which precludes telling a story in which a mage wields a longsword - which is a story at least as conceivable, from the point of view of an imagination untutored in game rules, as a story about a non-climbing mage.




 It does?



> Militant Wizard
> <snip>
> Weapon Proficiency: Required (choose one from of the following): <snip> sword (any), <snip>




Granted they weren't the default style the wizard was depicted as, but even before the above, a DM could change things as they see fit. Don't like clerics unable to use blades, then let them use blades as well.

Where these defaults are set at the beginning of AD&D, 4th evens out all classes to have similarities, so forces some thigns on you as you play, rahter than letting you decide how you advance. So if in AD&D you chose the wizard, you either worked with the group to remove the banishment of swords, or you accepted it and still could choose what other things you did as you leveled for character growth, rather than your growth being decided for you; as i think BryonD is suggesting with the things 4th dictates as the character grows which impedes player decided growth options for the character. Also was replying to a comment directly about 4th edition, so really including other editions would just be diluting the conversation.

No edition can really force the story, unless you allow it to; but some are pushing it hard enough to notice more when the mechanics are applied: swordles wizards, bladeles celric, wizards gainging in ability to climb, etc.

HeroQuest IS a weaker vehicle for story-rich roleplaying where the players get to take part in forming that story as the game is built around one plot...escape from capture. So long as you are telling that story, you are fine, but divert from it and the game itself doesn't offer anything for that. You have to make your own tiles, make someone to rescue or any number of things to break out of Zargon/Morcar's arena. The GM can change all this, but the game again isn't designed for it unles you design your own components or expect to see bookcases and walled rooms in forests and such, or are in VERY small cities with the same design and the buildings all in the same place, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 14, 2011)

Shadzar, I think by HeroQuest you may be meaning the boardgame(? board-based RPG) of that name, whereas I am referring to the indie RPG written by Robin Laws. A lot of people regard it as a leading example of story-promoting roleplaying design. And its action resolution mechanics and encounter building guidelines resemble 4e skill challenges and encounter building guidelines in many respects. (This resemblance has been further consolidated by Robin Laws' role in authoring DMG2, but predates that particular rulebook.)

And as for your response in respect of Militant Wizards, (i) that didn't exist in 1st ed AD&D, (ii) I'll give you another example, then - an AD&D wizard can't raise the dead, whereas a 4e wizard can - and (iii) the "you can houserule" it reply surely applies equally to 4e. Nothing stops you, as a player, from just not adding your level bonus to your mage's Athletics skill if you really don't want to (although personally I think that using this houserule would miss the point of 4e design).



shadzar said:


> 4th evens out all classes to have similarities, so forces some thigns on you as you play, rahter than letting you decide how you advance. So if in AD&D you chose the wizard, you either worked with the group to remove the banishment of swords, or you accepted it and still could choose what other things you did as you leveled for character growth, rather than your growth being decided for you; as i think BryonD is suggesting with the things 4th dictates as the character grows which impedes player decided growth options for the character.



I personally haven't noticed this feature of 4e. The PCs do very different things both in combat and out of it, and my players are constantly making choices about the growth of their PCs, in terms of feat, power and skill selection and retraining as they level their PCs, establishing the in-game basis for their pending Paragon Paths, etc.

I'd be interested to hear more about the actual play that has led to you having the opposite experiences. My most recent actual play post of a 4e session is here.


----------



## Imperialus (Jan 14, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> YEAH! TECHNOLOGY IS THE DEVIL'S TOOL!
> 
> DOWN WITH TECHNOLOGY!
> 
> But then there'd be no paper for our RPGs or fantasy habits...




I've heard that when Diaglo referees OD&D (1974) your attributes are pressed into clay tablets that are then left to dry in the sun.

His players are encouraging him to switch to vellum just so that character creation doesn't take a week of sunny weather.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

DragonLancer said:


> Sorry, respectfully, I don't buy the "I have a life" angle. If someone out there wants to play D&D (or game system of choice) or wants to prep said game they will find the time. I have yet to meet a gamer who didn't compromise in order to arrange their game and their prep (and that includes one player who has a partner and 3 young kids!).




Sure, in theory there are no barriers.  But in reality, it's different.

It becomes impossible to keep the group together.  First, the schedule becomes unworkable.  The gang is almost never free to play at the same time.  Second, playing keeps getting pushed farther down the priority list.  Time becomes the most precious commodity of all.  And gaming is a major time consumer.  

Playing DnD-type games requires a massive commitment of time and energy that (seems apparent to me) most maturing players don't believe they can afford.  And/or their group is unable to keep it together.  Life just gets in the way.   And the other option is chasing down strangers to play and for whatever reason that just isn't satisfying enough.

I've always said that DnD is the greatest game ever invented by humans.  But it's hard to keep it going over time.  Anyone who has managed to keep a group together from high school or college until their 40s has IMO achieved a major accomplishment.  A rarity to be treasured for certain.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I've made my point many times before and I don't have issues with supporting the story; be it in regard to 4E or any system. But when 4E says that my wizard gets better at climbing as he levels, that is the system imposing itself on the story, not simply failing to remind you of a story.




When my wizard gets better at firing a crossbow as he levels, despite never touching one; when my rogue gets better at opening locks despite having just leveled up following a stroll through a goblin warren when he never touched one; when D&D has never imposed a restriction on getting better only at the things you do rather  than on all sorts of things in one go; that's also the system imposing itself on the story.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I've made my point many times before and I don't have issues with supporting the story; be it in regard to 4E or any system.  But when 4E says that my wizard gets better at climbing as he levels, that is the system imposing itself on the story, not simply failing to remind you of a story.  When 4E says that challenge level defines attacks, damage, defenses much more than what the challenge in question is, that is the system imposing itself on the story, not simply failing to remind you of a story.  Over and over the system is about the game balance and mechanics coming first.  Andy Collins strongly endorsed and praised this as a difference between 4E and other editions saying ". In a lot of editions of the game, classes compared to new classes were designed by [first] imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done" and that for 4E class design the key is instead "why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece."
> 
> You can absolutely role play anything in 4E that you can in any other system.  But, the presumption of 4E is quite different than most any other system that I have played in that it presumes the roleplay will follow the path assigned by the mechanics rather than the other way around.




I agree entirely.  I have been trying to make this argument in another thread, albeit from another angle.

The way I see it, the 4E game as published is about 95% combat encounter.  Roleplaying is given a nod, but most of it is reduced to summary.  Virtually all the rules are written in combat encounter terms.  Spells, which traditionally have been easy to use outside of combat, now take extra mental work to get the spell description to fit a non-combat event.  IMO, this is pushing the game to be just a combat strategy game (but with just enough latitude to be used as an RPG).  And to tie to your point, combat is just an element of story.  It is not the story itself.

For _game _purposes, not realism, 4E homogenized all the classes.  They all function pretty much the same in combat (4EE might turn all this around, it's still early to tell).  Glancing through the descriptions, every class uses combat feats and combat powers.  And all classes powers function very much the same -- usually a to-hit roll, deal [W]+prime req adjustment, change of PC or monster placement, perhaps a continuing effect.  It's GREAT to play a low-level wizard in combat in 4E!  Not only do they get to make an attack every single round all day long, but they also get the same kind of non-magical AC boost other classes always got--now INT can boost your AC.  And with healing surges, you are your own cleric.

All great for game mechanics, but what kind of story is being told here?  Is it realistic to say charisma should add to melee damage?  

I would differ from Andy Collins's quote by saying that in 4E there really isn't much difference in the game pieces.  It's not like 1E where the differences are great.  It's like Ninja Turtles--just pick a color.  You're going to be doing the same basic things in combat anyway.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> When my wizard gets better at firing a crossbow as he levels, despite never touching one; when my rogue gets better at opening locks despite having just leveled up following a stroll through a goblin warren when he never touched one; when D&D has never imposed a restriction on getting better only at the things you do rather  than on all sorts of things in one go; that's also the system imposing itself on the story.




Use'em or lose'em has never been a part of DnD, and leveling-up THACO charts made wizards better with daggers even if he never used one--but your point is well made.

Pre-4E, it was fairly safe to assume that a thief was using thief skills to gain XP, because he surely wasn't relying on combat.  If a player wanted combat, thief was a poor choice.  In 4E, everybody's effective in combat--far more than ever before, anyway.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 14, 2011)

I think it's a little disingenuous to attribute all or even most edition differences to something akin to _nostalgia_.

That is absolutely at work in it. But it's more than that. It's one part of the equation, but it's not the whole thing (or even the most important thing).

It's certainly part of the reason that, even for D&D to reinvent itself, it needs to pay attention to where it has come from.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 14, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> When my wizard gets better at firing a crossbow as he levels, despite never touching one; when my rogue gets better at opening locks despite having just leveled up following a stroll through a goblin warren when he never touched one; when D&D has never imposed a restriction on getting better only at the things you do rather  than on all sorts of things in one go; that's also the system imposing itself on the story.




Your point is taken but, as a nitpick, I note that BTB 1e required training time to be spent; you are presumably not improving in X without any experience of X.

OTOH, 1e had a very rigid increase in thief's skills, which made it impossible (without houserules) to specialize.  While I think 1e had some amazingly good ideas, it is certainly not the be-all and end-all of rpg design!



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think it's a little disingenuous to attribute all or even most edition differences to something akin to _nostalgia_.
> 
> That is absolutely at work in it. But it's more than that. It's one part of the equation, but it's not the whole thing (or even the most important thing).
> 
> It's certainly part of the reason that, even for D&D to reinvent itself, it needs to pay attention to where it has come from.




This mirrors my thoughts on this thread as well.



RC


----------



## BryonD (Jan 14, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> When my wizard gets better at firing a crossbow as he levels, despite never touching one; when my rogue gets better at opening locks despite having just leveled up following a stroll through a goblin warren when he never touched one; when D&D has never imposed a restriction on getting better only at the things you do rather  than on all sorts of things in one go; that's also the system imposing itself on the story.



Well, in my game of preference Rogues don't automatically get better at opening locks.

You ARE correct about wizards and crossbows.    I have suggested in the past that some classes should gain no BAB advancement whatsoever.

But, in the end we are comparing what I consider to be minor warts on one system to what is the root design basis for another.  Again, Andy specifically called this out as the difference in how 4E is designed compared to prior editions.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> To reinforce this conclusion, I'll pose the question that I frequently do and that is rarely responded to - if metagame-heavy design and play _really_ impeded story, then it would be the case that a game like HeroQuest or The Dying Earth was a weaker vehicle for story-rich roleplaying than a game like Rolemaster, Runquest or 3E D&D. But is there anyone who believes this?



And I'll again answer by repeating my point that nothing is "impeded".  

You can't STOP me from roleplaying when I play chess.  4E is several orders of magnitude better for roleplaying than chess.  It isn't even a legitimate comparison.  And yet even in this absurd extreme the ability to roleplay is not impeded.  It is just the the rules and mechanics requirements so restrict the games ability to *mechanically* react to the roleplay that the experience is unrewarding.

The experience of roleplay in 4E is NOT unrewarding.  But, for people with my tastes, games in which the roleplay comes first and the mechanics are forced to do the best they can to keep up are notably more rewarding.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> You can't STOP me from roleplaying when I play chess...




Just the other day, my 12-year old daughter said "Dad, you're the only person I know that mades sound effects while driving."


----------



## Mallus (Jan 14, 2011)

I admit I never quite understood the "a 4e character is forced to improve in all their skills" kerfuffle. 

An AD&D PC is "forced" to improve their THAC0, gain hit points, and increase their chance to avoid harm, including supernatural harm, as they level. This "forces" players to play characters who get better at combat, regardless of whether this fits their concept.

The idea a PC improves in multiple areas as they gain levels (often without offering a choice of specific improvements) is pretty much a _defining characteristic_ of level-based systems. One could argue that by 4e, skills were finally brought in line with other character elements, and pegged directly to level (along with customization options).

Automatically gaining the ability to swim better is bad, but automatically gaining the ability to survive being run through with a lance or surviving a disintegration ray isn't? I can understand that as a matter of taste, but that's because taste isn't subject to reason (and shouldn't be).


----------



## shadzar (Jan 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I am referring to the indie RPG written by Robin Laws.



Never heard of it or her before....



> I personally haven't noticed this feature of 4e. The PCs do very different things both in combat and out of it, and my players are constantly making choices about the growth of their PCs, in terms of feat, power and skill selection and retraining as they level their PCs, establishing the in-game basis for their pending Paragon Paths, etc.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear more about the actual play that has led to you having the opposite experiences. My most recent actual play post of a 4e session is here.




Cant give you what was done once years ago. Like 3rd plays, 4th just reads like a bunch of lists and requires a computer program to track characters to add all the things as they level via picking from lists.

Now earlier editions had lists as well, but the confines of those lists werent as constrictive because they didnt have a list for everything, as you listed of choices of "feats, skills, powers"...this isnt character growth but power growth. It isnt like giving mechanics to tell a story, since you have to try to  weasel those mechanic in somehow to get the story to make any sense (See Spellplague in Faerun)

So while earlier editions let your character grow with few lists to decide how you want to steer them, unless you lock yourself into some kit with more lists, 3rd somewhat, and 4th a lot more has made most of the choices for your character, again by giving those lists you mention "feats, powers, skills". So rather than being able to tell your story, you are telling the designers story they set forth to kep you within your power-level bracket.

So a big question as to why that sort of change, maybe people have moved away from telling the character story, and more to wanting a game for combat simulation, so the game offers that to them and has changed to become that. And no one can really deny the move more towards combat and that more people playing today prefer the combat which the mechanics are laid out for, and deal less with the story aspects. It is the changingtimes due to the "fresh blood" the game got.

So is it still a game where you tell the character's story through playing, or one where you make up the story AFTER you have played?


fumetti said:


> Sure, in theory there are no barriers.  But in reality, it's different.
> 
> <snip>
> Playing DnD-type games requires a massive commitment of time and energy




Actually it isnt different, and the commitment is none different they make to their spouse. I am not saying choose a game over your spouse, just about how much you are willing to commit to it. Anything else is an excuse. It may be harder to make the time, but your choice determines how much effort you put into it. If you can find the time to get together with people to play, then that is the hardest part. You can work to create the game or have things ready anytime without having to sit down for a single session of hours worth of doing it.

Anything in life you want to do, it is your choice whether you make enough time to do it or not, if you have the physical ability to do it.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 14, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I admit I never quite understood the "a 4e character is forced to improve in all their skills" kerfuffle.



Ok.  Noted.



> One could argue that by 4e, skills were finally brought in line with other character elements, and pegged directly to level (along with customization options).



I don't see any point in arguing such a plainly self-evident truth.

The point is not "did they do that", the point is "is it a good thing?".



> Automatically gaining the ability to swim better is bad, but automatically gaining the ability to survive being run through with a lance or surviving a disintegration ray isn't? I can understand that as a matter of taste, but that's because taste isn't subject to reason (and shouldn't be).



If you can only see the taste element of that and can't see the other huge differences, then yeah, you won't be able to see where we are coming from.


But, again, it isn't about right and wrong, better or worse.  

It is about preference and maximizing the market share vs. splitting the market.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> If you can only see the taste element of that and can't see the other huge differences, then yeah, you won't be able to see where we are coming from.




Because getting better in every single weapon that exists including ones you've never heard of is a natural part of progressing as an adventurer, but doing the same with skills that aren't about hitting things is an outrageous violation of everything that makes sense. 

No, I don't see where you're coming from.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 14, 2011)

Frankly, that's why RCFG has weapon skills.

OTOH, that you automatically got better with a bohemian ear spoon is unlikely to enter into game events (and so intrude upon the game); that you got better at swimming, climbing, horseback riding, and nosepicking *is*.  And that is, I think, where the difference lies.


RC


----------



## C_M2008 (Jan 14, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Frankly, that's why RCFG has weapon skills.
> 
> OTOH, that you automatically got better with a bohemian ear spoon is unlikely to enter into game events .
> 
> ...




My next character is so going to use a bohemian ear spoon (1d1-1 damage).


----------



## Nagol (Jan 14, 2011)

C_M2008 said:


> My next character is so going to use a bohemian ear spoon (1d1-1 damage).




It must be a particularly broken one!  Those things are nasty!

Bohemian earspoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Google Image Result for http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1660/qgh7173ps443cp9.jpg


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 14, 2011)

Indeed!


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Shadzar, I think by HeroQuest you may be meaning the boardgame(? board-based RPG) of that name, whereas I am referring to the indie RPG written by Robin Laws. A lot of people regard it as a leading example of story-promoting roleplaying design. And its action resolution mechanics and encounter building guidelines resemble 4e skill challenges and encounter building guidelines in many respects. (This resemblance has been further consolidated by Robin Laws' role in authoring DMG2, but predates that particular rulebook.)





shadzar said:


> Never heard of it or her before....



Robin Laws is a man. He's written many RPG books and articles.

More on HeroQuest the RPG, too.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 15, 2011)

BryonD said:


> And I'll again answer by repeating my point that nothing is "impeded".
> 
> You can't STOP me from roleplaying when I play chess.



The idea that one would consider the suitable of HeroQuest for RPGing by reference to chess is completely bizarre.

The logic of your position is that 3E is a better vehicle for roleplaying than is HeroQuest. That strikes me as a strange claim.

Also, if we are looking for a game in which no PC will improve mechanically without experience, why is either RQ or (played with certain options) RM not the game of choice?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 15, 2011)

RuneQuest owns, and it owns hard, or at least Mongoose Edition which is what I've played does.

If you've ever wanted a bronze age, sword and sandals, age of (gritty) mythology style game, it's perfect.

Plus, as good as several D&D games have been (Planescape Torment, Mask of the Betrayer), King of Dragon Pass isn't just so brutally awesome, it also sets the stage perfectly for the actual setting and tabletop game.

It's also _way_ better for roleplaying then just about any edition of D&D, which has always at its heart been about...well, hell, it's about Dungeons and Dragons.  Going into Dungeons and encountering Dragons (to take their things).

...That is what you mean by RQ, right?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 15, 2011)

Prof, yes, although I was thinking of the old Chaosium/Avalon Hill (? I think) editions.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 15, 2011)

On the point of 4e skills getting better.

Yes, you gain half your level to skills.  Think about that for a second in game terms.  Remember that in 4e, stat bonuses are pretty hard to come by.  It's not like you pick up +2 or +4 stat bonus items all that easily.  And even skill bonus items are fairly limited.  So, the bonus that you have to an untrained skill isn't going to be a whole lot more than that 1/2 level bonus.  Particularly if you're using standard point buy characters.

It's not unusual to have a skill with no stat bonus at all.

The DC's for skill checks do go up faster than 1/2 per level do they not?  I don't have the errata in front of me, so, i'm not entirely sure of the exact numbers, but, while a 1/2 level skill might cover an easy difficulty with reasonable odds, a hard difficulty would be out of reach of an unskilled character.

So, yup, my wizard gets marginally better at climbing stuff as he goes up levels.  At 1st level, his spindly little arms just won't get him up that wall.  At 30th level, he can climb that wall pretty easily.

Of course,  by 30th level, what the heck am I doing trying to climb that same wall?

My point in all this is that the issue is a bit more nuanced than BryonD is presenting.  It's not like the unskilled character can automatically do everyting.  Being unskilled means you're going to fail a lot.  Try having a character that's unskilled in Perception try to find those hiding doppleganger assassins.  The trained guy might do it, but the untrained guy is very unlikely to.

In other words, that bonus is there to cover the mundane stuff that comes up early in the game and then gets glossed over later on.  At 1st level, a 20 foot pit is a big deal.  At 15th level, it's a speedbump.

Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on your tastes I suppose.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 15, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> When my wizard gets better at firing a crossbow as he levels, despite never touching one; when my rogue gets better at opening locks despite having just leveled up following a stroll through a goblin warren when he never touched one; when D&D has never imposed a restriction on getting better only at the things you do rather than on all sorts of things in one go; that's also the system imposing itself on the story.




I'll agree with this. Fact of the matter is-it has always been possible to add skill points to skills whether you use them or not, 4e just does it for you. A DM of mine didnt like leveling PCs as soon as the got the XP, he liked to have a downtime or IC reflection period during which they would rest from adventurers and train their skills (actually I believe according to DMG/PHB you're supposed to be doing it all the time even if you dont take the time neceessarily to depict in a scene).

On thing I do like about Call of Cthulhu's system, is the fact that skills increase based on their use.


----------



## scourger (Jan 15, 2011)

I agree with the OP and with the Savage Worlds philosophy.  The return on my gaming investment has to be pretty high to justify the opportunity cost to my family, career and other activities.


----------



## Mort (Jan 15, 2011)

While I certainly agree with your overall point (My preferences have certainly changed with age, family etc.) I have to wonder about the following:



Herschel said:


> If you enjoy 3E, you either find more time and/or find more shortcuts.
> 
> If you enjoy 4E, you make the conscious effort to give creedence to the story because the system isn't going to push you or remind you.
> 
> ...




Now I see the "less prep time" part. By the end of my 3.5 campaign (which made it into epic levels) it was all I could do to keep up with prep, and I used every shortcut I could (computer aids, short stat blocks, filching from every source I could get my hands on, etc.). I have no such issue with 4e, my prep time has been cut dramatically; at least not yet, will have to see how it develops.

But I just don't see the "less credence to story" part, at least not compared to 3e. Heck the fact  that there is less prep time actually gives me more time to focus on story! Perhaps it's because I'm running an Ebberron campaign and the world seems to really mesh with the 4e system (at least for me).


----------



## shadzar (Jan 15, 2011)

Mort said:


> But I just don't see the "less credence to story" part, at least not compared to 3e. Heck the fact  that there is less prep time actually gives me more time to focus on story! Perhaps it's because I'm running an Ebberron campaign and the world seems to really mesh with the 4e system (at least for me).




OK YOU as the DM have more time to work on story, but how about your players, and what goes on with/during the game?

How much does storytelling get explained in the books as opposed to the combat? How much of a story can the players tell around the rules as presented? Are they hindered in any way to tell particular stories because of difficulties created by the rules.

Before or after playing, tying some kind of story to what is going to happen, or what happened is not too hard, even if it does pose some problems, but how well are your players able to tell their own characters story through play and during play?


----------



## Mort (Jan 16, 2011)

shadzar said:


> OK YOU as the DM have more time to work on story, but how about your players, and what goes on with/during the game?
> 
> How much does storytelling get explained in the books as opposed to the combat? How much of a story can the players tell around the rules as presented? Are they hindered in any way to tell particular stories because of difficulties created by the rules.
> 
> Before or after playing, tying some kind of story to what is going to happen, or what happened is not too hard, even if it does pose some problems, but how well are your players able to tell their own characters story through play and during play?




Again, compared to 3e, it is at worst a wash. Frankly, I see much better "story" and creativity currently evidenced in the game because my players have stopped the 3e mentality of "ok, what spell is going to get us out of this one" and actually have to think of roleplaying, creative solutions (especially out of combat).


----------



## shadzar (Jan 16, 2011)

Mort said:


> Again, compared to 3e, it is at worst a wash. Frankly, I see much better "story" and creativity currently evidenced in the game because my players have stopped the 3e mentality of "ok, what spell is going to get us out of this one" and actually have to think of roleplaying, creative solutions (especially out of combat).




So the "skill challenge" system, or something else outside of combat, is encouraging them to roleplay, as opposed to 3rd where it was just picking a mechanical ability to get them out of a jam?

How about the story telling via combat? Is it still about your players just using the mechanics, or are they being creative to do things that may not be spelled out with the mechanics?

Examples would be great for the overall discussion, even if anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 16, 2011)

shadzar said:


> OK YOU as the DM have more time to work on story, but how about your players, and what goes on with/during the game?
> 
> How much does storytelling get explained in the books as opposed to the combat? How much of a story can the players tell around the rules as presented? Are they hindered in any way to tell particular stories because of difficulties created by the rules.
> 
> Before or after playing, tying some kind of story to what is going to happen, or what happened is not too hard, even if it does pose some problems, but how well are your players able to tell their own characters story through play and during play?




I'm not Mort, but I'll take a stab at this.

I agree that storytelling is, compared to 3e, pretty much the same IME.  I can't really compare it to my 2e or 1e days, mostly because it's just so long ago, and mostly because I'm no longer a student with lots and lots of free time to devote to gaming.  Heck, back in high school, we'd pull all night gaming sessions.  I just can't do that anymore, so, there will be a fair difference there.

Personally, I find that since mechanics have been divorced from flavour, it becomes much easier to bring my character forward than in 3e.  In one example, my somewhat insane rogue believes that he is a disciple of Kord and that his wooden spoon was once used by His Mighty Thews to eat from the character's stewpot.  To open locks, I simply tap them with the "holy" relic and they pop open.  That sort of thing.

Shazman - on in combat role play.  I'd say that it depends on my mood to be honest.  Sometimes I really try, and sometimes I'm just too lazy.  Pretty much the same as always.

However, I have found that I do engage the personality of the character and mesh it with the mechanics to a fairly large degree.  The aforementioned rogue, for example, has a life draining dagger - killing an opponent grants 5 temp hit points - so every time the rogue scores a kill, I dedicate it to Kord.

Although, I am running out of adjectives and body parts to dedicate things to.    "Be embraced by the mighty thews of Kord!"  "May the hairy thighs of Kord grant you mercy!"  That sort of thing.

So, no, I don't think that the mechanics pose any significant limitation on role play.

BTW, for anyone masochistic enough, we have actual audio recordings of our sessions.


----------



## Mort (Jan 16, 2011)

shadzar said:


> So the "skill challenge" system, or something else outside of combat, is encouraging them to roleplay, as opposed to 3rd where it was just picking a mechanical ability to get them out of a jam?




The skill challenge system and the lack of a quick spell for every situation, yes (by the late 3e days my players and I were calling it "the 6 second solution" to nearly every problem). Heck a few sessions ago my players lowered a rope and climbed down a wall, as opposed to the 3e - everyone feather fall, levitate, fly, dimension door, etc (it always struck me as too casual magic, which is great for some worlds, not so great for others).




shadzar said:


> How about the story telling via combat? Is it still about your players just using the mechanics, or are they being creative to do things that may not be spelled out with the mechanics?




This is an interesting one. I think 4e has some better rules for improvisation than 3e (page 42 etc.) BUT because the powers seem so codified and ingrained  it might be hard for people to "go off script" as it were. I've certainly noticed, especially early on, that I had to remind players they were not limited to the actions spelled out on their power cards durring combat (they are in big letters, sometimes even in color).

But this loses sight of the bigger issue - 4e has no less tools for plot and game development than 3e did. Now the feel will quite likely be different, because the mechanics are very different from prior edditions, and it's certainly not to everyone's tastes - but different does not mean worse.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 16, 2011)

OK to both, how well does the healing mechanics in 4th allow you and your players to tell a story? Would you expect anyone to be at a real threat and out of commission, or just wake up fresh as a daisy tomorrow?

Does health play a concern in your story telling?

I will let others fight over 3rd and 4th, I am just wondering about 4th specifically since it has been a while now that it has been out.

To me it just seems you have to shape the story around the mechanics more than other editions.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 16, 2011)

shadzar said:


> OK to both, how well does the healing mechanics in 4th allow you and your players to tell a story? Would you expect anyone to be at a real threat and out of commission, or just wake up fresh as a daisy tomorrow?
> 
> Does health play a concern in your story telling?
> 
> ...




Not even a little to be honest.  It's no different than any other edition in my mind.  The only difference being, no one has to fall on the Cleric Grenade to make sure that everyone is fresh as a daisy the next day.

That being said, I did lose a PC recently to a disease - three days, spiraling downward and three failed saves left my PC comatose (I can't remember the exact disease - something you get from rats).  That certainly had a pretty serious effect on role playing.  And it still has actually.  The character later returned to the game after getting a cure disease ritual and I continue to play him as having been weakened by the effects of that disease.

I'm not sure why you would think that you have to shape the story around the mechanics more to be honest.  Since the mechanics are largely independent of any flavour, you can shape your story however you want - the wound you took in battle hurt like heck during the fight, but is largely just a scratch afterwards.  Which is generally how it works in fiction as well - the hero gets the stuffing beaten out of him, wins by the skin of his teeth, limps away and is good to go by the next scene.

I mean, how many action stories have you seen or read where the hero suffers broken teeth and a shattered jaw after being punched in the face repeately?


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 16, 2011)

shadzar said:


> OK to both, how well does the healing mechanics in 4th allow you and your players to tell a story? Would you expect anyone to be at a real threat and out of commission, or just wake up fresh as a daisy tomorrow?




I think that 4E is pretty focused on creating action movie heroes and playing through their exploits.  A little over the top, maybe a bad-ass but nothing that really pushes any boundaries (I can be a Warlock who signed a Pact with the Devil to gain powers - but I use those powers against him!), always fighting and coming out on top against "all odds".

In that case, you want the heroes to get right back up after taking a beating.  It's part of the genre.



shadzar said:


> To me it just seems you have to shape the story around the mechanics more than other editions.




I don't know about other editions, but I think that's always the case.  I consider that a sign of a well-designed _game_, actually (the opposite is a toolkit that requires the group to bring the _game_).


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I mean, how many action stories have you seen or read where the hero suffers broken teeth and a shattered jaw after being punched in the face repeately?




Noir tends to do this.  Brick jumps to mind, so does The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.


----------



## Mort (Jan 16, 2011)

shadzar said:


> OK to both, how well does the healing mechanics in 4th allow you and your players to tell a story? Would you expect anyone to be at a real threat and out of commission, or just wake up fresh as a daisy tomorrow?




The difference between 4e and 3e on this front is an illusion. In 3e the cleric simply unloads all of his healing spells before a rest (or converts any spells left into healing etc.) and everyone rises "fresh as a daisy" as you put it - 4e merely took away the handwaiving. As to being out of commission, the healing surge mechanic provides a way for the players to really feal threatened.  I've been reading a lot of Robert E. Howard's Conan recently and the healing surge mechanic would actually do the storytelling justice. If nothing else, it FINALY separates healing from clerics and divine magic so the group does not have to be so reliant on the healer at any level worth mentioning.



shadzar said:


> Does health play a concern in your story telling?




Often yes. The 4e mechanic is actually not bad for this, from a modeling standpoint. For example a few sessions ago 2 PCs were afflicted with filth fever. Suddenly extended rests become a bit dangerous: You have to make an endurance check - failing 1 means -2 to all defenses, failing 2 (after a 2nd extended rest) means -2 to all defenses means loss of all healing surges until cured!  Poisons have a similar track.

A person with the heal skill may substitute it for the endurance check.

Plus the cure disease ritual is actually quite cool (I wish they used the mechanic with more rituals) - The healer rolls a heal skill and the result dictates how much damage (or outright death) the target suffers. The cure may well be worse than the disease, making it interesting as opposed to a button to simply push.

So IME - health has taken more of a center stage (for the better IMO) than it used to.




shadzar said:


> To me it just seems you have to shape the story around the mechanics more than other editions.




Again, maybe it's because I'm running ebberron but the mechanics have been getting in the way less than they used to (btw reading the Darksun stuff, I can see the mechanics fitting quite well too).


----------



## Mort (Jan 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Not even a little to be honest.  It's no different than any other edition in my mind.  The only difference being, no one has to fall on the Cleric Grenade to make sure that everyone is fresh as a daisy the next day.
> 
> That being said, I did lose a PC recently to a disease - three days, spiraling downward and three failed saves left my PC comatose (I can't remember the exact disease - something you get from rats).  That certainly had a pretty serious effect on role playing.  And it still has actually.  The character later returned to the game after getting a cure disease ritual and I continue to play him as having been weakened by the effects of that disease.
> 
> ...




Ok that's twice you posted nearly the identical thing to what I was about to - only this time I actually posted before I saw yours. Do I need to run a virus scan on my computer  edit: seriously, I guess our experience just runs in the same direction!


----------



## BryonD (Jan 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Personally, I find that since mechanics have been divorced from flavour, it becomes much easier to bring my character forward than in 3e.  In one example, my somewhat insane rogue believes that he is a disciple of Kord and that his wooden spoon was once used by His Mighty Thews to eat from the character's stewpot.  To open locks, I simply tap them with the "holy" relic and they pop open.  That sort of thing.



You seem to be suggesting that this is something you could not have done in 3E.  Is that what you are saying?  And if so, why?




> So, no, I don't think that the mechanics pose any significant limitation on role play.



Absolutely correct.
Though I see see in your description the completely typical 4E "pop quiz" roleplaying in which the mechanics describe an event and you role play to match it.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But, if someone prefers the idea that the mechanics should stay completely out of the way and the player should role play whatever, and only then do the mechanics come in to model the chosen behavior, then that person is going to find other systems far more satisfying.

It isn't a matter of right or wrong, but it is a very legitimate matter of difference in taste.

That seems to be the point of contention.  Over and over 4E fans demand that they are role playing just as much as anyone else.  I don't doubt that.  But they ALSO demand that there is no difference.  And then they go on to describe this "pop quiz" style.  It is a huge difference.

I understand that many people may not PERCEIVE the difference.  I also fully respect that many people may have been playing 3E this way all along.  But the difference is there.  And the encamped portion of the 4E fanbase's refusal to admit that this difference exist is one the the critical elements of the unending back and forth.


----------



## Mort (Jan 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> You seem to be suggesting that this is something you could not have done in 3E.  Is that what you are saying?  And if so, why?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It is a rare game where mechanics don't infuence and/or even dictate playstyle and 4e certainly isn't one of them, then again neither was 3e. You are correct that taste is going to dictate your preference here.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But, if someone prefers the idea that the mechanics should stay completely out of the way and the player should role play whatever, and only then do the mechanics come in to model the chosen behavior, then that person is going to find other systems far more satisfying.




If someone prefers that idea, they should play free-form.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I mean, how many action stories have you seen or read where the hero suffers broken teeth and a shattered jaw after being punched in the face repeately?




RoboCop
Star Wars
Lord of the Rings
Rocky

The ones where mortals are the heroes rather than immortals or Marvel Super Heroes.

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]

One movie comes directly to mind for me there... Last Action Hero.

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]

Not sure i would call it "pop quiz", but it does seem more geared towards the mechanics being decided on to do things, then you fit a story to what mechanics were chosen, rather than deciding how you want to tell the story, and finding a mechanic, if needed, to tell that part of the story.

So to the thread itself, has the change been caused because less people care first about the story they are trying to tell and more about the mechanics to do things in the game; then they can flesh out the story later?


----------



## Mort (Jan 16, 2011)

shadzar said:


> RoboCop
> RoboCop
> Star Wars
> Lord of the Rings
> Rocky




Interesting choices - but don't they mostly illustrate the opposite point?

Star Wars - almost all damage suffered is basically cosmetic and healed extremely quickly. Even Luke getting his hand chopped off is essentially cosmetic as he's good as new soon after (extended rest?)

Lord of The Rings - Again beaten up bruised battered, but cosmetic unless the character actually dies (or suffers from a disease/affliction such as when Frodo gets stabbed).

Rocky - Pretty much the embodiment of cinematic healing surges in action! Teeth lost? eye swolen shut? Rub some spit on it, cut it and move on!

Robocop - haven't actually seen this one (treasonous I know) but isn't the only scene where the hero gets beaten to near death (death?) essentially a cut scene used as an excuse to introduce the new form and therefore cinimatic license?




shadzar said:


> The ones where mortals are the heroes rather than immortals or Marvel Super Heroes.




Cinematic does not imply immortal or superhero, and again properly used the   4e mechanic can be quite grim (the death save mechanic is quite nasty), though it would take a bit more to make it gritty (though again that may be more in the description, attitude and atmosphere than anything else).




shadzar said:


> So to the thread itself, has the change been caused because less people care first about the story they are trying to tell and more about the mechanics to do things in the game; then they can flesh out the story later?




If your concern is that the mechanics way too heavily on the story - every eddition of D&D has been extremely guilty of this; so not sure how to respond really.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 16, 2011)

Mort said:


> Interesting choices - but don't they mostly illustrate the opposite point?
> 
> Star Wars - almost all damage suffered is basically cosmetic and healed extremely quickly. Even Luke getting his hand chopped off is essentially cosmetic as he's good as new soon after (extended rest?)
> 
> ...




Overall it depends on how silly of an action movie you may way. Likewise for games.

Robocop he is dead, they insert some of his organs and mind into the robot body.

Star Wars...Vader (see RoboCop), but he is changed from the incident. Luke's hand wasnt just an overnight thing. Sure he could use it, but had to train again. For overnight they could have just grew him a clone and used spare parts for either of them now couldn't they? Also most people seen were high on midichlorians that were the life force bacteria of the universe so akin to magic to heal them faster.

Rocky, he was in a coma. I call that pretty much NOT overnight healing.

LotR, the reason they healed for the most part quickly was due to the use of magic, not just sleeping. Frodo woke up to find Sam and the others in Rivendell, and magic had been used to heal him. Denethor didnt wait a night for Faramir to get better, he was about to burn him alive, and Faramir didnt just jump back into action the next day.

Théoden was being controlled by magic and within minutes was cured by magic, but at Helms Deep he was quickly taken away after being injured in his token appearance in the fight as king and didn't just rush back to battle later, but had to heal after returning to Rohan, as well Théodred just up at died rather than sleep a night and get back up. Several arrows is all it took to take out Boromir.

Mostly LotR revolved a great deal around healing magic rather than being really injured out in the field away from plenty of healing magic. The only person really injured and not die was Frodo, because he was rushed to be healed by magic. The Hobbit had plenty dying or out of commission due to injury lasting longer than just a night's rest.

So again, it is the type of cinematic you are trying to present. Also how long do you want to see the hero laying in bed resting, even if he is in an action movie? Isnt it about the action rather than the time it takes for them to heal, so you skip past that rather than show the days of time it takes.

I could go with Hard to Kill, Bourne Identity, and Wolverine also, and Wolverine has supernatural healing, but even he carried more than just superficial damage from it.

There are MANY stories where the hero is out of commission for longer than a night. Even anime has the heroes down for longer than a single day with all the things they do.

Again that plays an important part int he stories some want to tell, so the game changed to move to a different type of story, which shuts out those others, or you have to explain somehow that it happened some other way than it played out, or just use magic healing.

Some mechanics just seem to prevent certain types of stories, based on them removing some elements from being there, such as healing. The story of a character overcoming his injury to get better is gone when the injury is pretty much ignored through "strange" healing.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 16, 2011)

I'm sorry, but I cannot for the life of me identify 3e healing mechanics with any sort of well told story.

"Ok, let's bust out the healing sticks and tap each other with them a bit.  Ok!  Time to move on!"

Besides, HP has always been an abstract.  *Always*.  Since the dawn of D&D it was an abstract.  All through each edition it's been an abstract.  4e didn't suddenly make it an abstract.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 16, 2011)

> I'm sorry, but I cannot for the life of me identify 3e healing mechanics with any sort of well told story.
> 
> "Ok, let's bust out the healing sticks and tap each other with them a bit. Ok! Time to move on!"




Well, like the punchline to the old joke goes, "Stop doing that, then!"

Or better yet, don't start.  As in all walks of life, just because an option exists, doesn't mean you have to choose it.

The only item-based healing you'd see in one of our 3.X campaigns- so far- has been from potions & scrolls.  Purchased or obtained via adventuring, not made by PCs.

The sole exception to that was a "Staff of St. Cuthbert", with which you had to land a combat type strike on the PC to be healed (in a 1Ed campaign).  This had 2 key consequences: it could never fully heal you, and since it's damage was done first, you couldn't use it to save the dying.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jan 16, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, like the punchline to the old joke goes, "Stop doing that, then!"
> 
> Or better yet, don't start.  As in all walks of life, just because an option exists, doesn't mean you have to choose it.
> 
> The only item-based healing you'd see in one of our 3.X campaigns- so far- has been from potions & scrolls.  Purchased or obtained via adventuring, not made by PCs.




Contractual Genre Blindness isn't for everyone Danny...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 16, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> Contractual Genre Blindness isn't for everyone Danny...




No agreements necessary; no metagaming involved.

Almost nobody in the group wants to play Crafter Casters, and as we've been doing forever, what magic shops there are are not stocked with everything in the books- they have a bit of this, a bit of that- just like RW stores.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 16, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> If someone prefers that idea, they should play free-form.



Unless they happen to know of a system that adds value on top of the free form aspects.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 16, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Besides, HP has always been an abstract.  *Always*.  Since the dawn of D&D it was an abstract.  All through each edition it's been an abstract.  4e didn't suddenly make it an abstract.




That is absolutely true.  But there is a difference between working with the abstract system in an effort to make it as invisible as possible and throwing your hands in the air and giving up and just wallowing in the nonsense aspects of it.

The system can be in your face, or the system can do its best to stay out of your way.

And HPs are certainly a very good example of a perpetual weak point in the mechanics and the players at the table are expected to take up some slack there.  I don't for a moment question that it is a point where improvement would be welcome.

But, 4E, for me, goes exactly the wrong direction.  It says you are going to ignore this anyway, so we won't even bother to worry about it.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 16, 2011)

Mort said:


> It is a rare game where mechanics don't infuence and/or even dictate playstyle and 4e certainly isn't one of them, then again neither was 3e. You are correct that taste is going to dictate your preference here.



I'm not talking about playstyle.  You are correct there, but that is a completely different point.

I'm talking about the actual flow of events.

Role play defines events and THEN mechanics resolve the outcome

is very different from

Mechanics defines the events and THEN the player provides narrative to connect the dots.


----------



## rounser (Jan 16, 2011)

> But, 4E, for me, goes exactly the wrong direction. It says you are going to ignore this anyway, so we won't even bother to worry about it.



Yep, even the name is poorly chosen, given that no healing is involved so far as the explanations to explain it are concerned.  The whole thing just comes across as a half-baked design convenience with only awkward mapping to real world concepts.  And unlike movies, we can see the rules, which means suspension of disbelief is more easily broken by such gamist design conveniences.

  It's arguably worse than the problem it sought to solve IMO, because at least you can "buy" the concept of natural or magical healing without contorted explanations requiring specific examples from other media forms which arguably don't even map to RPGs in terms of what each can get away with.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Now earlier editions had lists as well, but the confines of those lists werent as constrictive because they didnt have a list for everything, as you listed of choices of "feats, skills, powers"...this isnt character growth but power growth.




I agree that 4E _feels _this way.  The emphasis on feats and powers _feels_ that character growth is gameplayed via power growth.  I liken 4E to Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Morrowind in that regard.

Some will argue the opposite, that the many choices of feats and powers  is actually an advancement in diversity of character and character  growth (but that again is defining the character by its stats).  And really, that shouldn't necessarily be the case.





shadzar said:


> So a big question as to why that sort of change, maybe people have moved away from telling the character story, and more to wanting a game for combat simulation, so the game offers that to them and has changed to become that. And no one can really deny the move more towards combat and that more people playing today prefer the combat




Ardent defenders of 4E seem to not see this, or just acknowledge it in their posts.  Not sure why.  The books and thrust of WOTC seem to support this in every way.

Nowhere have I found the 4E rulebooks suggest skipping past any part of conflict, as they have the non-combat activity.






shadzar said:


> Actually it isnt different, and the commitment is none different they make to their spouse.




If you can equate one's commitment to a game hobby to one's commitment to a marriage, then we live in completely different realities.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

Mort said:


> This is an interesting one. I think 4e has some better rules for improvisation than 3e (page 42 etc.) BUT because the powers seem so codified and ingrained  it might be hard for people to "go off script" as it were. I've certainly noticed, especially early on, that I had to remind players they were not limited to the actions spelled out on their power cards durring combat (they are in big letters, sometimes even in color).




Exactly what I've been trying to say, especially regarding new players.  4E Powers (and Spells especially) are written in combat encounter terms only and therefore appear useful only in that capacity.

It takes a seasoned gamer, who has experience playing editions that expressed these powers/spells more broadly, to see past this.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

shadzar said:


> OK to both, how well does the healing mechanics in 4th allow you and your players to tell a story? Would you expect anyone to be at a real threat and out of commission, or just wake up fresh as a daisy tomorrow?
> 
> Does health play a concern in your story telling?
> 
> ...




Storywise, surges have robbed the game of any connection to reality.  That mechanic is for strategy-games, not roleplaying.  How can a player relate to simply willing oneself to gain health?  Since when can a person without regenerative powers heal oneself?  In 4E, everyone can regenerate--an expediency for the game to move more quickly to the next combat and nothing more.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> You seem to be suggesting that this is something you could not have done in 3E.  Is that what you are saying?  And if so, why?
> /quote




Sure, I could have done this in 3e.  RAW would be over in the corner having a bit of a lie down, but, sure, I can ignore the rules in 3e completely.  Let me rephrase that a little.  It's something that probably would never occur to me to try in 3e since 3e mechanics are very strongly linked to the in game reality.  Why use a heavily simulationist system if you're not going to simulate the ingame reality?

The difference is that in 4e, I can do it without actually violating any rules and actually do it completely in accordance with the spirit of the rules.



			
				Fumetti said:
			
		

> Nowhere have I found the 4E rulebooks suggest skipping past any part of conflict, as they have the non-combat activity.




I'd like to see an example of "skipping past conflict" in any edition.  Why would you ever skip over a conflict?  Isn't the entire point of sitting down at the table to overcome conflicts, either combat or not?

However, giving a new DM advice that says, "Hey, you really don't have to sweat the small stuff.  No one really cares if you had pork and beans for dinner usually.  If your group does, more power to you, but, as a rule of thumb, you can ignore this" is pretty darn good advice in my book.

Let's be honest here, do you actually play out what the characters ate at every meal?  Do you insist on detailed accounting of cooking methodology?  Do you require the PC's to get enough fiber in their diet?  

Don't sweat the small stuff is pretty darn good general DMing advice.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

Mort said:


> The difference between 4e and 3e on this front is an illusion. In 3e the cleric simply unloads all of his healing spells before a rest (or converts any spells left into healing etc.) and everyone rises "fresh as a daisy" as you put it - 4e merely took away the handwaiving.




I would say this is true for any campaign that has conveniently cast aside issues of timekeeping, resource management, and wandering monster encounters.  Just say the days have passed and the cleric healed everybody up.  With the large beginning HP in 4E, a 1st level cleric would otherwise need weeks to heal a badly wounded party. 




Mort said:


> As to being out of commission, the healing surge mechanic provides a way for the players to really feal threatened.  I've been reading a lot of Robert E. Howard's Conan recently and the healing surge mechanic would actually do the storytelling justice. If nothing else, it FINALY separates healing from clerics and divine magic so the group does not have to be so reliant on the healer at any level worth mentioning.





I never feel threatened by having surges.  They always bail me out.  In fact, they encourage more reckless behavior because the loss of HP has less impact.  I can simply regenerate them.

The best defense I can give surges is that HP now includes fatigue, and that the damage I took early in the encounter wasn't physical damage , it just drained my energy a few points. Thus, "second wind."  But that then begs the question of types of damage and continuing damage.  How can a "second wind" overcome the effects of poison, etc.?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 16, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Storywise, surges have robbed the game of any connection to reality.  That mechanic is for strategy-games, not roleplaying.  How can a player relate to simply willing oneself to gain health?  Since when can a person without regenerative powers heal oneself?  In 4E, everyone can regenerate--an expediency for the game to move more quickly to the next combat and nothing more.




The problem here is that you have determined the narrative before you know the results.  How serious was that wound you took when you lost 10 hit points?  In D&D (and this is edition independent) you lose no capabilities as you lose hit points.

A character at 100% is just as effective as a character at 1% of hit points.

So, how wounded are your really?  4e takes the approach that the all wounds, save the one that kills you, are superficial.  Which fits with the hit point mechanic nicely.  You're an action hero, bleeding from lots of cuts, one eye maybe swollen shut and the next day, you're right back at it.

Earlier editions pretty much ignored the issue since most healing was done magically anyway.  It was fairly uncommon to actually heal naturally IME.  ((Yes, yes, in the back there, I know YOU always healed naturally, but, I think most groups sacrificed at least one player to the Cleric Grenade)) so it never really comes up.  

I can understand not liking the approach.  It's far less simulationist than earlier editions, but, it's not really all that different at the end of the day.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 16, 2011)

fumetti said:


> How can a "second wind" overcome the effects of poison, etc.?



Why doesn't D&D combat in prior editions ever result in broken bones, limb loss, or even blood loss (unless a character is struck by a rare magic weapon, cf. sword of wounding)? 

I believe the answers are related.


----------



## Mort (Jan 16, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Storywise, surges have robbed the game of any connection to reality.  That mechanic is for strategy-games, not roleplaying.  How can a player relate to simply willing oneself to gain health?  Since when can a person without regenerative powers heal oneself?  In 4E, everyone can regenerate--an expediency for the game to move more quickly to the next combat and nothing more.




I strongly disagree with this!

1) Healing surges are essentially reserve hit points with narrative control going mostly to the players - this is a good thing and allows for the players to control the flow of the game a bit better.

2) Healing surges have finally divorced the party from absolute reliance on a cleric and/or other divine healing. Big boost for worlds where Divine is rare or non-existant.

3) Fatigue rules can actually be made not to suck! Fail endrance check - lose a healing surge - you may be at full hit points but still almost walking dead! Check out the DMG page 159 Starvation, Thirst and Suffocation - IMO best modeling of this in any eddition - possible because of healing surges.

4) Same for some rituals - love the rituals that cost the caster a healing surge - again a great way to simulate fatigue (knock for example actually has a tangible cost outside of just time and money).

5) Diseases are now workable and nasty - losing healing surges can be bad, very bad, even though the player is not out of commission.

Healing surges were one of the best inventions of 4e - heck when I do a 3e game I might try to figure out a way to port them in (probably not, the feel would be too off, but I'd be tempted).


----------



## Mort (Jan 16, 2011)

fumetti said:


> I But that then begs the question of types of damage and continuing damage.  How can a "second wind" overcome the effects of poison, etc.?




Since most poisons in 4e have effects other than damage, how does 2nd wind help? As for overcoming the damage, isn't overcoming damage from poison (through willpower, determination, pure luck, etc.) a movie/book/gaming staple?


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The difference is that in 4e, I can do it without actually violating any rules and actually do it completely in accordance with the spirit of the rules.



I just have to ask - what rule would you have been violating in 3.xE?


----------



## shadzar (Jan 16, 2011)

fumetti said:


> If you can equate one's commitment to a game hobby to one's commitment to a marriage, then we live in completely different realities.




Really? Commitment is simply to willingness to put effort into making it work/finish it/etc that you are committed to doing. Now it doesnt mean that you give the same amount of attention to one as the other...you choose which has priority. But willingness to make the time if yours and yours alone. If you choose to watch the superbowl and a spouse would prefer you do something/anything else but you do it anyway.... Likewise you can choose those hours to watch that, or do something to get ready for D&D. You make the choices with your free time to do things, and only have yourself to blame when you make ones that leave some things out.

This goes for DM and player, because the excuse to not having time has been made by players when trying to schedule a game, and if you want to be a part of it then be there rather than picking people up at a bar.

It isnt the game "feels" as though the power growth is defining the character growth. It is that it IS defining the character growth.

While adventuring you gather treasure, but never go about taking things, Funny how every even level, though you have never done it before, you are magically getting better at thieving because when you reach that level you get the *DING* that magically grants and imparts this ability unto you, whether you want it or not. All because of some other arbitrarily designed and disconnected system within the game needs it for you to "help others" using this skill sometimes. Whether you want your character to be thieving or not, you are slapped with it. Thats just an easy one, but completely where mechanics dictate the story. That isnt a "feel" unless you feel it when you are slapped in the face when trying to tell the story of someone who doesnt believe in thievery.



fumetti said:


> Storywise, surges have robbed the game of any connection to reality.  That mechanic is for strategy-games, not roleplaying.  How can a player relate to simply willing oneself to gain health?  Since when can a person without regenerative powers heal oneself?  In 4E, everyone can regenerate--an expediency for the game to move more quickly to the next combat and nothing more.




Exactly. The game has no more reality, so you cannot tell stories based on it and are forced to tell silly stories rather than ones more rooted. Again a changed caused by the playstyle trying to be represented by the game. Some people can see it right away, while others only noticed it through play, but sooner or later everyone should be able to see the game has changed forms to a fantastic battle simulator as battle is the prime function of the mechanics, so that you can get to it more often.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 16, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Why doesn't D&D combat in prior editions ever result in broken bones, limb loss, or even blood loss (unless a character is struck by a rare magic weapon, cf. sword of wounding)?





Hit Points: As Long As You Have 1...

Contrast with say, Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, or other games.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 16, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, like the punchline to the old joke goes, "Stop doing that, then!"
> 
> Or better yet, don't start.  As in all walks of life, just because an option exists, doesn't mean you have to choose it.




One of the problems - for me - with this approach is that you end up tying one hand behind your back.  I like to confront challenges, and if I know that something is going to help, I am going to want to use it.  I don't want to hold back.  

(That's why I like core-only 3E games, with other material - like Prestige Classes - available only through play.  I don't want to hold back, but I don't want to spend hours combing through all the books looking for the perfect feat or class.)

You can house-rule Wands of Cure Light Wounds out of your game, but that seems like admitting that the system isn't working for you, so you change it until it does.



BryonD said:


> Unless they happen to know of a system that adds value on top of the free form aspects.




Once you add the system, that system begins to _inform the choices you make._  That's what it's there for.  It doesn't completely get out of the way; the point of using the system is so that it _does_ get in the way (that it, it affects your decision-making process).

I may have misunderstood your point:



BryonD said:


> I'm talking about the actual flow of events.
> 
> Role play defines events and THEN mechanics resolve the outcome
> 
> ...




We're in agreement here.  I think that if you want the game world to be an important feature of play, you have to do the former (RP then mechanics) instead of the latter.  I have played using the latter style quite a bit and it doesn't work for me.

Obviously I think that 4E lacks this, because I've spent hours hacking the system with the goal of adding it back in.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'd like to see an example of "skipping past conflict" in any edition.  Why would you ever skip over a conflict?  Isn't the entire point of sitting down at the table to overcome conflicts, either combat or not?




In context of the quoted portion, "conflict" was probably not the word meant to be used, but rather combat, since the opposite side mentioned is "non-combat"; as we were discussing combat.

Skipping combat was in EVERY edition that wasn't focused on "killing monsters and taking their stuff". Funny when while working from that statement as being a joke, and one that shouldn't be made by the designers since it was made by others to make fun of D&D, that is pretty much the focus presented in 4th edition.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Quests)



> We sometimes joke that the game is all about killing monsters and taking their stuff, but the reality is that the game is about adventures.




If the game was so much about adventures, then why precisely are the components of adventures other than combat, directly told to be skipped over?

Does 4th have any rules on interrogation, or is it just clustered into the "skill challenges", and is it mentioned anywhere, for the player to read, that you should not kill everything, but resolve an encounter with something other than combat?

While first instinct in other editions would be "grab dice and roll for initiative", 4th pretty much shows that at what you should do right away by its heavy focus on combat, and then the most obvious result arrived at for resolving the combat is killing it, not retreating, going around, or really any emphasis on doing things other than combat since you should "Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun", because "An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun."

So 4th tells you to skip past a conflict right there, before it even gets into combat, while so focused on getting you to combat faster.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Why doesn't D&D combat in prior editions ever result in broken bones, limb loss, or even blood loss (unless a character is struck by a rare magic weapon, cf. sword of wounding)?
> 
> I believe the answers are related.




HP is abstract in all editions.  It covered ground from specifics like physical damage to vague concepts such as luck.  All of that was rolled into a single numerical value that can generically be called a character's "total life."

Surges don't change that in any way.  They just give freebie "life points."


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

Mort said:


> Since most poisons in 4e have effects other than damage, how does 2nd wind help? As for overcoming the damage, isn't overcoming damage from poison (through willpower, determination, pure luck, etc.) a movie/book/gaming staple?




It helps by keeping the character alive when that character should have died.

And I really loathe comparing DnD mechanics to movies.  Movies are typically so unrealistic they are absurd.  I hold roleplaying games to a higher level than that.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 16, 2011)

fumetti said:


> HP is abstract in all editions.  It covered ground from specifics like physical damage to vague concepts such as luck.  All of that was rolled into a single numerical value that can generically be called a character's "total life."
> 
> Surges don't change that in any way.  They just give freebie "life points."




So presumably resting (and spending healing surges) restores some of this luck/fatigue/confidence/favour of the gods that enable you to survive. It's not as if Cure Light Wounds is commonly described as making you luckier, yet the abstract is there in every edition. And noticeably, higher level characters require more magical healing to restore their luck/health/whatever than low level characters when they take more 'damage', despite being in less danger of dying.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

Mort said:


> I strongly disagree with this!
> 
> 1) Healing surges are essentially reserve hit points with narrative control going mostly to the players - this is a good thing and allows for the players to control the flow of the game a bit better.




By narrative control, you are saying they avoid the consequences of previous actions... their own and their opponents.

I now see surges as a massive RETCON of the previous encounter.   What was a dramatic battle with life or death consequences become totally MOOT.

Surges effectively take the risk out of the game.  Because if you don't completely did in an encounter, you have virtually no chance of dying.

In older editions, a player had to be more cautious, more cunning, so as not to lose all his HP in one fight because he would be wholly vulnerable at the outset of the next fight.  Not in 4E.  You're darn near immortal.

I have a 5th level 4EE Knight.  He has 53 HP.  He has 143 HP worth of surges EVERY DAY--meaning it takes 196 HP of damage in one day to kill him .

And what's better, he starts over with 196 HP the very next day!  

That's not a mid-level character.  THAT IS A GOD.




Mort said:


> 2) Healing surges have finally divorced the party from absolute reliance on a cleric and/or other divine healing. Big boost for worlds where Divine is rare or non-existant.




Now the party is relying on healing surges.

I have an idea... don't change the game because (1) your fighter types want no responsibility for their reckless play; (2) your group can't strategize to minimize its damage intake; (3) your party can't function unless it treats clerics as just medics; (4) your clerics don't insist on being something other than just a walking heal spell; (5) you really want your characters to all have x4 HP each day (see Knight above).

Surges are actually worse than just giving characters x4 hp on their sheet.  Because you don't need a bunch of healing to get back up to full strength the next day.  Surges come back fully charged!

Surges = Monty Haul.





Mort said:


> Healing surges were one of the best inventions of 4e - heck when I do a 3e game I might try to figure out a way to port them in (probably not, the feel would be too off, but I'd be tempted).




Your game is your business.

But it should be really easy to port them.  Just give your characters 300% extra HP free each day.


----------



## Mort (Jan 16, 2011)

fumetti said:


> HP is abstract in all editions.  It covered ground from specifics like physical damage to vague concepts such as luck.  All of that was rolled into a single numerical value that can generically be called a character's "total life."
> 
> Surges don't change that in any way.  They just give freebie "life points."




As my post above stated, this is just flat out incorrect. Surges offer a different mechanic for keeping track of a characters, life, fatigue, luck etc - nothing freebie about it - just different. Not to eveyone's tastes sure, but to mischaracterise it and call it silly is simplistic and dismissive.

A question - how is 4e less realistic than 3e due to surges. I'm not talking about the 6 hours and healed mechanic here (which btw is quite easy - don't like it throw it out or dump it, or better yet just introduce more long lasting conditions for grittiness, quite easy really), but strictly healing surges?



fumetti said:


> It helps by keeping the character alive when that character should have died.




Only if the character wold have died from damage, assuming he has a round to do the 2nd wind - what exactly is wrong with a mechanic that allows an extra round of survival - with a cost (time)?



fumetti said:


> And I really loathe comparing DnD mechanics to movies.  Movies are typically so unrealistic they are absurd.  I hold roleplaying games to a higher level than that.




There is a huge difference between realism and verisimilitude or for that matter realism and suspension of disbelief. To much realism in fantasy is not necessarily a good thing. And in a *good* movie suspension of disbelief tends to triumph over realism and make for a great experience - nothing wrong with that in a game too.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 16, 2011)

Mort said:


> A question - how is 4e less realistic than 3e due to surges. I'm not talking about the 6 hours and healed mechanic here (which btw is quite easy - don't like it throw it out or dump it, or better yet just introduce more long lasting conditions for grittiness, quite easy really), but strictly healing surges?



I won't take the bait on "realistic".

But surges are a lot less fun for me.  
Be it represented as mechanical disadvantages or simply nothing more than be that many fewer points closer to being taken out of the fight, loss of hit points has some tangible meaning.  And to me it is much more fun that something that equates to healing, be it a natural healing or a distinct source of supernatural healing is required to undo the situation.  Surges are not natural healing and I don't like the idea of warrior types automatically having their own internal supernatural healing.

You can say that everything is abstract if you want.  But then EITHER you are prohibited from having a sword blow cause a physical wound OR you must allow surges to undo that harm.

Surges fly in the face of the kind of cause and effect system that I strive for.  HP don't get me all the way there, but surges go way in the other direction.

They may be awesome for you, and that's great.  
But you seem to be putting out the (rather desperate sounding) idea that anyone who doesn't share your preference is demonstrably wrong.  
That is amusing.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 16, 2011)

Another thread where I find it difficult to respond because the attacks on 4e have no basis in, well, 4e.

When I and so many others point out flaws in 3.x, it's a game we played for _years_.  Flaws we saw first hand.

But so many of the "flaws" I see pointed out in 4e don't exist, and I think it's because so many people haven't played 4e but wrote it off immediately.

3.x - nor any edition of D&D - were not "simulationist" games.  The economy makes no sense.  HP makes no sense.  The way magic interacts with 90% of the settings make no sense.  The way leveling up is done makes no sense.  It is a game of a large multitude of abstractions, and at no point did the developers of any of the games sit down and think "let's try to simulate actually living in a medieval world."

Healing surges are not a *bigger* abstract, they are a *different *abstract.  Previously in D&D, health had no meaning.  Literally!  1HP, 3,000HP, there was no difference.  HP was entirely _binary_ - Either you had HP, or you had no HP.  There were no broken bones.  No severed limbs.  Regenerate was always the most laughable spell because there was nothing for severing limbs.  It was a spell to fix a condition that didn't exist!

Surges are equally an abstract, but a different one, not a "bigger" or "worse" one.  They cover things like fatigue where HP never did.  They show a character's slow degradation where HP as well never did.  People keep talking about surges magically making people regenerate, but somehow miss that people in 3e either magically didn't die after being stabbed fifty times or having a dragon roast them alive, or they - here it comes - shrugged it off as an abstract.  They didn't sweat the small stuff.

If each attack is a physical wound, then past level 3 or 4, D&D in _all_ editions breaks down.  Ok, my fighter is run through three times.  It's cool, I suffer no penalties or anything, I'm still fighting at peak form.

As for the snubbing of movies, come on.  D&D is not some fantastic work of literary genius.  It was formed from terrible 70's pulp with godawful prose and even worse 70's movies and TV shows.  The monk didn't come about because Gygax wanted a complex examination of eastern aesthetics and the differences between Buddhism and greek mythology, he did it because he really liked Kung Fu.  Paladins aren't in the game because he wanted a rich tapestry of morality and how it plays out in a medieval society, it's there because valiant knights in shining armor are cool.  D&D has always been a mix of nerd culture and "gamist" fun.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 16, 2011)

That is just because form a game perspective several things occur.

1. Selling a game to people that has rules about dismembering others might not be viewed as something parents would want their children playing, while killing the monster, just making them dead, might not be as bad as turning into Jeffrey Dauhmer.

2. The mountains of rules in order to do so, would take 3 times the number of books to go through those things in ANY edition, howver 4th doesn't lend to those things being able to happen at all since all such damage unless magical is healed overnight.

The ability of previous editions to have the abstract or more close to home "realistic" damage is easier to represent if wanted, while 4th doesn't really lend itself well to that. No video game has the component for missing limbs and such, however you see characters with eye-patches, so it must have happened. Therefore the component in 4th disrupts the suspension of disbelief of people in that, while the possibility was there in previous editions, 4th has removed it from even happening and takes you out of the game world, and into the metagame one much more often.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> On the point of 4e skills getting better.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Hussar, the increase in DCs in the latest suggested DCs (from essentials and the website) is about half per level for Easy, 0.7 per level for Medium and 0.8 per level for Hard.

As for your points about nuance and taste, I agree but have tried to push a bit harder - the implication of Bryon D's argument (and similar) is that any system in which chances of success are assigned on the basis of pacing/narrative considerations first, and _then_ the world is narrated so as to makes sense of those DCs, is a system that fails to foster roleplaying as well as a strict simulationist system. Which in my view is just nonsense - HeroQuest is the poster child for this sort of design, and while not everyone likes it, I've never seen _anyone_ try to argue that it is a system that is hostile to roleplaying.


----------



## Mort (Jan 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I won't take the bait on "realistic".
> 
> But surges are a lot less fun for me.
> Be it represented as mechanical disadvantages or simply nothing more than be that many fewer points closer to being taken out of the fight, loss of hit points has some tangible meaning.  And to me it is much more fun that something that equates to healing, be it a natural healing or a distinct source of supernatural healing is required to undo the situation.  Surges are not natural healing and I don't like the idea of warrior types automatically having their own internal supernatural healing.
> ...




I just pointed out that saying the 4e mechanic being less realistic than prior editions is demonstrably wrong, and somewhat absurd. I make (and made) no assertions that my preference is better.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 16, 2011)

shadzar said:


> The ability of previous editions to have the abstract or more close to home "realistic" damage is easier to represent if wanted, while 4th doesn't really lend itself well to that. No video game has the component for missing limbs and such, however you see characters with eye-patches, so it must have happened. Therefore the component in 4th disrupts the suspension of disbelief of people in that, while the possibility was there in previous editions, 4th has removed it from even happening and takes you out of the game world, and into the metagame one much more often.




No, it doesn't.  You're wrong in your first sentence.

3e HP was abstracted as hell.  It's nowhere near "realistic," not at all.  At 1 HP I suffer literally zero consequences for having such.

If anything, you're proving 4e is more realistic.  At 0 healing surge, I *am* facing consequences.  I have no more healing surges left after this.  There's no more healing.  My body has reached it's limit.

Bodies in 3e and earlier _have no limit_.  As long as someone is there to whack with a healing stick, you're back in the game, forever.

You've yet to show how being run through by a sword three times then being healed infinitely forever is more realistic then taking HP as a measure of fatigue and slowly losing your peak condition to the point where you have to stop and take a long rest.

You're starting with the conclusion (4e is more abstracted and less realistic) and then trying to find the evidence.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 16, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No, it doesn't.  You're wrong in your first sentence.
> 
> 3e HP was abstracted as hell.  It's nowhere near "realistic," not at all.  At 1 HP I suffer literally zero consequences for having such.
> 
> ...



Not sure if it was you or another in regards to porting surges backwards, but just increase the hit points by 300% was the response.

When you look at the healing surges it gives a false perception. When you look at previous HP you could see what there was. Looking in two places already means more metagaming to take you out of the game itself.

ALL games when healing options are exhausted and "natural" healing takes place, is where the BIG problem lies.

What happens prior to 4th when all forms of healing have been exhausted and you still do not have full HP, as opposed to what happens in 4th? Recovery time in previous editions means a chance for long lasting effects from the loss of HP, while 4th edition removes ANY chance of long lasting effects since you are healed as soon as you wake up, AND have all your surges back.

That is why 4th doesn't lend itself to long lasting damage representable by HP loss, because as part of that abstract injury is removed due to the metagame "lifebar" in 4th as opposed to previous editions.

It is an intended function of the game for its design, but that design in turn changes the possibilities of things and those changes were most likely taken into consideration and ignore in order to promote the style of play supported by 4th.

Which would be, being injured and unable to fight is not as fun as just ignoring such and just being ready to fight each day.

This mechanic change, also changed the story telling/narrative capabilities in accordance with the overall design goals.

It works for those looking for those changes set forth by the design goals, but not those that have other goals in mind when they play.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 16, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Storywise, surges have robbed the game of any connection to reality.  That mechanic is for strategy-games, not roleplaying.  How can a player relate to simply willing oneself to gain health?



Have you read the REH story in which Conan pulls himself of a cross?

I don't see that story as any special sort of advocate for healing surges - you might achieve that sort of result in an RPG through any number of mechanical avenues. But it does seem to suggest that a heroic fantasy PC can will him/herself to regain health.



fumetti said:


> But it should be really easy to port them.  Just give your characters 300% extra HP free each day.



Actually, that wouldn't remotely ape the effect of healing surges.

The main mechanical function of healing surges is to produce a dramatic dynamic to combat, as the monsters starte out on top, very quicly wear down the PCs' hit points, but then end up losing as the PCs get back up from the canvass and keep fighting. Healing surges are a crucial part of that "getting up from the canvass" part of the game, and the need for the PCs to find ways to recover surges during combat in turn is a big part of the tactics of combat - at least in my experience it drives a whole lot of dymanics in terms of action economy, PCs moving around the battlefield and manipulating the initiative sequence via delaying and the like, etc. Simply quadrupling hit poits would in no sense replicate any of this.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Examples would be great for the overall discussion, even if anecdotal evidence.



I have an actual-play report posted here. It describes both prep and play for an exploration-based 4e scenario. As far as I'm concerned, my experience in that session _utterly disproves_ any contention that 4e is inimical to, or otherwise fails to support, exploration-heavy play (which generally seems to be what is meant by roleplaying around here).



shadzar said:


> Does health play a concern in your story telling?



Yes, and at several levels.

First, it affects the dynamics of action scenes, and the relationship between action scenes - as healing surges drop, tactics and operational strategy change. A sub-component of this is death saves and negative hit points - in a recent combat, one PC was two saves down and had to make a third, _and_ was close to negative bloodied and still taking ongoing damage. The rest of the party was tied up in spider webs, which would have to be escaped from to heal the PC in question. This was a pretty engaging episode both at the mechanical and at the story level.

Second, it affects larger scale action resolution because healing surges are often expended as part of a skill challenge, and because the possibility of taking an extended rest depends upon the ingame situation.

Third, lingering conditions like diseases, healing surges that can't be regained until a suitable environment is returned to, etc, can have a big impact.

My actual play report gives examples of both 1 and 3 - the affect on tactics of PC health, and the way that the need for a PC to recover from a disease played into the overall dynamic of the unfolding story.



shadzar said:


> 1. Selling a game to people that has rules about dismembering others might not be viewed as something parents would want their children playing, while killing the monster, just making them dead, might not be as bad as turning into Jeffrey Dauhmer.
> 
> 2. The mountains of rules in order to do so, would take 3 times the number of books to go through those things in ANY edition



Actually, both RQ and RM have slimmer core rules than any edition of AD&D, let alone 3E or 4e. And for those who don't like the way 4e plays, I strongly recommend either game. Rolemaster, in particular, is (in my view) a very underrated system, and nowhere near as difficult to build PCs for or to run as is sometimes suggested.



shadzar said:


> The ability of previous editions to have the abstract or more close to home "realistic" damage is easier to represent if wanted, while 4th doesn't really lend itself well to that. No video game has the component for missing limbs and such, however you see characters with eye-patches, so it must have happened. Therefore the component in 4th disrupts the suspension of disbelief of people in that, while the possibility was there in previous editions, 4th has removed it from even happening and takes you out of the game world, and into the metagame one much more often.



This doesn't make sense to me. If, in AD&D or 3E, I can introduce NPCs with eye patches, why can't I do the same in 4e. And unlike AD&D, at least, 4e has room for a pretty simple blinding or maiming mechanic - given that when an NPC reaches 0 hp the player in question can declare either "dead" or "unconscious", it is not a very big stretch to also allow the player to declare "unconscious and blinded" or "down with an arm chopped off".



shadzar said:


> So to the thread itself, has the change been caused because less people care first about the story they are trying to tell and more about the mechanics to do things in the game; then they can flesh out the story later?



I just don't see how you're getting this out of the posts from the 4e players on this thread.

At least in my case, there are situations which in which I (as GM) want to place the PCs. The players then decide how to respond. Of course there thinking about this is influenced by the mechanics (just as it is in 3E, RM etc - they think about the mechanical options open to their PCs, like using spells or using skills). But to suppose that there is no engagement with the fiction would just be wrong.

For example, suppose I tell you the following: a PC had travelled back in time and found an old scroll in a strange language. He case comperehend languages to read the scroll, and used object reading to get images from the scroll's past, to work out who wrote it and how it got to where it is. Have I described anAD&D, 3E, 4e or Rolemaster game? In fact I'm describing the 4e session linked to above - but as far as the dynamics at the table were concerned, it was pretty indisinguishable. (Because this aspect of play doesn't engage 4e's conflict resolution mechanics.) Things were noticeably different on the resolutoin front when the PCs tried to talk to a woman they rescued from magically entrapment in a mirror - this was a skill challenge, so 6 successes were enough - but the aim in play was still the same - talk to this woman and persuade here to be friendly rather than frightened.



shadzar said:


> While adventuring you gather treasure, but never go about taking things



I don't understand this comment. The PCs in my 4e game take things all the time. And my 4e DMG has a discussion of treasure parcels, which offers guidelines on what sorts of stuff I should scatter around for the PCs to take.



shadzar said:


> The game has no more reality, so you cannot tell stories based on it and are forced to tell silly stories rather than ones more rooted.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> sooner or later everyone should be able to see the game has changed forms to a fantastic battle simulator as battle is the prime function of the mechanics, so that you can get to it more often.



Again, I'd be curious to see your response to my actual play example.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 17, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Role play defines events and THEN mechanics resolve the outcome
> 
> is very different from
> 
> Mechanics defines the events and THEN the player provides narrative to connect the dots.



Two things.

First, AD&D has elements of the latter - it is quite explicity in the 1st ed DMG that a saving throw is to be rolled - a purely mechanica process and _then_, depending on the outcome, a narrative is provided to join the dots.

Second, 4e has elements of the former - it is quite explicity in the 4th ed PHB and DMG that in a skill challenge the GM describes the scene and the players describe how their PCs are responding to it, and _then_ skill checks are worked out, DCs assigned, and rolls made.

AD&D combat can be (and in my experience frequently was) played in the second mode - players announce moves, attacks etc all in mechanical terms, deliver and take hit points etc, and only at the end are the dots joined - the narrative becomes one of "we won the combat" or "we lost the combat".

4e can also be played in the second mode, with one exception - because movement is so mechanically integrated into combat, there is at least one aspect of the ficiton with which players (or, at least, my players) remain initimately engaged, namely, the position of PCs, enemies, terrain etc.

I'm a very firm proponent of the notion that there are big differences between AD&D and 4e. But this notion of the priority of fiction to mechanics or vice versa is (in my opinion) mostly a red herring as far as those differences are concerned, because it mostly concerns players' initiation of action for their PCs - and in this respect I don't think 4e is radically different from more traditional RPGs.

Rather, the differences obtain in what is understood to be the relationship between ingame causation and actual causation in the mechanical system. But (i) this is more obvious to the GM than the players, and (ii) it happens much more at the encounter design state - setting DCs, choosing enemies etc - and at the conflict resolution stage - how many successes are enought for victory?

These aren't differences connected to player initiation of action.

And as far as actual play experience - I'm still waiting for someone to respond to my actual play example and tell me where I violated the rules, guidelines, or standard practices of 4e.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> <short novel>




Um....so much stuff some seems disconnected when taken from various posts, but to try to reply to it as parts.....

I will read that play report later as I have time and see what I have to say about it, or how it relates to what I was asking for, since that was a while ago.

Health playing a part, I will read in the play report and review later when I have more time to go back and see where this threads discussion was at that time. I like anecdotal evidence, because it gives things to think about.

Not interest in RQ or RM, as I can do what I want with D&D without being constrained by an overly metagame edition, and add what I want into another addition. I am not a RAW player, and as a DM must be able to adapt things to suit the needs of my players, so suggesting another game to me is just a meh moment. I would rather focus on D&D changes within itself mostly, as opposed to it changing based on other RPGs, as the reasons for change sem to MOSTLY be dealing with competing with larger markets, of which until recently, no other TTRPG could compete with D&D until the recent Pathfinder matching it in sales/market share or whatever.

Eye-patch just used as an example of a long lasting effect. ANY D&D edition could have someone with an eye-patch and that NOT product a difficulty in terms of mechanics, but you COULD represent it by the character having a lost eye, but in 4th the mechanics seem more aligned to never losing the eye in the way the entirety of the "healing" system works. The damage would not be lasting enough for the eye to have been lost. Even if only thematically as opposed to mechanically, 4th jsut doesn't seem to want to make sense when you go about wanting to have a character lose an eye as to its natural healing mechanics.

Not the 4e posters, but to relate what I was saying to the threads topic. How things have changed based on what people were looking for out of the game, if I am remembering my post context from that quoted portion and overall meaning. The changes to the game were in part due to changes in priority of narrative and mechanics.

Thieving as a skill and things associated with the connotation of "thieving" bring with it baggage. If that baggage wasn't wanted, then getting better at it may go against someones character concept. If that person feels that the thieving arts arent something their character would partake in, then why do they keep getting better at it, when then do not directly and purposefully engage in it, or go out of their way to avoid it? Changing the name, or jsut saying think about it another way doesnt work from a psychological standpoint, so why even force this increase of a skill on someone mechanically? It is to be able to help other in skill challenges and such to make the game "balance" as opposed to being able to have your character concept work. So the mechanics are built for the purpose of the mechanics first, rather than a player having a CHOICE in what they want their character to be. Note: choice I not only lists of things to choose from the games mechanics, but attitudes for the character that makes them a character such as Fineas the Bard rather than being CyberMech #187.

I'm going to read it, hold on! Got food to eat and other stuff and want to have a clear frame of mind so I can see what your play report shows.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Not sure if it was you or another in regards to porting surges backwards, but just increase the hit points by 300% was the response.




Except that isn't how surges work, and claiming it does make it painfully obvious that you are fairly ignorant of the mechanic.



> When you look at the healing surges it gives a false perception. When you look at previous HP you could see what there was. Looking in two places already means more metagaming to take you out of the game itself.



Again, that's not how surges work.



> ALL games when healing options are exhausted and "natural" healing takes place, is where the BIG problem lies.




There is no exhaustion of healing options in earlier editions though.  You can *always* heal HP damage.



> What happens prior to 4th when all forms of healing have been exhausted and you still do not have full HP, as opposed to what happens in 4th? Recovery time in previous editions means a chance for long lasting effects from the loss of HP, while 4th edition removes ANY chance of long lasting effects since you are healed as soon as you wake up, AND have all your surges back.
> 
> That is why 4th doesn't lend itself to long lasting damage representable by HP loss, because as part of that abstract injury is removed due to the metagame "lifebar" in 4th as opposed to previous editions.



Except previous editions were no better because, once again, there was never a point in which HP damage could not be regained.  In 4e, your body reaches a point where it's had too much and you need to rest it out.  In previous editions, that never comes.



> It is an intended function of the game for its design, but that design in turn changes the possibilities of things and those changes were most likely taken into consideration and ignore in order to promote the style of play supported by 4th.
> 
> Which would be, being injured and unable to fight is not as fun as just ignoring such and just being ready to fight each day.
> 
> ...



Flat out, I've never seen or heard of anyone using "natural healing rates" in any edition of D&D.  As Hussar said, there's always someone jumping on the "Cleric Grenade."  4e actually has a point in which people NEED to rest, that their boody has taken too much.  4e actually _enforces_ the need to sit down and let your body rest up a bit.  Previous editions do not.

And again, I ask - have you played 4e?  Do you really know how surges work?  Because by your commentary and the commentary of others here, it would appear you do not.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> I just have to ask - what rule would you have been violating in 3.xE?




From the SRD:



			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> *Thieves’ Tools*  This kit contains the tools you need to use the Disable Device and Open Lock skills. Without these tools, you must improvise tools, and you take a -2 circumstance penalty on Disable Device and Open Lock checks




You cannot open a lock in 3e without thieves tools.  A spoon does not count as thieves tools AFAIK.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 17, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Except that isn't how surges work, and claiming it does make it painfully obvious that you are fairly ignorant of the mechanic.
> 
> Again, that's not how surges work.






You have a set number of HP.
You have a set number of surges.
Healing surges grant a set portion of your HP.

So you have a finite number, per day, of HP via surges, correct?

You CAN calculate a single number of HP for the group total, or individual characters based on permanent HP (not temp HP effects), and surges.

Therefore you have a set number of HP just like previous editions, EXCEPT, and this is the big part; in 4th you get all those back each day.

With HP and surges, ALL characters have a set maximum HP they can expend during a day. I am not talking about magical healing via rituals or anything that increase this, just as a representation of total HP per character. This is the same as other editions.

The problem with the healing is that part where you get them again the next day as opposed to them taking longer in previous editions that look less magical.

Basically changing the focus of what is abstracted.

So have I got the function of surges understood or not? If not then tell me how it is NOT possible to calculate the total HP expendable by a character per day.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> From the SRD:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot open a lock in 3e without thieves tools. A spoon does not count as thieves tools AFAIK.




Uhm, are you sure that's what that passage says.  My understanding of it is that it says without thieve's tools you have to use improvised thieve's tools... so technically you can use items (such as the spoon if your DM agrees) as improvised thieve's tools with a -2 penalty.  Or am I mistaken?


----------



## carmachu (Jan 17, 2011)

Sorry, while 1dt edition was great, 2nd edition did not, in your words, rock. I found it kinda sucked actually, and was the start of the arms race with various books.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


> ANY D&D edition could have someone with an eye-patch and that NOT product a difficulty in terms of mechanics, but you COULD represent it by the character having a lost eye, but in 4th the mechanics seem more aligned to never losing the eye in the way the entirety of the "healing" system works. The damage would not be lasting enough for the eye to have been lost.



I don't understand this.

In 1st ed AD&D hp damage is not lasting enough for an eye to be lost, because hp heal at 1/day, and the typical pirate has 1d6 hit points -meaning that the typical pilot heals from "on his last legs" to "all better now" in less than a week of bed rest.

If you want an AD&D pirate to have an eye patch, you have to add a narrative layer over the top of the mechanics of the combat system. The same is true in 4e, except (as I pointed out) it options for the mechanical consequences of reducing a monster/NPC to 0 ph make this task easier - all the player has to do, when dropping a foe to 0 hp, is declare "I slash across his face, blinding him as he falls unconscious".


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Healing surges grant a set portion of your HP.




Incorrect.

Healing Surges are used for a lot of things outside of pure damage.

For starters, different healing effects cure you for different amounts.  While your healing surge has a set number, the healing effects _add_ to that.  Just using a second wind gives you your healing surge.  A cleric using a healing spell gives you that and more.  A shaman using their healing spell might give you a different amount.  And some classes like the Artificer can move healing surges from one person to another.

That's just for healing.  Certain effects that drain life can also expend healing surges.  In the 4e game I'm in now, my psion has a staff which can drain the life from my allies and give me power points in return - two power points (one encounter power) for draining one healing surge.

Failing a skill challenge or going through harsh environment or other situations also drain healing surges.  Dark Sun especially notes this.

Lastly, and this is important, *healing surges cannot be healed*.  With HP, it's infinite, so long as you have healing.  Wand of Lesser Vigor or a Wand of Cure Wounds means you will literally never run out of HP unless you die.  HP in previous editions is entirely binary - you either have it or you don't.  HP in 3.x is even _more_ binary - you either lose all of it in a fight, or you most likely gain all of it back.

Once again, you very clearly have little to no experience with the mechanic you are discussing.  As I said before - when I talk about 3e, I do so with _years of experience_ on dealing with the issues.  When so many people talk about 4e, it's with something they heard about that was in a book they think.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


> So have I got the function of surges understood or not? If not then tell me how it is NOT possible to calculate the total HP expendable by a character per day.



The number of surges a PC has is a rough guide to the maximum number of hit points that PC can loose in a day. It is only a rough guide because there are a range of mechanics that permit healing in addition to, or in stead of, surge expenditure (eg the bonus to Inspiring/Healing Word, a paladin's Lay on Hands etc).

The number of surges is an even roughter guide to the actual number of hp a PC can lose in a day - because a PC who loses current hp, plus half max hp, is dead regardless of surges remaining. Likewise, a PC who failes 3 death saves is dead, regardless of surges remaining.

Like I said upthread, the function of surges is to introduce a dynamic into combat whereby PCs can be on the ropes in a given combat, yet still win, and be in a position to fight more combats in which they also will find themselves on the ropes. This, in turn, introduces further tactical dynamics into each combat, because when the PCs are on the ropes the tactical options are much richer than simply "hit harder" (because of the movement rules, the action economy, etc).

The least interesting aspect of healing surges is that they all come back after an extended rest. If you changed this in your game - and you've just posted that you like to houserule D&D - perhaps to 1 HS recovered per rest - it would have almost no impact on the way 4e combats play out. It would have an effect on adventure pacing, but presumably this an effect you and your players would be wanting to experience, if you adopted such a rule.

I believe that LostSoul is using a rule something like the above in his 4e sandbox.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't understand this.
> 
> In 1st ed AD&D hp damage is not lasting enough for an eye to be lost, because hp heal at 1/day, and the typical pirate has 1d6 hit points -meaning that the typical pilot heals from "on his last legs" to "all better now" in less than a week of bed rest.
> 
> If you want an AD&D pirate to have an eye patch, you have to add a narrative layer over the top of the mechanics of the combat system. The same is true in 4e, except (as I pointed out) it options for the mechanical consequences of reducing a monster/NPC to 0 ph make this task easier - all the player has to do, when dropping a foe to 0 hp, is declare "I slash across his face, blinding him as he falls unconscious".




Wait... what?  Where is the option to permanently blind a character in one eye at zero hit points in 4e?  I'm not arguing with your main point, just with the whole... "pretending something happened that is not covered by the rules is easier in 4e..." example you gave...


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


> So have I got the function of surges understood or not? If not then tell me how it is NOT possible to calculate the total HP expendable by a character per day.




Not really. You are looking at it too simplistically. Most healing powers can add an extra amount of hit points, as can feats, items and such. The actual amount of damage a character can take is quite variable. So the hit point are variable.

Add in surgeless healing and it gets even crazier. 

Add in the number of encounters per day and it changes even mroe drastically. 

But why is this even an issue. With clerics healing characters pre 4E, their total hit points per day are just as mysterious. It is impossible to compare. Totally different systems


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> From the SRD:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Call it an improvised tool, take a -2 penalty and call it good. The penalty becomes less and less an inconvenience as you level because lock DCs were static.

In 4E you get a +2 bonus for using thieves tools - so effectively you have a -2 penalty for using your spoon then also.

This seems to be an example of letting a particular reading of the rules get in the way of fun game play.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't understand this.
> 
> In 1st ed AD&D hp damage is not lasting enough for an eye to be lost, because hp heal at 1/day, and the typical pirate has 1d6 hit points -meaning that the typical pilot heals from "on his last legs" to "all better now" in less than a week of bed rest.
> 
> If you want an AD&D pirate to have an eye patch, you have to add a narrative layer over the top of the mechanics of the combat system. The same is true in 4e, except (as I pointed out) it options for the mechanical consequences of reducing a monster/NPC to 0 ph make this task easier - all the player has to do, when dropping a foe to 0 hp, is declare "I slash across his face, blinding him as he falls unconscious".



AD&D had the advantage to ADDING things that would cause the los of an eye, wherein 4th and its daily healing routine does not let for those things to be possible without stringing the healing mechanics.

Infections while healing, no antibiotics, etc. None of those matter to 4th sicne all such non-magical hinderances are removed the next day.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> Healing Surges are used for a lot of things outside of pure damage.
> 
> ...






pemerton said:


> The number of surges a PC has is a rough guide to the maximum number of hit points that PC can loose in a day. It is only a rough guide because there are a range of mechanics that permit healing in addition to, or in stead of, surge expenditure (eg the bonus to Inspiring/Healing Word, a paladin's Lay on Hands etc).
> 
> The number of surges is an even roughter guide to the actual number of hp a PC can lose in a day - because a PC who loses current hp, plus half max hp, is dead regardless of surges remaining. Likewise, a PC who failes 3 death saves is dead, regardless of surges remaining.
> 
> ...






Dice4Hire said:


> Not really. You are looking at it too simplistically. Most healing powers can add an extra amount of hit points, as can feats, items and such. The actual amount of damage a character can take is quite variable. So the hit point are variable.
> 
> Add in surgeless healing and it gets even crazier.
> 
> ...




Character X has:
100 maximum HP
5 healing surges

100/4=25*5=125+100=225 HP

Looks real easy to me no matter how simple I make it, it is cut and dry that healing surges CAN be converted directly to HP without interferring with healing, and when you run out you jsut run out.

The fact surges hinder other parts of the system and powers and "bloodied" condition or whatever are NOT my problem, as that is a problem with the system trying to mix mechanics.

You CAN convert surges to direct HP and do without surges, you just have to also cut out all the other things surges brought with them. Therefore it gives a finite HP outside of magic and such just like previous editions.

The point of contention is still with the natural healing as discussed in the previous reply.

You lose narrative control due to the mechanic of healing as a result of the "new day" syndrome. There are just some thing that won't work without corrupting the suspension of disbelief and pulling you out of the game and pushing you into the metagame and having to work around the metagame in order to make the narrative work.

Again this was an intended change, but a change that does shift focus and ability from one aspect of the game to another. Call it simulationism vs gamist, roleplaying vs combat oriented, roleplaying vs rollplaying, whatever you want to call those foci, it shifts.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


> -snip-




Did you read a single _word_ of what was typed?

Everything you just stated was refuted *in what you just quoted*.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 17, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Did you read a single _word_ of what was typed?
> 
> Everything you just stated was refuted *in what you just quoted*.




Yes I did read it and in what I wrote disagreed with it. More to the point I didn't care about it as it had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Whatever happens in the course of the day to "heal as you go", and whatever magic is used means nothing to the point of what happens when those are exhausted and "natural" healing takes place. That which occurs during an "extended rest". During that extended rest you cannot perform such activities as surges since you were _asleep_ and unable to perform any actions. So surges are moot to what I am talking about.

If HP cannot be extended to a single number with surges due to other reason, then the healing mechanism only further proves my point of how it strains the suspension of disbelief in its ability to tell certain narratives.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Uhm, are you sure that's what that passage says.  My understanding of it is that it says without thieve's tools you have to use improvised thieve's tools... so technically you can use items (such as the spoon if your DM agrees) as improvised thieve's tools with a -2 penalty.  Or am I mistaken?






Abraxas said:


> Call it an improvised tool, take a -2 penalty and call it good. The penalty becomes less and less an inconvenience as you level because lock DCs were static.
> 
> In 4E you get a +2 bonus for using thieves tools - so effectively you have a -2 penalty for using your spoon then also.
> 
> This seems to be an example of letting a particular reading of the rules get in the way of fun game play.




Went back and reread the PHB since the SRD quote isn't clear.

Under the Open Locks skill you cannot open a lock without a tool.  You MUST have at least a basic tool for opening a lock in order to use the skill (page 76 (I think) of the 3.5 PHB and p74 (again I think) of the 3.0 PHB)  ((Don't have the books in front of me again)).  So, I'm not sure how this is a "particular reading" of the rules.  The rules are pretty clear.  If your thief is locked in a dungeon and stripped naked, he cannot use open locks on the door in 3e.

In other words, sure, I can ignore the rules and say that my spoon is an "improvised tool" and use it, but, that's exactly what I'm doing - ignoring the rules.  Not that I can't do that.  Of course I can.  But, in 4e, I don't have to - the rules actually accept my choice without forcing me to do an end run around the mechanics.

--------

I think the problem comes with this discussion in that people focus on the 4e PHB and not the DMG.  If you take the 4e DMG out of the picture, then, I totally agree, 4e is an overly complicated combat engine.  The 4e PHB does a very poor job of presenting a game that is more than just an endless series of fights. 

OTOH, the 4e DMG does a very, very good job of telling a new DM how to run a fun game.  It might not be Shakespeare or the greatest game ever, but it will be a fun, solid game.  And that's what you want from a guide to dungeon mastering, IMO.  A lot of the issues that people bring up - endless streams of fights, no non-combat mechanics, etc are a result of looking at the PHB.

Totally understandable.  Fumetti has a point here.  A new player is going to look at the 4e PHB and probably think the game is nothing but combat.  While the skills are presented in the 4e PHB, the idea of skill challenges waits in the DMG.  Page 42 is in the DMG, so how is a player supposed to know that he can swing from the chandelier and kick the ogre into the fire pit?

The 4e DMG does a fantastic job of giving DM's the tools to run a game.  It really does.  I do put it as the best DMG D&D's ever had - it beats out the AD&D 1e DMG in my mind because of organization.  If the 1e DMG was written as clearly as the 4e DMG, it truly would be the greatest DMG ever.  But I digress.

The 4e PHB, OTOH, does not do a fantastic job of giving players tools for interacting with the world.  It presumes that players know how to role play and will automatically do it without any prompting from the books.  I think this is a serious flaw in the 4e PHB.  The 4e PHB needs about ten or fifteen more pages spread throughout the book telling players how to engage the game without simply hacking everything in sight.  Something like the Designer sidebars in the 4e DMG, only geared for players.

And the WOTC modules have not helped matters at all.  They are hack fests.  Again, unfortunate since it presents the game in such a limited light.  Then again, 1e survived having lots of the same kind of modules, so, maybe it's okay at the end of the day.

But, after all is said and done, I think the big issue is that people plant their flags in particular books and sections of the rules and argue from that position.  Fumetti and Shazar are not wrong in their criticisms.  Not really.  It's just that they are basing their opinions on sections that others like Pemerton or Prof C generally don't worry about so much.  And Prof C and others are not wrong either.  Just arguing from a different hill so to speak.

Does that make sense?  ((And sorry to call people out like that, not intending that as a shot))


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2011)

Shadzar said:
			
		

> You lose narrative control due to the mechanic of healing as a result of the "new day" syndrome. There are just some thing that won't work without corrupting the suspension of disbelief and pulling you out of the game and pushing you into the metagame and having to work around the metagame in order to make the narrative work.




I think this gets to the last point I was making. 

For some, there is no loss of narrative control because it almost never came up in any version of the game.  For some, natural healing was never part of the narrative - you just had the cleric heal all wounds.

For others, narrative pacing was controlled by limiting (I assume) access to healing magic.  Basic/Expert D&D, for example, makes magical healing VERY difficult - no bonus spells due to Wisdom (a major thing in AD&D) and no spells until 2nd level for clerics.  AD&D, OTOH, mostly made this go away, because even if you couldn't heal everything by the next day, you most likely could the day after that.  At worst, you generally lost 1 day.

Although, to be fair, if you went below 0 hit points, the penalties were far more severe - 1 week of bed rest per point under zero IIRC, something like that.  

Of course, my arguement would be that you've just traded one sort of pacing for another.  The DM or the group isn't deciding how much time passes, the rules are.  The amount of time you must rest is dictated by the rules.  The only real difference is that one set of rules forces more time to pass.

But, by 2e, which didn't have the resting after 0 hit points rule (I think - I could be wrong there) and certainly by 3e which I know didn't have those rules, at worst you lost 24 hours before the party was at full strength again.  And, in 3e, it might not even be that long.

But, I'm curious how narrative control is given to the DM due to natural healing rules.  In what way does the DM gain any control under the older systems?


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Went back and reread the PHB since the SRD quote isn't clear.
> 
> Under the Open Locks skill you cannot open a lock without a tool.  You MUST have at least a basic tool for opening a lock in order to use the skill (page 76 (I think) of the 3.5 PHB and p74 (again I think) of the 3.0 PHB)  ((Don't have the books in front of me again)).  So, I'm not sure how this is a "particular reading" of the rules.  The rules are pretty clear.  If your thief is locked in a dungeon and stripped naked, he cannot use open locks on the door in 3e.
> 
> In other words, sure, I can ignore the rules and say that my spoon is an "improvised tool" and use it, but, that's exactly what I'm doing - ignoring the rules.  Not that I can't do that.  Of course I can.  But, in 4e, I don't have to - the rules actually accept my choice without forcing me to do an end run around the mechanics.



You're not ignoring the rule - it's the DM's call whether or not your "magic spoon" could be used as an improvised tool. The 4E rule set doesn't say you don't need thieves tools - it just says if you have thieves tools you get a bonus. The fact that your DM plays along and lets your insane rogue open a lock by tapping it with his "magic spoon" could just as well have been done in 3.xE. Seriously, your DM is being awfully lenient - he could have just as easily said it doesn't work and your rogue would have to explain why Kord decide not to help "this time" whenever he tried it.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> You're not ignoring the rule - it's the DM's call whether or not your "magic spoon" could be used as an improvised tool. The 4E rule set doesn't say you don't need thieves tools - it just says if you have thieves tools you get a bonus. The fact that your DM plays along and lets your insane rogue open a lock by tapping it with his "magic spoon" could just as well have been done in 3.xE. Seriously, your DM is being awfully lenient - he could have just as easily said it doesn't work and your rogue would have to explain why Kord decide not to help "this time" whenever he tried it.




Do the 4e rules require that I have thieves tools to open a lock?

Do the 3e rules require that I have thieves tools to open a lock?

Unless I'm sticking the spoon into the lock, it's not an improvised tool under even the most lenient interpretation of the rules.  A 3e rogue simply cannot, under the rules, do a Fonzerelli bump on the lock and have it spring open.  A 4e character can.  That's the difference.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, I'm curious how narrative control is given to the DM due to natural healing rules.  In what way does the DM gain any control under the older systems?




The DM never really controls the narrative, just an outline of the plot.

The players have total control over the narrative as it is through their actions that the plot comes to life.

You explain greatly how one narrative is lost. A hero coming back from near death being bedridden. Sure the party leaving you behind isnt the most enjoyable things but payback is a...well you know.

So there is a LOT of narrative that could come from that alone, or fights and arguments, if the players are willing to work together.

Many people argue that a PC missing a limb doesnt help the party, but finding a replacement limb or someway to replace it when the magic isnt there to just give it back leaves many stories to be told.

Consider also those dreaded things that most players wish were gone form the game, time sensitive missions. With 4th, those are removed form being harder challenges by the healing system. Sure they have to manage their resources, but not as carefully should there be a risk to something not getting done on time.

Many good stories revolve around things being done in a certain amount of time, and as for cinematics are concerned, these sorts of movies make people more on the edge of their seats when the risk is added to by their being a time limit.

So a good nights rest to recover easily prevents those sorts of stories, and the players would have to figure a way to raise the tension, or just have the DM hinder them with other things that might not make sense which makes the delay seem forced.

Whether your or another's preferred story, it does shift what types of stories can be told.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Do the 4e rules require that I have thieves tools to open a lock?
> 
> Do the 3e rules require that I have thieves tools to open a lock?
> 
> Unless I'm sticking the spoon into the lock, it's not an improvised tool under even the most lenient interpretation of the rules. A 3e rogue simply cannot, under the rules, do a Fonzerelli bump on the lock and have it spring open. A 4e character can. That's the difference.




First... again whether the spoon can or can't count as an improvised tool is based upon a particular campaigns flavor... so yes, technically you can pick a lock without thieve's tools... but you will have to come up with something plausible (as determined by tone/mood/etc. of your DM's campaign) as an improvised tool... this could be anything from a magical spoon to a jagged rock... depending on the DM.

Wait... are you arguing that being able to somehow pick a lock naked and with no tools... at first level... is a good thing?  I'm just checking...


----------



## pemerton (Jan 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Wait... what?  Where is the option to permanently blind a character in one eye at zero hit points in 4e?



There is no such option in the published rules (although I think there might be in a recent number of Dragon - I don't subscribe but saw some thread traffic about it).

In the post I quoted I was alluding back to a previous post in which I said that introducing such an option into 4e would be completely trivial - because there is already a mechanical place in the game at which just that sort of decision must be made by a player. It wouldn't require any new mechanical subsystem, and it would have zero effect on the mechanical balance of play.



shadzar said:


> AD&D had the advantage to ADDING things that would cause the los of an eye, wherein 4th and its daily healing routine does not let for those things to be possible without stringing the healing mechanics.
> 
> Infections while healing, no antibiotics, etc. None of those matter to 4th sicne all such non-magical hinderances are removed the next day.



Two responses.

First, what you say about 4e is not true. Diseases are a non-magical hindrance that, per the mechanics, can easily get worse over time. If you wanted to introduce infection into 4e, you could easily do so by ruling that the PCs are exposed to a disease (let's say Filth Fever - it's pretty generic) every time they fight in a dungeon.

Second, are you really positing that, in the world of AD&D or 4e as played by the rules as written, no one ever loses an eye or a limb _simply on the grounds that there are no mechanics that produce such an outcome_? I've always taken it to be implicit in either game that some things - like losing a limb as a result of being run over by a wagon - happen in the gameworld even though the mechanics don't deal with them. (Because the mechanics don't deal with them they probably don't happen to PCs - but that's another story.)

My point was that if you want to introduce blinding via combat into 4e, you can do so very easily. I explained how. If you think it's not actually that easy, I'm curious as to why.



shadzar said:


> it is cut and dry that healing surges CAN be converted directly to HP without interferring with healing, and when you run out you jsut run out.



Except that this would _utterly change_ the mechanics of 4e combat, for the reasons I've now set out in two posts upthread.

It would utterly change those mechanics because those mechanics, currently, _depend upon the fact that_ accessing surges during combat is tactically non-trivial.



shadzar said:


> The fact surges hinder other parts of the system and powers and "bloodied" condition or whatever are NOT my problem, as that is a problem with the system trying to mix mechanics.



I don't really understand this. Suffice it to say that the narrative tempo of 4e combat - the PCs begin by being nearly overwhelmed by the monsters, but then come back and win as the players make the tactical decisions that allow access to their PCs' surges and their superior powers - is _not_ a problem. It is the essence of the design of 4e's combat system, and surges are integral to it's design.



shadzar said:


> You CAN convert surges to direct HP and do without surges, you just have to also cut out all the other things surges brought with them. Therefore it gives a finite HP outside of magic and such just like previous editions.



Ie - if you rewrite 4e's rules to get rid of all the features of the game that give it a strong and dynamic combat system, and replace them with a huge hit point sink, then you can probably create a game that would be less interesting to play than 3E or AD&D. I'm not sure what that proves, though, other than that the designers were sensible in _not_ designing that game.



shadzar said:


> The point of contention is still with the natural healing as discussed in the previous reply.



If you want natural healing to matter in 4e, introduce a rule that only 1 HS is regained per extended rest. This will mean that most PCs require between 1 and 2 weeks to fully regain their surges. This would change the pacing of adventures from the rules as written, but would have virtually _no effect_ on the mechanical balance of the game.

In my own game I haven't done this precise thing, but I have (from time to time) required rest on the part of the PCs, and/or imposed penalties to overland travel skill challenges, and/or ruled that some lost HS (ie those lost to exhaustion) can't be recovered without rest. The effect of all this is precisely to mix up the pacing a bit. It doesn't affect the micro-balance of combat at all. And it's a trivial deviation from the published rules text (or maybe not a deviation at all, depending exactly what one takes to be implied by the skill challenge rules read in conjunction with the environmental exhaustion rules).



shadzar said:


> You lose narrative control due to the mechanic of healing as a result of the "new day" syndrome. There are just some thing that won't work without corrupting the suspension of disbelief and pulling you out of the game and pushing you into the metagame and having to work around the metagame in order to make the narrative work.



This is another place where actual play examples would help. In my own game, if I have built an encounter assuming that it will be challenging because the PCs will come to it with few dailies, and few surges and hence only limited opportunities for healing during combat, and in fact they have taken an extended rest beforehand and therefore are fully primed and ready to go, I simply rewrite the encounter - adding opponents, or adding levels to opponents. This is easy to do and resolves the pacing issues. (From memory, it is also how the DMG2 suggests dealing with the issue.)

Of course, if the extended rest was a clever strategem on the part of the players precisely to try to deal with the encounter in question then I would normally just let the get the benefit of their stratagem. But in this case, the rest rules haven't interfered with the narrative of the game at all - they have been integrated into it.



shadzar said:


> Again this was an intended change, but a change that does shift focus and ability from one aspect of the game to another. Call it simulationism vs gamist, roleplaying vs combat oriented, roleplaying vs rollplaying, whatever you want to call those foci, it shifts.



Well personally I call it simulationist vs narrativist. It's nothing to do with being combat oriented. Rolemaster is an RPG that plays out exactly as you seem to want, and I know (from experience) that it can be played in a very combat heavy way.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And sorry to call people out like that, not intending that as a shot



Not remotely taken as one, at least on my part!

I'm not sure I agree with you about the PHB, though.



Hussar said:


> A new player is going to look at the 4e PHB and probably think the game is nothing but combat.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The 4e PHB, OTOH, does not do a fantastic job of giving players tools for interacting with the world.  It presumes that players know how to role play and will automatically do it without any prompting from the books.



There is a long introductory section on non-mechanical aspects of character building - the 4e PHB, for example, is the only version of the game I know that tells me how to think about my PC's alignment, religion, personality and social background _before_ telling me how to calculate his/her hitpoints.

There is also a chapter on skills, and a chapter on exploration (in the 4e sense - ie moving around the gameworld and doing stuff that is neither a combat nor a skill challenge). And there is a chapter on rituals, which are useful for exploration, thus reinforcing the earlier chapter.

So I don't think it's as sparse as all that - no sparser than the 3E PHB, for example (I don't know the 2nd ed or 3.5 PHB's - I do know the 1st ed PHB, and I think the final section of that book does give players a better account of what they are meant to do with their PCs in the playing of that game).



Hussar said:


> While the skills are presented in the 4e PHB, the idea of skill challenges waits in the DMG.  Page 42 is in the DMG, so how is a player supposed to know that he can swing from the chandelier and kick the ogre into the fire pit?



Skill challenges are mentioned several times in the PHB, but without much explanation. Even in Essentials, explaining skill challenges continues to be the weakest part of the rules. For example, it is pretty central to running a skill challenge that the GM be prepared to have ingame events unfold not according to ingame causal logic, but according to a metagame logic driven by (i) skill check results and (ii) narrative imperatives. But no where do the rulebooks mention it - the only place you can see the idea at work is in the example skill challenge in the Rules Compendium (because a Streetwise check fails in inspecting a building, the GM in the example has some toughs turn up to hassle the PCs, although the toughs weren't themselves implicated in the scene with the building) and you have to extract it by osmosis.

Page 42 being in the DMG only is a problem, I agree. Essentials rectifies this, with DCs and sample stunts/improv integrated into the skill descriptions.



Hussar said:


> the WOTC modules have not helped matters at all.  They are hack fests.



Even as hack fests, they don't make the best use of the maps they include. The DMG2, for example, goes on and on about circular paths. The Chamber of Eyes and the Well of Demons in Thunderspire Labyrinth map out some beatiful and exciting circular paths. And to actually use those paths you have to ignore the written guidelines for running the encounters, and mix them up yourself. (From experience, I know that when you do you get some pretty dramatic fights.)



Hussar said:


> Again, unfortunate since it presents the game in such a limited light.



They could have done a lot worse than look at the sample modules at the end of the original HeroWars GM's guide, or some of the 3E modules from Atlas Games (like Mearls' own Belly of the Beast) and thought about how you would use 4e to provide that sort of fantasy RPGing experience.

And I'm not even sure it's a case of lowest common denominator tastes dominating the market. Does _anyone_ like the 4e modules as written?



Hussar said:


> I think the big issue is that people plant their flags in particular books and sections of the rules and argue from that position.  Fumetti and Shazar are not wrong in their criticisms.  Not really.  It's just that they are basing their opinions on sections that others like Pemerton or Prof C generally don't worry about so much.  And Prof C and others are not wrong either.  Just arguing from a different hill so to speak.



These days I really try to ground my arguments in actual play experience. That's why I'm waiting to see some examples of actual play from the 4e critics - or at least some explanation of why what is being done in actual play by those who play 4e is not to their taste, or is in some way perhaps misguided or confused.

Instead, though, I just keep seeing claims that non-simulationist play _must_ be at odds with good roleplaying/good story. No one that I'm aware of believes this to be true for games like HeroQuest or The Dying Earth. So why on earth should I think that it is true for 4e?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


> The DM never really controls the narrative, just an outline of the plot.
> 
> The players have total control over the narrative as it is through their actions that the plot comes to life.




But, they don't.  The mechanics dictate to the players as well as the DM how long they must rest.  



> You explain greatly how one narrative is lost. A hero coming back from near death being bedridden. Sure the party leaving you behind isnt the most enjoyable things but payback is a...well you know.




Mechanics which force me to remove my still living character from play simply because it's more "realistic" to have me heal slower are poor mechanics IMO.



> So there is a LOT of narrative that could come from that alone, or fights and arguments, if the players are willing to work together.
> 
> Many people argue that a PC missing a limb doesnt help the party, but finding a replacement limb or someway to replace it when the magic isnt there to just give it back leaves many stories to be told.




I kinda missed in the scrum where the idea of permanent injury crept into this discussion, but, what's the point?  D&D has never had any rules for losing a limb or suffering permanent injury.  



> Consider also those dreaded things that most players wish were gone form the game, time sensitive missions. With 4th, those are removed form being harder challenges by the healing system. Sure they have to manage their resources, but not as carefully should there be a risk to something not getting done on time.




This is not true.  In 3e, time sensitive missions are ignored simply because you have healing wands.  And the cleric is going to keep you going pretty darn well on his own.

The difference is, I can now have a time sensitive mission in 4e that is measured in hours, rather than days in earlier editions to allow for magical healing time.



> Many good stories revolve around things being done in a certain amount of time, and as for cinematics are concerned, these sorts of movies make people more on the edge of their seats when the risk is added to by their being a time limit.
> 
> So a good nights rest to recover easily prevents those sorts of stories, and the players would have to figure a way to raise the tension, or just have the DM hinder them with other things that might not make sense which makes the delay seem forced.
> 
> Whether your or another's preferred story, it does shift what types of stories can be told.




Not really.  This is no different than any other edition where healing was covered magically.  If you look at time sensitive missions presented in most modules, you'll find that they have a couple of extra days built into them to allow for the regaining of spells.

-----



Imaro said:


> First... again whether the spoon can or can't count as an improvised tool is based upon a particular campaigns flavor... so yes, technically you can pick a lock without thieve's tools... but you will have to come up with something plausible (as determined by tone/mood/etc. of your DM's campaign) as an improvised tool... this could be anything from a magical spoon to a jagged rock... depending on the DM.




No, Imaro, in 3.5 you can't.  You cannot pick a lock without improvising a tool first.  I couldn't find what counts as an improvised tool in the SRD, but it might be in the books.  But, tapping the lock with a spoon does not count as an improvised tool and it's pretty disingenuous to argue that it does.  Nor would a jagged rock for that matter, although you could break the lock off with the rock.



> Wait... are you arguing that being able to somehow pick a lock naked and with no tools... at first level... is a good thing?  I'm just checking...




I'm arguing that because the mechanics are divorced from flavour in 4e, the players and the DM are free from the mechanically imposed restraints of the system to decide how a task is resolved in any mutually agreed upon way.

If the group decides that a 1st level character can open locks naked with no tools, then more power to them.  It might make sense for a specific character, such as the one that I created.  I Fonzerelli bump the dungeon door and it springs open, "Blessed be to His Hairy Toes!"

I can't do this, by RAW in 3e.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 17, 2011)

DragonLancer said:


> Sorry, respectfully, I don't buy the "I have a life" angle. If someone out there wants to play D&D (or game system of choice) or wants to prep said game they will find the time. I have yet to meet a gamer who didn't compromise in order to arrange their game and their prep (and that includes one player who has a partner and 3 young kids!).




Whether you "buy it" or not is irrelevant   I would tend to agree with a lot of what was said.  Of course, whether I agree is also irrelevant.  Every family unit is different, and it's very difficult to draw parallels, because different couples will have kids that behave differently, and require more or less time.

Life does get in the way to a degree.  I'd love to run a game again......but my wife is pregnant with our first child, after being laid off I started my own company and that takes an immense amount of time....the only players left from my group who are still playing are the ones who are single males in their 30's.

My understanding is that WotC aimed 4E at attracting younger gamers.....likely realizing that there is a certain attrition to the ranks of their customers as those customers aged.....so I don't think the OP is unique in his observation..

Banshee


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> No, Imaro, in 3.5 you can't.  You cannot pick a lock without improvising a tool first.  I couldn't find what counts as an improvised tool in the SRD, but it might be in the books.  But, tapping the lock with a spoon does not count as an improvised tool and it's pretty disingenuous to argue that it does.  Nor would a jagged rock for that matter, although you could break the lock off with the rock.




What counts as an improvised tool is not in the books - so your rogue's spoon could be considered an improvised tool by the DM - and this wouldn't violate the rules. No where in the books does it say how your improvised thieves tool has to be used - just that you have to have one - so it was just as easy in 3.xE for the DM to say the rogue's fonzerelli bump with the spoon does open the lock. You appear, to me at least, to be adding restrictions to the 3.xE version of the skill (needing a specific type of tool and using it in a specific manner) that aren't there.

Now, the 3.xE rule text that says you need some sort of tools to open locks may have put a crimp in your RP style - but I know more than 1 DM that would look at the 4E rule and say your rogue's spoon trick wouldn't work.

There isn't text in either edition that says you have to be able to see the lock or touch the lock - so wouldn't it also be just as reasonable to assume that in both editions you could just wave your thieves tools (3.xE) or fingers (4E) in the air and locks just pop open? Now that is just being a bit silly, but you have to draw a line at some point - I really don't see why the crazy rogue's spoon couldn't work in either edition - especially if it made for a fun game...Oh well YMMV and all that.




> I can't do this, by RAW in 3e.




Yes you can.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 17, 2011)

Question so i don't have to look, does it say a "tool" is required or "lock picks", improvised or otherwise?

Just trying to follow along...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 17, 2011)

It must be Thieves' Tools OR improvised tools.  If you don't have tools of some kind, you're out of luck.

So, depending upon the lock in question, the tone of the campaign, and the particular DM, yes, a spoon- perhaps with its handle twisted and cut by other tools, scraped into shape on concrete or whetstones- could be used as an improvised lockpick.

OTOH, unless the game is very lighthearted, I doubt most DMs would approve the Fonzarelli Bump as an improvised tool..._though it may be the somatic component for a Knock spell._


----------



## pemerton (Jan 17, 2011)

I think that a 3E GM who let Hussar's PC's trick with the spoon work wouldn't be doing the best to get the strengths out of 3E's character-build and action-resolution rules - for example, what is the _point_ of having all those rules about skill selection, and skill use, and the difference between Ex/Su/Sp abilities, and the Arcane Trickster class, etc, if a player can just reskin Pick Locks as a knock spell. How is that meant to interact with anti-magic, for example.

I think the deliberate looseness of fit between mechanics and ingame interpretation is a clear and deliberate difference between the design of 3E and 4e, and it is precisely this that Hussar is exploiting.

That said, I can see different groups approaching it differently. By the published rules, for example, there seems to be an intention that Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies be more tightly integrated into the gameworld than, for example, basic class powers (which are expressly said to be subject to flexibility on p 55 of the PHB). How skills are intended to be located on this spectrum is a bit ambiguous. (In Forge terms, the rules text of 4e might be described as "abashed" - it reads almost like a game that wants to be played in a non-simulationist fashion, but at certain key points in the rules it can't help but slip back into simulationist terminology and presupposition.)

EDIT: Dannyalcatraz's reply seems to fit exactly what I had in mind in my comments about how 3E best handles this - in 3E terms, what Hussar is describing is a knock spell.


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think that a 3E GM who let Hussar's PC's trick with the spoon work wouldn't be doing the best to get the strengths out of 3E's character-build and action-resolution rules - for example, what is the _point_ of having all those rules about skill selection, and skill use, and the difference between Ex/Su/Sp abilities, and the Arcane Trickster class, etc, if a player can just reskin Pick Locks as a knock spell. How is that meant to interact with anti-magic, for example.



 What's the point of having those rules in 4E?



pemerton said:


> I think the deliberate looseness of fit between mechanics and ingame interpretation is a clear and deliberate difference between the design of 3E and 4e, and it is precisely this that Hussar is exploiting.



Perhaps the people I gamed with had a completely different experience than most, but we've been reskinning things for as long as I can remember





pemerton said:


> EDIT: Dannyalcatraz's reply seems to fit exactly what I had in mind in my comments about how 3E best handles this - in 3E terms, what Hussar is describing is a knock spell.



See, in my mind, it looks like he's describing the Knock ritual in 4E terms. This has to be a game experience thing. I haven't noticed a change in my own behavior WRT trying new things (in game) between the 3.xE and 4E games I've been in. I have, however, noticed that (at least with the people I am currently gaming with) others are less likely to try something that isn't listed on their character sheet. I really have no idea what it is about the rules presentation that cause such behavior - and it's puzzling.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 17, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> I really have no idea what it is about the rules presentation that cause such behavior - and it's puzzling.




While I can do what you do and ignore silly things within the rules as though they are the end all be all of what can be done, others see the mountains of rules and think it provides the best "balance" to just go with what is there.

I have a few miniature games and other types of combat based board games that have rules that look not too different from the 4th edition books in style of presentation.

Axis and Allies comes to mind. It just seems the 4th edition books are a bit dry.

Maybe there is just too much little things to track, but most playing it for a while now should have those little things down.

It really does give the feel of a miniature wargame with how it is presented, not only words and focus, but design.

We could play what if all day long about those you play with, but have you asked them, why they dont try things like you do, or the DM to see if it fits with him?

If not entirely new players, then getting more insight on why they are only using "options" from their character sheet might help all to understand what it is that is causing it. That would be the most helpful thing, for yourself and its inclusion in this thread as accounts of it happening, why they are only pulling things from the character sheet, rather than trying new things.

I would like to hear, if they offer an answer, at least.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Actually, that wouldn't remotely ape the effect of healing surges.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Simply quadrupling hit poits would in no sense replicate any of this.




I was being sarcastic.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 17, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Healing surges are not a *bigger* abstract, they are a *different *abstract.




No, it's bigger.  When you more than double the damage a character can receive in a day--and that repeats every day--you have certainly increased the abstract.




ProfessorCirno said:


> As for the snubbing of movies, come on.  D&D is not some fantastic work of literary genius.  It was formed from terrible 70's pulp with godawful prose and even worse 70's movies and TV shows.  The monk didn't come about because Gygax wanted a complex examination of eastern aesthetics and the differences between Buddhism and greek mythology, he did it because he really liked Kung Fu.  Paladins aren't in the game because he wanted a rich tapestry of morality and how it plays out in a medieval society, it's there because valiant knights in shining armor are cool.  D&D has always been a mix of nerd culture and "gamist" fun.




If we're going to draw in Gygax, EGG always tried to have mechanics reflect some real world component in a reasonable way.  Surges don't come close to that.

I don't think copying the structure of movies as making the campaign "fun."  I see it as stripping it down to its most essential scenes (encounters), because that's what happens to stories that are made into movies.  Movies don't have the luxury of their story going off on unrelated tangents because the characters got a wild hair.  Nor do novels.  That's why it's more fun to play DnD than just read a novel--you have control over narrative flow.

Let movies be movies and DnD be DnD.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 17, 2011)

Mort said:


> As my post above stated, this is just flat out incorrect. Surges offer a different mechanic for keeping track of a characters, life, fatigue, luck etc - nothing freebie about it - just different. Not to eveyone's tastes sure, but to mischaracterise it and call it silly is simplistic and dismissive.
> 
> A question - how is 4e less realistic than 3e due to surges. I'm not talking about the 6 hours and healed mechanic here (which btw is quite easy - don't like it throw it out or dump it, or better yet just introduce more long lasting conditions for grittiness, quite easy really), but strictly healing surges?
> 
> ...




No matter how you spin it, surges are just a way of ramping up the amount of damage a character can absorb each day.

Whether it's a second wind, a fatigue issue, a bit of extra luck, those are just semantics.  A character that used to have 50 HP with no easy means to replenish now can enjoy the de facto luxury of three to four times that much, and with daily restarts to boot.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'd like to see an example of "skipping past conflict" in any edition.  Why would you ever skip over a conflict?  Isn't the entire point of sitting down at the table to overcome conflicts, either combat or not?




Read for context.  Clearly I was refering to combat.



Hussar said:


> Let's be honest here, do you actually play out what the characters ate at every meal?  Do you insist on detailed accounting of cooking methodology?  Do you require the PC's to get enough fiber in their diet?




More of this reductio ad absurdum bizness.  YOu really want a response to an absurdity?  Is proportionality so unavailable that the reasonable inbetween becomes invisible?  Is characterizing my point that way really being "honest"?

Maybe you really can't tell the difference between selecting from a menu and dealing with the resource issues of adventuring.  I cannot help you there.  But others understand what I'm talking about.  If I'm playing 5 hours of DnD, I would go totally crazy if it was all combat encounters one after another.  And thanks to 4E's expansion of combat rules and the time it takes per battle, there's not much time left for anything else.

I  align more closely with Gygax, that the game was intended to be a lot  more than just the combat.  Gygax's invention was about exploration,  wandering monsters, randomness and uncertainty, all setting the stage for combat--all that "small stuff"  that's getting tossed aside in this thread.

Encumbrance matters.
Food matters.
Water matters.
Shelter matters.
Party watch matters.
Wandering monsters matter.
Travel details matter.
Mapping matters.
Timekeeping matters.
Noncombat spells matter.

What used to be half of the major challenges in the game is now tossed aside as "small stuff," undiscernable from quibbling over menu selections.

No surprise, then, that DnD has been re-emphasized as an encounters game.  

And I'd say, it's also no surprise that the farther WOTC takes DnD from its roots, the more sales they lose.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 17, 2011)

edit: double post


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Wait... what? Where is the option to permanently blind a character in one eye at zero hit points in 4e? I'm not arguing with your main point, just with the whole... "pretending something happened that is not covered by the rules is easier in 4e..." example you gave...




Reducing someone to zero hit points 'puts them out of the fight'. That doesn't have to mean dead. I'm not sure whether it's in a PHB or DMG, or a Dragon article, but I'm sure I've seen something describing a variety of ways to do that. And I've certainly seen it done in a game, where a PC chose to finish off an enemy in a formal duel not by killing them but by cutting their hand off and leaving them helpless. And repeatedly we've knocked people unconscious to interrogate later rather than killing them outright. Whether taking someone's eye out would count as a 'finishing move' would be up to an individual GM, but I would allow it if it seemed genre-appropriate. Swashbucklers, or Norse heroes, and pirates, though it wouldn't seem right for Arthurian knights.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 17, 2011)

fumetti said:


> No, it's bigger. When you more than double the damage a character can receive in a day--and that repeats every day--you have certainly increased the abstract.




Ah yes. Damage. Do you take hit points to be solely a measure of the amount of physical punishment a character can take? If so, how do you explain the way this increases at higher levels, where a tenth level fighter can survive damage that would come close to killing them at lower levels? How does this ability to sustain extra damage interact with healing magic?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 17, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> What's the point of having those rules in 4E?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> See, in my mind, it looks like he's describing the Knock ritual in 4E terms.



Well, 4e doesn't have a significant mechanical distinciton between Ex/Su/Sp abilities, so the same sorts of things aren't at stake in 4e as 3E. The 4e knock ritual lets you use Arcana in place of Thievery, at a cost. But there is no mechanical crowding out of the ritual by letting Thievery play in the way Hussar describes.



Abraxas said:


> Perhaps the people I gamed with had a completely different experience than most, but we've been reskinning things for as long as I can remember



And my group doesn't do a lot of reskinning even in 4e. I think different rulesets push in different directions, but group habits are probably just as important, if not more so.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 17, 2011)

fumetti said:


> I was being sarcastic.





fumetti said:


> No matter how you spin it, surges are just a way of ramping up the amount of damage a character can absorb each day.



Sorry, I missed the sarcasm. It seems that you're saying (and still saying) that surges are just a way of increasing damage-absorption capacity. I've tried in multiple posts to explain how they're more than that - in particular, they're a combat pacing device.

I'm surprised you haven't noticed this in your 4e play.



fumetti said:


> I don't think copying the structure of movies as making the campaign "fun."  I see it as stripping it down to its most essential scenes (encounters), because that's what happens to stories that are made into movies.  Movies don't have the luxury of their story going off on unrelated tangents because the characters got a wild hair.  Nor do novels.  That's why it's more fun to play DnD than just read a novel--you have control over narrative flow.



I haven't found that 4e has any great trouble with tangents. It's true that the system rewards prep, especially of combat encounters, but improvisation is far from impossible.

As for stripping down to essential scenes, I'm a fan.



fumetti said:


> I  align more closely with Gygax, that the game was intended to be a lot  more than just the combat.  Gygax's invention was about exploration,  wandering monsters, randomness and uncertainty, all setting the stage for combat--all that "small stuff"  that's getting tossed aside in this thread.
> 
> Encumbrance matters.
> Food matters.
> ...



In the games I GM, time matters and noncombat spells - rituals, in 4e - matter. The other things on your list - roughly, elements of operational/survivalist play - haven't mattered much in any game I've GMed, be it AD&D, Rolemaster or 4e, since about 1986. Heck, in my 4e game one early item the party was gifted (by some elves they helped) was a basket of Everasting Provisions. And the solution to encumbrance worries is "the dwarf carries it". Me and the friends I play with just don't enjoy spending time on this sort of record-keeping. I'm not sure that this means that we're doing it wrong, or failing to roleplay.

As for exploration in the game, I have posted an actual play report of an exploration scenario run in 4e. I found that the 4e mechanics actually supported the exploration scenario very well.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> What counts as an improvised tool is not in the books - so your rogue's spoon could be considered an improvised tool by the DM - and this wouldn't violate the rules. /snip.




Y'know, the reason I played 3e almost exclusively for years is because IME, it almost always has the answers in the book.  While the SRD failed me on this one, I went back to the rule books and found the answer.  This is the one place where 3e still holds a gold star in my heart.  Every question has an answer.

So, ladies and gentlemen, let us open our hymn books to page 79 of the 3.5 PHB:



> *Open Lock*:
> You can pick padlocks, finesse combination locks...  The effort requires at least a simple tool of the appropriate sort (a pick, pry bart, blank key, wire, or the like).  Attempting an Open Lock check without a set of theives' tools (page 130) imposes a -2 penalty ...even if a simple tool is employed.




It's pretty clear there.  Not only do they specify what qualifies as a tool, they specify the fact that you are required to use one, even if it's a paper clip.  I do notice a distinct lack of cutlery in the list provided.

So, no, I cannot, by RAW use a spoon as an improvised tool, at least not without a LOT of work.



fumetti said:


> No matter how you spin it, surges are just a way of ramping up the amount of damage a character can absorb each day.
> 
> Whether it's a second wind, a fatigue issue, a bit of extra luck, those are just semantics.  A character that used to have 50 HP with no easy means to replenish now can enjoy the de facto luxury of three to four times that much, and with daily restarts to boot.




Yes and no.  Many groups featured fairly easy healing.  A wand of cure light is achievable by second or third level in a party that follows the wealth by levels guidelines.  That, right there, means that the group can take several times their total hit points in punishment per day without spending a single memorized spell.

But, at the end of the day, you're simply arguing preference.  Mechanically, there is no difference as to whether it takes 1 day or 7 days in game to heal completely.  It's the same mechanic and it's still the mechanics dictating narrative.  A person might prefer one narrative or another, that's up to the individual, but neither approach is particularly better than the other.  It's all about what you want to get out of the narrative.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 17, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Reducing someone to zero hit points 'puts them out of the fight'. That doesn't have to mean dead. I'm not sure whether it's in a PHB or DMG, or a Dragon article, but I'm sure I've seen something describing a variety of ways to do that. And I've certainly seen it done in a game, where a PC chose to finish off an enemy in a formal duel not by killing them but by cutting their hand off and leaving them helpless. And repeatedly we've knocked people unconscious to interrogate later rather than killing them outright. Whether taking someone's eye out would count as a 'finishing move' would be up to an individual GM, but I would allow it if it seemed genre-appropriate. Swashbucklers, or Norse heroes, and pirates, though it wouldn't seem right for Arthurian knights.




My PHB states that an opponent can be knocked unconscious instead of killing him, but makes no mention of permanent blindness or any other kind of permanent condition being placed on an opponent without DM fiat. 

Sooo... 4e is no better or worse at this than any edition and is just as dependant upon whether a DM does or doesn't decide to allow this after an opponent is beaten.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Have you read the REH story in which Conan pulls himself of a cross?




No.

And neither have you.

You may have read the REH story where Conan was crucified, and survived when someone else pulled him off the cross, and took a long time to heal to his normal health (long enough to politic himself high in the group that rescures him), but there is not REH story where Conan pulls himself off a cross.  There is certainly none where he is crucified and performs a healing surge!


RC


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 17, 2011)

Fumetti - point blank, have you played 4e?

Lacking that, have you read through the PHB?

Your increasing show of ignorance of how surges work do not paint your arguments in a favorable light.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 17, 2011)

fumetti said:


> If we're going to draw in Gygax, EGG always tried to have mechanics reflect some real world component in a reasonable way.  Surges don't come close to that.




Realism is rust eaters and wizards and monsters designed from little kids' toys.



> I don't think copying the structure of movies as making the campaign "fun."  I see it as stripping it down to its most essential scenes (encounters), because that's what happens to stories that are made into movies.  Movies don't have the luxury of their story going off on unrelated tangents because the characters got a wild hair.  Nor do novels.  That's why it's more fun to play DnD than just read a novel--you have control over narrative flow.
> 
> Let movies be movies and DnD be DnD.




D&D has always been a set of encounters.  ALL tabletop games are.  And until 4e, most tabletop games had a name for them.  I know "scenes" is a popular one.

An encounter isn't a fight.  An encounter is Something Happens.  And there is space between encounters, where something - not a capital c - happens.  This is true of every game, be it video or tabletop, that has ever existed.  This was true in 1e when you saw wandering monsters.  The only difference in 4e is that they've given it a name


----------



## BryonD (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> It's pretty clear there.  Not only do they specify what qualifies as a tool, they specify the fact that you are required to use one, even if it's a paper clip.  I do notice a distinct lack of cutlery in the list provided.
> 
> So, no, I cannot, by RAW use a spoon as an improvised tool, at least not without a LOT of work.



OK

First, I completely endorse and embrace that rule.  

However, I think you could talk to any person involved in the design of the game and they would tell you that this rule preventing your scenario is a million miles away from the intent.

Characters need appropriate tools to perform tasks and the presumption of this need is a solid default foundation.  But the rules bend over backwards to disclaim that the story and DM's judgement should take precendent.  You have not used an improvised tool in your description.  You have simply painted a different skin over the otherwise required tool.  As described by you, this character without his spoon would be just as limited as a "normal" roue with his thieves tools.  

To me that level of re-skinning is beyond an obvious consideration.  And, frankly, if anyone truly got hung up on that distinction, I would doubt their ability to provide a really good game experience in any system.



I also wonder if the concept of lock picks are completely absent form 4E.  I truly don't know that answer.  But it wouldn't suprise me if you are ignoring the rule guidance in 4E but treating it as absolute in 3E.


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> It's pretty clear there.  Not only do they specify what qualifies as a tool, they specify the fact that you are required to use one, even if it's a paper clip.  I do notice a distinct lack of cutlery in the list provided.
> 
> So, no, I cannot, by RAW use a spoon as an improvised tool, at least not without a LOT of work.




There is a distinct lack of office supplies on the list also - so the DM would have to decide the paper clip was a suitable tool - or would that not be by the RAW? (Now, before you say "well a paper clip is a wire, I'll counter with the spoon is a pry bar or any other number of possible ways it could be a potential usable tool for this)

The rule says "or the like", the DM is the final arbiter of what or the like means - so, in 3E, by the RAW, he could just as easily said your rogue's "magic spoon" was a suitable tool, just like your DM in 4E allows your rogue to fonzerelli bump a lock with it in 4E even though the rogue isn't really picking the lock.

I have to ask, would you really give your DM grief if he said your crazy rogue can't open the lock by hitting it with his "magic spoon"?

Regardless - we're arguing play experience and semantics - which is pretty OT.

IMO, YMMV, and all that...


----------



## Imaro (Jan 17, 2011)

Heroes of the Fallen Lands: pg. 335 said:


> *Thieve's Tools:* To use the thievery skill properly, you need the right picks and pries, skeleton keys, clamps and so on. Thieve's tools grant a +2 bonus to Thievery checks to open a lock or disable a trap.




Now I'm curious... how is the first sentence any different than what is in the 3.5 books? In fact it doesn't even mention what happens if you improvise... and it implies that you cannot use Thievery skill in this manner without the proper tools.


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


> I would like to hear, if they offer an answer, at least.



I'll ask - actually I'll ask my pathfinder group why they are always trying strange stuff and my 4E group why they aren't trying strange stuff and see what answers I get.

Just an aside - after the last pathfinder game session I played in a couple things happened that are really interesting to me. 1) The other players are planning to use materials at hand to create hazardous terrain to funnel the bad guys to my fighter. 2)One player is making an improvised sap to use to subdue opponents (because when I tried to subdue I accidentally critted and did enough damage to kill the target - pathfinder rule change caught me by surprise - but in game the PCs have just decide I'm not very good at the whole subdual thing). These are both the types of things I would really be surprised about if my 4E group even suggested.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2011)

BryonD said:


> OK
> 
> First, I completely endorse and embrace that rule.
> 
> ...




Ask and ye shall recieve:

4e PHB page 189



> Open Lock - Make a thievery check ot pick a lock.




That is the entire description of Open Lock skill.  There is nothing in the skill description that requires thieves' tools.

Add to this the very express advice in the DMG to "say yes" and it equates to pretty strong backing for doing exactly what I did in the game.

In 3e, the DM would be very well within the intent of the rules to follow the rules.  The rules state that I need tools.  I don't have tools.  The DM says no.  End of story and there's actually pretty little advice given in the 3e ruleset to counter that.



Imaro said:


> Now I'm curious... how is the first sentence any different than what is in the 3.5 books? In fact it doesn't even mention what happens if you improvise... and it implies that you cannot use Thievery skill in this manner without the proper tools.




I'm honestly not sure what that book is.  That's one of the Essentials thingies isn't it?  I'm not playing in an Essentials game.



			
				Abraxas said:
			
		

> There is a distinct lack of office supplies on the list also - so the DM would have to decide the paper clip was a suitable tool - or would that not be by the RAW? (Now, before you say "well a paper clip is a wire, I'll counter with the spoon is a pry bar or any other number of possible ways it could be a potential usable tool for this)
> 
> The rule says "or the like", the DM is the final arbiter of what or the like means - so, in 3E, by the RAW, he could just as easily said your rogue's "magic spoon" was a suitable tool, just like your DM in 4E allows your rogue to fonzerelli bump a lock with it in 4E even though the rogue isn't really picking the lock.
> 
> ...




Really?  That's you're argument?  That someone would look at a spoon and think, sure, that qualifies as a pick, or a pry bar.  A wooden spoon?  A completely non-magical one at that.  ((I don't know where the idea came from that it was a magical spoon.  It's not - it's just a spoon that the character believes is a holy relic.))

Would I give the DM grief?  No, probably not.  I'd be a bit disappointed I think since shutting down creativity is generally a bad idea.  It was funny, it totally fit with the character and it made for a memorable moment in the game.  

Then again, I wouldn't even try to do it in a 3e game because it's directly against the stated rules.  We tried to cleave pretty close to RAW in our 3e games and this would have been problematic in our games simply because 3e was so heavily based around making RAW very important to how the world worked.

Hrm, that came out wrong.  let me try again.

For me, 3e was a strongly simulationist system.  It tried to have pretty specific rules that covered almost every eventuality.  So, we relied on the ruleset to provide answers about the in game reality becuase we largely could.

I would not use 3e for a more free form game to be honest.  It's not what it's designed around IMO.


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> And my group doesn't do a lot of reskinning even in 4e. I think different rulesets push in different directions, but group habits are probably just as important, if not more so.



It may be just me that thinks outside the boxes on my character sheet a lot. Of course that may be due to my family. There isn't a game that my family plays (card or board) that we haven't created some sort of variant rule for. Hell, we had a heinous death card in UNO - I doctored a red zero card to look like a skull and crossbones, if someone played that card on you everyone else at the the table got to give you their highest point card from their hand and you had to sit out the rest of the hand.


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Really?  That's you're argument?  That someone would look at a spoon and think, sure, that qualifies as a pick, or a pry bar.  A wooden spoon?  A completely non-magical one at that.  ((I don't know where the idea came from that it was a magical spoon.  It's not - it's just a spoon that the character believes is a holy relic.))




I've been putting the words magic spoon in quotes because your character thinks it's something out of the ordinary - not that it's actually an enchanted spoon.

In the case of making the game more fun the DM is well within the rules to decide that yes, a friggin spoon is a suitable improvised tool - which is no more strange than you seemingly suggesting that in absolutely no way could it ever even possibly be considered an improvised tool and doing so is against the RAW.

The interpretation of any rule can be such as to shut down player creativity - if it is bad to do so now in 4E it was also bad to do it in 3E.

We obviously disagree, but this is enough of a side track of the thread for me.

Good Day.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'm honestly not sure what that book is. That's one of the Essentials thingies isn't it? I'm not playing in an Essentials game.




But... essentials has the same rules as 4e... and where it doesn't, essentials is the most up to date... isn't it?

NOTE: The exact same paragraph can be found on pg. 221 of the original 4e PHB.  It's not in the skill description it's in the equipment description.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Ask and ye shall recieve:
> 
> 4e PHB page 189
> 
> ...



Ok, well if that is the start and end of it and it is not addressed anywhere else, then count that as one more grain of sand on the "reasons I don't prefer 4E".



> Add to this the very express advice in the DMG to "say yes" and it equates to pretty strong backing for doing exactly what I did in the game.
> 
> In 3e, the DM would be very well within the intent of the rules to follow the rules.  The rules state that I need tools.  I don't have tools.  The DM says no.  End of story and there's actually pretty little advice given in the 3e ruleset to counter that.



Again you are playing double standards, counting the "very express advice to say yes" in favor of 4E, but ignoring such advice for 3E and further presuming a non-thoughtful bad DM for 3E.  As I said, a bad DM is a bad DM, no matter what sysytem you use.

If your experience with 3E models that, then that is too bad for you that you missed out on the full potential.

Bottom line, the rules require tools and you *DO* have tools.  If anything, your tool is more restrictive because a "normal" rogue can replace traditional tools, your re-skinned unique tool is irreplacable.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> But... essentials has the same rules as 4e... and where it doesn't, essentials is the most up to date... isn't it?




It depends upon the context.

When an argument requires that Essentials is the same ruleset as 4e, it is the same edition.

When an argument requires that Essentials is not the same ruleset as 4e, it is a different ruleset, but still not a different edition.

I hope that clears it all up.  


RC


----------



## Mallus (Jan 17, 2011)

fumetti said:


> More of this reductio ad absurdum bizness.  YOu really want a response to an absurdity?  Is proportionality so unavailable that the reasonable inbetween becomes invisible?  Is characterizing my point that way really being "honest"?



To be fair, you've engaged in a bit of that, too. 

You've been suggesting that without the camping and cartography, the game is nothing but a series of combat encounters. Or a railroad. Which is just as reductive, not to mention untrue.


----------



## Mort (Jan 17, 2011)

"Try to say yes" is good DMing advice for just about any RPG.

This whole tangent about requiring tools to pick a lock, I just don't see it:

3e and 4e have near identical rules on the issue, I just don't see the wide distinction: 3e you need tools and if you have improvised(whatever that means)  tools vs. proper you have a minus, 4e you need tools and have a plus for using "proper" tools. different approaches but essentially the same rule.

The bottom line, both edditions give the DM full say - and the DM needs to take the situation into account:

poor quality lock in the slums? the rogue's thumbnail may be an improvised tool (and heck, the rogue may know that hitting these locks just right works, so his fist (aka the Fonzereli bump) may work too.

Lock to the imperial vault? Anything short of the best lockpicks available may be considered improvised.

It's not the system dictating here, it's the DM - and to me that's ok: 3e or 4e the DM needs to dictate (and own up to) the play experience.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


> If not entirely new players, then getting more insight on why they are only using "options" from their character sheet might help all to understand what it is that is causing it. That would be the most helpful thing, for yourself and its inclusion in this thread as accounts of it happening, why they are only pulling things from the character sheet, rather than trying new things.
> 
> I would like to hear, if they offer an answer, at least.




I'll take a shot at this.

I think Hussar's example shows why this happens.  It doesn't matter if you have a spoon or a set of thieves' tools when you want to pick a lock.  Great - that allows players to get really creative in their interpretation of what happens in the game world!

That's only as long as the players get creative.  What happens when players don't?  _Nothing._  Resolution is exactly the same - make a Thievery check.  The game doesn't care how your character opens that lock.  That means that actions in the game world aren't part of the currency of the game.

That's not actually the case - the procedure for making skill checks requires the player to describe the character's action in the game world.  However, the game will still work if the player simply says, "I make a Thievery check."  I think the game suffers when this happens, and steps should have been taken to make sure it didn't (or happened as rarely as possible).

This is why 3E required thieves tools - it encoded fictional causes into the rules.  That's not necessary, in my opinion, because you have a DM.  And because you have a DM to make those kinds of judgement calls, I think it's better to rely on that person, their authority, and creativity instead of rules.  Rules can create strange corner-cases and are subject to lawyering.​
This habit really shows up in combat, where players (in my experience) usually describe their characters actions in two ways: moving miniatures around a battlemap and declaring the name of their Power in their attack (or other rules constructs, like Second Wind).  Both of these are artefacts of the real word, not the imagined world, and the imagined world's "reality" suffers as a result.

In my 4E (hack), I know that dropping the battlemap really drew the entire group into the imagined game world.

That's my guess at why this happens, based on weekly play of 4E - save for a six month or so period where I spent time hacking the game to address this.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 17, 2011)

Mort said:


> "Try to say yes" is good DMing advice for just about any RPG.



Exactly



> This whole tangent about requiring tools to pick a lock, I just don't see it:
> 
> 3e and 4e have near identical rules on the issue, I just don't see the wide distinction: 3e you need tools and if you have improvised(whatever that means)  tools vs. proper you have a minus, 4e you need tools and have a plus for using "proper" tools. different approaches but essentially the same rule.



 So it is, in fact, buried in the 4E system as well.  That is good to know and I happily take that grain of sand back offf the scale.  



> It's not the system dictating here, it's the DM - and to me that's ok: 3e or 4e the DM needs to dictate (and own up to) the play experience.



Again, exactly right.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 17, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> That's my guess at why this happens, based on weekly play of 4E - save for a six month or so period where I spent time hacking the game to address this.




So basically still the creation of "RAW", wherein as I posted somewhere on this site, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th all tell you to not try to play by "RAW". Either doing it because you feel "RAW" is the best way to do it, or because for some there is just so much going on on the character sheet, trying to do something else just confuses you since so much it already there to choose from?

So we know it happens, and what happens when it does happen, but is this the reason _why_ players don't get creative?


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


> So basically still the creation of "RAW", wherein as I posted somewhere on this site, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th all tell you to not try to play by "RAW". Either doing it because you feel "RAW" is the best way to do it, or because for some there is just so much going on on the character sheet, trying to do something else just confuses you since so much it already there to choose from?




I don't understand - maybe you could re-phrase this?



shadzar said:


> So we know it happens, and what happens when it does happen, but is this the reason _why_ players don't get creative?




That's my best guess for the phenomenon at large.  I'm sure there are other reasons, but I think that's the big one - though perhaps I feel that way because it's something I knew I could attempt to change.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 17, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> This habit really shows up in combat, where players (in my experience) usually describe their characters actions in two ways: moving miniatures around a battlemap and declaring the name of their Power in their attack (or other rules constructs, like Second Wind).  Both of these are artefacts of the real word, not the imagined world, and the imagined world's "reality" suffers as a result.



My experiences are a bit different from yours. The reality of the table and the in-game fiction coexist, peaceably, even (they kinda have to). It's not a zero-sum game. 

Using attack power names doesn't diminish the fiction; my character is still a repulsive, optimistic, and fearless paladin regardless of whether I declare his actions by saying "I smite the blackguard mightily while calling upon the Dragon Within!" or "I use Virtuous Strike". 

I wholeheartedly agree making the in-game fiction a priority, but I don't see reliance on game terminology being much of a problem. In order for the game's fiction to be interesting, it has to be interesting as fiction; in the case of a fight scene this means having a handle on who the combatants are, why they're in conflict, what's at stake, and making sure both side get in as many quip-y one liners as possible, in the best traditions of the Spartans and 1980s action movie stars.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 17, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Using attack power names doesn't diminish the fiction; my character is still a repulsive, optimistic, and fearless paladin regardless of whether I declare his actions by saying "I smite the blackguard mightily while calling upon the Dragon Within!" or "I use Virtuous Strike".




I think it does diminish the fiction if you go with the latter.  I'm not sure what your character is doing, and I can't respond to his actions.  The fictional details are unknown, can't have an effect on resolution (because they are unknown), and can't feed back into the player's decisions.

In the last combat I ran, the first round went something like this:

3 hobgoblins moved up in a shield wall, crashing into two dragonborn who had locked shields.  The middle hobgoblin tied up the sword of one of the dragonborn with his flail.  Meanwhile, a PC in the back ranks launched her rope + grappling hook, grabbed onto the hobgoblin's shield, and yanked him forward.

Here's how the fictional details affected resolution:


In the next round the hobgoblin was bent over at the waist with his shield out of position, but he still had the dragonborn's sword tied up.  This gave the dragonborn a penalty to his attack roll.  
Since the hobgoblin had his head in the dragonborn's shield, he used it as leverage to yank the sword out of the dragonborn's hand, gaining a bonus to his roll.  
Since the hobgoblin was in a bad position with his head exposed, the dragonborn was able to use Hammer and Anvil, which, in my hack and for this specific character, requires the opponent's head to be exposed.  This position also gave the dragonborn a bonus to their attack rolls.
Since the shield was out of place, the other hobgoblins were no longer in a shield wall and didn't get a bonus to their AC.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 17, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I don't understand - maybe you could re-phrase this?




1st edition AD&D an up tells you not to try to play by the rules as written/presented because they are not complete and the DM is there as the arbiter to fix things that don't work for your group.

Some people however still focus strongly on playing "RAW" games.
-They feel "RAW" is the best way to play.
-They are overwhelmed by so many options to have to choose from, they think they have enough on the character sheet to not try anything outside of what would be considered "RAW".

That better?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 17, 2011)

I think one problem is that previous editions gave such little narrative control to players that it trained them to not utilize it well.  In the 4e game I'm in, the players who's most recent game was another D&D edition don't really think outside the box too much.  Myself, and another player who was most recently playing FATE, do it all the time.

Oh sure, we describe our attacks really flavorfully and RP and everything, but I think that, in order to really think outside the box, you have to come from a game / environment where that's really rewarded, and 3e at least didn't do that.

In past - and the current, to some degree - D&D edition(s), thinking outside the box and trying to grab narrative control wasn't brought up.  It was a sort of unspoken option.  In many other games - most especially in FATE systems - it's the whole point of the game.  This is also probably where Salvatore brought up how 4e really needs creative players rather then creative DMs.  Even in powers, many powers really ask for players to set out the narrative rather then the DM or the rulebook - and, incidentally, those powers seem to be the most contentious with others.


----------



## Mort (Jan 17, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I think it does diminish the fiction if you go with the latter.  I'm not sure what your character is doing, and I can't respond to his actions.  The fictional details are unknown, can't have an effect on resolution (because they are unknown), and can't feed back into the player's decisions.
> 
> In the last combat I ran, the first round went something like this:
> 
> ...




So you give situational modifiers based on how the action is described and the result of that action? 

If so, how do you keep from the following (I'm avoiding using manuever names because I'm away from the books) The quick example is far from stellar but hopefully the meaning comes through.:

Player: I bend to swing at the 3' kobald and attempt to knock his head off. (resolves roll)

DM: (notes damage) The kobald is realing, however you bending over has exposed your right side, the kobald on that side will get a +2 modifier to hit you!

Player: Ok forgot about that kobald, but ragnar (the fighter) is a veteran of many battles and would not have forgotten, or at the very least know to protect his side properly!

etc. and circles from there - situational modifiers like this can be a bit tricky especially when dealing with such an inexact medium as imagination of the players.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 17, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh sure, we describe our attacks really flavorfully and RP and everything, but I think that, in order to really think outside the box, you have to come from a game / environment where that's really rewarded, and 3e at least didn't do that.



There are some systems built to do exactly that.  None of them are called "Dungeons and Dragons".

For me, I'd strongly quibble on some particulars.  

I'd agree with you that 4E works well with, as I called it, "pop quiz" roleplaying.  There IS a push to think of flavorful things. BUT, that push is built around the players responding to the mechanics.  X happens because the mechanics say so.  Now you explain it.  There is certainly an element of mental challenge to that.  No doubt.  And I can see how that could be fun.

But, for role playing games, I like fully open ended responsive mechanics.  Games that are just about "what do you do?"  with no push at all from the mechanics.  And then the mechanics are there to model the results.

I've never really thought about it this way before, but looking at that with your spin in mind, maybe it does require a higher level of input from the players.  With no push from the mechanics, the players are left to make it happen themselves.  I certainly reject as laughable and directly contradicted by a great deal of personal experience that 3E games don't bring great RP and "outside the box thoughts" opportunity.  But opportunity can easily be lost.  Maybe if the players just are not so good, a trade off of being told WHERE outside the box you should go is a benefit for getting outside the box at all.

Of course, if you can get outside the box on your own, there is no gain in that trade.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 18, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Ok, well if that is the start and end of it and it is not addressed anywhere else, then count that as one more grain of sand on the "reasons I don't prefer 4E".
> 
> 
> Again you are playing double standards, counting the "very express advice to say yes" in favor of 4E, but ignoring such advice for 3E and further presuming a non-thoughtful bad DM for 3E.  As I said, a bad DM is a bad DM, no matter what sysytem you use.
> ...




It would be nice if Robin D Law's writing was so fantastic that it could time travel, but, barring that, where in the 3.5 or 3.0 DMG does it expressely state to "say yes" to players?  I see all sorts of quotes about the DM being the "final arbiter" of the rules, but that's not the same thing as advising DM's to say yes to player ideas.

Look, I already stated repeatedly that you can do the spoon trick in 3.5.  Of course you can.  What you can't do, however, is do it by RAW.  It's pretty much in direct violation of the RAW.  Now, violating RAW is certainly fine and wonderful, but, that's still what you're doing.  The DM has to step in and decide if this is an okay place to violate RAW.  And he's certainly empowered to do so.

What I am not saying is that this is impossible to do in 3e D&D.  Of course you can and I said as much.  What I did say is that the rules are pretty much against you if you try.  And if your DM sticks with the rules, then the player is SOL.  Sticking with the rules should not be a sign of a bad DM in my opinion.

Going back to the specific example of the Thieves' tools, it does not say that they are required in 4e.  It says to use it properly, you need them and having them grants a bonus, but, it does not forbid you from using the skill if you do not have them.  In 3e, you are expressly forbidden from using the skill without thieves tools.  Right in the skill description, you "require at least a simple tool of the appropriate sort".  3e mechanics are proscriptive, not descriptive.  They hard wire the narrative into the mechanics.

In 4e, because the narrative is largely divorced from the mechanics, the player can choose to narrate any event however he chooses, so long as the table agrees.  If the player wants to Fonzie Bump the lock, the rules support that.  If the player wants to sing the lock open, the rules allow for that, so long as the table is willing to go for it.  So, yes, the naked rogue can open the lock at 1st level and that's very much in keeping with the rules in 4e.

BryonD, you like the narrative that is produced by the 3e ruleset.  I get that.  That's groovy.  But, the narrative is no more "open" in 3e than any other edition.  You attempt an action, resolve the action through the mechancs and those mechanics define how you resolve that action.  In 4e, they actually don't.  I could use Theivery to open a lock by singing to it.  

Granted, I can do the same thing in 3e, but only if the DM is willing to tie up the mechanics and dump them in a trunk somewhere.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 18, 2011)

Mort said:


> So you give situational modifiers based on how the action is described and the result of that action?
> 
> If so, how do you keep from the following (I'm avoiding using manuever names because I'm away from the books) The quick example is far from stellar but hopefully the meaning comes through.:
> 
> ...




The way my hack works is that it's supposed to challenge the players; if the player forgot, Ragnar forgot as well.  His AC defines how well he protects his flank, which goes up as he levels, so it's already in there in a way.  But yeah, that's exactly how it's supposed to work - in my opinion, it helps to reward smart play.

There are other ways to do it, I imagine, but that would depend on the specific goals you've got for your game.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 18, 2011)

The biggest memory I have of 3e and narrative control was in finding that Spell Thematics is a feat, and that you aren't supposed to change how your spells look.

That's about the point in which I noted that my issues with the game were not merely mechanical.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 18, 2011)

As I said earlier, my favourite part of 3e, and the reason I prefer it to any version of D&D that came before it, is because it has a mechanical answer for just about any question I could come up with.  No more relying on DM fiat to solve situations was a MAJOR improvement in the game for me.

Since that time, I've become less enamoured to the idea that the game should dictate narrative.


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 18, 2011)

What you can't do, however, is do it by RAW.

Yes, you can - the problem is deciding what the RAW actually mean - and what the RAW means is affected by play experience/environment.

Regardless - I'm curious about what caused the people I game with to go from trying wierd stuff/thinking outside the boxes on their character sheets to only trying what is on their character sheets.

Initially I thought it was the new system - but we've been playing more or less every other weekend since 4E came out, and people are pretty comfortable with the system. Then I thought it was that they didn't know about the mystical magical pg 42 - so I pointed it out to them and got . . . nothing.

Now I'm starting to believe that it is because there is a power to do everything (more or less - it's a perception thing). You want to stun someone - you select an encounter power that stuns. You want to slide someone - you select a power with a slide effect. You want to knock someone down - you have your nifty _Kick'em in the Junk and Watch'em Fall_ attack power. So, for the people I play 4E with, they somehow got the impression that they need Daily/Encounter/Utility Power X to achieve Y. 
Somehow they got this set of gaming blinders on - now i just want to figure out how that happened. Or they could just not really want to invest that much anymore and they'll tell me so when I ask them next session.

As for player's taking narrative control - in our good ol days, some of these same players exerted so much narrative control that they made the game balance on one leg while juggling chainsaws


----------



## BryonD (Jan 18, 2011)

Hussar said:


> It would be nice if Robin D Law's writing was so fantastic that it could time travel, but, barring that, where in the 3.5 or 3.0 DMG does it expressely state to "say yes" to players?



I'd say that 3.5 didn't assume you needed it expressly stated to get the point.  If you are saying the point isn't there, then that is how you see it and that's no issue to me.



> Look, I already stated repeatedly that you can do the spoon trick in 3.5.  Of course you can.  What you can't do, however, is do it by RAW.



I think you are missing my point.  As far as I am concerned reskinning the thieves tools into a different form that functions in the precise same manner as thieves tools is still 100% within RAW.

If you say you campaign has no elves, but it does have forest people, who happen to have exactly the same mechanics as elves, you have not left RAW.

I allowed arcane spellcasters to use "arcane blasters" of a sort that were simple, cheap magical rods.  And arcane spellcaster could use a move action to "charge" it.  They could then fire a single blast for 1d8 damage as a normal ranged attack.  Mechanically it was exactly a light crossbow.  *horrors* not RAW......



> What I am not saying is that this is impossible to do in 3e D&D.  Of course you can and I said as much.  What I did say is that the rules are pretty much against you if you try.



Actually you said


Hussar said:


> Personally, I find that since mechanics have been divorced from flavour, it becomes much easier to bring my character forward than in 3e.  In one example, my somewhat insane rogue believes that he is a disciple of Kord and that his wooden spoon was once used by His Mighty Thews to eat from the character's stewpot.  To open locks, I simply tap them with the "holy" relic and they pop open.  That sort of thing.




You were talking about mechanics being divorced from flavor and how that gave you options 3E didn't.   The whole RAW argument came later as an attempt to change the subject.



> And if your DM sticks with the rules, then the player is SOL.  Sticking with the rules should not be a sign of a bad DM in my opinion.



Again, I 100% agree that if your DM sucks, the players are SOL.  That doesn't really contribute to a comparison of systems.   Sticking to the rules is fine, foolishly misinterpreting the intent and spirit of the rules is another, and far more fitting to the point of discussion.




> Going back to the specific example of the Thieves' tools, it does not say that they are required in 4e.  It says to use it properly, you need them and having them grants a bonus, but, it does not forbid you from using the skill if you do not have them.  In 3e, you are expressly forbidden from using the skill without thieves tools.  Right in the skill description, you "require at least a simple tool of the appropriate sort".  3e mechanics are proscriptive, not descriptive.  They hard wire the narrative into the mechanics.



As to 4E, I think I'll take other people's word over yours.  It is easy to see how 4E would "not require" it and yet give a bonus and work out exactly the same mathematically as "requiring" it and yet letting you try without at a penalty.

And you are either missing or avoiding the point that the example you gave DID require an implement.  The fact that you reskinned the implement is completely irrelevant to the mechanics.




> BryonD, you like the narrative that is produced by the 3e ruleset.  I get that.  That's groovy.  But, the narrative is no more "open" in 3e than any other edition.  You attempt an action, resolve the action through the mechancs and those mechanics define how you resolve that action.



I didn't claim it is more open.  YOU said 4E was better, my point was equivalence.  Thanks for agreeing.



> In 4e, they actually don't.  I could use Theivery to open a lock by singing to it.



Again, if you describe the flavor that way, you can do that in 3E.  Now, you HAVE made an important change here because there is no implement at all.  I'd probably want a feat or something for that.  Or just have the player agree to always to the penalty.  Which would also be fine.  And it also may end up be mechanically equivalent to foregoing the implement bonus of the 4E side.




> Granted, I can do the same thing in 3e, but only if the DM is willing to tie up the mechanics and dump them in a trunk somewhere.



Or is a good enough DM to work with it intelligently.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 18, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The biggest memory I have of 3e and narrative control was in finding that Spell Thematics is a feat, and that you aren't supposed to change how your spells look.
> 
> That's about the point in which I noted that my issues with the game were not merely mechanical.



I hate that feat.  It is completely stupid.  

It certainly serves your argument.  I readily admit that.

But, I'll also readily admit that WotC put out a TON of crap in the general mix of 3E material.  

By that same reasoning I have specifically pointed out that, for example, I don't think the absurdity of Come And Get It is a reasonable criticism of 4E.  

There is always a threat of designing a new system that actually takes away the ability that the characters already had in the name of "offering" it to them.  That is a horrid mistake.  (NWPs did this when they came along)

Before that feat came along defining spell looks was an assumed.  When that feat came along I cussed WotC for a few minutes and then went about pretending they had never made that blunder.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 18, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Since that time, I've become less enamoured to the idea that the game should dictate narrative.



I gotta say I'm boggled by this claim.

In my games for 10 years now the narrative has absolutely dictated the game.  Yes, there are mechanics for [sarcastic]everything[/sarcastic].  But those mechanics just lie dormant waiting for the narrative to call upon them.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 18, 2011)

BryonD said:


> By that same reasoning I have specifically pointed out that, for example, I don't think the absurdity of Come And Get It is a reasonable criticism of 4E.




This is funny, because not only do I love Come And Get It, it's a perfect example of something that puts the narrative power _entirely_ in the player's hands.  It's a power that includes the players in the process rather then exclude them.  It gets their brains moving.  It makes them think outside the box.  How does Come And Get It work?  Ask the player who's using it!

Come And Get It is hilariously the answer to the problem of Spell Thematics, and here you are snubbing it.

As was said, 4e works best with creative players.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 18, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> This is funny, because not only do I love Come And Get It, it's a perfect example of something that puts the narrative power _entirely_ in the player's hands.  It's a power that includes the players in the process rather then exclude them.  It gets their brains moving.  It makes them think outside the box.  How does Come And Get It work?  Ask the player who's using it!
> 
> Come And Get It is hilariously the answer to the problem of Spell Thematics, and here you are snubbing it.



Ok, WOW

I've been in numerous debates in which 4E fans consider it a low blow to even bring up Come and Get It.  So, if you think it is great then obviously you are not very representative of either group.  Good to know.


> As was said, 4e works best with creative players.



Asinine conclusion there.  If CAGI IS the point here, then creativity isn't the question, the ability to turn off all rational consideration and let the mechanics force any level of absurdity is.  

I am quite certain that every person in my game can think of multiple ways to justify CAGI under any circumstance.  It isn't that we can't.  It is that the radical divorce from story integrity that comes with it is opposite of what we enjoy.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 18, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> Somehow they got this set of gaming blinders on - now i just want to figure out how that happened. Or they could just not really want to invest that much anymore and they'll tell me so when I ask them next session.
> 
> As for player's taking narrative control - in our good ol days, some of these same players exerted so much narrative control that they made the game balance on one leg while juggling chainsaws




It could be the presentation, or the fact if they played earlier editions, they are getting quite tired of changing the way they play and are now not really play so much as going through the motions. Likewise as you say they could be viewing the system and looking at things they want to do and finding "there's an app for that" within the powers, so really don't feel like trying to do anything else since it seems everything has already been figured out so you just pick what looks close rather than having to be creative and come up with your own stuff.

Just dont let it cloud you before you ask with all the ideas that "could be", so you can calmly find out why it _is_.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 18, 2011)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I didn't claim it is more open. YOU said 4E was better, my point was equivalence. Thanks for agreeing.




Whoa, hang on there.  I made no such claim.  I said that it was different.  I said that it fit my playstyle better (now).  I did not make any categorical claim that it was better.  Different yes, but not better.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> As to 4E, I think I'll take other people's word over yours. It is easy to see how 4E would "not require" it and yet give a bonus and work out exactly the same mathematically as "requiring" it and yet letting you try without at a penalty.




Well, since the entirety of the rules has been quoted in this thread, it's not really a question of taking anyone's word.  But, hey, thanks for the shot.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Again, I 100% agree that if your DM sucks, the players are SOL. That doesn't really contribute to a comparison of systems. Sticking to the rules is fine, foolishly misinterpreting the intent and spirit of the rules is another, and far more fitting to the point of discussion.




"Foolishly misinterpreting"?  Really?  Saying that a wooden spoon does not constitute an improvised tool required for the use of a skill is foolishly misinterpreting the skill?



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> I'd say that 3.5 didn't assume you needed it expressly stated to get the point. If you are saying the point isn't there, then that is how you see it and that's no issue to me.




Well, considering that it took about twenty years of gaming for this idea to percolate its way into the gamer gestalt, I'd say that making the point expressly was pretty necessary.  Also considering that it runs counter to most of the gaming advice contained in the previous two editions means that it's hardly something that was commonly practiced.

So, where in 3e is it advised that the DM should say yes to player ideas?  I'm honestly curious where you get this idea.  In my mind, the books were pretty careful to say, "stick to these rules whenever possible".


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 18, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Ok, WOW
> 
> I've been in numerous debates in which 4E fans consider it a low blow to even bring up Come and Get It.  So, if you think it is great then obviously you are not very representative of either group.  Good to know.




Most likely because it was brought up _nonstop_ and because it's one of the more radical philisophical changes from 3e.



> Asinine conclusion there.  If CAGI IS the point here, then creativity isn't the question, the ability to turn off all rational consideration and let the mechanics force any level of absurdity is.




Nope.

What CAGI does is put the narrative power firmly in the player's hands to describe.  Only when someone refuses to look beyond the mechanics does someone think CAGI turns off "all rational consideration."



> I am quite certain that every person in my game can think of multiple ways to justify CAGI under any circumstance.  It isn't that we can't.  It is that the radical divorce from story integrity that comes with it is opposite of what we enjoy.




Again, the problem is that you either refuse or cannot divorce narrative from mechanics - something utterly absurd when you consider that combat and everything related _to_ combat has always been completely abstract.  The very concept of the combat *round* is an abstract.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> The other players are planning to use materials at hand to create hazardous terrain to funnel the bad guys to my fighter.



My 4e players have done this. One in particular is a military history buff, and his PC was leading the other PCs and various NPCs in creating timber-and-rope emplacements designed to funnel wolf-riding goblins into vulnerable positions (modelled on tank traps, perhaps? I know that something modern gave him the idea).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> No.
> 
> And neither have you.
> 
> You may have read the REH story where Conan was crucified, and survived when someone else pulled him off the cross, and took a long time to heal to his normal health (long enough to politic himself high in the group that rescures him), but there is not REH story where Conan pulls himself off a cross.  There is certainly none where he is crucified and performs a healing surge!



Oops. I guess my memory of that story had cross-polinated with the mid/late 90s X-Men where Wolverine pulls himself off a cross in the Australian desert (or have I misremembered that one too?).

I nevertheless agree with the editor of the collection in which my copy of that story is found (Patrice Louinet, I think) that that episode marks the departure of Conan from the ranks of mere mortals. And suggests that heroic feats of recovery from fatigue and injury aren't necessarily contrary to the fantasy genre, or even the sword-and-sorcery (sub)genre.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2011)

Imaro said:


> My PHB states that an opponent can be knocked unconscious instead of killing him, but makes no mention of permanent blindness or any other kind of permanent condition being placed on an opponent without DM fiat.
> 
> Sooo... 4e is no better or worse at this than any edition and is just as dependant upon whether a DM does or doesn't decide to allow this after an opponent is beaten.



My point was that 4e - by already having multiple options available for interpretation of 0 hp, and by giving the _player_ the choice of which option actually results when the "killing" blow is delivered - makes it very easy to introduce blinding as an alternative. It will have zero effect on the mechanical balance or smooth running of the game.

3E will, in my view, not make it so easy. First, 0 hp and below in 3E have definite meanings - disabled and dying - and inflicting subdual damage has a distinct mechanical meaning and incures a penatly to hit (-4, I think). Where would you insert blinding a foe into 3E as part of the combat mechanics, without having to think about how it interacts with these existing features of the mechanics?

I want to stress - this is in no way a criticism of the 3E mechanics. Exactly the same issue arises in respect of any rule set in which the combat attrition mechanics have a rules-mandated ingame interpretation. So the same issue would arise in Rolemaster and Runequest, for example, neither of which is a game I want to criticise.

3E is manifestly a more simulatonist ruleset than 4e (likewise RM and RQ). That difference has consequences. One is that introducing blinding as simply a player-stipulated consequence of reduction of a foe to 0 hp is not as mechanically straightforward to do.



Abraxas said:


> I have to ask, would you really give your DM grief if he said your crazy rogue can't open the lock by hitting it with his "magic spoon"?





BryonD said:


> To me that level of re-skinning is beyond an obvious consideration.  And, frankly, if anyone truly got hung up on that distinction, I would doubt their ability to provide a really good game experience in any system.



The issue for me here is similar to that with respect to blinding a foe. It's not about hewing to or departing from the published rules. It's about integration into the rest of the game. For example, in 3E, is the "magic spoon" rogue unable to do this trick within an antimagic field? 4e has been deliberately designed so as not to give rise to such questions - another way in which its mechanics are in much looser fit with the ingame causality of the gameworld.



Hussar said:


> We tried to cleave pretty close to RAW in our 3e games and this would have been problematic in our games simply because 3e was so heavily based around making RAW very important to how the world worked.
> 
> Hrm, that came out wrong.  let me try again.
> 
> ...



Entirely agreed.


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The issue for me here is similar to that with respect to blinding a foe. It's not about hewing to or departing from the published rules. It's about integration into the rest of the game. For example, in 3E, is the "magic spoon" rogue unable to do this trick within an antimagic field? 4e has been deliberately designed so as not to give rise to such questions - another way in which its mechanics are in much looser fit with the ingame causality of the gameworld.



If the spoon actually was a magic item then of course it wouldn't work in an anti magic field - but it isn't. As described when it was originally posted - the rogue in question believed it was a holy relic and tapping it on locks caused them to open - but apparently all it really was was a wooden spoon.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I'll take a shot at this.
> 
> I think Hussar's example shows why this happens.  It doesn't matter if you have a spoon or a set of thieves' tools when you want to pick a lock.  Great - that allows players to get really creative in their interpretation of what happens in the game world!
> 
> ...



LostSoul, I've read a lot of your posts on this before but I thought this captured your view clearly and succinctly.

As I've posted in the past, I find that movement on the battlemat more closely integrates the mechanical resolution into the fiction than it appears to have in your experience. And I find that with skill resolution my players explain what their PCs are doing - or if they don't, I ask them!

What I've personally noticed about 4e is that features of the game - like the action resolution rules, and the XP rules - tend to downplay the signficance of exploration compared to at least some more traditional fantasy RPGs. But when I deliberately decided to run an exploration-based scenario as part of my 4e game, I found it went really well.

What the rules could benefit from, in my view, is more of a discussion of when to use skill checks, when to use skill challenges, etc (comparable eg to what HeroQuest has to say about automatic successes vs simple contests vs extended contests).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> If the spoon actually was a magic item then of course it wouldn't work in an anti magic field - but it isn't. As described when it was originally posted - the rogue in question believed it was a holy relic and tapping it on locks caused them to open - but apparently all it really was was a wooden spoon.



My point was that, in 3E, an ability should be classified either as Ex, Su or Sp, and that this is not arbitrary - it reflects something about how the ability works in the gameworld. Generally, the ability to open a lock by wielding a spoon believed to be a relic, while bumping the door in question, would be classified as Su (or even Sp, if interpreted as a particular variant of _knock_). It is a bit of a stretch to classify it as Ex. In which case it should be affected by an anti-magic zone.

The 3E rules make all these issues salient. 4e, by caring about power source only in the context of PCs' buffs and feats, does not. This is why, in my view, Hussar's spoon trick is more easily handled in 4e than 3E.

EDIT: Furthermore, in 3E I think that there is a strong presupposition that skill ranks represent training. Whereas stats represent innate ability. And feats can represent either of these, or divine blessings, or can even serve a purely metagame role. How does one train to open locks with a wooden spoon? (In this respect, 3E strikes me as being very close to games like RM and HARP.)

Again, 4e is a bit more loose about the relationship between the mechanical elements of a PC and their ingame meaning. Thus in 3E, a character with no ranks in acrobatics, but a good Dex, couldn't easily be presented as a trained but mediocre acrobat. In 4e, on the other hand, I think that this is quite feasible.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> As I've posted in the past, I find that movement on the battlemat more closely integrates the mechanical resolution into the fiction than it appears to have in your experience. And I find that with skill resolution my players explain what their PCs are doing - or if they don't, I ask them!




I think I put a lot of value in being able to picture the game world unfolding in my head.  (At times, even games like Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard didn't go far enough for me!)  My viewpoint may be unique, but I like to share. 



pemerton said:


> What I've personally noticed about 4e is that features of the game - like the action resolution rules, and the XP rules - tend to downplay the signficance of exploration compared to at least some more traditional fantasy RPGs. But when I deliberately decided to run an exploration-based scenario as part of my 4e game, I found it went really well.




I read and enjoyed that account of play; I tried to think of some questions to ask but everything seemed straight-forward and obvious!  I think that points to the fact that 4E can easily be used to run exploration-based games.



pemerton said:


> What the rules could benefit from, in my view, is more of a discussion of when to use skill checks, when to use skill challenges, etc (comparable eg to what HeroQuest has to say about automatic successes vs simple contests vs extended contests).




I think my tastes run to heavily-procedural games; "when X happens, do Y".  Burning Empires is like this, but X and Y tend to sit at the metagame level.  My Life With Master is another example.  When I first started playing D&D, with B/X, I played like that; going through every Turn like it was a turn in a boardgame.  I remember really floundering when I started playing Star Wars - no specific procedures and no dungeons to fall back on!

That's what I've tried to do in my hack - writing specific sub-systems that are triggered by certain events occurring in the game world.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 18, 2011)

Permerton, would you please be my sock puppet?  You explain my points so much less abrasively than I do.  This bit:



			
				Pem said:
			
		

> 3E is manifestly a more simulatonist ruleset than 4e (likewise RM and RQ). That difference has consequences. One is that introducing blinding as simply a player-stipulated consequence of reduction of a foe to 0 hp is not as mechanically straightforward to do.




is, IMO, spot on.  It's not about better or worse.  It's about achieving different goals using different tools.

----------

On the Conan sidebar. This is from the story, A Witch Shall Be Born.  Here is the relavent text:



> The first impact of the battle-ax against the wood and its accompanying vibrations sent lances of agony through Conan's swollen feet and hands. Again and again the blade fell, and each stroke reverberated on his bruised brain, setting his tortured nerves aquiver. But he set his teeth and made no sound. The ax cut through, the cross reeled on its splintered base and toppled backward. Conan made his whole body a solid knot of iron-hard muscle, jammed his head back hard against the wood and held it rigid there. The beam struck the ground heavily and rebounded slightly. The impact tore his wounds and dazed him for an instant. He fought the rushing tide of blackness, sick and dizzy, but realized that the iron muscles that sheathed his vitals had saved him from permanent injury.
> 
> And he had made no sound, though blood oozed from his nostrils and his belly-muscles quivered with nausea. With a grunt of approval Djebal bent over him with a pair of pincers used to draw horse-shoe nails, and gripped the head of the spike in Conan's right hand, tearing the skin to get a grip on the deeply embedded head. The pincers were small for that work. Djebal sweated and tugged, swearing and wrestling with the stubborn iron, working it back and forth--in swollen flesh as well as in wood. Blood started, oozing over the Cimmerian's fingers. He lay so still he might have been dead, except for the spasmodic rise and fall of his great chest. The spike gave way, and Djebal held up the blood-stained thing with a grunt of satisfaction, then flung it away and bent over the other.
> 
> ...




Note, Conan actually does pull out his own nails.  Not all of them, but a few.  And then he rides ten miles afterwards.

In the same story: A Witch Shall Be Born one of the characters is brained with a mace and left for dead on the ground.  He wakes up a few minutes later, stumbles around for a bit, but then joins the fight valiantly.

Sounds a lot like a second wind mechanic to me.


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My point was that, in 3E, an ability should be classified either as Ex, Su or Sp, and that this is not arbitrary - it reflects something about how the ability works in the gameworld. Generally, the ability to open a lock by wielding a spoon believed to be a relic, while bumping the door in question, would be classified as Su (or even Sp, if interpreted as a particular variant of _knock_). It is a bit of a stretch to classify it as Ex. In which case it should be affected by an anti-magic zone.
> 
> The 3E rules make all these issues salient. 4e, by caring about power source only in the context of PCs' buffs and feats, does not. This is why, in my view, Hussar's spoon trick is more easily handled in 4e than 3E.



OK - I see where you're coming from. I, however, would just call it an improvised tool unique to the character and treat it's use just like any other use of the Open Locks skill. It doesn't need to be classified as Ex, Su or Sp - especially if it's presence makes the game more fun for everyone.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 18, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> OK - I see where you're coming from. I, however, would just call it an improvised tool unique to the character and treat it's use just like any other use of the Open Locks skill. It doesn't need to be classified as Ex, Su or Sp - especially if it's presence makes the game more fun for everyone.




Honestly, I think I'd do the same thing.  But, that doesn't change the fact that you're doing an end run around the mechanics.  By not classifying it, you are ignoring the mechanics.  By allowing it in the first place you are, at the very least, stretching the definition of "improvised tool" a fair bit.

And that's totally, 100% groovy.  I hope I would do the same thing, although, to be fair, I probably wouldn't since I'd look at the 3ed mechanics as a bit more fixed than that.  We tried to play within RAW as much as possible.

It's never that you couldn't do it in 3e. It's that you couldn't do it in 3e without giving RAW a bit of a holiday.  Now, not caring about that is perfectly fine and a good way to play for some groups.  Other groups do care about the rules a bit more and that might actually take away from their games to allow this amount of flexibility in the rules.  To each his own.


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 18, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, I think I'd do the same thing.  But, that doesn't change the fact that you're doing an end run around the mechanics.  By not classifying it, you are ignoring the mechanics.  By allowing it in the first place you are, at the very least, stretching the definition of "improvised tool" a fair bit.



I'll give you it's stretching the definition - but it doesn't ignore mechanics. What type of ability is using the Open Locks (or any other) Skill - Ex, Su or Sp?

If I absolutely had to classify it I'd make it Ex - Why? because it preserve the fun, and hey - using a spoon to open a lock is pretty extraordinary - but I wouldn't have to - as far as I'm concerned it meets the requirements for using the Open Locks skill.

Oh well...


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> OK - I see where you're coming from. I, however, would just call it an improvised tool unique to the character and treat it's use just like any other use of the Open Locks skill. It doesn't need to be classified as Ex, Su or Sp - especially if it's presence makes the game more fun for everyone.



Fair enough.

Unlike Hussar, I haven't played enough 3E to have a strong sense of how I'd handle it. In Rolemaster or HARP, though, I wouldn't allow it - Open Locks in these games is training in a particular technical skill. If you want your PC to be able to open locks through "good luck" or "magic", you spend DPs on spells.  (As it happens, Rolemaster also doesn't have a good system for innate or unlearned magic, but that's just a gap in the ruleset. HARP does, and I'd use that.)

_Why_ do I respond this way? Some of it is probably a personality defect of excessive deference to rules, but it's also because part of the pleasure of a game like RM is seeing the world unfold through the rules, and once you start to allow a wedge between the two (Hussar's spoon-wedge!) you risk losing that pleasure.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I think I put a lot of value in being able to picture the game world unfolding in my head.



I think that I do, but I suspect not as much as you. As long as I've got a general idea of what's going on, I'm happy - especially in combat - for rules talk to act as a bit of a placeholder (I suspect a bit like Mallus described upthread).

When I was GMing Rolemaster it was similar - which meant that we often had only a very general sense of where each individual was on the battlefield, because RM doesn't depend upon positioning in the way that 4e does, and so I often just sketched up a map on scrap paper and drew crosses or initials to mark the starting points of the various characters, and the occassional arrow to indicate significant movement.

So as far as this part of combat is concerned, 4e gives me a better sense of the gameworld than RM did. On the other hand, RM mechanics do give a lot more information about the details of injuries than 4e!



LostSoul said:


> I think my tastes run to heavily-procedural games; "when X happens, do Y".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> That's what I've tried to do in my hack - writing specific sub-systems that are triggered by certain events occurring in the game world.



I think my appproach is a bit more freeform - at least outside of combat - but I think this is more just a habit from traditional play than a conscious preference. I'm trying to get a bit more procedural in the way I run skill challenges, in particular to try to get every PC present in the situation engaged with the challenge.

I like how the 4e rulebooks present exploration in a type of procedure. Even though it didn't tell me anything new, and I haven't literally followed the procedure in play, I think it helped me reflect on the role of exploration in the sessions I'd been running, and hence to consciously prepare an exploration-heavy scenario.



LostSoul said:


> I read and enjoyed that account of play; I tried to think of some questions to ask but everything seemed straight-forward and obvious!  I think that points to the fact that 4E can easily be used to run exploration-based games.



Thanks, and agreed.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 18, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I'd agree with you that 4E works well with, as I called it, "pop quiz" roleplaying. There IS a push to think of flavorful things. BUT, that push is built around the players responding to the mechanics. X happens because the mechanics say so. Now you explain it. There is certainly an element of mental challenge to that. No doubt. And I can see how that could be fun.
> 
> But, for role playing games, I like fully open ended responsive mechanics. Games that are just about "what do you do?" with no push at all from the mechanics. And then the mechanics are there to model the results.




X happens because the mechanics say so is a perfectly viable approach to a role-playing Game. Having X happen despite what the mechanics say is possibly less so. My observation from 4e games is that generally people do say what they're trying to do and then roll to see whether it happens, so that the mechanics model the results. In fact that's something I see in most RPGs.

I'm personally of the opinion that the mechanics should come first, the explanation after. You give a wonderful, in-character, dramatic speech to try to persuade a group of farmers to help you fight the bandits who oppress them, and then roll a 1 on your check. Better, I think, to roll the dice and then make a speech appropriate to the result - in this case, persistently calling the village by the wrong name, or something similar. 

Edit: Actually, I should amplify slightly. When I'm GMing, I like people to tell me what they're trying. If it's not obvious how to handle it by RAW, I come up with a way. They roll the dice. Then the narrative comes in, as they describe what actually happened. 



Hussar said:


> As I said earlier, my favourite part of 3e, and the reason I prefer it to any version of D&D that came before it, is because it has a mechanical answer for just about any question I could come up with. No more relying on DM fiat to solve situations was a MAJOR improvement in the game for me.
> 
> Since that time, I've become less enamoured to the idea that the game should dictate narrative.




I disagree. I want the game to dictate the narrative. Note that this doesn't mean I want a lot of rules, but I want a mechanism to resolve the action, and then I want to describe what that resolution means in narrative terms.

I also disagree that 3e had a mechanical answer for just about anything, but that's irrelevant.


----------



## clearstream (Jan 18, 2011)

I find the OP to be somewhat (not overly, but to a degree) disingenuous; as others have noted. If time really is your issue then you shouldn't be arguing editions you should be arguing rulesets. For example, play Savage Worlds. That's quick to prepare and quick to play.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 18, 2011)

Gonna jump the fence here for a second.

There is a problem with disassociating mechanics from narrative in that if the players are not fully engaged, or lazy, or just plain tired after a long day, the game can very quickly turn into nothing more than complicated Bingo calling.

Also, there can be a real disconnect when the narrative that the player has decided upon becomes excessively unbelievable.  For example, in our current campaign, one of the players took a Bard and then narrated his players in a sort of "killing joke" fashion.  He'd make people's head explode from embarrassment.  Very Celtic bard tradition sort of thing.

The problem was, the adventure meant facing giant slugs and bullywugs.  I mean, how much offense can a giant slug really take when you insult it's mother?  It became something of a distraction at the table and resulted in a lot of jokes about the mechanics.  In other words, it really drew us out of the game.

In 3e, that same bard simply would not be able to affect the giant slug.  His abilities would be language dependent.  It's not much different than the rogue trying to sneak attack undead.  It just doesn't work.  And, to a large degree, I think most people can see why it works that way.  It certainly makes a fair bit of sense.

But, 4e divorces mechanics from narrative, so, insulting the slug causes the slug pain.  

There's certainly strengths and weaknesses in both the 3e and the 4e approach.  I think, and this is my personal opinion only, that 4e allows a lot more flexiblity for the players to narrate what's going on in the game.  On the downside, 4e allows a lot more flexibility for the players to narrate what's going on in the game.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 18, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> I'm personally of the opinion that the mechanics should come first, the explanation after. You give a wonderful, in-character, dramatic speech to try to persuade a group of farmers to help you fight the bandits who oppress them, and then roll a 1 on your check. Better, I think, to roll the dice and then make a speech appropriate to the result - in this case, persistently calling the village by the wrong name, or something similar.




Here's how I handle that:

After the player makes the speech for his PC, I consider the reaction of the NPCs.  If the words are _obviously_ enough to convince the NPC, there's no need for a roll.  The opposite is also true - if the words are _obviously_ not going to work, there's no need for a roll.  If I think the NPC's reaction is in doubt, then I ask for a roll.

A simple example:

A simple farmer's toiling in his field.  The PCs are tired, wounded, and looking for rest at the nearest inn.  They hail the farmer: "Hail!"  I make a reaction roll to set his initial disposition and get something low.  I decide that the reaction roll means that the farmer doesn't like wandering mercenaries, is busy, and needs to get his harvest in before the frost; he doesn't want to waste any time talking. The farmer looks up, grunts, and ignores them.

One of the PCs grabs the farmer by the hair and puts a knife to his neck.  "Where's the closest inn?"

I use my DM's judgement, considering what I know about the NPC, and decide that he'd tell them.

Or: One of the PCs calls out to the farmer.  "I know you're busy, but if you direct us to the nearest inn, there'll be a shiny silver piece in it for you."

I use my DM's judgement, considering what I know about the NPC, and decide that he'd tell them.

Or: One of the PCs calls out to the farmer.  "Where's the nearest inn?"

I already know that the farmer isn't going to talk to them, so he continues to ignore them.

More complicated:

The PCs are trying to rally the peasants to take up arms against some bandits.  The PCs might make a great argument, but asking people to risk life and limb is difficult, so I'm not sure as DM how they would react.  I call for a check.

They key for me is: did the actions of the PCs trigger any kind of internal conflict in the NPC?  In the first three examples I don't think they did; the farmer wants to tell the PCs, or not, based on their actions and the farmer's disposition.  No need for a roll.  In the latter example, I think there is a conflict there - the farmers would rather not fight, but they are being oppressed and the PC's words are convincing, so we roll the dice to see which way that plays out.

*

I'm not sure if there's a big difference between the two approaches.  In my experience, if you roll first and narrate after, there's a danger of omitting the narration, or having it feel tacked on.  (I have been through too many Duels of Wits where it went something like: "What are you doing?  Point?  Me too.  I'm rolling Persuasion, how about you?  Same thing, eh.  Cool.  I got 4 successes - you?  Okay, I'll reduce my Disposition by 3.  Great.  Next round - what are you doing?")

However, one danger in the way I do it is that the actual words can get lost after we add up modifiers to the roll.  There have been times in my hack where I have to ask the player, "Okay - what did you say again?"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 18, 2011)

> Also, there can be a real disconnect when the narrative that the player has decided upon becomes excessively unbelievable. For example, in our current campaign, one of the players took a Bard and then narrated his players in a sort of "killing joke" fashion. He'd make people's head explode from embarrassment. Very Celtic bard tradition sort of thing.
> 
> The problem was, the adventure meant facing giant slugs and bullywugs. I mean, how much offense can a giant slug really take when you insult it's mother? It became something of a distraction at the table and resulted in a lot of jokes about the mechanics. In other words, it really drew us out of the game.
> 
> ...




Unless the spell specifies otherwise, a 3.5Ed bard's magical effects *don't* depend upon understanding*.  The use of magical words & gestures of power make the spell's effects essentially universal.  (I've run 3.5Ed bards that played flute wordlessly, told limericks, spoke haikus or quickly painted symbols on surfaces...)

Certainly, you can choose to have a spell's effects limited by the understanding of the target, but that is self-imposed, not a limitation by the rules themselves.




* those that do are generally telling the target to do something; altering behavior.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 18, 2011)

Hussar said:


> ... so, insulting the slug causes the slug pain.



Throwing a little verbal a-salt on the slug, then?


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 18, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Here's how I handle that:
> 
> After the player makes the speech for his PC, I consider the reaction of the NPCs.  If the words are _obviously_ enough to convince the NPC, there's no need for a roll.  The opposite is also true - if the words are _obviously_ not going to work, there's no need for a roll.  If I think the NPC's reaction is in doubt, then I ask for a roll.




I tend to make the player roll first.  *Then* they make the speech.  That way, what they say is somewhat dictated by the die roll......it turns into an opportunity to think up a fun way in which your character mucked up the dialogue, if the roll doesn't go well.

Otherwise, you end up with situations reminiscent of the player who has a barbarian and uses INT and CHA as dump stats to beef up STR, DEX, and CON.  So he's got STR 19, INT of 9, and CHA 6....yet he's asking as party leader, and communicating with the player's level of verbal sophistication to NPCs.  That just doesn't make sense.  If he's got a lower than average intelligence, and a really low charisma, then play him as such.  Similarly, if you roll poorly on a Diplomacy check, then play out that poor roll.

Banshee


----------



## Mallus (Jan 18, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> In the last combat I ran, the first round went something like this:
> 
> 3 hobgoblins moved up in a shield wall, crashing into two dragonborn who had locked shields.  The middle hobgoblin tied up the sword of one of the dragonborn with his flail.  Meanwhile, a PC in the back ranks launched her rope + grappling hook, grabbed onto the hobgoblin's shield, and yanked him forward.
> 
> ...



Interesting, Lost...

I doubt I could make every combat that kind of tactical, physical puzzle, not with the amount of detail required to make a game of it. I don't know enough about historical hand-to-hand combat. Heck, I don't even like overly-detailed fight scenes in fantasy novels, unless they contain a copious number of witticisms traded by the combatants which spice up the (laborious, to me) descriptions of violent motion.

I think it comes down to words being an inefficient medium for describing/simulating physical actions, especially in my hands. I have no trouble, in fact I prefer, to "talk out" social encounters, because speaking is quite good at simulating, err, well, speech. 

I can see how the method you described could provide a heightened sense of immersion, but it's just not the right technique for me. In my games, the fiction resides elsewhere, in the characterization, the dialogue, the exploration of setting elements, the way the world responds to players prodding it. That's the stuff I can do.

I like D&D's tradition of abstract combat. 4e is about as detailed as I'm willing to go. It provides all the tactical framework for combat I require, and as for the fiction, the game's fictive dream, well, I try to establish that in ways that play to my strengths.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Oops. I guess my memory of that story had cross-polinated with the mid/late 90s X-Men where Wolverine pulls himself off a cross in the Australian desert (or have I misremembered that one too?).




There's a big difference between Conan and Wolverine.  

There is also a big difference between pulling out the nails from your feet, described as being less deep in the wood, once you are no longer crucified and your hands are free....and pulling yourself off a cross.



> I nevertheless agree with the editor of the collection in which my copy of that story is found (Patrice Louinet, I think) that that episode marks the departure of Conan from the ranks of mere mortals.




Interestingly enough, though, the episode occurs as the result of REH's research, which included actual cases of surviving crucifixtion and the condition of the individuals thereafter.

If this story marks the departure of Conan from the ranks of mere mortals....I guess we must also accept that some mere mortals have also so departed!  

In a metaphysical sense, though, Conan departs the ranks of mere mortals in his first story, when he is declared the true ruler of Aquilonia.  Also, The Hour of the Dragon has quite a bit of Arthurian "The King and the Land are One" in it......also a result of REH's research.



> And suggests that heroic feats of recovery from fatigue and injury aren't necessarily contrary to the fantasy genre, or even the sword-and-sorcery (sub)genre.




Except that it took Conan seven months to heal from those injuries, in the story.  Then, and only then, is he fit to seek revenge.

You can scarcely conceive, my dear old friend, of the conditions now existing in this tiny kingdom since Queen Taramis admitted Constantius and his mercenaries, an event which I briefly described in my last, hurried letter. Seven months have passed since then, during which time it seems as though the devil himself had been loosed in this unfortunate realm.​
So, I'll grant you Wolverine.  But, otherwise, even Corwin of Amber takes longer than a night's rest to fully recover from his stab wound, and his regenerative powers were considered legendary!  



RC


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 18, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I'm not sure if there's a big difference between the two approaches.  In my experience, if you roll first and narrate after, there's a danger of omitting the narration, or having it feel tacked on.  (I have been through too many Duels of Wits where it went something like: "What are you doing?  Point?  Me too.  I'm rolling Persuasion, how about you?  Same thing, eh.  Cool.  I got 4 successes - you?  Okay, I'll reduce my Disposition by 3.  Great.  Next round - what are you doing?")
> 
> However, one danger in the way I do it is that the actual words can get lost after we add up modifiers to the roll.  There have been times in my hack where I have to ask the player, "Okay - what did you say again?"




I've seen the first happening. I agree, it can be a problem. What I've tried to do to get people to narrate it is to give them some sort of benefit anyway if they do something that enthuses everyone at the table. The Adventure Deck/Decks from Pinnacle, that they have both for Savage Worlds and D20, are what I often use. You might not have impressed the Baron with your speech, but you drew the Love Interest card from the deck after you narrated it well, and now his daughter is looking at you with an expression you recognise. Which occasionally takes the game in strange and unexpected directions. I don't think this would work with every group of players, but mine like it and go along.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 18, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> Otherwise, you end up with situations reminiscent of the player who has a barbarian and uses INT and CHA as dump stats to beef up STR, DEX, and CON.  So he's got STR 19, INT of 9, and CHA 6....yet he's asking as party leader, and communicating with the player's level of verbal sophistication to NPCs.  That just doesn't make sense.  If he's got a lower than average intelligence, and a really low charisma, then play him as such.  Similarly, if you roll poorly on a Diplomacy check, then play out that poor roll.




That's one way to handle it, and I can see why you'd write up a game that did exactly that.  The reasons I decided not to go that way are: 1. because I wanted to challenge the player, and while you can challenge players with either method, I think this way brings it to the forefront a little more; and 2. because I wanted to make sure that the game world was always in the forefront of the player's minds, not only for immersion, but also so that they would think "outside of the box" when solving challenges.

It's a middle-way that combines some old-school stuff with new-school ideas.  (Sorcerer was the inspiration.)  I can think of reasons why you wouldn't want to run things this way; off the top of my head, a game in which you are guaranteed to play the character you want.  My game makes no such guarantee; I want PCs to change a lot based on play, and not necessarily in ways that players would have chosen for themselves.



Mallus said:


> I can see how the method you described could provide a heightened sense of immersion, but it's just not the right technique for me. In my games, the fiction resides elsewhere, in the characterization, the dialogue, the exploration of setting elements, the way the world responds to players prodding it. That's the stuff I can do.




That makes sense.  Different tastes, eh?  I always liked the nitty-gritty details of fight scenes - probably why I preferred Palladium Fantasy's combat system to 2E AD&D.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Unless the spell specifies otherwise, a 3.5Ed bard's magical effects *don't* depend upon understanding*.  The use of magical words & gestures of power make the spell's effects essentially universal.  (I've run 3.5Ed bards that played flute wordlessly, told limericks, spoke haikus or quickly painted symbols on surfaces...)
> 
> Certainly, you can choose to have a spell's effects limited by the understanding of the target, but that is self-imposed, not a limitation by the rules themselves.
> 
> ...




Well, there's the trick isn't it?  Many of the Bard's abilities are outright spells.  The bard had a few abilities that affected allies, but those that affected enemies, like Fascinate, were mind effecting and thus there were numerous creatures immune to it.

But, other than direct sonic attacks, a lot of the bard's spells were language dependent.  Like you say, mostly the mind affecting stuff.  Bard's weren't exactly strong in the blasting capabilities.  

So, no, it's not entirely self imposed actually.  The rules impose limitations as well.  Fascinate wouldn't work on a giant slug in 3e, for example since giant slugs were vermin (IIRC), and thus neither would Suggestion.

To be fair though, the 4e bard and the 3e bard really are different animals.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 19, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Except that it took Conan seven months to heal from those injuries, in the story.  Then, and only then, is he fit to seek revenge.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> even Corwin of Amber takes longer than a night's rest to fully recover from his stab wound, and his regenerative powers were considered legendary!



Like I've posted upthread, I think that this criticism of healing surges is focused on a pretty minor element of the 4e rules, namely, the extended rest rules. The problem - if one regards it as such - can easily be resolved with very little mechanical impact upon 4e - simply reduce the rate of healing surge recovery. (One surge per day will make healing take between one and two weeks for most PCs. That would come close to emulating 3E natural healing rates, I think.)

The mechanically significant function of healing surges, and the powers that revolve around them, is to make the recovery of hit points during combat (i) important, and (ii) tactically engaging. Removing healing surges altogether would have a _huge_ impact on this part of the game. But the rules that govern their expenditure during combat are quite separate from the rule that governs their recovery by resting. The latter rule plays an obvious role in determining adventure pacing, but that's about it. If you want to change the pacing, you can change that rule, and the rest of the game will remain unaffected.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 19, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Like I've posted upthread, I think that this criticism of healing surges is focused on a pretty minor element of the 4e rules




This isn't a criticism of healing surges, or of 4e.  It is a criticism of erroneous statements made about what happens in the literature being discussed.

RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 19, 2011)

Healing surges provide too many hit points? 

I can't take that concept sewiouswy. 

If the typical mode of play the system is built for involves running the PC's through a meatgrinder of combat encounters they will need more hit points because there will be a lot more damage sustained. 

It is a case of simple numbers bloat. More encounters with tougher, harder hitting monsters = more hitpoints needed. 

The one thing that surges remove is true magical healing. If Joe fighter is out of healing surges for the day and low on hp, a barrel of healing elixer might as well be tapwater and the almighty power of deity brand X suddenly isn't so almighty-until tomorrow.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 19, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> The way I see it, however, is that they are missing the point - that the game can be fast and simple at its core, but with tons of flexible options to customize to your heart's content.



"No, it can't," has been the answer from the modernists. The game, they say, has changed because the world has changed. Now, somehow, A>(A+B+C). Taking their program seriously, the best thing would be to put 4e out of print immediately (if not previously) and replace it with yet another Something Completely Different. 



> In other words, it doesn't take anything away from those that like complexity, it just opens the game up and potentially keeps it alive for those of us who want a simpler, faster game.



Apparently -- although I have yet to see a remotely cogent explanation -- it does take something away from them. The mere availability of a _different flavor_ of complexity is somehow a threat they cannot abide.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 19, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But this is true also of AD&D, which precludes telling a story in which a mage wields a longsword



It does not.

See 1st PHB p. 32, The Multi-Classed Character, and p. 33, The Character With Two Classes.

Neither does it prohibit adding more types. The Thief, Paladin, Assassin, Monk, Druid, Ranger, Illusionist and Bard, and the half-elf, gnome and half-orc as player-characters, all came from players or DMs between the publication of the original D&D set and the publication of the 1st PHB.

(Also the Witch, which was advertised but did not appear, and of course the many others in magazines, _The Arduin Grimoire_ and elsewhere.)

Then of course came more in The Dragon, some of which ended up in _Unearthed Arcana_, and more on Greyhawk, and Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms, and more in Dragon, and then the deluge of 2e supplements...



> if metagame-heavy design and play _really_ impeded story, then it would be the case that a game like HeroQuest or The Dying Earth was a weaker vehicle for story-rich roleplaying than a game like Rolemaster, Runquest or 3E D&D. But is there anyone who believes this?



What's with this "story" jive?

HeroQuest and The Dying Earth have piles more dice-rolling for the sake of rolling dice. Either you dig that, find it adds to your fun, or you don't. Either way really has sweet nothing to do with "story". Last I checked, J.K. Rowling used a word processor, not an Action Results Table and a tally.

I'm not really up on the latest HQ (being acquainted only with the old Hero Wars), and I gather there's more "meta-game" distraction now.

_What role is it that you want to play?_ If it's someone in a casino, then maybe getting immersed in manipulating abstractions is to the point (but probably not 20-sided dice). If it's a novelist or Hollywood director, then maybe "telling the story" is to the point.

If it's an adventurer of the ilk of John Carter groping through black pits, or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries, then what's to the point is the adventure. Making decisions from that point of view -- "one more roll of the dice with destiny and death" (Fritz Leiber) -- is what constitutes role-playing.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> It does not.
> 
> See 1st PHB p. 32, The Multi-Classed Character, and p. 33, The Character With Two Classes.



I didn't think I had to spell it all out.

So it preclues the playing of a human mage who wields a sword but has strength less than 15, or who casts spells while wearing armour.



Ariosto said:


> Neither does it prohibit adding more types.



Nor does 4e.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'll give you another example, then - an AD&D wizard can't raise the dead, whereas a 4e wizard can



... and there's nary a thing that's not included in the 4e cleric package because it's a distinction of another class?

Getting back to actual facts: Methods already in the PHB and DMG include (but are not necessarily limited to) _wish, clone_ and _reincarnation_ spells; and the _ring of regeneration_.

Moreover, invention of new magics is explicitly part of the magic-user's role.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I didn't think I had to spell it all out.



When you make contra-factual claims? Yes, it does make a difference to me what you in fact have and have not written. Others here may be pleased to "put words in your mouth" that you did not say for the simple reason that they were not what you meant.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

Ariosto, I'm not sure what you think the point of my examples was.

The point I was trying to make, in an exchange (from memory) with BryonD and Shadzar, was that 4e is not the only game in which the mechanics limit the stories that can be told (the notion of "story", by the way, was one that my interlocutors introduced, not me). I made this point by giving some examples of the way in which AD&D character build mechanics constrain the game. It's not really to the point to argue out the details of those examples.

And it's no part of my point to deny that 4e clerics have abilities (like their Wis buff to healing, or their access to Cloud Chariots) that other classes can't get. I'm not trying to maintain that 4e build mechanics don't constrain the story. Of course they do. It's just that they're not unique, or even particularly distinctive, in that respect.

More generally, you seem to think that I'm some sort of enemy of AD&D, who wishes it didn't exist, or that no one played it. I don't know why you think this - I've never asserted such a thing. My stake in these edition comparisons is simply to defend the legitimacy of 4e as a roleplaying game. (And of course, given that I play 4e and not AD&D, I would rather WotC continue to work on the former rather than the latter game. But if they stop I'll cope. Rolemaster, for most practical purposes, ceased to be developed as a game from the mid-1990s, but that didn't stop me playing it up until the end of 2008.)


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> So it preclues the playing of a human mage who wields a sword but has strength less than 15, or who casts spells while wearing armour.



False on the first count, I think. I don't recall any indication that ability-score prerequisites for taking classes apply at any time other than first taking the class. So, you might have a character who _formerly_ had strength and intelligence scores high enough to take both classes, but -- due to age or other effects -- has since received lower scores. 

The second count of course is just a semantic trick, treating the vernacular "mage" as exclusively synonymous with the game-jargon "magic-user". By that estimate, there are no dwarven, gnome or halfling "mages" in the PHB either -- just _clerics_, _illusionists_ and _druids_. (Some of those, however, are indicated as "NPC only".)

By the same measure, one could not play "a human fighter who cast spells without a second class" even with the addition of the thief _and_ the ranger _and_ the original and revised bards _and_ the revised paladin. After all, they were not the "fighter" class, eh?



> More generally, you seem to think that I'm some sort of enemy of AD&D, who wishes it didn't exist, or that no one played it.



No. I think what I have written: that some of your claims are factually false, and that others go out of the way to create "problems" where they would not otherwise be.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My stake in these edition comparisons is simply to defend the legitimacy of 4e as a roleplaying game.




Who said that? What is being discussed without crazy extremes, is the ability to tell stories in how they games differ and that 4th edition restricts story telling.

Pre-4th you had your decisions to make up front, and the could tell the story you wanted with the character chosen from those restrictions.

4th you design some character with all the bells and whistles, but then get constrained in what story you can tell via magical non-magic overnight healing, and though never stealing a thing you get better at stealing things.

I can make all kinds of accusations against 4th edition that will have mods bleeding text all over this thread, including but not limited to thinking it isnt a good roleplaying game.

What is being said is where you get to tell the story.

_Pre-4th you get to tell the story AS you play, while with 4th you have to piece a story together AFTER you have played something out._

That is the crux of the argument, not whether 4th is a roleplaying game or not.

When discussing a change to a game, you have to look at those kind of focuses within the game to see that they changed, and try to figure out why.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 20, 2011)

The "real" reason I think is the game is no longer about pattern recognition and instead about story telling.  There's no cooperative simulation game with the code hidden from the players any more.  That is why it both feels and plays differently than in previous times.  Age has nothing to do with imaginative capability in the players.

EDIT: The addictive element, common in puzzles like Soduku, found in games like CCGs and computer games: that's the pattern finding element.  An absolutist tendency on the part of postmodern critics denies this possibility, non-absolutist post structuralist still allow it as a possibility.  It's all about what one wants from games. And, unfortunately, what some game designers will accept as fun and possible by players.  Success, winning, achievement through displays of mental prowess can be extraordinarily fun.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> False on the first count, I think. I don't recall any indication that ability-score prerequisites for taking classes apply at any time other than first taking the class.



To dual-class in AD&D requires 15 in any prime requisites for the first class, and 17 in any prime requisites for the second class (if no prime requisites are specified, than every ability with a minimum must be 15/17 as appropriate).

So a dual-classed fighter-magicuser must have at least 15 STR and 17 INT (starting as fighter) or 17 STR and 15 INT (starting as M-U).



Ariosto said:


> So, you might have a character who _formerly_ had strength and intelligence scores high enough to take both classes, but -- due to age or other effects -- has since received lower scores.



So I can't play a story in which my wizard wields a sword, wears armour, and is younger than 41 (the age at which stat penalties kick in). What is the point of this?



Ariosto said:


> The second count of course is just a semantic trick, treating the vernacular "mage" as exclusively synonymous with the game-jargon "magic-user".



It was not intended as such. Yes, I can play a holy man who wears armour while casting spells. No, I can't play a scholarly wizard who wears armour while casting spells, unless I'm an elf (in 2nd ed AD&D, I believe this was further changed to limit me to elven chain - and even in 1st ed, a gnome fighter/illusionist is limited to leather).

What is the point of trying to deny that the AD&D rules impose constraints on the sort of PC that can be introduced into the game, which constraints go beyond simply what logic or imagination or evey playability in the loose sense requires?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

Howandwhy99, I'm not sure about your edit - the discussion of postmodern criticism is a bit compressed for me to really follow - but your first paragraph I agree with. Being more sympathetic than you to the Forge-y camp, I would tend to describe it as a shift away from gamist play resting on a very solid foundation of exploration of setting.

I therefore fully agree that the game is no longer the same.

But I don't agree that this is because 4e has made it impossible to tell stories, or to do anything outside combat, or to  . . .


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 4th you design some character with all the bells and whistles, but then get constrained in what story you can tell via magical non-magic overnight healing, and though never stealing a thing you get better at stealing things.



In AD&D I get better at fighting things even if I never fight but only cast spells.

In 3E I get better at not being killed by swordblows even if all I do is level up as a blacksmith.

In Rolemaster or Runequest or Traveller I don't get better at _anything_ automatically. It's all comparable to the allocation of skill points in 3E, even hit points (in RM) or combat ability (in RM and RQ).

These are just mechanical devices used to generate a certain sort of game experience. Some like one approach to character build, some another. But there's no radical difference of kind in the way the character build rules constrain play.

As for the healing rules, as I've posted repeatedly in another thread, just _change the extend rest rules to delay the recovery of healing surges_. This will have no effect on the mechanical balance of the game, except to change the pacing of adventures (that is, there will be a longer resting time after every four or so combat encounters).

This is a trivial change compared (for example) to introducing a new class into AD&D which is a sword-wielding wizard (to borrow Ariosto's example upthread).



shadzar said:


> What is being said is where you get to tell the story.
> 
> _Pre-4th you get to tell the story AS you play, while with 4th you have to piece a story together AFTER you have played something out._



Well, I haven't had this experience at all. The story of combat unfolds as combat is played - who moved where, who attacked what, who delivered the kill!, etc. The story of a skill challenge unfolds as it is resolved - who says or does what, what results from it, who responds in what way to that response, etc. The story of exploration unfolds as the gameworld is explored - who is lifting up what rock, what are they finding under it, do the feel any magic eminating from it, etc.

And I don't think I'm playing it wrong. In the example of exploration in the PHB (pp 10-11), it shows the story being told as the game is played. In the example skill challenge in the Rules Compendium (pp 162-163) it shows the story being told as the game is played. Likewise the example skill challenge in the DMG (p 77).

So I really don't get what it is that you have in mind here.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

shadzar said:
			
		

> Pre-4th you get to tell the story AS you play, while with 4th you have to piece a story together AFTER you have played something out.




I think you are probably accurate in terms of the designers' intent, and definitely on the mark with what I have seen in actual play.

It is, to be sure, not an absolute binary difference but rather (as are most phenomena in this world that is not the realm of Platonic Forms) a matter of degree. We can count on certain parties to make much of that, maybe more even than it actually means to them.

It's not much of a _role-playing game_, to my mind, just to make up stories after the fact about results in an abstract game of dice or cards. It's not much of a _game_ at all when all I get to do is listen to the DM tell me what my character does.

What 4e has done is put the cart very prominently before the horse. "Dice first, ask questions later (if ever)" is just plain backwards. "Skill challenges" don't challenge skill; they challenge one's affection for arbitrarily interminable dice-tossing and effectively meaningless blather. A computer can do that drudgery, so what am I as a 'player' here for?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2011)

Just to add to the Fighter/MU example and how the player is being constrained by mechanics.  Pemerton is correct that the PC's stats are required by the rules, so, depending on what class he takes first, he'll need at least one 17 and one 15.

Note, that during the changeover, he cannot access his previous class abilities without sacrificing all experience gained for at least that encounter (and I believe it's for the entire adventure, but, that's fuzzy memory) until such time as his second class advances one level higher than his first.

Additionally, once I switch classes, I cannot EVER advance in the first class again.  No matter what.  I can take fighter first, switch to MU, level up so that I gain access to both classes and fight with a sword exclusively for an entire level and can only gain levels as a MU.

Add to this the pace of xp and level advancement which has been talked about at great length as being much slower than 3e or 4e.  Let's ballpark level advancement as pretty quick and say it's 5 sessions/level.  That means I have to go at least 15 sessions before I can actually play my sword wielding wizard because I need to be at least a 1st level fighter/2nd level wizard.  Presuming 1/week play, that I exclusively play this character and not another from my stable of characters and I don't die during this period, it will be almost four months of real time that I am forced by the mechanics to play a character that I don't want to play.  Or, to put it another way, four months before I get to play the character that I do want to play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 20, 2011)

Hussar, I applaud your actually looking up the rules in this instance!

IMHO, it is absolutely true that AD&D 1e took pains to make each class distinct, and that certainly means that players are discouraged within the RAW from character concepts that make the classes less distinct.

If you want to cast spells and use a sword, you can always consider playing an elf.  

OTOH, there is a lot to be said for that level of class distinction as supplying different routes toward dealing with the game's challenges.  Because, whether some here like it or not, in AD&D 1e, combat is only one of the game's challenges, and it is not always the most important one.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> So I can't play a story in which my wizard wields a sword, wears armour, and is younger than 41 (the age at which stat penalties kick in). What is the point of this?



You tell me. Once again, your claim is -- obviously, I should think -- factually false.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> What is the point of trying to deny that the AD&D rules impose constraints on the sort of PC that can be introduced into the game, which constraints go beyond simply what logic or imagination or evey playability in the loose sense requires?



I have made no such attempt.

Neither have I -- or any other players of my acquaintance, and by evidence not the designer himself -- ever harbored the view that AD&D _ought_ to be all things to all people.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2011)

ARiosto said:
			
		

> What 4e has done is put the cart very prominently before the horse. "Dice first, ask questions later (if ever)" is just plain backwards. "Skill challenges" don't challenge skill; they challenge one's affection for arbitrarily interminable dice-tossing and effectively meaningless blather. A computer can do that drudgery, so what am I as a 'player' here for?




How is this any different than the combat mechanics in any version of D&D?  You roll your dice first and then describe what happens.

How is this different from skills in 3e?  Until your roll the dice, you have no idea how far you jumped, how far you climbed or how persuasive you were.

In most RPG's any mechanically determined event must be resolved before it can be narrated.  This is fundamental.  You cannot narrate before you resolve the mechanics.  I can claim to stab the bad guy in the toe until the cows come home, but, until the dice hit the table, nothing happens in the game world.

The primary difference is elements outside of combat in 1e and (to some degree) 2e were generally freeformed.  They were not mechanically determined by and large.  How far can I jump in banded mail with a 16 strength in 1e?  As far as my DM says that I can.  How believable am I when I'm bald faced lying to the NPC in 2e?  As believable as the DM says that I am.

There's nothing whatsoever with doing it this way.  It's one method of task resolution.

3e and 4e go a different direction though.  These elements are no longer free formed.  They have mechanics in place to determine the narrative in the game world.  How far do I jump?  The dice tell me.  How believable am I?  The dice tell me.

The only difference is that we've shift arbitration away from the DM to the dice.  Whether that's a good or a bad thing is entirely a taste thing.  For some, it's bad, for others, it's good.  Depends on what you want out of the game.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton: I see how I erred in writing "at any time other than first taking the class". For rhetorical purposes, it was of course easy for you to pretend that I somehow considered the stated requirements for taking a second class as not including the prime requisite for the first. Suffice to say that the rules as written are indeed to be taken as read, and as the intended and assumed context for my statements.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> How is this any different than the combat mechanics in any version of D&D? You roll your dice first and then describe what happens.



Speak of "certain parties", and behold!

Chiefly, that a fight is over much more quickly. That becomes moot, of course, in a scenario that's nothing but fights concatenated effectively into a single slog. I don't fancy spending an hour or more at a stretch on combat in old D&D much more than in 3e or 4e.

Secondarily, that in fact we do choose courses of action before (maybe) rolling dice. That's how we know in the first place that the roll is "to hit" or "to save" or "to turn" rather than for reaction or morale or dexterity or whatnot.

In 4e, the apparent intent -- and definite practice, in my experience -- in a "skill challenge" is that a bunch of rolls are going to be made no matter what excuse it takes. The excuses don't affect the fundamental proceedings a jot. The optimal set of numbers on character sheets is what it was from the start.

The "listening to the DM tell me what my character does" also irritates the hell out of me, but it follows pretty naturally from the designers' philosophy that _it should not matter what I say my character is doing_ when it comes to investigating places and things. There's a number on my character sheet, and either the DM picks a higher number or the DM does not -- and only the DM knows!

There really is nothing for me to do but let the DM tell me _that_ I found thing X, and it's convenient enough for the DM to do that by telling me _how_. It might even be more effective at preserving the illusion of role-playing than it would be to make me serve as narrator of my "search" for what I already know is there because I have just been told.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2011)

Instead of the snark Ariosto, could you answer the question?

At what point can the player narrate the resolution of a mechanically determined event?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> OTOH, there is a lot to be said for that level of class distinction as supplying different routes toward dealing with the game's challenges.



If it's Ok to respond to your reply to Hussar - I agree with this. Even when playing "classless" versions of Rolemaster - I don't think a classless version has ever been officially published, but there are various ideas floating around in the Guild Companion and other places as to how this can be done - there were still de facto classes, because of the differing suites of spell lists, and the fact that the development rules make it impossible to be expert at everything that an adventurer might hope to be expert in.

In my experience this feature of a character build system can help facilitate party play.

Just to reiterate - I'm not here to bag 1st ed AD&D. It - together with Moldvay/Cook and 4e - is one of the three versions of D&D I would ever have any interest in playing.

I'm just denying that 4e's character build rules are obnoxiously constraining on PC development in a way that marks a radical break from earlier versions of D&D.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> pemerton: I see how I erred in writing "at any time other than first taking the class". For rhetorical purposes, it was of course easy for you to pretend that I somehow considered the stated requirements for taking a second class as something else.



I don't think I pretended anything. I took you to be saying that a dual class 
Fighter-MU can have less than 15 strength as a result of having reached 41 years or more, and hence suffering an aging penalty on strength. If that's not what you meant, then I obviously misunderstood you, but looking back over your post that still seems to me to be what it says.



Ariosto said:


> Neither have I -- or any other players of my acquaintance, and by evidence not the designer himself -- ever harbored the view that AD&D _ought_ to be all things to all people.



No one on this thread said that it should be. I don't even think anyone on this thread _criticised_ AD&D 1st ed.

To reiterate - I was simply pointing out that, like some other games (incuding 4e), AD&D has some features of its character build rules which constrain the sorts of fantasy stories that can be told using the system. For example, I think we've established that, within the rules as written, there cannot be PCs who are able to wield swords in combat, wear armour while casting spells, have learned their spells from scholarship rather than religious devotion, have a strength less than 15 (or, in fictional terms, not be strong enough to lift 150 pounds over their heads), have IQ less than 150, and be younger than 41.

Nor, by the rules as written, can there be PCs who are gnomish initiates of the druidic circles. Nor, by the rules as written (and excluding UA), can there be elvish PCs who are warriors of such renown that they attract man-at-arms to come and serve them (elvish fighter level cap being 7).

I can conceive, however, of such a wizard - maybe an Elric variant. I can conceive of such a gnome. And I can certainly conceive of such an elf - a type of Elrond or Thingol variant, for example, if not Feanor himself.

These are not criticisms of AD&D. They are just observations about it. Just like 4e, it is not a game that will impose no constraints on the sorts of stories it permits its players to tell.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hussar, I applaud your actually looking up the rules in this instance!
> 
> IMHO, it is absolutely true that AD&D 1e took pains to make each class distinct, and that certainly means that players are discouraged within the RAW from character concepts that make the classes less distinct.
> 
> ...




Heh, couldn't resist the snark either huh RC?  

But, on your point, you're basically agreeing with me here.  The mechanics are dictating the narrative.  If class distinction is supplying the different routes toward dealing with the game's challenges, then it's mechanics, not the players that are driving the narrative.

No one has said that 1e only provides combat challenges.  /snip to remove cross thread sniping that will not lead anywhere.

But, the question on the table is whether or not 4e mechanics force players into a specific narrative.  I would argue that it really can't by and large, because the mechanics are largely divorced from the narrative.  Since the players are free to narrate the event however they see fit, I'm not sure if you can argue that the mechanics are placing strong restraints on what can be narrated.

Now, if you want to argue that mechanics in general place restraints on narrative, I'm right behind that.  As I said to Ariosto, it is virtually impossible for a player to narrate a mechanically determined event before that event is resolved.

A DM cannot either really.  Not without fudging the dice.  If the DM narrates that the bad guy jumps over the wall, but then fails his jump check, something's gonna get retconned.  In any mechanically determined event, the narrative has to come after the resolution.  

Can you think of an example where you can go the other direction?  Where a player or DM can narrate the results of a mechanically determined event before the event is resolved?


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I'm just denying that 4e's character build rules are obnoxiously constraining on PC development in a way that marks a radical break from earlier versions of D&D.



No, you are also making factually false claims, one after another, that by their falsehood can do no good for that cause. If pointing out the actual facts is opposed to your cause, then clearly your cause is something else.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

Ariosto, the falsehoods are minor - I made some general comments about AD&D having no sword wielding wizards. Everyone who knows and cares about the dual-class exception also knows about the very steep stat requirements for entry into dual-classing, as well as the prohibition on wearing armour while casting spells.

To be honest, what you are calling falsehoods I had thought of as simplication.

As to being opposed to the cause - your posts aren't opposed to the cause. Nor do they support the cause. To be honest I think they are completely tangential to the cause, because I still think that they missed the point of what I was saying. You seemed to think I was criticising AD&D, when (as I've pointed out repeatedly) I was simply making the point that it's character build rules impose some constraints that are very noticeable, and even idiosyncratic, relative to what I can conceive of as viable persona for a fantasy RPG.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Can you think of an example where you can go the other direction?  Where a player or DM can narrate the results of a mechanically determined event before the event is resolved?



Hussar, as I hope you know I'm posting here from a perspective very sympathetic to yours.

But treating this a genuine rather than rhetorical question (which I think is how you meant it, but I'm not 100% sure), I wonder:

One way to bring this about would be a system in which the player/GM has resources to spend that ensure the mechical result matches the pre-declared narration. The Dying Earth has rerolls, but they're not unlimited and rerolls can still go wrong - so it's out. HeroQuest has Hero Points which can be spent to "bump" a result - if a player has enough Hero Points in the bank then s/he can guarantee a result - it becomes a question then not of "whether" but "how much does it cost".

That being said, one might retort that even here the spending of the Hero Points itself has to be narrated (not necessarily as character action, but the player has to describe the lucky circumstances etc which make things come out right) and how much of this is needed can't be known until the dice are rolled and hence the required Hero Point expenditure being revealed.

OK, I'll keep thinking about it!


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

In addressing the very matters of fact that I proposed to address (funny how that works), I have not said thing one about whether "4e's character build rules are obnoxiously constraining on PC development in a way that marks a radical break from earlier versions of D&D."

In broad terms of degree of constraint, I reckon not. By now, though, I suppose there might be some inkling that people might disagree as to where something crosses the line into "radical" change.

Whether particular features or lack thereof are radical breaks from 3e is generally not a question about which I am likely to care enough to have an informed opinion, but I suppose there may arise exceptions.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> You seemed to think I was criticising AD&D



You seem to think -- because it is the only premise from which I can see that inference -- that convenience to some other end is the only reason to oppose falsehood with truth.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Howandwhy99, I'm not sure about your edit - the discussion of postmodern criticism is a bit compressed for me to really follow - but your first paragraph I agree with. Being more sympathetic than you to the Forge-y camp, I would tend to describe it as a shift away from gamist play resting on a very solid foundation of exploration of setting.
> 
> I therefore fully agree that the game is no longer the same.
> 
> But I don't agree that this is because 4e has made it impossible to tell stories, or to do anything outside combat, or to  . . .




I wasn't trying to be confusing, just offering my 2 cents.  Gamist play is playing in an attempt to discover an underlying pattern.  The game Memory claims it as a mechanic, find the two similar tiles.  Use your memory to do so.  Strategy relies on it, whether one is counting cards or points.  Games that rely on patterns are often called mathematical games. Rather than "Do the coolest thing you can think of" it's "Play to beat the other players to the objective."  Or in cooperative games like D&D "play to get as many points as possible with any help you can get."  

Yeah, the game isn't the same.  I wasn't saying anything about what kind of stories are capable of being told in any edition.  4E doesn't limit that except in it's combat encounters because they are so structured.  But then you could always ignore the rules to get what you want. You know, change power level, pacing, resource quantities, etc.

I prefer a puzzle game.  Which, by many in the Forge camp, amounts to a desire to be oppressed.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 20, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Instead of the snark Ariosto, could you answer the question?
> 
> At what point can the player narrate the resolution of a mechanically determined event?




My answer would be Never, But.  But because the game is neither about narrating a story nor has any resolution mechanics.  The response by the DM is the new configuration of the puzzle, the die rolls are expressions of distributive patterns, D&D traditionally using just the linear and the Bayesian bell curve.

However, the player is still free to interpret results in any way they see fit.  Think of this as a form of narrating.  When solving a rubik's cube you can simply choose to see all sides as the same color.  Moving the puzzle is irrelevant.  

In the same way you do not need me to convey a message to you, your perception of it is a chosen story you create.  IOW, you only ever perceive what you want to perceive.  That's always total narrative power in the mind of every person.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> In addressing the very matters of fact that I proposed to address (funny how that works), I have not said thing one about whether "4e's character build rules are obnoxiously constraining on PC development in a way that marks a radical break from earlier versions of D&D."



I didn't think that you had, and didn't intend to suggest otherwise. My points about dual-classing and the like were made in response to Shadzar and BryonD (I think, without looking back upthread).

At least on my part, there's no hostility here, either global or local. I wasn't intending to upset you or offend you. I was making a point in a discussion that (from memory) you weren't part of at the start. I didn't think that my simplification, in glossing over the details of the dual-classing rules, would cause anyone any offence or irritation.



Ariosto said:


> You seem to think -- because it is the only premise from which I can see that inference -- that convenience to some other end is the only reason to oppose falsehood with truth.



Sorry - I took it that you were taking me to criticise AD&D, because you posted a series of posts that seemed fairly hostile in tone.

Like I said, I was simplifying some aspects of AD&D to make a point in a discussion about character build rules and constraints on story in a fantasy RPG. I wasn't setting out to spread falsehoods.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 20, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Instead of the snark Ariosto, could you answer the question?
> 
> At what point can the player narrate the resolution of a mechanically determined event?




I'm not Ariosto, but I'd never narrate an outcome for an event where I was going to roll a dice to see what happens until after I'd rolled the dice. Announce what your attempting, roll the dice to see if it works, and then narrate the outcome; anything else seems counter-intuitive to me, though I know some people get good results from it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton said:


> If it's Ok to respond to your reply to Hussar




Of course it is.



> - I agree with this.




Then that "Of course it is" goes double!   



> I'm just denying that 4e's character build rules are obnoxiously constraining on PC development in a way that marks a radical break from earlier versions of D&D.




I have no opinion on this.  "Obnoxiously" is, of course, subjective, so it should not be surprising if opinions differ, depending upon what one is looking for.

I don't like the system.  I like some of the ideas, but not the execution.  If 4e had been OGL, I would probably like someone else's reimagining of the execution, however.



Hussar said:


> Heh, couldn't resist the snark either huh RC?




You are confusing me here.  What snark?



> But, on your point, you're basically agreeing with me here.




Yes, I am.  Or, at least, agreeing with the previous post I responded to.  Why do you think that's snarky?  



> The mechanics are dictating the narrative.  If class distinction is supplying the different routes toward dealing with the game's challenges, then it's mechanics, not the players that are driving the narrative.




That doesn't follow though.

There is a degree to which the mechanics dictate the narrative, and a degree to which player choices dictate the narrative.  The mechanics are intended to behave in a manner consistent with the fictional reality, and are intended to be ignored when they fail to do this.

That is, AFAICT, a different design philosophy than 4e's.

OTOH, on the idea of the mechanics constraining character choices, well, that is true for all rpgs AFAICT.  When you suggest that it is true, you are (IMHO) objectively correct.  In 1e, depending upon the character ability generation method used, the dice might even dictate what races and classes are available to you!



> Now, if you want to argue that mechanics in general place restraints on narrative, I'm right behind that.




As am I.



> As I said to Ariosto, it is virtually impossible for a player to narrate a mechanically determined event before that event is resolved.
> 
> A DM cannot either really.  Not without fudging the dice.  If the DM narrates that the bad guy jumps over the wall, but then fails his jump check, something's gonna get retconned.  In any mechanically determined event, the narrative has to come after the resolution.
> 
> Can you think of an example where you can go the other direction?  Where a player or DM can narrate the results of a mechanically determined event before the event is resolved?




I believe that the DM or player narrates what is attempted, determines what needs to be rolled (if anything), rolls the dice, and then narrates the result.

This is different than rolling the dice, and then narrating what was attempted and the result.

Note, please, that the _*value*_ of the difference is subjective.  However, the difference is not.


RC


----------



## BryonD (Jan 20, 2011)

Hussar said:


> How is this different from skills in 3e?  Until your roll the dice, you have no idea how far you jumped, how far you climbed or how persuasive you were.



It is funny to me that this tangent has taken over.

The logistics of rolling the dice to determine success of an action in relation to describing the action (or perhaps intended action) is equal across editions.

But that is quite a different point than my issue.  In 4E the mechanics come first with building a narrative to describe how the mechanic is resolved following.  It may be that you need to describe how the mechanic work, or maybe how it failed.

Over and over 4E fans praise this aspect of 4E.  So obviously it is a good thing for the target audience.  I'm not calling it bad.  I am calling it a distinction.  The games I prefer do not expect the narrative to look to the mechanics for guidance.

The 4E approach "is bad for my taste."  But he important point is it is different.

The whole point of resolving before or after the die result is known is a completely unrelated issue.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 20, 2011)

Hussar said:


> At what point can the player narrate the resolution of a mechanically determined event?






Hussar said:


> The mechanics are dictating the narrative. If class distinction is supplying the different routes toward dealing with the game's challenges, then it's mechanics, not the players that are driving the narrative.
> 
> Can you think of an example where you can go the other direction? Where a player or DM can narrate the results of a mechanically determined event before the event is resolved?




Stop being obsessed with narrating stuff and just play the game might work. Just a suggestion.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2011)

howandwhy99 said:


> My answer would be Never, But.  But because the game is neither about narrating a story nor has any resolution mechanics.  The response by the DM is the new configuration of the puzzle, the die rolls are expressions of distributive patterns, D&D traditionally using just the linear and the Bayesian bell curve.
> 
> However, the player is still free to interpret results in any way they see fit.  Think of this as a form of narrating.  When solving a rubik's cube you can simply choose to see all sides as the same color.  Moving the puzzle is irrelevant.
> 
> In the same way you do not need me to convey a message to you, your perception of it is a chosen story you create.  IOW, you only ever perceive what you want to perceive.  That's always total narrative power in the mind of every person.




This is either very deep or utter tosh, and I'm not sure which.   

If you choose to percieve a message in any way other than what the originator intended, then you will have a failure to communicate.  You can self delude yourself that every side of the Rubics cube is the same color, but, it's still not going to actually solve the puzzle.

Then again, you're operating from a definition of role playing game that I just can't quite grok to be honest.  It's so reductionist that I find it very difficult to understand how you can call it role playing anymore.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> But that is quite a different point than my issue. In 4E the mechanics come first with building a narrative to describe how the mechanic is resolved following. It may be that you need to describe how the mechanic work, or maybe how it failed.




I'm not entirely sure I agree with that.  The primary difference that I see between 3e and 4e in this case is that in 4e, the mechanics don't dictate a specific interpretation of how the event was resolved.  Going back to the spoon discussion, a reasonable reading of the 3e Open Locks skill means that if I try to use that skill, I'm pulling out a tool and inserting it somehow into the lock and trying to trip the tumblers.

4e doesn't really care.  It just says you use this skill to open locks.  The how is left entirely to the player.  That's what it means when mechanics are divorced from narrative.  Come and Get It says that X happens.  How it happens is entirely up to the player.

WOTC's new Fortune Cards are a great example here.  There's no flavour text whatsoever on the cards.  None.  Play the card, get a mechanical bonus.  It's up to the player to narrate how that is happening.  3e would generally take a different approach and have flavour text that would be broadly applicable.

Again, there's strengths and weaknesses to both approaches.

To me, the difference is in the source of the narration.  In 3e, the mechanics largely dictate the narration - use X skill, use X ability, and Y happens and  Y is very often specifically defined by the rules.  A 3e bard can fascinate certain creatures using his perform skill and that is pre-determined at character generation.  If you take Perform (Lute), then every one of your bardic abilities must use the lute (or at least the ones that require perform checks).

4e relies on the player to make narration that is acceptable to that table and largely doesn't dictate those kinds of limitations.  A character could get a second wind by shaking off his wounds, he could snatch a vulture out of the air with his teeth and drink its blood.  Whatever works at the table.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I believe that the DM or player narrates what is attempted, determines what needs to be rolled (if anything), rolls the dice, and then narrates the result.




But, break that down step by step.  The player announces that he wants to jump over the pit, as an example.  What has happened in game at that point?  Has the character moved?  Has the character actually taken any action?

I don't think so actually.  The character hasn't done anything.  In D&D, at least, until such time as that action is resolved, you cannot actually narrate anything.



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> One way to bring this about would be a system in which the player/GM has resources to spend that ensure the mechical result matches the pre-declared narration. The Dying Earth has rerolls, but they're not unlimited and rerolls can still go wrong - so it's out. HeroQuest has Hero Points which can be spent to "bump" a result - if a player has enough Hero Points in the bank then s/he can guarantee a result - it becomes a question then not of "whether" but "how much does it cost




Sufficiently Advanced actually contains this mechanics.  You can spend a point (and the name of which eludes me at the moment) and then narrate the successful resolution of any action.  It might cost you down the road with penalties, but, for this specific event, you can choose to narrate it any way you see fit.

But, that's the point, mechanical resolution has been determined - spending the point grants you that ability.

3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars has a similar mechanic where you can create a flashback scene that explains how you either win the current event or lose the current event on your own terms.  If you choose to win, then fine, you win.  If you choose to lose, you remove yourself from that event in any way you see fit, so long as it actually counts as a loss - you could choose to be captured by the enemy for example, instead of being eaten by them.

But, again, the event has been resolved.  You either have won or lost by spending the appropriate resource.

Until such time as a mechanically determined event is resolved in some manner, it cannot be narrated.

Note, for events that are not mechanically determined, you can narrate them any way you want, so long as the table is happy.  If I narrate that my character tap dances up to the orc, instead of walking or whatever, if the table is groovy with that, then no worries.  The mechanics couldn't care less since movement in combat is not (usually anyway) a mechanically determined event.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Stop being obsessed with narrating stuff and just play the game might work. Just a suggestion.




Are you suggesting that I play D&D like it's an elaborate bingo game?  Just call out the numbers and don't bother with anything else?  Heathen.  That's precisely what people apparently are complaining about - that in order to play the game, we must be able to narrate freely.  

Granted, I totally agree with you and narrate sometimes and other times don't bother.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 20, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, break that down step by step.  The player announces that he wants to jump over the pit, as an example.  What has happened in game at that point?  Has the character moved?  Has the character actually taken any action?
> 
> I don't think so actually.  The character hasn't done anything.  In D&D, at least, until such time as that action is resolved, you cannot actually narrate anything.




PLAYER:  I'd like Bob the Barbarian to jump the pit.

(At this point, Bob the Barbarian has done nothing.)

GM:  Remember, the pit is 20 feet across.  Are you sure you want Bob to jump?

PLAYER:  Yes.  Bob jumps.

(At this point, Bob jumps.  The outcome of Bob jumping is not yet known.  Note that the player can narrate what is known, and is within his control, i.e., "Bob jumps", prior to knowing the outcome.)

GM:  Roll an Acrobatics check. 

(This GM is using RCFG resolution mechanics  .  He could just as easily call for a Jump check, 3d6 or 4d6 trying to roll less than Dex, or whatever.)

PLAYER:  (Makes roll.)

GM:  (Compares roll result to what is needed, in this case a DC, but it could be some other resolution method.)  Bob leaps, but not far enough.  He falls into the 20-foot deep pit, taking (rolls 3d6) 12 points of damage.

(At this point the action is resolved.)

EDIT:  Note also that, barring special circumstances, the player could easily examine the rules given, and know that his roll failed to clear the pit.  Assuming he also knew the depth, he could have narrated the failure as well.  Ex:  "Dang!  I missed the roll.  I guess Bob falls 20 feet, taking 3d6 damage?"  The GM nods, and the player rolls.  "12 points."  Now, exactly how damaging this is to the character is unknown until the character takes stock of his injuries (which, in RCFG, is called "Shaking it Off"), but in comparison to his total hit points, and his hit points remaining, both the GM and the player know what condition the Barbarian is in, and can describe it accordingly.

So....The action begins when the player states that the PC is doing something (jumping a pit, swinging a sword, grabbing a dog by the scruff of its neck) and is resolved when every random factor/die roll is accounted for.  The actual "action" spans the period between declaration and resolution.

NEW EDIT:  Another way to look at this is that anything in the present tense or past tense can be narrated.  The future, however, is opaque. 

RC


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 20, 2011)

BryonD said:


> ]But that is quite a different point than my issue.  In 4E the mechanics come first with building a narrative to describe how the mechanic is resolved following.  It may be that you need to describe how the mechanic work, or maybe how it failed.
> 
> Over and over 4E fans praise this aspect of 4E.  So obviously it is a good thing for the target audience.  I'm not calling it bad.  I am calling it a distinction.  The games I prefer do not expect the narrative to look to the mechanics for guidance.




I am not sure this is as much of a selling point for 4E as you think. I'm a 4E player and DM, but "meta-narrative" (where mechanics are taken as absolute and in-game events made up on the fly to fit them, rather than mechanics being a way to resolve the outcomes of in-game events) annoys the hell out of me. 

I may have to do a poll on the subject.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 20, 2011)

I know that not know everyone likes the terminology that came out of the Forge, but Hussar, you might like to read a bit about IIEE (Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect).  It's a confusing topic, though; I'm not sure I get it.

edit: I should say that, while thinking about RPGs in this way helps me, I'm not trying to present it as an authority.  Reading what other people have said about these issues could be interesting, that's all.

[sblock=An example of IIEE]


Raven Crowking said:


> PLAYER:  I'd like Bob the Barbarian to jump the pit.
> 
> GM:  Remember, the pit is 20 feet across.  Are you sure you want Bob to jump?




That's Intent.



Raven Crowking said:


> PLAYER:  Yes.  Bob jumps.




Initiation.



Raven Crowking said:


> GM:  Roll an Acrobatics check.
> 
> (This GM is using RCFG resolution mechanics  .  He could just as easily call for a Jump check, 3d6 or 4d6 trying to roll less than Dex, or whatever.)
> 
> PLAYER:  (Makes roll.)




Execution.



Raven Crowking said:


> GM:  (Compares roll result to what is needed, in this case a DC, but it could be some other resolution method.)  Bob leaps, but not far enough.  He falls into the 20-foot deep pit, taking (rolls 3d6) 12 points of damage.
> 
> (At this point the action is resolved.)




Effect.

You can introduce mechanics at any step.  Intent is strange - "Roll on a table to see what your character wants."  The pre-4E Confusion spell works at this level.  Initiation is typical of Horror checks - can you even begin to take your action, or do you freeze in terror or run screaming?  Execution is generally where most RPG mechanics fit in; mechanics on Effect are things like HP and Saving Throws (the spell has been cast (Execution), now do you ignore the Effect?).[/sblock]


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 20, 2011)

Hussar said:


> This is either very deep or utter tosh, and I'm not sure which.
> 
> If you choose to perceive a message in any way other than what the originator intended, then you will have a failure to communicate.  You can self delude yourself that every side of the Rubics cube is the same color, but, it's still not going to actually solve the puzzle.
> 
> Then again, you're operating from a definition of role playing game that I just can't quite grok to be honest.  It's so reductionist that I find it very difficult to understand how you can call it role playing anymore.



Perhaps it is easier to understand when one agrees there is no such thing as a difference between reality and fantasy except by personal choice (or social agreement for a less fundamentalist approach).  

If you disagree and instead you accept that you can understand a Sender's communicated message by deciphering it, then you accept that there are such things as patterns.  And you would be in contradiction to the majority of contemporary communications theory.

Also, delusion is held as a personal identifier one creates for themselves (or is one gained through a social popularity contest).  Either way, it has nothing to do with similarity to any underlying reality.

My definition of roleplaying is coming from the roleplay simulation realm.  Learn and perform one's roles as best one can, in D&D's case the class played.  Fictional character performance is largely irrelevant.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 20, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> (At this point, Bob jumps.  The outcome of Bob jumping is not yet known.  Note that the player can narrate what is known, and is within his control, i.e., "Bob jumps", prior to knowing the outcome.)




Exactly, this is where the players narrative control comes in. When you want to do something an only have a power that includes push, and you don't want to push someone, that push dictates the player and DMs narrative control.

With the Jump, the DM had narrative control as to what was landed on, and the player had narrative control of his flailing as he fell.

Weapons use to be the things that did stuff like "push" by having abilities added to them is you wanted to via magic.

4th, that requires the powers, really cannot be played without giving up narrative control.

All editions you can roll the dice and then describe how the blows were traded between the fighter and the orc. $th edition, you can't really decide to push someone away, if not using a power that has the "push".

Now how would you so that in older editions? Well someone spelled out subdual damage or whatever it is, the non-lethal damage. This is so those who didn't get it before could have something that would tell them your blows don't always have to do damage. Otherwise to push an opponent, when you rolled your attack you and the DM would decide how much damage had to be done of the max for the attack, say has to be worth half damage, then if you get that much you have the foe be pushed away from you rather than received the damage. That, or you could use a "called shot". Called shots were your cinematic, over the top, key action scenes from past editions, where you didnt need something special to make the characters special.

When the "special moves" went from being something the player decided to being incorporated all throughout the game, it means the player loses narrative control when to use those.

You can say the player and DM can agree to not let the power push the opponent, but I would bet you would have other players whining and crying that the player isn't pulling his weight, because the system would become unbalanced leaning towards the DM. I also bet that most 4th edition players wouldn't let another, or even the DM "push" someone away from them with an attack, unless the power included it.

4th isn't I want to swing with my sword and push someone. 4th is I swing with my sword, and the power MADE me push them.

It really is funny that combat focuses heavily on the design concepts of a miniature game, when the miniature game for D&D failed.

So the action happens when a player "attempts" to do something, and the resolution just tells you how well they did. That is the players narrative control, and that is what was taken away with 4th in that it doesn't allow for as much control because the player is dictated to what things they can try.



howandwhy99 said:


> Perhaps it is easier to understand when one agrees there is no such thing as a difference between reality and fantasy except by personal choice (or social agreement for a less fundamentalist approach).
> 
> If you disagree and instead you accept that you can understand a Sender's communicated message by deciphering it, then you accept that there are such things as patterns.  And you would be in contradiction to the majority of contemporary communications theory.
> 
> ...




Did you mean to post this in the alignment thread? Cause it pretty much sums up the problems people have with alignment, where one does not understand they are not playing the character in the world today, but in a fictional world that has vast differences, and those differences you learn about through playing.

Which is a funny change to D&D, removing alignment rather than just explaining to people, in the OFFICIAL BOOKS FROM THE DESIGNERS, that alignment is based on the way the D&D world views things, not how people view things in today's world, ergo fictional like the characters being played.

You know what, I am going to copy this and my reply thus over to that thread actually.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

Lost Soul said:
			
		

> IIEE (Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect)



Whereas in a 4e "skill challenge" it's:
1) DM decides goal and context
2) DM decides level and complexity
3) DM decides what skill numbers are applicable, with what +/- factors
4) DM decides on other conditions
5) DM decides on consequences
6) Players roll dice and make up excuses for why

Now, I know that the formalism is a lot of fun for you and yours, and I wish you only more fun from it. However, for me it is dreadful. It pretty much sticks a knife in the guts of why I play RPGs in the first place, and then takes way too much time twisting the blade.

It's not at all a matter of having "skill rolls" in a game. We've had those since the 1970s, and Traveller and RuneQuest used the same basic method of play as D&D and T&T.

What _makes it_ a "4e skill challenge encounter" in the first place is the pre-determined structure. There _must_ be at least X number of dice rolls, up to so many successes or failures, to the prescribed DCs. No shortcuts around that are kosher, because rolling the dice -- pretty darned precisely just that -- is how you 'earn' the experience points.

(Even if you're so sick of it that you will gladly give up the XP in order to have a chance to try to get the in-game-world objective by implementing your own plan, the DM may be too attached to the gadgetry he's worked to build, or too inflexible to depart from a published scenario.)

It's the _ne plus ultra_ of the way 3e turned wandering monsters from strategic problem into "XP on the hoof". The drunkard's walk may be less than optimal, but now it's not too bad either. If you actually play smart enough to avoid trouble, you get stiffed XP for "not addressing the challenge". The challenge is no longer to secure an objective but rather to get maximally fouled up along the way.

It's one thing to consider things that are likely to come up, and to have notes on methods to deal with them. Every RPG "rule" book ever published, and many a magazine, has been largely devoted to providing examples of such things.

It's quite another thing to reduce player choice to such an insignificant afterthought as 4e "skill challenges" -- and the "assumption that everyone is searching everything all the time" -- do in my experience.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

shadzar said:
			
		

> edition, you can't really decide to push someone away, if not using a power that has the "push".



There's *Bull Rush*, 4e PHB page 287 -- not a Power but a move available to anyone -- but that entails shifting into the vacated space, so the subject is not actually any farther away from you unless you have pushed the subject over a cliff edge or the like.

The fighter's _Tide of Iron_ makes shifting into that space optional.

What's the appropriate trade-off for getting to do something that other fighter took a Power to be able to do? DMG page 42 offers a chandelier-swinging example. The DM is to choose one of three DCs determined by the PC's level. These are basically calculated to ensure that you never actually get better at doing anything.

In the example, the swinger gets an Easy roll on Acrobatics. The probability now gets reduced by a second roll, this time a Strength attack versus the ogre's Fortitude. While it's not explicit, my impression is that this is still the same binary pass/fail -- with failure of either roll indicating failure of the attack.

If both rolls pass, the PC gets not merely to 'push' an ogre, but to cause it a Normal Damage Expression (High) -- again, a factor based on the PC's level (as opposed to an assessment of the danger posed by a brazier of burning coals).

"You can safely use the high value, though," because the character (a rogue) could have dealt about that much damage with an encounter power and Sneak Attack.

With some foresight (e.g., considering what you want to encourage or discourage, and where getting kicked into hot coals figures on the three-level scale of nasty), you can set up interesting tactical options.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 20, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Whereas in a 4e "skill challenge" it's:
> 1) DM decides goal and context
> 2) DM decides level and complexity
> 3) DM decides what skill numbers are applicable, with what +/- factors
> ...





That's about as uncharitable a spin on the skill challenge system as I've seen. And it's about as uncreative as I've seen as well. I would recommend getting a look at *Galaxy of Intrigue* for SWSE and its treatment of skill challenges. Probably the best treatment of them I've seen out of WotC.

You could view the skill challenges in such a rigid light as you've posted, but that bears about as much relation to well-run skill challenges as a DM using the encounters detailed in a published adventure exactly as written regardless of player interaction has to a well-run game.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 20, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> NEW EDIT:  Another way to look at this is that anything in the present tense or past tense can be narrated.  The future, however, is opaque.




Yes. Reminds me of how I post on my Yahoogroups games.

The fighter runs up to the pit and he ...

<Go to online roller and roll the dice>

<Post link to roll in post>

... trips just as he gets to the pit and nose-dives into the green slime lining the bottom of the pit. 

I try to play that way.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 20, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'm not entirely sure I agree with that.



I can't force you to agree with me on anything.  But I've been in numerous discussions with 4E fans praising this specific aspect of the game.  So it really doesn't matter if you agree or not.



> 4e doesn't really care.  It just says you use this skill to open locks.  The how is left entirely to the player.  That's what it means when mechanics are divorced from narrative.  Come and Get It says that X happens.  How it happens is entirely up to the player.



But it isn't divorced.  The narrative needs to agree with the action.  In 4E the mechanics "says what happens".  Yes, the player is free to come up with any of a billion explanations for how that particular thing happened, but they are still following the lead of the mechanics.  Pop-quiz role playing

And obviously some people love it.
I don't.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 20, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> I am not sure this is as much of a selling point for 4E as you think. I'm a 4E player and DM, but "meta-narrative" (where mechanics are taken as absolute and in-game events made up on the fly to fit them, rather than mechanics being a way to resolve the outcomes of in-game events) annoys the hell out of me.



Fair enough.  I loathe the Pathfinder Regeneration system. But I still love Pathfinder overall.

I think you can find people who dislike most any individual element of an RPG but still really like the game.  My impression is that most 4E fans see it as a selling point, but perhaps when I've debated that it just naturally follows that people who do like it are the ones that discuss it.  Who knows?


----------



## Mallus (Jan 20, 2011)

billd91 said:


> That's about as uncharitable a spin on the skill challenge system as I've seen.



He tries real hard!

But don't you see, Bill, 4e is defined by the people who use the rules badly, whereas earlier editions of D&D are defined by the people who use the rules well, or not at all. I don't see how this can be any clearer...


----------



## shadzar (Jan 20, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> There's *Bull Rush*, 4e PHB page 287 -- not a Power but a move available to anyone -- but that entails shifting into the vacated space, so the subject is not actually any farther away from you unless you have pushed the subject over a cliff edge or the like.
> 
> The fighter's _Tide of Iron_ makes shifting into that space optional.
> 
> ...




Then why have "push" assigned to any power if you can do it without a specific power that has it? What if I don't want to do the damage?

If you can "push" without a power having "push" in it, then why have any powers with "push"?

This is where the mechanics dictate the flavor, as some would say, or more along my point, the mechanics are taking away narrative control. If you can add push to anything, then you should be able to likewise take it away, so why even waste time, space, and confusion adding it to anything to begin with?

Was it done just to ramp up the number of "powers"? So 4th really has nothing new to offer over older editions, except it just writes more things down for you to begin with, and the powers are really just examples of tactics you can use, and the game can be played without them?

But then playing without them would royally mess with the rest of the game that depends on those specific powers being used. 

The designers, I guess, just wanted some narrative control over each groups game then.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

billd91 said:
			
		

> That's about as uncharitable a spin on the skill challenge system as I've seen.



Well, (1) through (6) are straight from the 4e _Dungeon Master's Guide_. As for the rest, I hardly think the enthusiasts trying to "sell" people on the formalism have been presenting it uncharitably.

I was recently looking at just such a thread over at rpg,net, in which there's one example after another of the "DM decides what's to be done, and how" essence.

Strip that away, and I'm happy -- and _it's no longer a 4e "skill challenge"_. It's just playing an RPG, using the long proven method that simply has no need for the complicated construction.

It's not at all a matter of a "well run" or "poorly run" one. It's a matter of the fundamental method itself. Many people like it and dislike old-fashioned role-playing games, but my tastes are just the opposite.

I _don't want_ to be "creative" about coming up with an excuse to roll stat X some number of times. I _don't want_ to be "creative" about rationalizing why nothing I do changes the need for so many dice rolls, or by much the consequent previously established probability of success or failure.

I want to be "creative" about about *making my own plans* and seeing them succeed or fail on their own merits.

I do not want to be told a story. I do not want to tell a story.

I want to play a role-playing game.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

*Mallus* and *billd91*, and anyone else who seriously thinks my problem is not with the formalism itself but merely with "people who use the rules badly"...

Show me!

Give us an example of what _you_ think a proper application of the rules looks like.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 20, 2011)

shadzar said:
			
		

> Was it done just to ramp up the number of "powers"?



I'm just guessing here, but my guess is that WotC management came to regret the contribution of so much Open Game Content to the Open Game License initiative.

I think 4e is set up to make it more difficult for anyone to produce a "work-alike" rival. I think of the enthusiasts who say that they would _not_ be enthusiasts without WotC's computerized tools.

That replacing a huge amount of the old material with the all-new Powers material contributes to that may be just felicitous. The Powers system in detail also satisfies explicit design goals that the designers have discussed at some length. However, I doubt that carrying over much of the 3e System Resource Document was seriously an option.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I believe that the DM or player narrates what is attempted, determines what needs to be rolled (if anything), rolls the dice, and then narrates the result.
> 
> This is different than rolling the dice, and then narrating what was attempted and the result.



I agree that the two things you characterise here are different. But I don't think there is much, if any, of the latter in 4e.

The level of detail/abstraction can make a difference here. For example, in many games with social mechanics (not just 4e but 3E, Rolemaster, RQ etc) it can be common at some tables for the player to announce "I talk to her, explaining XYZ" - this is the player having his PC attempt a Persuade, let's say. Then the dice are rolled. If the check is failed, the player (or perhaps the GM) continues "Well, it's all going OK until I/you call her "Your Highness" rather than "Your Majesty" - at which points she calls for the guards and yells 'Off with his head!'" In this sort of play, the general nature of what is attempted is known before the dice are rolled, but the detail only after.

I think your jumping example elides this issue somewhat, because we can imagine the jump starting - then the dice being rolled - then the jump finishing at a certain distance. But of course, if we hold everything else equal, than that distance is predetermined at the start of the jump, by the tension in Bob's muscles, the positions of his feet etc. So even here the precise details of what Bob attempted aren't known until the dice are rolled.

An alternative that a game like 4e or HeroQuest permits, would be for Bob's player to predetermine that Bob tenses his muscles with the power of an Olympic athlete, and then to explain away a failure result on the dice as the result of an unexpected wind gust, or perhaps a last minute distraction that makes Bob shift his weight poorly. In 3E or Rolemaster this might be trickier, because at least the wind gusts should already be factored in (via a penalty on the roll) - though maybe the last minute distraction would still be an acceptable way for Bob's player to save Bob's face (ie to not be obliged to admit that Bob's jumping power is not all it's cracked up to be).



BryonD said:


> In 4E the mechanics come first with building a narrative to describe how the mechanic is resolved following.  It may be that you need to describe how the mechanic work, or maybe how it failed.



Like I said in response to RC, when it comes to action resolution I think the difference between 3E and 4e can be overdrawn sometimes. But also, as the discussion of social mechanics and Bob's jump is meant to show, while both ways of going can appear in both 3E and 4e, 4e perhaps leans a bit more in one direction than the other.

I think the difference is much more prominent on the GM's side of the screen. When it comes to building encounters, designing monsters, resolving skill challenges etc then the mechanics play a much more leading role in 4e than they do in 3E. This feature of 4e monster design, encounter building and DC setting is well known, so I don't think I have to elaborate on it.

I think it's less well noticed as a feature of GMing skill challenges. Even the rulebooks don't mention it (whereas they do mention the other things). As far as I know, the only way a new GM can work out from the rulebooks that his/her handling of a skill challenge has to be guided by metagame mechanical constraints as well as ingame causal logic is by generalising from the example of this provided in the Rules Compendium. In that example, failure on a Streetwise check to recognise a building leads to an attack by some thugs who had earlier been brushed off with a successful Intimidate check - this consequence for failing the skill challenge is not caused _in the gameworld_ by failing to recognise the building - it's not as if the thugs are guarding the building or come out of the building - the consdequence is imposed _by GM stipulation_ as a consequence for the mechanical result of skill challenge failure.

In my opinion, failing to expressly call out and discuss such an important aspect of the way the mechanics are meant to work, and leaving purely implicit in an example of play, is a textbook example of bad rules writing. Especially for a game like D&D, which at least presents itself as being playable by those without prior RPG experience.



Hussar said:


> The primary difference that I see between 3e and 4e in this case is that in 4e, the mechanics don't dictate a specific interpretation of how the event was resolved.



I agree with this, but think it's different from what RC and BryonD are talking about.

In a game like 3E, RM or RQ (as typically played) an entry on the character sheet - like Pick Locks skill or a particular spell - has only _one_ ingame meaning, determined at the time the entry is written down, and often determined even prior to that, at the time the character build rules are written.

4e, on the other hand, is happy to let this relationship between mechanics and ingame doings be re-established _every time an ability is used in play_. (Like your nice vulture-eating example of 2nd wind.)

This doesn't mean that, in a 4e game, on any given occasion that an ability is used the player isn't required to say what it is that his/her PC is attempting to do. As I explained earlier in the post, I don't think 4e differs much in _this particular respect_ from more traditional RPGs.



Hussar said:


> Until such time as a mechanically determined event is resolved in some manner, it cannot be narrated.
> 
> Note, for events that are not mechanically determined, you can narrate them any way you want, so long as the table is happy.  If I narrate that my character tap dances up to the orc, instead of walking or whatever, if the table is groovy with that, then no worries.  The mechanics couldn't care less since movement in combat is not (usually anyway) a mechanically determined event.



Makes sense to me. (Although in Rolemaster, at least, Dancing is a skill, so you'd still have to roll d100 and add your modifier, which would probably be fairly low for the typical PC.)


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

BryonD said:


> The narrative needs to agree with the action.  In 4E the mechanics "says what happens".  Yes, the player is free to come up with any of a billion explanations for how that particular thing happened, but they are still following the lead of the mechanics.  Pop-quiz role playing.



I don't think this is generally right. It certainly doesn't fit Hussar's spoon example - there the narration doesn't follow the mechanics, but vice versa - Hussar announces "My mad Kord-worshipping rogue is going to open the lock - he taps it with his wooden spoon." Then dice are rolled. Then the outcome is narrated (probably by the GM, at least in the typical D&D group).

There is no pop quiz.

I think you may be running together two things that are quite different - "pop quiz roleplaying", on the one hand, and a system of character build rules where the ingame meaning/nature of a particular PC ability is determined not once and for all when the rulebooks are written (as per RM, 3E etc) or when the character sheet is written (as per HERO, M&M, etc) but when the ability is used in play by a player.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> It's the _ne plus ultra_ of the way 3e turned wandering monsters from strategic problem into "XP on the hoof". The drunkard's walk may be less than optimal, but now it's not too bad either. If you actually play smart enough to avoid trouble, you get stiffed XP for "not addressing the challenge". The challenge is no longer to secure an objective but rather to get maximally fouled up along the way.




Funny story.  One of the last 3.5 campaigns I played in was The Red Hand of Doom.  It was a fun game, too bad the DM had real life get in the way of continuing it!

In that module, there's a timetable, and we players knew about it.  Whenever we rested for the night, we stated to the DM that we did whatever we could to draw wandering monsters to us!  Our goal was to defeat the monsters without expending any valuable resources (HP were fine, since we had a trusty Wand of Cure Light Wounds, but we wanted to hang onto spells).  In that way, we'd be higher level when we faced the challenges determined by the time table.

Good times.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 21, 2011)

Shadzar said:
			
		

> You can say the player and DM can agree to not let the power push the opponent, but I would bet you would have other players whining and crying that the player isn't pulling his weight, because the system would become unbalanced leaning towards the DM. I also bet that most 4th edition players wouldn't let another, or even the DM "push" someone away from them with an attack, unless the power included it.
> 
> 4th isn't I want to swing with my sword and push someone. 4th is I swing with my sword, and the power MADE me push them.




That's not entirely true though.  Let's not forget that you chose to take the power that pushes a target first off.  Secondly, you chose to use that power at this specific time, when you had at least half a dozen other choices you could have made, many of which will not include forced movement.

Add to that, forced movement powers are generally controller and defender powers (although not always).  If you don't want to push people, don't take those type of classes.  

It's not like you are force by the mechanics to use a specific power at a specific time.  The player had the choice to have that power in the first place and to use that power at this specific time.

On the example of Bull Rush, I believe that Shift is not forced movement.  You don't have to shift into the empty square if you choose not to.  From the Glossary:



> If a power notes a distance that you or an ally moves willingly (for example, “you shift 2 squares”), the character allowed to move can decide to move all, some, or none of that distance. Similarly, if a power forcibly moves an enemy (for example, “you push the target 3 squares”), you can decide to move the enemy all, some, or none of that distance.




Please don't take rules advice from people who have never played a game.  Funny how I get jumped up and down and screamed at if I make the slightest deviation from AD&D rules, but, the same people who get all huffy when I might not have the exact wording correct on an AD&D rule have no problem with people completely misrepresenting editions they don't like.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> But it isn't divorced. The narrative needs to agree with the action. In 4E the mechanics "says what happens". Yes, the player is free to come up with any of a billion explanations for how that particular thing happened, but they are still following the lead of the mechanics. Pop-quiz role playing




Well, of course the narrative has to agree with what happened.  That's always true.  But, it's not different really than any other edition.

A bard chooses Perform Lute at 1st level.  Every single time he uses a bard class ability that requires perform he MUST narrate that as using a lute.  He has no choice, barring training in a second instrument I suppose, in which case he is now mandated by the rules to choose between his two chosen instruments.

But, his narration is still dictated by the mechanics.  

In 4e, the player chooses a given power.  When that power is used, he can narrate it in any fashion that is acceptable to the table.  He is not forced to narrate it in one specific way.

But, again, narration of mechanically determined events is always determined by the mechanics.  You have no choice there, beyond initiating the action.  

I'm not really sure what you're arguing to be honest.  If the mechanics are divorced from the narrative, then you are free to narrate the event in any way you see fit.  If the mechanics are tied to the narrative, then the narrative is directed by the mechanics.  Are you trying to say that 4e mechanics are tied to specific narratives?

There's good an bad in both approaches really.  In 3e, you get internally consistent narratives.  The bard plays his lute to make magic happen.  Magic happens when he plays his lute.  That's consistent.  Magic doesn't happen when he plays the drum or sings.  Again, totally consistent.

But, it is trading increased consistency with decreased freedom.  The bard cannot play the drums to have his bard powers work.  The bard can't sing or recite poetry or tell a joke.  He can only play the lute.  ((Or whatever his Perform skill is in))

4e trades consistency for more freedom.  The bard can make magic happen when he plays music, tells a joke, or recites poetry.  The wizard can make magic happen with a wand, or an orb or nothing at all.  The thief can open locks with picks or chutzpah.

It's certainly less consistent.  Totally agree there.  And it runs the danger of being so inconsistent to be unbelievable which detracts from the game.

Again, and I actually agree with you on this, it's about catering to specific tastes.   3e creates a specific sort of world.  That world is mechanically defined to a very large degree.  Granted, given the MASSIVE amount of 3e material, that definition can vary a whole pile from one campaign to another.  A 4e world is far less mechanically defined.  It derives its consistency from the players, rather than the DM.  Depending on the players and the group, that can be very good or very bad.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> I'm just guessing here, but my guess is that WotC management came to regret the contribution of so much Open Game Content to the Open Game License initiative.
> 
> I think 4e is set up to make it more difficult for anyone to produce a "work-alike" rival. I think of the enthusiasts who say that they would _not_ be enthusiasts without WotC's computerized tools.
> 
> That replacing a huge amount of the old material with the all-new Powers material contributes to that may be just felicitous. The Powers system in detail also satisfies explicit design goals that the designers have discussed at some length. However, I doubt that carrying over much of the 3e System Resource Document was seriously an option.



OK, lets follow this thought for a second and say it is those reasons that so many power exist, rather than just trying to add the funky bits to them, that can be done without them, in order to have enough powers to satisfy every class, so those of a chosen class don't feel like they got left out in the design process.

So the power system is VERY important to the game in all manners of its functions, and powers exist because those specific powers are needed.

Why then does Essentials rewrite the powers system?

As I just found out, it removes the nature of Vancian powers from non-casters, so somehow the powers system isnt as integral to the game?

So where does that leave your concept?

Not to mention anyone could make powers for 4th edition...assuming I am also reading right and the GSL got finished sometime in the last few years after Linae(?) was canned.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto;5436725Show me!

Give us an example of what [i said:
			
		

> you[/i] think a proper application of the rules looks like.



There are examples in the DMG (p 77) and the Rules Compendium (pp 162-63). Neither fits your example. Both involve the players explaining what their PCs do (with or without reference to the skill their PC is intending to use - much as has been the case in most RPG play since forever). Both involve the GM assigning a DC, and adjudicating the upshot - for the PC, and for the gameworld as a whole - of the player's skill roll. And then the players responding to the changed situation.



Ariosto said:


> Whereas in a 4e "skill challenge" it's:
> 1) DM decides goal and context
> 2) DM decides level and complexity
> 3) DM decides what skill numbers are applicable, with what +/- factors
> ...



Here are the quotes from the DMG, itemised by your points (the passages are found on pp 72-75):

(1), (2) and (4): More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure… Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge.​
This does not say that the GM sets the goal. It says the GM defines the challenge. The meaning of this is perhaps ambiguous, but I think the examples make it pretty clear that what is intended is that the GM has authority over the starting situation. Much like the GM "defines the environment" of a dungeon, by populating rooms, specifying wall and door strength, etc. This is pretty traditional stuff, I think.

This will also involve defining level and complexity. Defining level is perhaps less traditional - although it is traditional that a GM gets to set DCs, it is not traditional that the level of the encounter stipulates parameters for the GM to work within. As per my response above to BryonD, I think this is one of the key areas where 4e follows a "mechanics first, story second" approach.

But this does not thwart any player agency, anymore than specifying a DC based on whether the door is made of wood or mithral thwarts player agency.

(3) You can also make use of the “DM’s best friend” rule to reward particularly creative uses of skills (or penalise the opposite) by giving a character a +2 bonus or -2 penalty to the check.​
This is not radically different from many RPGs - 3E has a similar rule, I believe, and so do some anime/cinematic martial arts games, I think.

What step (3) presupposes, of course, is that a skill check has been attempted. In your list of steps, you leave this out. Here is the relevant rules text:

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it… In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth… However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing …​
Your presentation of (5) and (6) seems to be confused about the temporal sequence of events in the course of play. Here is the relevant rules text, first from the PHB (pp 259 and 179) and then from the DMG:

Rules for players
Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail…

It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.

Rules for GMs
Then, depending on the success or failure of the check, describe the consequences and go on to the next action.​
So the notion that players roll dice and "make up excuses" has no basis in the rulebooks. The GM describes a situation. The player chooses a skill whereby s/he wants her/his PC to respond to the situation. The GM specifies a DC (or may have done so in advance, if s/he anticipated that skill use in writing up notes for the encounter). A die is rolled and the skill check result determined. The GM then narrates the consequences of what it is the PC attempted, and in doing so is obliged by the rules of the game to have regard to whether the skill check succeed or failed.

The description just given doesn't distinguish a skill challenge from resolving encounters in Travelller or Runequest, but there is a difference. The difference in setting DCs - guided by encounter level as a priority, with the ingame fiction to accommodate that, rather than vice versa - has already been noted earlier in this post. The other difference is that, by the rules, the PCs succeed at their goal if they get a certain number of succeses before 3 failures. This puts a burden on the GM to narrate the consequences of success and failure in such a way that this sort of resolution can emerge from the ingame situation. In my own experience with skill challenges, this is the most challenging aspect of GMing them (it resembles the way in which an unfolding HeroQuest/Wars extended contest must be narrated).

One of the techniques the GM must be prepared to use as part of this narration is to have events occur in the gameworld, in response to skill checks (particularly failures thereof), whose logic is determined not by ingame cause but metagame cause. I talked about this in an earlier post, and criticised the skill challenge rules for failing to make this point explicit and instead relying on an example to demonstrate it.



Ariosto said:


> Strip that away, and I'm happy -- and _it's no longer a 4e "skill challenge"_. It's just playing an RPG, using the long proven method that simply has no need for the complicated construction.



Despite the errors in your presentation of (1) to (6), you are correct that there is a complicated construction that differs from what is traditional in playing an RPG like Traveller, Runequest etc.

In this post I've tried to explain what that complicated construction is, and how it differs from tradition - basically in DC setting, and in the "successes before failures" constraint on resolution.

As to whether it's a good thing or not, that's a matter of taste. Having spent many years GMing "freeform" social interactions using Rolemaster - freeform in the sense that, while there are social skill checks that are made, the game leaves it up to me as GM to determine when enough checks have been made to persuade an NPC - I quite like having a structure. I've also used it to make overland travel an engaging part of my games again - I find it works much better than just clocking off the days and rolling for encounters.

Others who are looking for different experiences from an RPG might of course prefer other approaches.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> On the example of Bull Rush, I believe that Shift is not forced movement.  You don't have to shift into the empty square if you choose not to.  From the Glossary:




Again, why have it built into the power in the first place. Why not just let the powers do whatever they do, and let this "push" be referred to ONLY when the player wants to enable it?

That is the main thing about this "cool" powers, that they are prebuilt tactics that are supposed to help people tell a story with fancy cinematic maneuvers, but for others, it constrains them TO those specific maneuvers.

So why have the "push" or "shift" built in, if it can be ignored at all times, then it should be able to be added to ANYTHING at all times. Magic Missile type things that don't have a real "force" behind it to "push" that is. (Cause I am SO tired of getting into that argument which is simple that some people say it should and play it that way, others disagree; so each should play their own way with Magic Missile.)


----------



## billd91 (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> *Mallus* and *billd91*, and anyone else who seriously thinks my problem is not with the formalism itself but merely with "people who use the rules badly"...
> 
> Show me!
> 
> Give us an example of what _you_ think a proper application of the rules looks like.




It's all just a question of using multiple skill checks to get to one overall result. Suppose you had a group of people playing Traveller. They are in a scout ship and have to try to intercept a fuel tanker rigged to explode when it reaches the a mining station in the asteroid belt. Their long range communications array has been damaged by the terrorists who planted the bomb. The end result is keeping the tanker from exploding where it can damage the station. The players start trying to do what they think will help the situation. The navigator tries to plot a course that will shorten their intercept distance. The pilot tries to cut corners skirting asteroids to cut the time. The engineer tries to eke a little more speed out of the thrusters. Commo/sensors scans for hazards in the way. The GM rules that gaining a certain number of successes before a certain number of failures will result in a successful interception. But it's possible for one or more of the checks to fail as long as enough succeed to enable the interception to occur.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> There _must_ be at least X number of dice rolls, up to so many successes or failures, to the prescribed DCs. No shortcuts around that are kosher, because rolling the dice -- pretty darned precisely just that -- is how you 'earn' the experience points.





Ariosto said:


> I _don't want_ to be "creative" about coming up with an excuse to roll stat X some number of times. I _don't want_ to be "creative" about rationalizing why nothing I do changes the need for so many dice rolls, or by much the consequent previously established probability of success or failure.
> 
> I want to be "creative" about about *making my own plans* and seeing them succeed or fail on their own merits.



This feature of skill challenges is not very different from the fact that no matter how creative my PC's plan in the arena, I _must_ hit the monster a certain number of times to eliminate its hit points.

One imagines that, on occassion, there will be circumstances in the arena combat in which something so unexpected happens that the monster's hit points become irrelevant. Perhaps I find a way to trick it into stepping into a sphere of annihiliation.

The same can equally be true of a skill challenge. In fact, DMG2 makes the point expressly (at page 82):

Is there a chance that a really good idea could completely trump your skill challenge? Don't fret! That's a good thing. D&D is a game about creativity and imagination. . . When you build a skill challenge, be prepared for it to head in a direction you didn't anticipate or for the party to fail utterly. That way, the game moves on regardless of what happens with the challenge.​
I don't think this is very radical stuff, though.

The stuff about earning XP is more interesting. DMG 2 made a significant addition to the XP rules - one monster's XP for every 15 minutes of significant, focused roleplaying. Essentials has made a further significant addition - XP for a skill challenge are received whether the PCs succeed or fail at the challenge.

This is consistent with the notion that the main function of XP in 4e is to generate a change in PC level over time _regardless of what exactly the PC's are doing in the gameworld_. This in turn would fit in with the notion of levels in 4e, and particularly the half-level bump to attacks/skills/defences, that I have been articulating since the game was published, that they produce a game in which "the story of D&D unfolds" - first the PCs fight goblins, then gnolls, then trolls and ogres, then drow, then demons, then Lolth and Orcus. It's not so much about ingame power-ups (paragon paths and epic destinies represent this).

So the upshot is that circumventing the skill challenge won't cost XP - because the time spent doing other things (roleplaying, fighting, another skill challenge) will substitute for it.

Again, not everyone wants to play this sort of game. But some do.

(Oddly, then, 4e is in this respect perhaps closer to Classic Traveller than to classic D&D - the aim of play is not to accumulate the most XP for the least risk, but simply to pursue the goals of the PCs within the gameworld. Level ups help shape the changing character of that gameworld relative to the PCs - that it, at higher level they will meet more demons and fewer goblins - and also give the players new tricks to enjoy, with new powers, retraining, etc. But they don't bring the PCs closer to achieving their goals, which have to be understood in purely ingame terms.)


----------



## Hussar (Jan 21, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Again, why have it built into the power in the first place. Why not just let the powers do whatever they do, and let this "push" be referred to ONLY when the player wants to enable it?
> 
> That is the main thing about this "cool" powers, that they are prebuilt tactics that are supposed to help people tell a story with fancy cinematic maneuvers, but for others, it constrains them TO those specific maneuvers.
> 
> So why have the "push" or "shift" built in, if it can be ignored at all times, then it should be able to be added to ANYTHING at all times. Magic Missile type things that don't have a real "force" behind it to "push" that is. (Cause I am SO tired of getting into that argument which is simple that some people say it should and play it that way, others disagree; so each should play their own way with Magic Missile.)




Shadzar, first off, it's very difficult to have this conversation when you insist on failings in the mechanics when it's pretty obvious you have very little idea of what the mechanics actually are.  It's like arguing how bad a certain make of car is when you've never driven it, never seen it, and are only going on third hand reports by people who also have never driven it or seen it.

First.  Bull Rush is a specific maneuver.  It does no damage.  All it does is move a target.  Specific powers with push mechanics sometimes include a shift and other times don't.  Depending on the power, you can push the target away (possibly further than 1 square) and on others, other effects will occur.  

Let's not forget that there are quite literally around a hundred different effects for each class spread over 30 levels.  Some are pretty similar, and others are not.  The effects will be broadly grouped by the class' role - striker, defender, whatnot, although there is some cross pollination as well.  For example, a warlock (a striker) has a number of controllery type powers - forced movement, debuffs, that sort of thing.

Also keep in mind that every character has a pretty lenghty shopping list of effects to choose from.  By 5th level, you have a bare minimum of 7 powers, plus class abilities to choose from, at least two of which are generally usable out of combat.  This number will only increase as you go up levels.  And, these choices are in addition to basic maneuvers available to everyone, and to skills and magic items.

Lack of choices is not really a valid criticism for 4e.  You typically have a boatload of choices, all mechanically defined.  That's not counting thinking outside the box and trying to do stuff that isn't specifically described, such as tapping locks with a spoon.  

Yes, if you use a specific power, that power will have specific mechanical effects.  Again, this is no different than any other edition - if a wizard casts a spell, if a bard uses a class ability, if the fighter swings a weapon, these are all specifically, mechanically defined.

Even adding in things like called shots from 2e are still specifically defined.  You try to perform the specific called shot, you take either a -4 or -8 (for a head shot) penalty to your attack and a successful attack has a specified effect (Complete Fighter's Handbook has the details).  

Where D&D did allow for narrative control was in places where there were no mechanics at all.  Social interactions in 1e and 2e, for example, had very little mechanical resolution beyond some very basic Charisma checks.  If you wanted to bluff the guard, you had to talk to your DM and your DM determined by fiat (mostly) whether the guard believed you or not.

Since 3e, we've had mechanics for that same interaction.  Most RPG's now have social interaction mechanics of one sort or another for a variety of reasons.  Whether you like those reasons or not is a matter of personal taste.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

shadzar said:


> So why have the "push" or "shift" built in, if it can be ignored at all times, then it should be able to be added to ANYTHING at all times.



It's a matter of taste.

A game in which some players can switch on forced movement but others can't (i) might have better mechanical balance, and (ii) might encourage more interesting tactical play.

Or it might not. It would depend on how good the design was.

In AD&D only clerics can heal significant amounts of injury. In some other games anyone can (by attempting a First Aid or Heal check). Which is the better game? Again, it's a matter of taste.

In AD&D if I know the fireball spell I can create a 20' R ball of fire, but not a 5' R ball of fire. And I can't create fireworks. (I need pyrotechnics for that.) In some other games any PC can do attempt any of these things at any time. Or any PC with the Fire Magic ability may attempt any of them.

The idea that certain PC abilities are distributed across various particular PCs according to constraints built into the PC build rules is hardly novel to 4e. It's a feature of most RPGs.

Some people - particularly many traditional D&D players - seem to prefer a system where magic use is very heavily constrained by the character build rules, but displays of physical prowess are not. It's obvious that 4e departs from this model. But, like I said, I can't see that this is anything more than a taste thing.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Despite the errors in your presentation of (1) to (6)...



Which would be what?


			
				DMG pp 72-74 said:
			
		

> Follow these steps to design skill challenges for your adventures....
> Step 1: Goal and Context...
> Step 2: Level and Complexity...
> Step 3: Skills...
> ...



compared with


			
				me said:
			
		

> 1) DM decides goal and context
> 2) DM decides level and complexity
> 3) DM decides what skill numbers are applicable, with what +/- factors
> 4) DM decides on other conditions
> ...


----------



## shadzar (Jan 21, 2011)

pemerton said:


> It's a matter of taste.
> 
> A game in which some players can switch on forced movement but others can't (i) might have better mechanical balance, and (ii) might encourage more interesting tactical play.
> 
> ...




So all classes don't have a power that can "push"? If they do, then that taste is lost.

I am not saying fighters should be able to throw fireballs, neither are you, but something like the "push" is not even similar.

I guess it does really just boil down to the people that thought fighters were useless somehow because after level X the wizard could mimic any other class. So they had to do something for those people that couldn't see the fighter a anything but useless. Feels like too much competition to me, rather than cooperation.

C'est la vie.

And we know that is why the powers system itself exists so that "all classes would have something "cool" to do at every level"....or whatever the thing is they said to promote 4th and its powers system.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

Hussar said:
			
		

> On the example of Bull Rush, I believe that Shift is not forced movement. You don't have to shift into the empty square if you choose not to. From the Glossary:



In that case, Bull Rush alone gets the job done. Thanks!

Still, it was an excuse to show how one can use DMG page 42 to come up with numbers for various maneuvers. No doubt that has been considerably expanded upon in subsequent works.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 21, 2011)

Hrm, I'm not sure if all classes have an ability that can push, specifically.  I know that you are certainly not forced to take those powers, even if they exist.  Some do and some don't have specific abilities.  Push is a pretty basic element of 4e combat where the focus on movement and positioning is so important, so, I'd be rather surprised if all classes didn't have push somewhere in their list.  Again, not that you have to take that specific power.

What more typically happens is some classes and builds focus on forced movement abilities and others don't.  Strikers, generally, don't for example.  They're more about dealing damage than moving stuff around the battlefield.  Other classes might dabble in it and others might focus in it.  A warlord, for example, doesn't have a lot of forced movement powers, but, it does have a lot of ally movement powers - use this power to let an ally shift or get a free move action or whatever.  That's their schtick.

In a way, I think it boils down to whether or not you think classes represent strict archetypes or not.  In earlier editions, a class was a very strong archetype and you were heavily penalized for stepping out of that.  A wizard cannot wear armor and cast spells, has a very limited weapon choice, and extremely poor attack bonus meaning that if I go all Gandalf on someone and start attacking with a sword in one hand and a staff in the other, I'm going to die very, very quickly.

A wizard must use specific components to cast a spell.  A wizard must perform mechanically required actions (verbal/somatic actions) to cast a spell.  A wizard cannot cast spells in armor, or, in 3e, can cast spells in armor but will fail to cast sometimes.  A wizard will lose his memorized spell after casting.  His spells will always look exactly the same - duration, area of effect, saving throws are all mechanically dictated.

And, in some editions, if I choose to step outside of that archetype, I'm penalized by the training rules and forced to spend character resources.  So, Gandalf would be spending two or three times as much money and time training for new levels as Aragorn would.

3e weakened the archetypes considerably, but still has fairly strong ones.  This is why you see a bajillion different classes.  Every archetype is a new class.  If you want an armored wizard, play a War Wizard.  If you want a scholarly wizard, play that class.  So one and so forth.

4e weakens archetypes even further.  Class is really just a bag of abilities centered around a specific (typically combat) theme.  It mixes in a fair bit of point buy class concepts - each level you have a list of three or four options (more once you go beyond core) for a new ability to add to your character.  It's similar to how point buy works - each time the PC is rewarded, he can buy new skills or improve existing ones.

It's still a class based system.  But, it's further removed from the traditional classes as strong archetypes to a much larger degree than 3e was.  So, my human rogue takes an ability from the cleric list as his racial ability, and becomes a prophet of his mighty thewitude, Kord.

Not that I couldn't do that in 3e.  In 3e, I'd take a level of cleric to do the same thing.  But, that comes with it's own shopping list of issues as well.

I'm not saying you can't do things in one system or another.  Just that their approach to the goals are different.  The goals remain largely the same.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Which would be what?



Your step 6, and your failure to give an accurate account of how skill selection and skill check resolution feed into the way the situation evolves over the course of the challenge.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> There are examples in the DMG (p 77) and the Rules Compendium (pp 162-63).



I don't have the latter.

The former states right off the bat:
*Setup:* For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way.
*Level:* Equal to the level of the party.
*Complexity:* 3 (requires 8 successes before 4 failures).
*Primary Skills:* Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight.
_Bluff (moderate DCs):_...
_Diplomacy (moderate DCs):_ You entreat the NPC for aid in your quest. First success with this skill opens up the use of the History skill (the NPC mentions an event from the past that has significance to him)....

I don't need that, and I don't want that. It demands a lot of work I don't want, and in return delivers nothing but a lot of restrictions I don't want. There's not a single appealing thing here for me.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> [good stuff about archetypes]




Seems likely the reason most boils down to for change is like cropping a photo. You can't shrink it anymore to get more people into it, and have to be within X margins, so you are just trying to figure out where to crop it to get the less people ticked off they aren't in the picture.

I don't agree with your archetypes analysis exactly, but could simply be key, again tastes...such as the entire discussion about where the narrative control has been moved, and why it exists where it is within each edition.

I think we all agree, that it was changed, or we wouldn't be in this thread discussing the reason behind the change.

Which can only bring us back to the question, why change?

I can only see it as said by Mel Brooks in Spaceballs, and apply that to D&D editions...."See you again _Spaceballs 2: The Quest for More Money._"


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This is pretty traditional stuff, I think.



Not in the tradition of role-playing games with which I have been very well acquainted, starting with Original D&D and including the majority of commercially published ones until (I think) sometime in the 1990s.

Of course, people who have never known anything but stuff like the crap that TSR and White Wolf and others started to shovel out in the late '80s, the "illusionism" and "thespianism" and yadda yadda -- people who take that as normative and simply "the way it's done" -- can impose that on *any game they please*.

It's not as if 2e AD&D or Vampire had some new kind of "mechanics" for that "playstyle".

Hell, I used to do that baloney in the early '80s while playing Gin Rummy with a girlfriend. Guess I should have padded the explanation to a few thousand pages and sold it. (Actually, I did develop over a number of years something quite like Robin Laws's Hero Wars rules set. Then I dropped it, partly for reasons that became clear all over after  I bought HW.)


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It's all just a question of using multiple skill checks to get to one overall result.



No, it's not. It's the "4e skill challenge".


> Suppose you had a group of people playing Traveller.



Then we would not be using "4e skill challenges".


> They are in a scout ship and have to try to intercept a fuel tanker rigged to explode when it reaches the a mining station in the asteroid belt.



Says who?


> The players start trying to do what they think will help the situation.



And either it does or it does not. That depends on
(A) the situation
and
(B) what they are doing
and
(C) usually a chance factor to represent the myriad imponderables that Von Clausewitz called "friction".

What it does _not_ depend upon is the arbitrary structure of a "4e skill challenge".

If I light a wood fire, then there is a fire. If you pour on enough water, then the result is dead ashes; too little, and the result is still hot embers. In the latter case, the addition of tinder may get the fire going again.

See? There are causes and effects, not "X successes before 3 failures". Choose a cause of failure -- such as pouring kerosene instead of water when you want to put out the fire -- and you get failure. Choose a cause of sooner success -- such as applying Aquaeus Fire Fighting Foam -- and you get success sooner.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This feature of skill challenges is not very different from the fact that no matter how creative my PC's plan in the arena, I _must_ hit the monster a certain number of times to eliminate its hit points.



That's not any rules set I want to play!

I like games in which it generally takes fewer bursts from a Sten gun, or fewer droppings of half-tonne boulders, or fewer falls onto poisoned Punji stakes, or fewer trip-wired grenades, than punches with a cestus (which tends in turn to beat a bare fist, which usually is better than a limp noodle).

I like causes and effects that have some passably reasonable connection.

I also like _role-playing games_ that don't consist of being stuck in an arena and having to fight a monster to the death or "lose the scenario".

When I want a _wargame_, I've got a number that are much, much more to my taste than 4e.



> This is consistent with the notion that the main function of XP in 4e is to generate a change in PC level over time _regardless of what exactly the PC's are doing in the gameworld_.



There's another thing I don't need, or want, or find in the least appealing. It sure as hell has nothing to do with the commitment of resources necessary for character improvement -- from physical training to skill training to wealth and position -- in Traveller.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 21, 2011)

Here's the structure of an "arbitrary" skill challenge I am going to include in my game.

Create a Magic Item.
0. Acquire sufficient resources.  This means an amount of ritual components (the specific type related to the item to be created) that have a value equal to a random monetary treasure parcel of the item's desired level, and the base item - a sword, suit of armour, deck of playing cards, etc.

1. Imbue the components with magic.  You take the components and mix them together while releasing magical energies into them.  This step determines the abilities the item will have; this depends on your available spells, your level, and the desired level of the item.  Acid Arrow could be used to create a sword that spits or coats itself in acid, for example.
Failure at this step can result in unintended abilities or simply the expenditure of the components.  If the latter happens, the process must be repeated.
This step takes two days.

2. Imbue the item with the now-magical components.  You bind the components to the item, infusing the item with magical energy.
Failure at this step can result in explosions, malfunctions, unintended abilities, etc.  There will be a table for this.  If the components or item is lost or destroyed, the process must begin again from the start.
This step also takes two days.

3. Seal the magic in the item.  This makes the item permanent; failure might mean that the magic is lost after a single use, or perhaps the magic seeps out into other items and areas, causing all sorts of hassles.  When a one-shot magic item is desired, this step can be skipped.
This step takes two days.

4. Engage in a battle of wills with the item.  You either keep the item from forming goals and desires of its own or you shape those goals and desires to your own wishes.  Failure means that the item is cursed; there's a table for that.  If you don't care if the item is cursed or not, this step can be skipped.
This step takes one day.

Of course, if you have access to a _wish_ or other factors that aid in creation of magic items, you may be able to bypass one or more steps.


----------



## Superking (Jan 21, 2011)

"That is the main thing about this "cool" powers, that they are prebuilt tactics that are supposed to help people tell a story with fancy cinematic maneuvers, but for others, it constrains them TO those specific maneuvers."


The players can choose which powers their PC would like to use though...  They are free to describe them however they wish.  So it is a matter of choosing which effects best describe what they want to do.  To me this can open the door for signature moves and all sorts of creativity. 

I guess for others they may feel this limits their options.  

In my group combats often came to simple roll to hit and do x damage.  So I would welcome anything that adds color or complexity to the battle.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Social interactions in 1e and 2e, for example, had very little mechanical resolution beyond some very basic Charisma checks. If you wanted to bluff the guard, you had to talk to your DM and your DM determined by fiat (mostly) whether the guard believed you or not.



I'm not seeing that. A while ago, someone claimed that a particular 3e skill (I think it was Diplomacy) was effectively an at-will Charm Person. I looked it up in the rule books, and I saw nothing to that effect.

The method in its essentials is just the same: You attempt something, and the DM sets a probability. Only, now the difference between your Diplomacy number and someone else's may make a difference in the probabilities.

The table in OD&D uses a 2d6 curve with only 1/36 chance of either of the most extreme results. AD&D specifies 1d100 (but uses it as 1d20). The 3e approach uses 1d20. 

I think the AD&D DMG has a lot more modifiers listed than the 3.5 PHB and DMG, but I guess I could have missed some tables.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> I'm not seeing that. A while ago, someone claimed that a particular 3e skill (I think it was Diplomacy) was effectively an at-will Charm Person. I looked it up in the rule books, and I saw nothing to that effect.
> 
> The method in its essentials is just the same: You attempt something, and the DM sets a probability. Only, now the difference between your Diplomacy number and someone else's may make a difference in the probabilities.
> 
> ...






> Reaction Adjustment indicates the penalty or bonus due to the character because of Charisma when dealing with nonplayer characters and intelligent creatures.




There is your entire "diplomacy" mechanic in AD&D. It offers penalty or bonus to attempt, roll your Charisma check, and add the modifier.

Roll d20, add modifier, consult CHA stat on your character sheet to see if you passed or failed.

As streamlined as you can get.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

Lost Soul said:
			
		

> Here's the structure of an "arbitrary" skill challenge I am going to include in my game.



Well, it's only a "skill challenge" if enough bad rolls at the yard sale to get money to get ritual components mean that -- even if you eventually get the components, and imbue the components with magic, and imbue the item with the now-magical components, and seal the magic in the item -- a single bad roll in the battle of wills with the item means you screwed that up. Because, obviously, it made all the difference when you got less than Overstreet for the complete _Batman: Year One_ you looted from the Robot's Dungeon.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 21, 2011)

Superking said:


> The players can choose which powers their PC would like to use though...  They are free to describe them however they wish.  So it is a matter of choosing which effects best describe what they want to do.  To me this can open the door for signature moves and all sorts of creativity.



Certainly there is a ton of freedom on the creation end.  But once you get into play, you have what you picked.  



> I guess for others they may feel this limits their options.



Limits?  I don't see that.  It in no way limits options, it just limits the quality of the mechanical simulation of many options.  You can choose from the same infinite universe under either system.  But when the mechanics lead, the further the choice falls from the mechanical expectation, the less quality the result has.  Of course you can avoid that by being careful to choose options that fit.  But now we are to the difference between having your options limited and having the mechanics bias the options.



> In my group combats often came to simple roll to hit and do x damage.  So I would welcome anything that adds color or complexity to the battle.



And, as so often happens, we get to the root of it.  To coin a phrase, "there's your problem".

If your group can't get past this, then the cruch of pop quiz gaming probably *IS* better for you.  But, by your own words, without that you just went to simple roll to hit and do x damage.  You are not comparing what CAN be to what 4E is, you are just comparing next to nothing to 4E.  

Trust me, if you can bring the color and compexity without the mechanics leading you, the value goes to the next level.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

shadzar said:
			
		

> There is your entire "diplomacy" mechanic in AD&D. It offers penalty or bonus to attempt, roll your Charisma check, and add the modifier.
> 
> Roll d20, add modifier, consult CHA stat on your character sheet to see if you passed or failed.
> 
> As streamlined as you can get.



Maybe you're thinking of 2e.

1st DMG, p. 63:


> Reaction is determined by rolling percentile dice, adjusting the score for charisma *and applicable loyalty adjustment as if the creature were a henchman of the character speaking.*



The table of Loyalty Base Modifiers has 66 possible values, in 10 categories, if I have not erred in counting. These have largely to do with _prior behavior toward_ the creature in question.

Moreover, modified results of 25 or less include "or morale check if appropriate". That introduces more tables of modifiers and results.

At the end of the day, in any of those games, it is still up to the DM to interpret the subjective quality of response and combine it with the particulars of PC proposition and NPC interests to determine the details of appropriate resultant behavior.

In 1st ed. AD&D, it is made plain that no amount of dice-rolling is going to accomplish certain things even with one's own most loyal henchmen (including some given special attention because players are likely to try to "game the system" in certain ways).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

shadzar said:


> So all classes don't have a power that can "push"? If they do, then that taste is lost.



Look, I'm really at a bit of a loss here as to how familiar you actually are with 4e. Some of your posts have a tone which suggest a high degree of familiarity. Others make me think, as Hussar does, that you don't know much about the system at all.

So I can't tell if the question I've quoted is meant to be rhetorical or not.

Assuming that it's not, then the answer is: all PCs have access to the Bull Rush power, which allows a STR-based push that deals no damage. The sorts of PCs from the PHB who are likely to have a STR that makes this tactic have a viable chance of success are some Clerics (melee-based ones), some Paladins (non-CHA based ones), Fighters, some Rangers (two-weapon ones), some Rogues (brual scoundrels) and Warlords. Most of these would have some access to class-specific powers with generally better forced movement effects (often combined with damage). I think Fighters would probably have the best such access, as they tend to be the most controller-y of the weapon-using classes.

So the fact that all classes have access to a power that can push (namely, Bull Rush), and that a number of classes might be able to make good use of that power, and that most of those classes might also have access to class-specific powers that grant forced movement, doesn't change the fact that, in play, the different classes play pretty differently, giving rise to interesting tactical options.

The party that I GM has a polearm-wielding dwarf fighter, a generalist wizard, a drow sorcerer, a cleric|ranger-archer and a CHA paladin. In combat, the fighter is the most obvious controller, using a combination of reach and forced movement to shape the melee situation. The paladin tends to hold the line and lock up one foe (or sometimes a few foes for a brief period) - but while he can mostly soak their attacks (through a combination of marking and immediate actions) he can't control their movement very well. He also does some healing and buffing. The wizard tends to make ranged attacks which are a mixture of multi-target damage and control, including some terrain effects, teleportation and dazing. The sorcerer can operate both at range and in close - he uses his drow darkness ability to shield him and grant combat advantage, and does a lot of damage with a little bit of secondary control (including a little bit of forced movement). The cleric|ranger's main function is to do damage with bowfire, and he also does some healing - more than the paladin, but not a huge amount more.

Now of course, in any given combat, the paladin could try bull rushing, the wizard could try punching enemies up close using fists, the ranger could draw a sword (he carries two, and has a reasonable AC) and charge into melee, etc. But it doesn't happen. Each PC is built to emphasise certain strengths and weaknesses. Some of that is determined by class selection, and some by subsequent power and feat selections. The PCs don't come across remotely the same at the table, even though all have at least some access to forced movement powers.

That's not to say that sometimes strange things don't happen. In the last session a combat started in which the sorcerer ended up holding the front line - due in part to an attack from the rear which left the paladin in the wrong position, and in part because the fighter was down to about 20 hp with no surges left, and hence was hiding in the middle of the party attacking with reach over the sorcerer's shoulder. One time, the wizard not only got an opportunity attack (using his Tome of Replenishing Flame as an improvised weapon) but he hit and critted on that attack, and therefore actually killed the monster in question (I let him have the +2d10 fire damage from his Tome, on grounds that when you crit with a Tome of Replenishing Flame as an improvised weapon it has undoubtedly burst into flame in the face of the enemy.)

But when things are going optimally for the party they are not relying on the wizard to kill things in melee, or on the paladin or archer to be in charge of the forced movement.

(And in case someone comes in to say that PC differentiation applies only in combat, I should mention that the PCs are very different in skill challenges also - the wizard a scholar and diplomat, the paladin a diplomat and priest, the sorcerer (a DEX/CHA build) a manipulator and sneak, the fighter a tongue-tied and ignorant athlete, and the cleric|ranger a wilderness scout. Which is not to say that the dwarf doesn't from time to time find himself trying to bluff or be diplomatic. It's just that when those times come, it tends to mean something unexpected happend to throw the party of their standard operating procedure.)


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> I don't have the latter.
> 
> The former states right off the bat:
> *Setup:* For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way.
> ...



Your reference here is not to the example of play, but the descrition of the skill challenge preceding it.

You read it as a set of restrictions. I read it as analagous to a GM's encounter notes - the GM has described a set up, and made some notes as to the likely options the players will choose for their PCs, and how these might play out. It's a bit like the sample scenarios at the back of the narrator's book for HeroWars, which describe some scenarios, the contests that are likely to arise within them, and how a GM might handle them being played out.

The most striking thing here is that the GM has decided that the first time a PC succeeds in generating some sympathy from the NPC (via successful use of the diplomacy skill), the NPC will reflect on a relevant historical fact, which the PCs can then build upon to further get the NPC onside. This is analgous to notes for a dungeon room that say "Orlaf the ogre will genrally attack, but if a PC attempts to parley by mentioning that s/he once new Orlaf's brother Rolaf, Orlaf will delay his attacks by at least one round."

Some people thinks those sorts of encounter notes help play. Others don't. Personally I don't mind making a few such notes in advance, if I think of something that seems like it will be interesting at the table. I've never prepared a skill challenge in the same degree of detail as the publihsed examples do, but then in nearly 30 years of GMing I've never written up a location in the same degree of detail as published modules do, either.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> You read it as a set of restrictions. I read it as analagous to a GM's encounter notes - the GM has described a set up, and made some notes as to the likely options the players will choose for their PCs, and how these might play out.



I read the freaking rule book, the designers' own explanation of their intent, the plain instructions.

Never mind all that, though.

I've got no need for "something analogous to" whatever I actually find useful, when I can -- much more easily -- have what I actually find useful instead.

*Why should I* go through all that jive to prepare a "4e skill challenge encounter" if I'm not going to run a "4e skill challenge encounter"?

The whole contraption is a self-referential self-justification. Why all the work? To make a 4e skill challenge encounter. Why do we have to jump through these hoops? Because that's the 4e skill challenge encounter I made. Yes, but why do we need a 4e skill challenge encounter? Why can't we just play out whatever actions we choose to undertake, and make whatever rolls those actually happen in the event to require?

*No reason*, as far as I'm concerned. As I have already said: It adds nothing I need, want, or find in the least appealing.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Not in the tradition of role-playing games with which I have been very well acquainted, starting with Original D&D and including the majority of commercially published ones until (I think) sometime in the 1990s.
> 
> Of course, people who have never known anything but stuff like the crap that TSR and White Wolf and others started to shovel out in the late '80s, the "illusionism" and "thespianism" and yadda yadda -- people who take that as normative and simply "the way it's done" -- can impose that on *any game they please*.



Ariosto, I've been playing the game since 1982. I started on Moldvay Red Box. As far as I can tell (by comparing you posting record with my own knowledge) I know the 1st AD&D rules as well as you do. I also know and have played RQ, CoC, Rolemaster, Classic Traveller, Pendragon and Stormbringer/Elric, to name some RPGs that fit your description of "commerically published RPGs until the mid 1990s".

I know the way in which a skill challenge resembles skill-based action resolution games, and the way it differs from them. I've pointed out those differences in great detail in my posts upthread.

But the notion that skill challenges are intended to play like a 2nd ed/White Wolf railroad is ludicrous. You seem to be extracting this from the phrase "Setup: For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way." As if the GM has forced the players into this setup. When it is obvious to anyone who reads the 4e DMG that the presupposition here is that _there is an NPC whose help the PCs are trying to obtain_.

From the fact that my dungeon key contains an entry "Room 10: 3 orcs who attack on sight" it doesn't follow that any PC will be attacked. Maybe they won't go to the room. Maybe they won't be seen. Heck, maybe they are seen but get of Mass Charm first, or through some other stratagem bring it about that the orcs don't attack on sight.

Likewise, if the PCs never find themselves needing to persuade an NPC to provide help, the negotiation skill challenge won't come into play. (And for those who missed it the first time, the passage I quoted from DMG2 makes it utterly explicit.)

The difference from traditional games isn't the presence or absence of railroad. It's the structure in terms of DC setting and relationship between successful skill checks and resolution. And this isn't an "innovation" borrowed from 2nd ed AD&D or White Wolf. It's very obviously borrowed from "indie" games like Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth (that one may techncially not be indie) etc.



Ariosto said:


> The table of Loyalty Base Modifiers has 66 possible values, in 10 categories, if I have not erred in counting. These have largely to do with _prior behavior toward_ the creature in question.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In 1st ed. AD&D, it is made plain that no amount of dice-rolling is going to accomplish certain things even with one's own most loyal henchmen (including some given special attention because players are likely to try to "game the system" in certain ways).



In a "loyalty" skill challenge in 4e one would expect the GM to have regard to prior behaviour towards the creature in determining complexity and DCs. (Like the DMG says, "more so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure.")

Also, in 4e, some things can't be accomplished despite dice rolls. For example, in the negotiation skill challenge you cited, the GM has determined that _no amount of dice rolling_ can intimidate that NPC.



Ariosto said:


> At the end of the day, in any of those games, it is still up to the DM to interpret the subjective quality of response and combine it with the particulars of PC proposition and NPC interests to determine the details of appropriate resultant behavior.



This is also true in 4e. The GM is the one who has the job of determining the consequences of a successful skill check (as per the rules text quoted by me upthread).

The difference is that the rules of 4e impose certain constraints upon the relationship between such decisions, and the pattern of successful and failed checks. Thus, if the GM has decided to run an encounter as a complexity 4 skill challenge, the first successful diplomacy check, no matter how successful and no matter how erudite the PC's entreaty for friendship, is not going to end the challenge. Why not? Well, it's the GM's job to work that out. Maybe the NPC harbours a secret grudge that somehow needs to be brought out and resolved. Maybe the end of the speech was overshadowed by a loud explosion from a nearby earthquake. The GM may have worked some of this out in advance, and may work some out on the spot (just as GM's have been doing with encounters since the beginning).

How does a GM determine the complexity of the skill challenge? Sadly, the rules are mostly silent on this, and so leave it up to the individual GM. I take my cue from HeroWars/Quest, and treat it mostly as a pacing issue - how much time do I think it might be worthwhile to spend on this in the game?

LostSoul, in his 4e hack, does it differently. He treats the complexity of a social skill challenge as depending upon the intial result on the reaction dice. (I don't use reaction dice in my own game.)

Sometimes it also makes sense to be guided by the complexity of the situation - if what is at stake is simply moving from point A to point B without incident over the course of a couple of days, there may simply not be enough game elements _or_ player interest avaiable to support more than a complexity 1 challenge.

How does a GM decide on the complications that unfold in the course of the challenge - whether it's a failure to be persuasive enough, an erupting volcano, a secret grudge, or something else that means the first successful diplomacy roll doesn't resolve matters completely? Again, the rules are sadly silent on this. Again, I take my cue mostly from HeroWars/Quest, and to a lesser extent from The Dying Earth and Burning Wheel also.
So I introduce complications that seem to arise naturally from the unfolding dynamic of the fictional situation (like a failure to be _completely_ persuasive), or that will engage some other part of the game that is interesting and relevant to one or more players (like a secret grudge) or that will bring to light some otherwise unrelated element of the gameworld that seems like it might be exciting and engaging (like the erupting volcano).

Now I get that you don't like this system. Fine. Why might someone else? Maybe they like how it facilitates pacing. Maybe they like how it helps produce engaging and dynamic situations. Maybe they like that it helps them reduce elements of "mother may I" or GM fiat in resolving social conflict. For me, it's all of the above. After many years of Rolemaster's Interaction Skills table, with its vague descriptions, complete lack of guidance in setting difficulties, and complete randomness as far as pacing is concerned, I feel like something a bit different.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> *Why should I* go through all that jive to prepare a "4e skill challenge encounter" if I'm not going to run a "4e skill challenge encounter"?
> 
> The whole contraption is a self-referential self-justification. Why all the work? To make a 4e skill challenge encounter. Why do we have to jump through these hoops? Because that's the 4e skill challenge encounter I made. Yes, but why do we need a 4e skill challenge encounter? Why can't we just play out whatever actions we choose to undertake, and make whatever rolls those actually happen in the event to require?
> 
> *No reason*, as far as I'm concerned. As I have already said: It adds nothing I need, want, or find in the least appealing.



Who said you should play 4e? No one on this thread, and to be honest I don't recall anyone on any thread I've participated in telling you that you should play 4e.

Why do others find it worthwhile? I've stated my reasons repeatedly, including in my previous post. It's not self-referential self-justification. It's about using a technique pioneered by other games (HeroWars, The Dying Earth etc) to resolve some issues that some (even many, I would say) RPGers have had with pacing and action resolution outside of combat encounters since the earliest days of the hobby.

Maybe you don't have those issues. Fine. But what's objectionable to you about those who do writing and/or playing games that resolve them?

(As to "all that jive" - most GMs, once they've read Tom Moldvay's description of how to set up a dungeon room, don't need to tick off a checklist. They just draw a map, write down some notes about what's in the rooms, and move on. Likewise - "all that jive" involves thinking about the players' goals for their PCs in a given situation, assiging a level, and coming up with a few ideas about how the situation might unfold in an interesting way. It's not very hard.)


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> *Why should I* go through all that jive to prepare a "4e skill challenge encounter" if I'm not going to run a "4e skill challenge encounter"?
> 
> The whole contraption is a self-referential self-justification. Why all the work? To make a 4e skill challenge encounter. Why do we have to jump through these hoops? Because that's the 4e skill challenge encounter I made. Yes, but why do we need a 4e skill challenge encounter? Why can't we just play out whatever actions we choose to undertake, and make whatever rolls those actually happen in the event to require?
> 
> *No reason*, as far as I'm concerned. As I have already said: It adds nothing I need, want, or find in the least appealing.




I don't know why you'd want to go through all that "jive" (I'm assuming that you mean the steps you outline above) if you're not using the system!  I don't roll up HP for AD&D monsters because I'm not using that system.  Seems logical enough.

Why would I, for example, run the Skill Challenge I posted above (creating magic items)?  (Please be gracious - those were the first words put down to the idea; it needs to be fleshed out!)  

Two reasons come to mind: Surprise and unexpected results - no one knows how it's going to turn out - and resource management - here's how you spend GP and Time to get something you want; is that a good choice or not?

Why jump through hoops?  Because the complexity creates more possibilities for surprise and unexpected results.

Why do you need a skill challenge?  You don't, but it adds surprise, unexpected results, and resource management to the game.

Why can't we just play it out?  To my mind, this is playing it out.  Those are the steps you need to take in the setting; the setting is tied to the game, so both feed off of each other.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Who said you should play 4e?



Who said that I _would_ be playing 4e if I just go about playing Traveller the way I have been since 1977? Only you and whatsisname

-- not the designers of 4e!

"Skill challenge" is not just a fatuous cutesy phrase for the hoary practice of having notes like, "gets misty eyed at mention of Saint Crispen's Day" -- to which, as I have stated, I have no objection. It is a specific and novel apparatus defined in particular terms in the 4e rules books.

Your rhetorical dodge fails regardless of your roll because it makes absolutely no sense at all.

Admin here. I wanted folks to know that Ariosto's rudeness - here and elsewhere - has been dealt with by moderators. Think of these as a good object lesson on how _not_ to post if you want to have an interesting discussion.  - PCat


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

On another thread, chaochou posted this example of social conflict resolution in HeroWars:



chaochou said:


> I don't think the fact that D&D has peripheral 'talking skills' which people then find redundant makes the concept of social mechanics irrelevant. It just highlight how little they achieve in D&D.
> 
> As I said before other systems have created rich, interesting mechanics which support and enhance social encounters.
> 
> ...



Now in the same thread chaochou has said that he's not a big fan of 4e skill challenges.

But in my experience 4e skill challenges can deliver just this sort of play (admittedly the players and GMs have to work a bit harder, because the skill list is not quite as evocative as the abilities list on a HeroWars character). And the same reasons that chaochou gives for finding the HeroWars mechanics worthwhile are reasons that I find skill challenges worthwhile.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

Lost Soul said:
			
		

> Two reasons come to mind: Surprise and unexpected results - no one knows how it's going to turn out - and resource management - here's how you spend GP and Time to get something you want; is that a good choice or not?



I have been playing games for decades that involve all those features, without reducing them to "fail 3 tosses for whatever, it doesn't really matter what." So, you see, that is not actually a reason.

My question, put more clearly, is *What does the formalism add? What is the point of it? And what on Earth does that have to do with a role-playing game?*



> Why jump through hoops?  Because the complexity creates more possibilities for surprise and unexpected results.



Please, please, please tell me how forcing the players into your mold creates more possibilities for surprise and unexpected results than allowing them to form and carry out their own plans. Then stop drinking the Hatter's tea.



> Why do you need a skill challenge?  You don't, but it adds surprise, unexpected results, and resource management to the game.



Golly gee, if only we'd known that back when we were having Magickal Mishaps and counting Bushels back in the '70s, playing _Chivalry & Sorcery_.

Or, for that matter, when we had tons of surprise, unexpected results, and resource management playing _Dungeons & Dragons_.

A skill challenge does not add any of that. It adds a skill challenge, full stop.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Who said that I _would_ be playing 4e if I just go about playing Traveller the way I have been since 1977? Only you



I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't say this. Upthread I actually said (emphais added):



pemerton said:


> This does not say that the GM sets the goal. It says the GM defines the challenge. The meaning of this is perhaps ambiguous, but I think the examples make it pretty clear that what is intended is that the GM has authority over the starting situation. Much like the GM "defines the environment" of a dungeon, by populating rooms, specifying wall and door strength, etc. *This is pretty traditional stuff, I think*.
> 
> This will also involve defining level and complexity. *Defining level is perhaps less traditional *- although it is traditional that a GM gets to set DCs, it is not traditional that the level of the encounter stipulates parameters for the GM to work within. As per my response above to BryonD, I think this is one of the key areas where 4e follows a "mechanics first, story second" approach.
> 
> ...



How does saying "you are correct that there is a complicated construction that differs from what is traditional in playing an RPG like Traveller" - and many other passages in a similar vein - constitute saying that your Traveller is a 4e game?

EDIT: Were you referring to this?



Ariosto said:


> The stuff about earning XP is more interesting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> (Oddly, then, 4e is in this respect perhaps closer to Classic Traveller than to classic D&D - the aim of play is not to accumulate the most XP for the least risk, but simply to pursue the goals of the PCs within the gameworld. Level ups help shape the changing character of that gameworld relative to the PCs - that it, at higher level they will meet more demons and fewer goblins - and also give the players new tricks to enjoy, with new powers, retraining, etc. But they don't bring the PCs closer to achieving their goals, which have to be understood in purely ingame terms.)



The respect in which I said there that 4e resembles Classic Traveller is not related to skill challenges at all. It's related to "the stuff about earning XP". The point I was making is that, by the rules of 4e as written, the point of play isn't to earn XP, because (roughly speaking) XP are earned simply on a "per-real-world-time-spent-playing" basis. This is an obvious difference from 1st ed AD&D, where real world time spent playing is by no means guaranteed to earn XP. But it is also, to me at least, an obvious resemblance to Traveller, in which XP aren't earned at all. So in both 4e and Traveller the purpose of playing has to be something _other than earning XP_.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 21, 2011)

What constitutes it, my dear pemerton, is your claim that it really is not at all what the 4e designers put in the 4e rules books, but rather nothing more than just a GM's notes about ways to handle things that might happen.

I have said very plainly that I have nothing against that. I have said very plainly what I do dislike, with direct reference to the 4e text.

If "4e skill challenge" is really just garbled gabble signifying nothing whatsoever in practice, then of course there is nothing whatsoever to like or dislike, defend, debate, or have any sort of relationship with or to.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> No, it's not. It's the "4e skill challenge".




But that's *exactly* what a skill challenge is. You can stick your fingers in your ears and stop your feet all you want, but that's still exactly what a 4e skill challenge is.



Ariosto said:


> Then we would not be using "4e skill challenges".




Sorry, man. Just trying to put it in an example you should be able to understand. My mistake.



Ariosto said:


> Says who?




How about let's suppose it's something they actually *want* to do. Is that hard? Is it so hard to believe the players might actually be choosing to do something heroic and, given the situation, this is what they are attempting to do?



Ariosto said:


> And either it does or it does not. That depends on
> (A) the situation
> and
> (B) what they are doing
> ...




And why do you assume that the successful use of skills would be arbitrary in a well-designed or executed skill challenge? Or that only a fixed set of skills would necessarily apply? One of the whole points is that there may be multiple factors that work together to advance the group to achieve a common objective - or through sufficient numbers of failures, leave group unable to achieve that objective or suffer some other cost. If the pilot blows his flying, the engineer can't coax more power, and the sensor operator fails to detect some hazard that may slow the ship, it won't matter if the navigator manages to plot a course that cuts a few hours off the travel time. It's too little to make the necessary difference. But if 3 of those 4 crewmen make their checks, then it's OK if the fourth fails. The successes of the 3 are sufficient to have the ship overtaking the tanker. *That's* the main thrust of a skill challenge - giving a DM structures upon which to adjudicate a more complex task than a single skill check.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 21, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I agree that the two things you characterise here are different. But I don't think there is much, if any, of the latter in 4e.




I am not making any specific claim that there is; I am responding to the "X = Y" meme.  

However, I would note that the minute a person (and I don't mean you here) starts to argue that "X has always had Y, so Z having Y shouldn't be a problem" has lost the ability -- once it is demonstrated that X has not always had Y -- to then effectively argue that obviously Z doesn't have Y either.

Again, I have problems with some of the arguments being used here (and this is not exclusive to one "side" or the other); 4e has now grown well beyond my personal knowledge of what it does, or does not, contain.  I've lost interest, apart from some of the better ideas of the original Core, and what adventures I can convert to my own system of choice.


RC


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

RC, I can understand why you're using somewhat vague and allusive language. Because it's somewhat vauge and allusive, I'm not quite sure I entirely follow it, but as far as I can tell it's not important that I do, because I agree with you that I'm not using the pattern of argument that you are interested in criticising.

I do think AD&D had some elements where narration came after the dice. Besides the abstraction vs detail point I made in the post you've quoted from - which applies not just to AD&D but to heaps of other games - there is the description of saving throws in the DMG, which (as I recall it, at least) suggests that what the successful saving throw actually means - dodging, finding a ledge to cower behind, manipulating the magic, etc - can be worked out _after _we know that we need to account for a successful save.

I think that 4e has similar elements - to an extent in to hit rolls, though maybe not any more than in earlier editions (what I've got in mind is that, if character A misses character B, we mightn't decide until after we know that whether A attempted a good blow but performed a bad blow, or whether A attempted and performed a good blow but B performed an even better dodge or parry) - but more obviously, and more notoriously, in relation to the ingame interpretation of hit point attrition.

Even with 4e hit points, in my experience it doesn't normally come up until one of the thresholds that is not _merely_ numerical is crossed - bloodied or dying. With bloodied, I tend to describe some blood being drawn, but not so much that recovery (whether by PC or NPC) would strain credulity. With dying - which only applies to PCs - I may describe the blow, but tend to avoid describing the injury altogether until the upshot has been resolved. (It's very different from GMing Rolemaster, where the crit charts state the gritty details of every blow struck!)

As to following 4e - given you don't play it, you're not missing out on too much by not following it. There are the D&D-standard ever growing lists of monsters, spells etc, many of which are technically very clever but none of which is so thematically compelling that I'd say a non-4e player who doesn't look at it is missing out. And there are the D&D-standard ever growing campaign elements (in books like Underdark, The Plane Above, etc) which I would recommend for anyone looking to build an interesting fantasy campaign roughly along D&D lines, but which are hardly essential for that purpose.

As for adventures - if you find any good ones, let me know! To date, Thunderspire Labyrinth (H2) and Heathen (from an early 4e number of Dungeon) are the only two that have really interested me, and both need extensive revision to be playable. I borrowed some maps from another (Scepter Tower of Spellgard, I think) but that's about it.

After the time-travel exploration session I posted about I'm planning to use another vignette from that Eden Odyssey book. I've also got a series of feywild encounters planned to build on the witches storyline, should the players be so inclined, which if they play out as I think is likely will culminate in The Demon of the Red Grove (a scenario in the HeroWars narrator's book, about removing the demonic possession of a magical apple grove - a good feywild scenario, I think, which - because of the demon - can be given a Correlon vs Lolth tie-in).

If the players instead press on to the city they were heading to, I've got some plans for an adventure that will mix bits of Heathen (4e) with bits of The Speaker in Dreams (3E) with bits of Night's Dark Terror (Moldvay/Cook D&D).

Having GMed RM for so many years, I'm not at all troubled by the need to mechanically convert material to fit my preferred system (there is - or, rather, there used to be - quite a bit of stuff published for RM, but a lot of it was fairly ordinary, and it has never compared to the quantities of D&D stuff). What I mostly want in a published adventure is some sort of idea or theme that I wouldn't have come up with myself (and preferably that I can see ways of embellishing to make it better fit my game), and also interesting maps/locations (I can do these at a pinch, but am by no means an expert). Published 4e adventures tend to be lacking in the first, and surprisingly often are not even that strong in respect of the second.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> What constitutes it, my dear pemerton, is your claim that it really is not at all what the 4e designers put in the 4e rules books, but rather nothing more than just a GM's notes about ways to handle things that might happen.



But I never said such a thing!

I said that the GM's role in setting up the starting situation and skethcing out how it might be expected to evolve is like that.

I said the rules according to which DCs are set, and the structure for successes and failures, is different.

Which is to say, a skill challenge resembles in some but by no means all respects the way that non-combat activity is resolved in traditional RPGs. I said this, and continue to assert it. But in no way does this entail, or even come close to implying, that your Traveller game is full of skill challenegs. In fact - and as I said - it entails the opposite. Traveller, Runequest, Rolemaster, Chivalry and Sorcery, AD&D played with NWP, etc, etc do not have skill challenges, because (i) they lack level-based setting of DCs, and (ii) they lack the "X successes before Y failures" that is crucial to resolving (but not to setting up) a skill challenge.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 21, 2011)

*Ariosto won't be able to answer that. It turns out that when you're coming back after a brief suspension for rudeness, posting condescending insults isn't a great way to impress people.

Sorry about that. Carry on.*


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 21, 2011)

Pemerton,

AFAICT, we largely agree as far as this topic goes.  

I do understand the arguments of some others, though, because they echo my initial reaction to 4e.  My understanding is that some of the later books have cleared up some of the problems of the earlier books, and I applaud WotC for addressing the concerns I (and others) voiced earlier.

I did pick up the Underdark book (although I admit I haven't given it more than a skimming, followed up by reading some spots of interest).  Some of the adventures have interesting material, and convert easily enough.  I have gotten good enough at conversions now that I can run 1e, 3e, and 4e materials for my ruleset while performing conversions on the fly for almost everything.  Complex NPCs still require about 5 minutes each to convert in pre-prep.

With all of these doom-n-gloom threads out right now, I hope that WotC pulls itself together, dusts itself off, and revitalizes itself by producing more interesting adventure material.  

And dropping the Delve format.  The Delve format reduces the value of their offerings, to me at least, by a significant degree.  The Delve format reinforces a lot of the negative opinions/arguments re: 4e IMHO.  Please, WotC, _*please*_ drop it!

Let's return to the Forbidden City with a poster-sized, detailed map!  I would gladly pay for a boxed set, if the overview maps were well designed, and not scaled to minis.  You can include tiles for combat if you like, but the overview should be beautiful and useful as an overview!  I am certain that I am not alone in finding this idea exciting.

(Actually, I would like a well done, detailed ruined city from anyone!)  

Rules may be more profitable, but well-written adventures and setting keep people interested in the game.  



RC


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 21, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> With all of these doom-n-gloom threads out right now, I hope that WotC pulls itself together, dusts itself off, and revitalizes itself by producing more interesting adventure material.
> 
> And dropping the Delve format.  The Delve format reduces the value of their offerings, to me at least, by a significant degree.  The Delve format reinforces a lot of the negative opinions/arguments re: 4e IMHO.  Please, WotC, _*please*_ drop it!



I second this motion.  All in favour?


> Let's return to the Forbidden City with a poster-sized, detailed map!  I would gladly pay for a boxed set, if the overview maps were well designed, and not scaled to minis.  You can include tiles for combat if you like, but the overview should be beautiful and useful as an overview!  I am certain that I am not alone in finding this idea exciting.
> 
> (Actually, I would like a well done, detailed ruined city from anyone!)
> 
> Rules may be more profitable, but well-written adventures and setting keep people interested in the game.



Agreed, with one minor edit: "...well-written adventures ***that are malleable enough for anyone to drop into their ongoing campaign yet robust enough to be played as stand-alone*** keep people interested..."

Lan-"I too could use a ruined city about now, preferably Greek"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

Lanefan and RC, I'll second your motion.

And RC, agree on dropping Delve format. It's a useless format. And (as you posted in the other thread) it encourages railroading, which encourages bad play experiences, which discourages the spread of both 4e and of RPGing in general.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 22, 2011)

It is the end of days.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 22, 2011)

RC, maybe - but while we have clashed on things from time to time, I don't remember _ever_ having defended WotC modules or the delve format - and I don't remember you ever having done so. On this I think we've always been as one.

No what will _really _mark he end of days, in my view, will be Lanefan running a successful Night's Dark Terror campaign!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> RC, maybe - but while we have clashed on things from time to time, I don't remember _ever_ having defended WotC modules or the delve format - and I don't remember you ever having done so. On this I think we've always been as one.




But.....but......It is the end of days!

Haven't you been following the threads on EN World?



Seriously, though, I was not being serious.


RC


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> No what will _really _mark he end of days, in my view, will be Lanefan running a successful Night's Dark Terror campaign!



It would mark the end of *my* days, anyway; as I'd likely as not fall on my sword halfway through... 

That said, it occurs to me (and this is kinda scary) I've currently got a party in the field who'd be a vaguely decent fit for NDT.  Maybe I'll dig it out tomorrow...

Lan-"but I might put it right back on Monday"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Jan 23, 2011)

Heh, if there is one thing I think that gamers of any edition or stripe can agree on is that WOTC's adventure offerings ... leave much to be desired.


----------

