# Falling off the 4ed bandwagon



## Mercurius (Jan 4, 2010)

I tried to love it, I really did. I bought the core slipcase when it came out (I was one of those folks calling Amazon every few hours, asking "WTF?" until I got it in the mail), I have purchased about half of the main hardcovers since, and I purchased a year subscription to D&D Insider last March. I never liked the "look" much, feeling that it was a bit of a downgrade from 3ed and trying to appeal to a younger generation's sensibilities, but I ignored it and plowed ahead, started a campaign in late 2008, and generally enjoyed playing it, although perhaps mainly because it was the first "action" I've had in five years. 

Our campaign--comprised of a bunch of 30-and-40-something busy parents--was very infrequent, about once a month, a couple times going for two months without playing. Aside from issues with story continuity and momentum, this gave us the sense of never learning the rules all that well. Recently, though, about a year later, we have committed to every other week and now, over a year since starting a campaign, I finally feel like I'm getting a deeper sense of the 4th edition rules set.

And I'm not sure if I like it anymore.

Up until recently I thought that D&D had gone through a relatively positive trajectory of evolution, that the current edition was better than the last, or at least that it was a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of thing. 2nd edition organized 1ed and opened up a wider variety of campaign worlds and styles of play, yet was inundated with endless splats of declining quality. 3rd edition was an enormous leap forward, but because of its strong core mechanic become totally bogged down by options (plus the big problem of higher levels and reliance upon magic items). 4ed seemed to streamline and balance 3ed, yet now I'm feeling at the cost of some of the soul of the game, what makes it so special. 

I saw a few cracks in the 4ed game from early on, and I heard the complaints of others and of course witnessed the *Great Schism* that led to the splintering of the D&D community in a way that it had never been splintered. But I still carried on with 4ed; not only was I generally happy with it, but I wanted to be part of a living game that was being actively supported. I admit to having a materialistic streak that likes "the new shiny."

But the cracks keep getting larger. And they mainly have to do with my early sense (and the common, if controversial view) that 4ed has been structured in a fashion similar to computer games, in particular WoW and other games of its ilk. Now my experience with such games is very limited--not only do I not enjoy them but, for reasons I won't get into now and have gotten into here and elsewhere, I find their influence to be overall negative, especially to aspects of consciousness that I hold most dear. To put it another way, computer games are in many ways the antithesis of pen-and-paper RPGs, at least from my perspective. 

But even if 4ed is heavily influenced by MMOs, it doesn't have to be like them. It is still imagination-based, right? For the most part. But there are many areas of concern, ways in which I feel that the game is losing its _imaginative vitality. _Some examples:



*Treasure*, which I discuss more thoroughly here, although I would add that the feeling of it that I don't like is the similarity to video games, how you find treasure of your level that enhances your capacities, then discard them or sell them as you outgrow them. This is not totally different from previous editions, but somehow magic items have become pale in comparison to earlier editions, both because the limitations on their powers (e.g. a high level magical helm that only has a daily power) and a general sense of flat-ness. The whole approach of PCs "leveling up" their own magic items takes away some of the mystique as well. Not to mention the way that the powers of magic items has been reconfigured; for example, I understand the practicality of the _vorpal weapon _simply causing more damage, but what about the flavor? I suppose an imaginative DM can describe a kill blow from a _vorpal weapon _as being decapitation, but more and more it seems, 4ed requires this sort of "DM fix."
*Miniatures, *which I like, but don't like _having_ to use. I have even gotten away with not using them in certain, "quick and dirty" combat situations. I am happy with DM's Discretion--or Fiat--trumping all, but again, it is another step of removal from the RAW.
*Character Builder*, which I actually like quite a lot but am extremely frustrated with the way that it discourages house rules, as I discuss here. And, as I said in that thread, it is because I _like _Character Builder that this is so irritating.
*Powers. *I actually liked the power system quite a bit when I first started playing. Now I've moved from like to mixed to on the verge of actual dislike. Why? Because, like Character Builder, they railroad options, and because they are all almost entirely combat focused. One of the fun aspects of the anachronistic Vancian system was figuring out which spells you might need the next day: Do you take Dispel Magic or Lightning Bolt? True Seeing or Ice Storm? But that isn't even my main issue; the railroading, or codification of actions, is what I find to be the most problematic, especially with martial characters. Maybe this is just my group, but players rarely come up with clever and complex maneuvers that I have to assign with a target number for (ala page 42 of the DMG); instead it is a formulaic approach of: First use encounter powers then re-assess the combat and, if it is getting out of hand, use your dailies; if it is winding down, just finish up the grind with at-wills.
Those are the main areas that come to mind as I write this, although there are probably more. It is hard to put my finger on it exactly, but it is the feeling that I am playing the RPG version of a computer game, rather than how it used to be: computer games being based upon RPGs. 

To me the core, essential, aspect of RPGs that simply cannot be done away with is what someone termed the "free play of the imagination." Anything that impedes this limits the roleplaying experience (for me). But if that is not paramount, we might as well be playing something else. We might as well play World of Warcraft or X-Box or a collectible card game or a miniature wargame--all of which are fine activities in their own right, but don't explore the depths of human consciousness and imagination to the same degree that RPGs can. The joy of playing RPGs is the immersion into an imaginary world, inspired by the game-master and inhabited by the players. The context, the "screen" if you will, is the human imagination. An RPG rule set is meant to give a toolbox for structuring that experience, to give it something to build upon, a context. But it is not meant to pre-determine or form it.

One of the views I used to hold when reading similar complaints from others about 4ed was that "You can do what you want with the game; the DM always has Fiat, can always alter things; the rules are, no matter what they say they are, merely guidelines for your own experience--and the 4ed rules even say this." But the default mode has an enormous impact. Everything produced within a given system carries the "taint" of that system.

What am I to do? I've got a few options:



*Plug on and enjoy the game for what it is.* I've already got a group of 8+ players who enjoy the game, and none of whom invest as much into it as I do (almost all of them are "casual players").
*Play something else.* This proves more problematic with the group as they may not want to. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to either as I _love _Dungeons & Dragons, I'm just not crazy about any particular edition of it! All things considered I still like 4th edition the best, although the gap between it and _Pathfinder_ is closing rather quickly (Not to mention I'm very intrigued by _Trailblazer). _Which leads me to...
*Create my own version*, a self-proclaimed "5th edition" (aka, "fantasy heartbreaker"). I've kind of started doing this, and it almost seems like a natural progression for many serious DMs, especially as their interest in RPGs veers from "serious" to "hardcore." But I'm very curious about the proposition of combining my favorite elements of every edition of D&D, as well as _Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, True20, Trailblazer, _and maybe others--and still being able to use published books.

I'll leave it at that for now. Please don't take this as an attack on 4th edition--I am talking about my own experience of it, which is obviously based upon my personal tastes. But I am wondering if anyone's experience resonates with my own? I've heard a lot of folks not like 4ed from the start, but not many that started liking it but gradually "fell off the bandwagon." Did you start out liking 4th edition and gradually become disenchanted? Or what about the converse--did you start out not liking it and then enjoyed it?

And please: No hating! This is _not _an Edition War thread; the unfortunate thing about the Edition War, imo, is that it is usually incited from areas of conversation that are extremely interesting and invigorating. If we can keep this, at most, a "cold war thread," I think we can have a very fruitful discussion.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 4, 2010)

I'd argue you have a fourth option (which isn't necessarily the best one for you, I dunno, but it's there): fix the bits that are wobbly for you.

For instance, you mentioned that people are feeling locked in by their powers. One thing working well to help us avoid "power railroading" is that I had everyone make up a card that says "Do something cool." It's a constant reminder that the player can completely ignore their powers and try a stunt to gain some other result; I just adjudicate damage and effect on the fly (repeatability means less damage, as does a particularly effective special effect like blindness. I raise damage the first couple of times people try this to encourage its use.) 

I also remind people that as per the PH, the power flavor text is completely and utterly optional. Their power can look like whatever they want it to so long as it has the specified combat effect. If you pull someone 2 squares, maybe you actually grab and pull them - or you yank the carpet beneath their feet - or you cut a chandelier that smashed down behind them and makes them involuntarily leap forward - or spectral demons materialize and jab them forward with tiny pitchforks. Doesn't matter to me, so long as the final effect matches the power. 

Using these two rules, both of which probably deserved more space in the PH and DMG, has resulted in most of my players feeling like they have a lot of options. There are a few things I don't care for in 4e (hi, status conditions, how are ya?), but not once has it felt like a computer game to me.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 4, 2010)

I am a 4e fanboi (or at least that's what I am called by some), so I fall in neither of your categorizations. I just wanted to stop by and tell you that I am sorry that you have been disappointed by 4e, and sincerely hope that you find an edition (even if you have to make it yourself) that suits you and your players, so that you finally get to play and have as much fun as I do.

Cheers


----------



## dvorak (Jan 4, 2010)

Cihys?


----------



## Perram (Jan 4, 2010)

I'm going to step away from the subject of any editions:

Having to GM a system really lets you see the nuts and bolts of the thing.  As you plan for your campaign, you will likely see all the good, bad, and ugly of the game you are prepping, and sometimes, like this time, you don't like what you see.

You've detailed the problems you have with this game, it doesn't seem to be the best fit for you.  So you really need to think about three things, some of which you've detailed:

1) Can I just live with the imperfections and keep playing?  You've got a good sized gaming group, and if they are all enjoying it and you enjoy them more than you dislike the game, this may be the best option.

2) House Rules!  The character builder may not like house rules much, but honestly, I've not played in a game without at least SOME house rules until 4e came out.  Take what you don't like about the game and CHANGE it.  Might be hard to do with the magic item issues you have, but see what you can tweak to bring the game more in line with your ideal game.

This doesn't need to be as extensive as creating your own version, that you mention yourself.  A few tweaks can go a long way in wiggling little problems.

3) Play something else.  Whether you play Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, Paladium, 3e, 2e, or FATE or even something you write yourself, you need to talk to your players about it first.  Get their input, if for no other reason than determining how many players you are going to need to find if they decide that 4e is the game for them.  Maybe ask some of them to help you play test some of the systems to see how they handle at the table. 

I had a falling out with 4e myself, not too long ago, and I know that when you go from loving a product 110% to having doubts about it, it can feel horrible.  I still waffle on whether or not I made the right choice by switching to Pathfinder so completely.  So you have my sympathies, but don't forget that you are here to have fun.  You don't owe any one game any more than the other and it doesn't matter what us on the internet think of your fun once you and your group are having it.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 4, 2010)

Merc, 

I have many of the same concerns you do, but they weren't significant enough to kick me off the wagon. I'm sure my homebrew is anything but balanced in the macro sense, but it works for us at the table. 

I hope you find a game that better suits your sensibilities. Life is too short to play games you don't love.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 4, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> And please: No hating! This is _not _an Edition War thread; the unfortunate thing about the Edition War, imo, is that it is usually incited from areas of conversation that are extremely interesting and invigorating. If we can keep this, at most, a "cold war thread," I think we can have a very fruitful discussion.




This may not be intended to be an edition war thread, but it is the prime way one starts, (unless it is an outright troll, which luckily Enworld has few of)

Overall, I think everything in this post has been discussed before in detail, in either cold or hot-war threads.  

The only response I can give is enjoy what ever game works for you. Or houserule 4E until it does work for you. There is no need to play WOTC's way, or my way, or the guy-nest-door's way, play it your way. It does seem to me, over the last 4-5 years many people seem less willing to make large changes to he game, and blame WOTC for this. From what I have seen in columns and such from WOTC folks, they probably have mroe house rules in their campaigns than the average gamer.


----------



## 1Mac (Jan 4, 2010)

> To me the core, essential, aspect of RPGs that simply cannot be done away with is what someone termed the "free play of the imagination." Anything that impedes this limits the roleplaying experience (for me).




I actually don't think this is true. Or in other words, I think your ideal is impossible .

If I understand you, "free play of the imagination" is a system which allows you to do anything in a given game world, given the realities of that world. That's a fine ideal, but any game system with any rules depth* is going to be biased towards certain kinds of actions, given the kinds of rules they focus on. A lot of games do this deliberately, but even a "universal" RPG is going to have to make choices that affect the kinds of actions that will occur in a system. An example is PC survivability: a system with hearty, robust heroes will encourage greater in-world confrontation, while something grittier will encourage confrontation avoidance.

The consequence is that any RPG will support certain actions better than certain other actions. My limited experience with 4E suggests that it does a great job of supporting action-packed, over-the-top fantasy. It doesn't do so well with the old-school kind of fantasy where any trap can kill you. Nor does it do as well at supporting political games, or anything where encountering monsters and violent antagonists is not central (though I the inadequately-informed impression that it does a better job of that than any previous edition).

My suggestion is that if you find you are not liking 4E, it is not because it fails to provide "free play of the imagination," for that is strictly impossible. Rather, it is that you don't like the kind of activities the rules encourage.

*By this I mean anything that has deeper rules than Risus, a fun game with deliberately shallow rules.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 4, 2010)

Sorry to hear it's not working for you.  I hope you can either fix its flaws to your satisfaction, or else find a game that better suits your tastes!  I'd like to add yet another option, based on my own experiences...

_(5) Play several games in rotation, and appreciate each one for what it does well.
_
I personally dodge any game's faults by running a few games at once.  Right now, I have a 4e game that's combat-heavy, mostly using the H/P/E series; and a Call of Cthulhu d20 game that's entirely homebrew and RP-heavy.  In theory, I have a 1e AD&D game, too, but that one's been on hiatus due to real-life stuff like preparing for my upcoming first child.  I like all these games for what they do well - and it means I have no temptations to try and cram a square peg into a round hole, so to speak.  All my (and my group's) gaming itches get scratched - just not necessarily all at the same time.

-O


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 4, 2010)

Perram has a great point. Try new stuff and play whatever is the most fun, and don't feel bad about it. Doesn't matter whether it's Pathfinder, D&D of any edition, or a completely different game like Savage Worlds; just keep playing and having fun. 

One of the things I love about gaming is that it's so easy to try new systems.  Just off the top of my head, I've run or played one-shots in over 40 different game systems -- and the ones we've liked best we play more regularly. Find what works best and embrace it.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 4, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> IOr what about the converse--did you start out not liking it and then enjoyed it?




FWIW, this describes me. Turned off by powers and treasures at first, but quickly grew to love the game in implementation. For me and our group, 4E is a DM's best friend, which in turn makes the game more enjoyable for the other players.


----------



## Verdande (Jan 4, 2010)

I understand your pain. I, too, was excited by 4e for a good long while. Matter of fact, I picked up the Player's Guide and then, shortly thereafter, the other two books as well. I loved the little details, the smoothing over of the entire game, the way that suddenly everything made sense and fit into the game world, unlike that unholy abomination 3e, where the basic game world didn't make sense and it tried to have a flavor that didn't fit the game rules, and all of that niceness. 

The thing I didn't like, though, was that I play rules-light games where I make things up and use DM Fiat like it's going out of style. I make up enemies off the top of my head and also magic items and enemies, and it actually felt like 4e was against that sort of thing. 

My solution, honestly, was to get into retro-clone gaming. It takes a modern sensibility and applies it to the fast-and-loose rules of the earlier era. Most people that I play, for example, Labyrinth Lord with like the fact that there are so few rules and special abilities and all of this crazy-ass stat-tracking that we can sit down, whip up a character in fifteen minutes, and have slain a dungeon full of orcs and stirges and zombies where we spent a good two hours making characters in 3e and 4e. 

In a nutshell- if you like homebrewing, sandbox play, and the old-school feel go for a retroclone. I did, and I don't regret it.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 4, 2010)

*Piratecat, *that is a great suggestion--I will institute that during the next session.

*Jack99, *you had me until you said "...as much fun as I do." My goal is not to have as much fun as you or anyone else--heck, we have no way of comparing how much fun we have--but to optimize my own experience, and that of my group. But it isn't only that, or perhaps even mainly that--it is also a matter of aesthetics.

*dvorak, *I have no idea what "Cihys" is.

*Perram, *your point about House Rules highlights one of the main issues; I too have always houseruled every edition I've played, yet for various reasons it seems harder to do so with 4ed, mainly because of the convenience of Character Builder. I'm going to look at how I can change, through House Rules, my main areas of concern, and then go from there.

*Filcher, *good point. And don't get me wrong: I love _D&D_, I just don't love 4ed or any other edition. 

*Dice4Hire, *I hear you and agree. One thing I appreciate about pretty much every edition of D&D is that it says jsut that: "Bend and break it until it is yours." I do wish they gave that option with Character Builder.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 4, 2010)

I cannot speak at all to my experiences with 4e since I haven't had any yet (I bought the books when they came out, but haven't found a gaming group willing to give it a whirl, and so haven't even finished looking through them), but I have a question reagarding the Powers issue you have: what was your experience with earlier editions?  

In earlier editions combat could be dull, repetetive actions; Fighter/Cleric: I attack with my [weapon x]. Mage: I cast [appropriately powered spell], Rogue: I work around to a flanking position to get my sneak attack damage.  

It seems to me like the powers may not be a problem as such, but your hopes and expectations for the powers are not coming to pass, and so you feel disappointed.  In what way do you feel Powers are a step back from earlier editions, rather than being a tool that did not work as you hoped?


----------



## Chrono22 (Jan 4, 2010)

At the root of it, the differences you are talking about exist because the 4e designers' vision of D&D wasn't very expansive.

First of all, let's make this clear- people play pen and paper RPGs for a reason. It doesn't have to be a good reason, or an interesting one. But there _has_ to be something that such games give them, that they cannot find from other areas. PnP RPGs are a niche product- they have a limited value to the minority of the population (although I think this has alot to do with how they are produced/marketed, not necessarily the content).

_I_ believe we play pnp RPGs because they are collaberation/imagination engines- they allow each participant to add his own intentions, interests, and experiences to the pool. The appeal of pnp RPGs is that the play experience is calibrated for the individual- he gets what he wants (be it power, fame, success, or freedom).
3e's inherently inclusive nature (the OGL & core mechanic) meant that it could draw from many genres and influences to augment it's own core rules. I suppose the argument could be made that these influences watered down D&D- made it less D&Dlike- but then that begs the question "What is D&D"?

Obviously it isn't something in the mechanics- it isn't the classes, levels, or experience charts. Those change radically between editions... it isn't ac, thac0, or percentile roles- it's something disconnected from the actual rules of the RPG.

_I_ think the thing that makes D&D unique, and is inherent to its nature is a *feeling of fellowship*, an *adventurous spirit*, and a *sense of wonder*.
The *feeling of fellowship* is usually derived from a sense of shared risk, and how differences among the individuals become a strength- the group can accomplish more than the individual.
The *adventurous spirit* is usually derived from how the PCs perceive themselves in respect to their world and environment. They don't know what lies around the corner or beyond the sunset- and they want to. Curiousity drives them. This aspect of D&D isn't something you can give players- you can only reward it.
The *sense of wonder* is derived from unreal experiences, new experiences, and the unknown. It's challenging old thinking, rewarding lateral thinking, and seeing things in a new light.

Taken in this light, D&D's emphasis on swords & sorcery, dragons & dungeons seems contrived. Fellowship doesn't have to be party-based, wonder can be found in a teacup, and an adventurous spirit is something that can be cultivated by challenging your preconceptions in any form.

Really, though, the reason 4e feels "off" is because the designers' intentions didn't account for these things. They confused D&D's subject matter with its purpose. They confused their own playstyles with some kind of universal constant. They narrowed its focus, limited its scope. You say 4e is "watered down". No, it's just very concentrated- but its a concentration of features you don't associate with your own experiences of D&D.


----------



## Markn (Jan 4, 2010)

Hi Mercurius,

Over the past 2 weeks I have had many of the same feelings you have, though some of our points of contention with 4e may be different.

The quandry I find myself in, is, being unsatisfied with the current edition yet previous editions also feel lacking because certain aspects of 4e are a great leap forward and going back to previous editions will leave me unsatisfied.  For example, I love the new racial powers, I like the increased options that players get when making character and I like that martial characters can do more than just swing a sword X times a round.  Movements and tactics are also great. 

On the flip side with the advent of feats that give mathematical bonuses, I have players choosing those over any sort of character design - The recent silo-ing thread talks a lot about how 4e should have gone a lot further in silo-ing combat and non combat abilities.  Powers seem to act like blinders (which, btw, I like PirateCats idea and will have to try this) and the powers don't go far enough in using class build to really make them feel different - by this I mean that only some fighter powers take weapon usage into account, and lastly, there are usually 2 powers that stand above the others on each level and 2 powers that stand below leaving many classes of different builds with similar powers.  This may come down to style but if my game style is always the same then the hierarchy of power selection will largely be the same.

Feeling frustrated, I've been reviewing old editions for what I like and don't like and have begun work on what I like to call "The Definitive Version of D&D" blending elements from several editions.  It's still in early creation and is a ton of work.  

Maybe we should start a support group!


----------



## Perram (Jan 4, 2010)

Maybe you should break away from the character builder?

Keeping up with a character as it levels up using just the compendium and the books isn't that hard, the only really troubling part will be copying things over by hand the first time.

It is convenient, but it seems the be the big issue holding you back.


----------



## Storminator (Jan 4, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> *Perram, *your point about House Rules highlights one of the main issues; I too have always houseruled every edition I've played, yet for various reasons it seems harder to do so with 4ed, mainly because of the convenience of Character Builder. I'm going to look at how I can change, through House Rules, my main areas of concern, and then go from there.




You can have all kinds of house rules - just not ones that affect character creation. Don't monkey with the progressions or powers themselves, just change how they work at the table.

Frex, we have a rule that a minion gets a save vs death against any damage. No change to the minion stats, just a change to when we remove it from the grid.

PS


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 4, 2010)

1Mac said:


> If I understand you, "free play of the imagination" is a system which allows you to do anything in a given game world, given the realities of that world.




That's not quite what I meant, or rather it is part of it but I'm talking more about the capacity to go "deeply" into the imagination, to immerse oneself in what Tolkien called a Secondary World. But it is specifically about the process not just the outcome, which is where my issue with a lot of 4ed's trappings comes: the process seems kind of mechanical and simulative, like a computer game.

I mean, I enjoy some crunch to my rules, I'm a bit of a numbers nerd, but I also want the numbers to be flexible and secondary--as supportive--to the imagination, rather than formative. I'm not sure if that makes any sense. 



1Mac said:


> My suggestion is that if you find you are not liking 4E, it is not because it fails to provide "free play of the imagination," for that is strictly impossible. Rather, it is that you don't like the kind of activities the rules encourage.




Maybe you are right to some extent, although I do like cinematic, over-the-top play, maybe just not quite as much. I'm not into anime, wuxia, or any of that. I can get into playing demigods at high levels, but it has to seem special. If everyone's doing flying triple thunderstorm-powered jumpkicks at early levels it just doesn't seem so special.




Obryn said:


> _(5) Play several games in rotation, and appreciate each one for what it does well.
> _




Good idea, but the time! However, this gives me a thought: My group meets every other week and we've talked about having another session alternating the OTHER every other week, which could be more explorative in terms of other RPGs. Hmm...



Piratecat said:


> Perram has a great point. Try new stuff and play whatever is the most fun, and don't feel bad about it. Doesn't matter whether it's Pathfinder, D&D of any edition, or a completely different game like Savage Worlds; just keep playing and having fun.
> 
> One of the things I love about gaming is that it's so easy to try new systems.  Just off the top of my head, I've run or played one-shots in over 40 different game systems -- and the ones we've liked best we play more regularly. Find what works best and embrace it.




Yes, agreed. Hey, you're in Boston, right? That's just an hour and a half away--maybe I'll have to come to one of your game days (is it you that has the game days?).



Filcher said:


> FWIW, this describes me. Turned off by powers and treasures at first, but quickly grew to love the game in implementation. For me and our group, 4E is a DM's best friend, which in turn makes the game more enjoyable for the other players.




Yes--there is definitely something to be said about the actual implementation, that 4ed works well at what it does. And because of my recognition of this, I'm thinking that it wouldn't take a huge amount of work to tweak it just right to satisfy my needs.



Verdande said:


> I understand your pain. I, too, was excited by 4e for a good long while. Matter of fact, I picked up the Player's Guide and then, shortly thereafter, the other two books as well. I loved the little details, the smoothing over of the entire game, the way that suddenly everything made sense and fit into the game world, unlike that unholy abomination 3e, where the basic game world didn't make sense and it tried to have a flavor that didn't fit the game rules, and all of that niceness.
> 
> The thing I didn't like, though, was that I play rules-light games where I make things up and use DM Fiat like it's going out of style. I make up enemies off the top of my head and also magic items and enemies, and it actually felt like 4e was against that sort of thing.
> 
> ...




I've thought of going the retro-clone route, although I do really like the post-d20 mechanics better: the streamlined core engine without a different sub-system or table for every little possible rule. Labyrinth Lord is your favorite retro-clone? I wish someone would write a "Guide to Retroclones..." (hint, hint).


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 4, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I'd argue you have a fourth option (which isn't necessarily the best one for you, I dunno, but it's there): fix the bits that are wobbly for you.




I've got to agree, here. Gamer default psychology makes powers into limitations, but the 4E rules explicitly provide ways to use them in whatever creative or free-form fashion one desires - it simply is a matter of getting people into the right mindset. 

Similarly, magic items aren't less exciting than they were in the last edition - the problem is mainly that they look that way when presented without much background, alongside dozens of similar items. Either add more flavor, or fiddle with the items themselves to make them more exciting. (But be careful - I did just that, and realized that lots of fiddly little benefits from an item means lots of fiddly little bonuses that never get remembered or used.)

I'm certainly not saying you have to take this approach of course, or that there is any fault for not doing so - but I think a lot of the problems you have can be solved by house rules, which the system very much allows for. Maybe not the Character Builder, but that's a bonus tool on top of the system itself, not an enforcer of the rules. (And many of these issues can be dealt with without dealing with it at all.)


----------



## weem (Jan 4, 2010)

@ Merc

My brother is in the exact same position. I told him what others here have mentioned - try something else. Specifically, he had the best time playing 3.5 so I told him to go back to that for a while - I also recommended he check out Pathfinder - anything really, just try some other stuff for a bit. There's so much good (and some of it, free) stuff out there.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 4, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Similarly, magic items aren't less exciting than they were in the last edition - the problem is mainly that they look that way when presented without much background, alongside dozens of similar items.




Hey, hey, c'mon now. A +1 sword was way cooler in AD&D. 

Seriously though, I miss the "magic" of earlier editions. A part of me wonders if that isn't nostalgia though. I can still remember stumbling upon my first _cloak ... of ... elvenkind_. WOW!


----------



## nedjer (Jan 4, 2010)

Verdande said:


> I understand your pain. I, too, was excited by 4e for a good long while. Matter of fact, I picked up the Player's Guide and then, shortly thereafter, the other two books as well. I loved the little details, the smoothing over of the entire game, the way that suddenly everything made sense and fit into the game world, unlike that unholy abomination 3e, where the basic game world didn't make sense and it tried to have a flavor that didn't fit the game rules, and all of that niceness.
> 
> The thing I didn't like, though, was that I play rules-light games where I make things up and use DM Fiat like it's going out of style. I make up enemies off the top of my head and also magic items and enemies, and it actually felt like 4e was against that sort of thing.
> 
> ...




Snap! I got into Traveller to go rules light/ homebrew. It wasn't that we couldn't roleplay in AD&D but that had to fit in on top of the long combats, checking rules and the time turns took to come round. From there I've gone mechanics/ crunch light on fantasy too. Players have options but not hundreds of them, turns are way faster and it's easier to find more players.

4e is a good 'off the shelf' game if you've committed players and want pre-made campaigns. But it just seems very rules heavy nowadays.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 4, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Yes, agreed. Hey, you're in Boston, right? That's just an hour and a half away--maybe I'll have to come to one of your game days (is it you that has the game days?).



You'd certainly be welcome! I need to schedule the next one.

MrMyth has the right idea regarding magic items, by the way. If you aren't already, take the basic item, leave its mechanics unchanged and customize the flavor. For instance, my game has a cursed sword dedicated to Sklar, the God of unchecked wilderness, which has brambles growing out of the hilt; hit with it hard enough and it feeds on your blood to grow particularly painful thorns along its blade. It's a _bloodclaw _weapon, of course, but it's got its own unique feel.

Or the _cape of the mountebank_, which teleports you out of danger when struck. You could use the fluff that it moves you through the feywild or the shadowfell in order to shift you, both of which let you use cool descriptions of what the PC sees every time it functions. ("The sword blade strikes you and suddenly you fall through a barrier you didn't even know was there. You seem to be in an elven bath house, up to your waist in warm soapy water and surrounded by naked fey. "What the..?" one of them starts to say, and then you're falling back into the world again fifteen feet from where you started. You're still dripping bath water.")

Similarly, the _Prison of Salzacas_ (from AV2) is essentially a continual unseen servant. I skinned it as a servile and unctuous spirit bound into an orb who sucked up to its master, was rude to everyone else, and dispensed historical plot clues when I thought it'd be handy. It went from a random magic item to something that was really fun for me to roleplay, with no change in game stats.

I think my point is that a lack of pre-written fluff text shouldn't inherently make a magic item boring. Make it your own, and make it memorable or cinematic, and it should work okay.


----------



## weem (Jan 4, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> For instance, you mentioned that people are feeling locked in by their powers. One thing working well to help us avoid "power railroading" is that I had everyone make up a card that says "Do something cool." It's a constant reminder that the player can completely ignore their powers and try a stunt to gain some other result; I just adjudicate damage and effect on the fly (repeatability means less damage, as does a particularly effective special effect like blindness. I raise damage the first couple of times people try this to encourage its use.)




We instituted Aspects from FATE with fate points etc - we have Fate Point cards that have the various uses printed on them, but they can also be used to, as you said, do something cool. Having them there in the mix with the other cards makes a big difference so I agree, this is a cool idea.



Piratecat said:


> Or the _cape of the mountebank_, which teleports you out of danger when struck. You could use the fluff that it moves you through the feywild or the shadowfell in order to shift you, both of which let you use cool descriptions of what the PC sees every time it functions. ("The sword blade strikes you and suddenly you fall through a barrier you didn't even know was there. You seem to be in an elven bath house, up to your waist in warm soapy water and surrounded by naked fey. "What the..?" one of them starts to say, and then you're falling back into the world again fifteen feet from where you started. You're still dripping bath water.")




I love this item (the cape), but more importantly I love this idea, haha. We have added various bits of our own fluff to (some) items, but I think I need to do more of this myself (as the DM). Very cool


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 4, 2010)

Mercurius, I share your feelings pretty much down to the last detail. I was hugely excited about 4E at first, and I still like it much better than 3E, but more and more I find myself looking back with nostalgia to the days of 2E and BECMI.

What I intend to do about it: For starters, I may wrap up my current campaign earlier than expected. I was originally going to take it all the way to 30, but I'm thinking about cutting out the epic arc and stopping at 20. It's pretty much a by-the-book game, which was great for learning the ins and outs of 4E, but now I know the ins and outs, and there are some things that are in that I want to see out and vice versa.

I intend to do the following for my next campaign:


Institute the DMG2 rules for removing +X items from the game, so that I don't have to worry about keeping the PCs' enhancement bonuses up to spec.
Pick a small list of races available. No more fantasy kitchen sink. I might even go humans-only.
Pick a medium-sized list of classes available.
Make a list of the rituals that exist in my world, and add new ones as necessary. Reprice them to fit my needs.
Institute a new system for item creation which relies on relics taken from defeated foes. With this and the changes to rituals, I will no longer have to deal with 4E's ludicrous economy.
Adopt PirateCat's idea of putting "Do Something Cool" on everyone's power list.
Adopt MrMyth's idea of fluffing up 4E's flavorless magic items. With the changes to the magic item system, I'll no longer have to hand out scads of the things just to keep the PCs up to par, so I can lavish some more attention on the ones I do provide.
Import 2E's Secondary Skills system as a set of backgrounds.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jan 4, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Perram has a great point. Try new stuff and play whatever is the most fun, and don't feel bad about it. Doesn't matter whether it's Pathfinder, D&D of any edition, or a completely different game like Savage Worlds; just keep playing and having fun.
> 
> One of the things I love about gaming is that it's so easy to try new systems.  Just off the top of my head, I've run or played one-shots in over 40 different game systems -- and the ones we've liked best we play more regularly. Find what works best and embrace it.




The one thing I will add to this is to not be afraid to adapt subsystems.  Use what you like, ignore the rest.  Use the system that best works with your gaming style.  Don't feel like you have to use a system because it's the latest "ooh, shiny", the best-known system, or the new kid on the block.  

When 3.5 was the big thing, I felt a bit constrained by the rules.  I didn't feel like I could adapt like I wanted, since so many rules were tied together.  I started looking at C&C, and it fit my style a LOT better.  I enjoyed those games more.  Yet at the same time, I felt a little unfulfilled missing the options of 3.5.  So I tried house-ruling C&C with some subsystems from 3.5 to try to hit the feel I was going for.  My downfall in all of this was a combination of self-doubt and too much of a desire to tinker.  

Also take into consideration that the DM sets the tone of the game.  Rules affect this some, but the DM sets the mood overall.  If the rules get in the way of having a good time, then scrap them and get something that works better for you.  Rules are there as a tool for conflict resolution.  The adventure itself comes from the DM.


----------



## Hjorimir (Jan 4, 2010)

weem said:


> We instituted Aspects from FATE with fate points etc - we have Fate Point cards that have the various uses printed on them, but they can also be used to, as you said, do something cool. Having them there in the mix with the other cards makes a big difference so I agree, this is a cool idea.



Weem, I'd love to hear the specifics on how you do this. Do you have a document with the cards that you can share? Details, man! Details!

I lub me some FATE.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 4, 2010)

The best advice I can give is to find a game that does what you want it to do from a mechanical perspective and play it. Trying to retrofit a game to suit your preferences seems silly when there are so many good games out there that would probably work for you as written. If rules light interests you but you like the advances found in the core mechanics of D20, I'd suggest looking at Castles and Crusades. C&C also has the added benefit of being mostly compatible with adventures from every version of D&D that has been released to date, including 4E, and the gameplay moves along at a good clip. I also like the whole Basic Roleplay model, which you'll find in Call of Cthulhu and Runequest. WEG's D6 system is another fun one, and there's a decent amount of material out there for it that would allow you to play in any genre. Of course there's also GURPS and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay - both of which I've heard excellent things about, but I have no direct experience with either. Personally, I've been playing Pathfinder and Traveller for the past year or so and I'm extremely happy with both.


----------



## weem (Jan 4, 2010)

Hjorimir said:


> Weem, I'd love to hear the specifics on how you do this. Do you have a document with the cards that you can share? Details, man! Details!
> 
> I lub me some FATE.




Someone somewhere (I don't think here at ENW, but I could be wrong) had a system drawn up of ways to spend the fate points in 4e. We tweaked them a bit, and a friend put them on a card he made - then he set up a 3x3 sheet of them to print and cut - I just asked him about it but it's at home otherwise i would post it.

Anyway, some of the options for using one include getting a +3 to attack for your daily, +2 to attack an encounter, +1 anything else (all AFTER having rolled). There were a few more things on there (not coming to mind atm)... maybe a re-roll... and possibly an extra action. To hideout was ever discussed before that, I just kind of wanted one all of a sudden... he could have denied me, but he also may have then given me another one. If you know the Aspect/Fate system you already have an idea of how it works, etc.

But, what it primarily get's used for is to do something cool - we kind of explain what we want to do in exchange for the fate point - DM decides whether or not to, or modifies the idea, "well, sure, but just this part of it... and you have to roll an Athletics check to land without falling prone" etc. As a DM I will accept one to auto-succeed just about any skill roll, and I am willing to break rules for cool effects. When players get excited about doing something cool and are willing to spend one, I'm pretty much down for whatever.

In my game, you get one 1 per session. They don't last to the next session if used, and you can get an additional 1 during the game for cool RP-ing or ideas, etc.

---edit---

As a player, I make sure I use one each game.

EX: We busted out of an Inn we rescued someone from. I play a goblin rogue, and knew the city best. We didn't know where to go, so I offered up the DM my fate point card and said, "I know JUST the place to hide! My little hideout!"... DM smiled and said, "yes you do" taking the card. I didn't have a hideout before that, it was never discussed - and he could have said, "no, that was in the other city" etc, but he also may have given me another FP for the idea then. I'm sure you understand that part of the system though (the bartering) - much fun


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 4, 2010)

Filcher said:


> Hey, hey, c'mon now. A +1 sword was way cooler in AD&D.
> 
> Seriously though, I miss the "magic" of earlier editions. A part of me wonders if that isn't nostalgia though. I can still remember stumbling upon my first _cloak ... of ... elvenkind_. WOW!




Yeah, like I said, I think a lot of it was the context in which those items were encountered. As much as I love that 4E has classified the magic items as the player resource they should be, I think that is part of what removes the 'magic' of them. In addition to just being more plentiful in general. 

A low magic campaign where bonuses are built in, and magic items are actually rare, and suddenly I think they'll start to feel just as unique as they used to.


----------



## amerigoV (Jan 4, 2010)

I was in the same situation recently. As a player, I love 3.5 but the DMing side just too much of a grind (plus a baby on the way was going to just kill any prep time). 

A group I play in remotely tried 4e. I personally liked 4e as a player and the changes to the DM looked really good, but it really did not fit our group. The system puts quite a bit of responsibility on the players to know their powers, have an idea of what others can do, and to work as a team. Sadly, the group I was in was not capable of such things at that level. The wanted to just sit down and play, not have a chess match vs. the DM (4e ups the tactics which is fine by me, but not for everyone).

I am sold on Savage Worlds these days. It seems to have the mixture of some crunch for the players (not over burden, but enough to make the PC that they want) and quick prep / low bookwork that I want as a GM. For whatever reason, it seems to bring back the 1e nostalgia but with a more coherant system. I throw it out there since it looks like your gaming demographic is pretty close to mine.

Their website
Welcome to Pinnacle's Weird Website!

A great document on the development of the game - a key reason I tried it
http://www.peginc.com/Downloads/SWEX/MakingofSW.pdf


And just a dart on the computer game thing - I have been playing Dragon Age: Origins on Xbox -- I'll put its emersion, story and roleplay up against most gaming tables any day. I get your point, but in my book it is just a different medium - books, movies, video games, PNP, writing your own stories, etc. They all bring something different to the table.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 4, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> [*]*Create my own version*, a self-proclaimed "5th edition" (aka, "fantasy heartbreaker"). I've kind of started doing this, and it almost seems like a natural progression for many serious DMs, especially as their interest in RPGs veers from "serious" to "hardcore." But I'm very curious about the proposition of combining my favorite elements of every edition of D&D, as well as _Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, True20, Trailblazer, _and maybe others--and still being able to use published books.




This is what's great about the OGL and the current RPG market. You don't have to try to find the perfect game for you. No publisher is likely to share your tastes, but you can easily find the elements to a perfect game for you scattered about and combine them into something you like. If you have the time and interest, I'd advise this approach. Sounds to me like TB in particular might have a lot to offer you, but I'd check around with everything. I run my current game with a 3.5/UA/PF/TB mishmash and I can tell you it's much better for my group than any edition was "out of the box".


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 4, 2010)

I was fortunate in that I sensed early on that 4e would not be to my liking, but I can definitely sympathize with the OP in terms of wanting to be part of a living published game and looking to the future. Leaving 4e aside means being sidelined to some extent. 

Personally, I've gone with Pathfinder, because it has 3e's modularity and is seeing current publication support. I can take 3e and Pf stuff and plug it in willy nilly. I also like Fantasy Craft, though that's on a back burner right now; it might be interesting to see what from FC I might graft on.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 4, 2010)

Darrin Drader said:


> The best advice I can give is to find a game that does what you want it to do from a mechanical perspective and play it. Trying to retrofit a game to suit your preferences seems silly when there are so many good games out there that would probably work for you as written.




I have never yet seen a game that did exactly what I wanted it to do from a mechanical perspective. Heck, I could build it myself and I'd _still_ be retrofitting and changing things with each new campaign.

What seems silly to me is going on a quest for a perfect game that probably doesn't exist, instead of finding a game that's got 90% of what I want and fixing the other 10%.

(And to be honest, I'm not sure I could ever be happy with a game that I hadn't tweaked a bit. Tinkering is a large part of the fun for me.)


----------



## Imaro (Jan 4, 2010)

To the OP,

My situation is a little different from yours... After reading through the core books, I initially didn't like 4e. However I let people (especially on this board) convince me that I couldn't judge without playing the game. Well I played the game and found I and my group were lukewarm towards it. Again instead of going with what I felt, I listened to others, and how the future releases were addressing the things that many found wrong with the game. New and more complex classes... more magic items, new powers, etc. So for awhile I bought into it and purchased a nice little grouping of 4e books. Anyway, the result was the same and I realized that for me and my group, 4e wasn't a good fit period. I recently bought a copy of Pathfinder, as we all enjoyed 3.5 and I'm finding Pathfinder scratches our D&D itch better than the current itteration of D&D. I just wish I could trade in my 4e books for some extra copies of the Pathfinder corebook for my players. 

Moral of the story is... sometimes the hype is just hype and sometimes a game that's great in one person's oppinion just doesn't work for another. Hopefully you don't spend alot of money or time on a game you ultimatley aren't enjoying... there's just to much to choose from.


----------



## dvorak (Jan 4, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> *dvorak, *I have no idea what "Cihys" is.




CIHYS.  

This is usually meant as a gibe.

I am being sincere on this subject; I am in the market of buying Adventurer's Vault and Adventurer's Vault 2.  Private message me if you are inclined to selling these two books.



Piratecat said:


> One thing working well to help us avoid "power railroading" is that I had everyone make up a card that says "Do something cool."




This has been my motto (for ANY RPG!) ever since I first read it.

DM: _The NPC does 3 squares of Force Movement by attempting to push you off the cliff.  Dustin, make a saving throwing to see if your character catches himself or fall over the edge._

Roll: 8

DM: _Lets see, that is a 40-foot drop so...
_
Joe the Heroic: _Wait!  My character still has his Action Point and happens to be in an adjacent square next to Dustin's character.  I would like to use up my Action Point by diving for my comrade's hand and hopefully saving him from certain doom._

DM: _mmmm Just to make it clear then, your character will be prone, unable to move from their square and unable to attack until Dustin's character has either secured a handhold along the cliff or your character is able to pull him to safety if you roll a success.  If you fail, Dustin's character still falls and your character would be prone._

Joe the Heroic: _Agreed._

DM: _Then roll to see if you succeed._

~rolled by to respond back to Mercurius question - reading rest of thread now~


----------



## Halivar (Jan 4, 2010)

Darrin Drader said:


> The best advice I can give is to find a game that does what you want it to do from a mechanical perspective and play it. Trying to retrofit a game to suit your preferences seems silly when there are so many good games out there that would probably work for you as written.



No game is perfect for a group until it's houseruled. At least, that is my experience with every system I've played, including 4E.

Rule sets are like shiny pewter figures. Sometimes all you need to do is scrape off the flash. Other times, you gotta hack off a sword and replace it with a machine gun.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 4, 2010)

Well, regarding 'bringing back the magic' I'll say this:
It's been mentioned several times in this thread already; that's mostly just nostalgia. It seems, you'd like to repeat the original experience, relive the feeling you had when you played D&D for the first time. The problem is you can't. It will never be as good as the games that live on in your memories. I doubt switching to a different edition of D&D will change that (though playing a vastly different system might).

As Piratecat and others mentioned most of the 'magic' is in the descriptions. There's no 'magic' in game mechanics. And if there's one thing that 4e succeeded in it's complete transparency. I have a feeling that's what makes it more difficult for the OP and his players to feel inspired about items, powers, or monsters. I.e. you have trouble coming up with good descriptions.

I'd suggest what you should try to limit using game-terms as much as possible. Even if your players are 'just' using their powers they can be awesome if you take care in describing them.

I haven't played 4e as much as the OP but so far I like it a lot. As a DM I have an easier time to come up with great adventures because it's so easy to create monsters and adjust encounters. It's also been a long time since I've seen such a degree of teamplay.
Still, it's entirely possible I'll feel the burnout after playing it for a long time.

What I still don't get, though, is the comparison with video games or even MMORPGs. Imho, those are mostly brought up by people who don't actually know these games very well. 4e mechanics aren't really very much like them, 4e just uses similar terminology (which they probably did to make it easier recognizable for those players).

Looking at the OPs thread about treasure classes A-Z, I immediately thought:
'Now what exactly was great about that? That's EXACTLY the system that games like Diablo use!'
Random treasure tables are used in every CRPG I know. So, 4e's approach is completely different in that regard. I'd like to stress, btw. that wish-lists need not be followed slavishly by a DM. You definitely can (and should) add (wondrous) items nobody thought about asking for.


----------



## samursus (Jan 4, 2010)

Filcher said:


> Hey, hey, c'mon now. A +1 sword was way cooler in AD&D.
> 
> Seriously though, I miss the "magic" of earlier editions. A part of me wonders if that isn't nostalgia though. I can still remember stumbling upon my first _cloak ... of ... elvenkind_. WOW!




This.

After reading MANY threads on "Why 4e sux", "This is what they did wrong" and "This is why I am leaving 4e" I have done some pondering.

You see, many of the issues brought up, especially in thoughtful posts like the OP's, resonate with me to some degree.  

I have been following 4e since information started being leaked, and have been pretty much a fanboi.  I do see a lot of the issues with the system, although many of them are only indicative of different playing styles... but what is interesting to me is the extremity of how these issues affect people, including myself.  I mean, its just a game.  And then Filchers post kinda opened the clouds for me....

Its nostalgia (for me at least)... I am (and I suspect this may be true with others) trying to recapture the new and exciting strangeness of when we first played an RPG or D&D.  That is why I believe the Retro-Clones are doing so well... 

I am a thirty-something year old player who started when I was 10... I just started playing again after about a 10 year hiatus.  I like 4e... its not perfect, but I like the system a lot.  Some issues re: Magic Items and such kinda bother me, but I am now realizing that I can never go back... 

Sure, I could start up with LL or BFRG or even break out my Rules Cyclopedia, but I now see that with what I know now, and how I can see the entirety of a rules system for what it is, I wouldn't enjoy it knowing that there are IMO better ways to do things, that other rules systems have demonstrated in the 20+ years since I first played...

Basically this is just a long-winded musing on why an older-gamer is so freaking hard to please (speaking of myself)


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 4, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> What seems silly to me is going on a quest for a perfect game that probably doesn't exist, instead of finding a game that's got 90% of what I want and fixing the other 10%.




Sure, but that requires starting with a game where 90% of it works for you. Mercurius seems to be describing being less than 90% happy.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 4, 2010)

*re*

I tried 4E. Ran some characters to level 11. About that level we all grew weary of the game except for one guy. 4E wasn't for us. The magic system was too limiting. The level of lethality was lacking. Solos in general died far too easily. The hardest fights seemed to be elites and common monsters in a mix. The power system was repetitious and encouraged repetition. Players were using their encounter powers just because they could rather than because they were needed. Just all around killed the immersion.

I did like some things about 4e. I liked that they eliminated the magic item Christmas tree. We've been working to do that in our _Pathfinder_ campaign by giving both sides less magic. Seems to be working. I like the idea of rituals, though I don't like the implementation. I like that magic was used as a counter in previous editions rather than solely for combat. It made you feel good as a cleric to have a _freedom of movement_ or _death ward_ ready when the pack of spectres show up. 4E was too limited a game for my tastes and changing the flavor text doesn't change how the mechanics work. I didn't like the mechanics.

I'm always amazed by the differerent ways people see games. I felt like 4E simplified and compartmentalized tactics, especially for casters and made combat less lethal and interesting. Undead weren't very fearsome any longer. They were just another monster to beat on. And I still fail to see how pushing something a few squares repeatedly is an advancement in tactics. I guess many people just didn't get much mileage out of 3E or previous iterations of D&D. 

I like options. I like combat that simulates fighting styles versus "powers". I like rules that at least attempt to give you a reasonable means by which to accomplish a particular action like grappling or disarming a weapon. I like a magic system that is fluid and lasts past 1 or 2 rounds with inherent counters.

The best thing I can say about 4E is the prep time was vastly reduced even if the in game combat wasn't any faster. And I liked some of the ideas for monster building like giving a creature a ton of hit points and making it capable of fighting an entire party. I took some of those ideas with me to _Pathfinder_.

And as far as your dilemma: find the game system closest to what you like and modify it as you like whether it's your own house rule or something you steal from another edition of D&D or another game system. Don't let a game system kill your imagination.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 4, 2010)

samursus said:


> Its nostalgia (for me at least)... I am (and I suspect this may be true with others) trying to recapture the new and exciting strangeness of when we first played an RPG or D&D.  That is why I believe the Retro-Clones are doing so well...




But if that were the case, why would retro-clones be doing well? I mean, as you say, there's no going back to when we played for the first time. No retro-clone can make the game new for us. (Unless you think people are buying retro-clones for nostalgia and then giving up on them after a few games, which some people undoubtedly do, but it doesn't seem like enough to drive the old-school renaissance.)

Just as a note, my current gaming group consists mostly of people who were introduced to D&D for the first time in the 3.5 era. When Gary Gygax died, I got out my BECMI ruleset since I didn't have the 1E rulebooks handy, and we played a one-shot adventure in his memory. Everyone loved it, despite never having played it before - no nostalgia value for anybody except me.

Retro-clones have more than just nostalgia going for them. There's something real there that has been lost in later editions. You may or may not be willing to abandon the advantages of those later editions to get it back - I'm not at that point yet, though "Castles and Crusades" is beginning to interest me - but it does exist.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 5, 2010)

Off topic: I wish I could give endless XP to everyone who has posted to this thread. It had edition war stamped into its genetics, and somehow we've all played nice and had a fruitful conversation to boot. 

Way to go ENworld. Nicely played.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 5, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I'd suggest what you should try to limit using game-terms as much as possible. Even if your players are 'just' using their powers they can be awesome if you take care in describing them.




Here are two different ways to approach description.  

The first works like this: player decides on course of action -> description of action -> mechanical resolution -> description of outcome.

The second works like this: player decides on course of action -> mechanical resolution -> description of outcome.

In the first version the description of the action has an effect on the action's resolution; in the second it doesn't.

When you pull out Page 42 to "do something cool" you're using the first technique; when you use a Power, you're using the second.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 5, 2010)

Filcher said:


> Off topic: I wish I could give endless XP to everyone who has posted to this thread. It had edition war stamped into its genetics, and somehow we've all played nice and had a fruitful conversation to boot.
> 
> Way to go ENworld. Nicely played.




It's been a while since I've seen a real fiery edition war on ENWorld. I think most of us have got it out of our systems.

(Or maybe it's just that I put the most relentless edition warriors on ignore.)


----------



## keterys (Jan 5, 2010)

Honestly, I think the best trick is to play some very different games, to get a feel for things. Something not at all D&D, so you can see what's good or bad about things, and what you liked or didn't like, and different ways people approach things.

Piratecat's where I'd go next - take it all a bit less seriously and stretch the system out a little bit. 

I had an interesting experience with a 4e group I just started running for the other day, for a group I've run lots before - GURPS, White Wolf, Shadowrun, 3e, etc - but first time 4e. The group had been playing 4e for a year or so before that and were pretty 'eh' on it, but I just wanted to give a shot at it for them before they dropped it.

First session, I've got a villain whose dangling a child over shark-infested water via a chain. Sadly, he lacked a moustache to twirl, but stock movie stuff. And the bard who fancies herself a throwing knife specialist goes 'I wish I had a power to throw a knife in between links of the chain to stop her falling' and I go 'Sounds good, make your attack'. And she was baffled. Didn't have that specific power on the sheet, so how could she do it? Well, I said 'What, it's D&D, you can do whatever you think about if it sounds good. But if you really care, there's a chart in the DMG page 42, all for improvised stunts and such'. So she did, and it went well.

After that, it's time for treasure. These guys are thinking 4e items suck, cause it's all "Once per day, you can shift 1 square. And like it". Well one of the items they get are gauntlets with a line:
Power (Limited): Free Action. Use this power when you hit with a melee attack. Add a +5 bonus to the damage roll and push the target 1 square.

Limited? What's that? "Okay, here's the deal. You can use 1 limited item power per tier per encounter. So... now, just one per encounter. One item, can use it every encounter. Five items, only one. When you guys hit 11th, hopefully some day, it'll bump up to two per encounter." "Cool!" It's not hard to give out custom items - you can even type things into the character builder or print out cards with all the details (that's what we do, one of the players prints up cards with the stats on 'em)

After the session, one of the players goes. "Err, sorry earlier when we were trying to gather information, and you were asking what I wanted to know when I made Streetwise checks. Umm, I just got used to doing skill challenges and we'd just roll some stuff and stuff would happen, without really thinking about, y'know, talking to people"

So, yeah, I think a lot of people have got the blinders on for 4e. Some of that is certainly the character builder. I mean, I remember when 3e came out, I was making new classes, making variant d20 systems, right in day 1. But people don't talk about doing that for 4e often. It's interesting.

What I really want is a 4e Unearthed Arcana. Whole book of 'change the whole damn game' to really let people feel a bit more free. The DMG2's everyone get enhancement bonuses was a good start. That even got in the character builder 

Anyhow, tangented enough. Go nuts, play games, have fun til you're having more fun. Good luck


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> It's been mentioned several times in this thread already; that's mostly just nostalgia.




Bunk.

I was told this when I was dissatisfied with 3e, and for a while I bought it.  I can even link to the post where I said so waaaayyyyy back when.  But you know what?  I started a project to retrofit the rules to the way I wanted to play, and the magic is as strong as it ever was.  Stronger, even, because it is informed by decades of experience.

Find a game you want to play, or _*make*_ the game be one you want to play.

Buy into "What you want is nostalgia anyway, and you can never recapture it" and it will become the truth.


RC


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 5, 2010)

I know that I'm continuously in wonder at Sagiro's DMing (we're 19th lvl in a 3.5 game that started back in 2e), and I think I'm on my way to getting that same feel for my 4e games.  I think I agree with RC, in that we've captured "magic" in every edition we've played. It has a ton to do with your group and your campaign, more so in my opinion than a rules set itself.  It just takes work to keep the players involved, intrigued and on the edge of their seat for what happens next.

I like 4e right now because it's so much easier for me as a DM. My prep time has dropped from 3 hours a game to 30 minutes. That leaves me more time to plot, and that makes me happy. But I'm sure I'd get that same benefit with other game systems as well.


----------



## dvorak (Jan 5, 2010)

keterys said:


> Go nuts, play games, have fun til you're having more fun. Good luck




Why do I think you're Edna 'E' Mode of DnD?


----------



## Wycen (Jan 5, 2010)

Usually it isn't a crime to not like something or to change your mind.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> (Or maybe it's just that I put the most relentless edition warriors on ignore.)




Having 5-8 people there does help a lot, I would agree, which always makes me wonder how many I am on.....


----------



## Shazman (Jan 5, 2010)

Just to add my 2 cents.  I understand where the OP is coming from and share many of his sentiments.  I have played a significant amount of LFR since last spring.  I did it mainly to get my playing fix, since I had DMing duties for a while in my regualr gaiming group, and was itching to play instead of DM.  In some ways it's a good way to get somewhat of a gaming fix for a while, but it doesn't seem conducive to long term gaming.  One of the chief problems I have with 4E is the insane length of combats.  I have recently started playing Pathfinder Society, and am amazed that you can finish a Pathfinder Society module in almost half the time that you can finish an LFR module for characters of the same level even though they are both supposed to take 4 hours to play through.  In reality the the LFR modules take 6 or more hours to complete, while the PFS modules seem to take 3 1/2 to 4 hours.  The main reason for this desparity is how long it takes to grind through 4E combat encounters even if the PCs have the upper hand through the whole encounter.  I am also unimpressed with the blandness of magic items and powers.  Magic items in 4E are anything but "magic". The lack of customization, even with the plethora of 4E classes and muticlassing feats, also gets under my skin.  It may get better with the finalized hybrid rules in PHB3, but 3 PHB's is a long time to wait for a complete game.  In short, find a game that fits your style the best, and change what you need to make it work for you.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 5, 2010)

Mercurius,

Apologies if this has been addressed already, but as I only have a few minutes before putting the kids to bed, I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread.

I've had system-indecision occasions myself.  In my younger days, it was the search for the One True System.  In more recent times, it was the "Which-Shiny-is-Right-for-Me" scenario.

All the advice that comes after has to pass through the following prism:  *Can I, as a DM/GM, have fun creating adventures & running this game? * I know Conventional Wisdom places the players desires as most important but I call hogwash on that.  If I'm the GM, *I'm* the one investing significant time outside of the game.  Yes, there's the social aspect of hanging out with friends but I have a slew of choices aside from RPGing if that's the only objective.  Personally, I can't run a campaign for a game that I don't like.  I can play in one, but as a GM, if it's going to be a labor of love I have to at least *like* it.

Here's what I'd suggest:

1. Talk to your players.  See if they feel the way you do.  Are they indifferent to the issues you see or do they feel even more strongly about them you do?

2. Take a break from the campaign (not RPGs).  Put the campaign on hold.  Sometimes, it's just a mental block and the "Aha!" moment comes along while you're thinking about something completely unrelated.

3. Assuming that you have systems available or $$ to spend on some prime contenders, pick 1-3 alternatives.  Run tournament-style one-shots with your players & kick the tires from a GM & a player perspective.  If it's d20/level-based, don't start at Level 1.  Try the mid-power levels.  If that goes well, then scale down to low levels or up to high ones.

Don't guess, don't suffer, & don't settle.  Perhaps Pathfinder only gets you 70% there.  If it's more fun than 4e, you can build on that.  Maybe Fantasycraft gets closer to the mark.  Maybe you really "can't go back" and you appreciate the good in 4e more.

Ultimately, it's about having fun with friends in a creative endeavor.  If the system can't satisfy those 3 (fun, friends, & creativity) for you as a GM, you're using the wrong system.  If you're players are 4e diehards, you may have to settle for 2 out of 3.  In my experience, however, settling sucks.

Good luck.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I have never yet seen a game that did exactly what I wanted it to do from a mechanical perspective. Heck, I could build it myself and I'd _still_ be retrofitting and changing things with each new campaign.
> 
> What seems silly to me is going on a quest for a perfect game that probably doesn't exist, instead of finding a game that's got 90% of what I want and fixing the other 10%.



I kinda-sorta agree with you.

IMO, the reason no game does exactly what I want it to is because I want mutually exclusive things, only all at once.  I want the speed and flexibility of rules-light, but I want the tinkering and system mastery of rules-heavy.  I want heavy RP, but I also want tons of die-rolling action.  I want the constant danger of immediate death, but I want PCs to be robust.  I want exotic classes and races, but I also want traditional swords & horses fantasy.  I want magic swords, lightsabers, The Computer, vampire slayers, rat-catchers, giant robots, and mi-go.

I think the problem is that all of these are _good things._  I searched around for a game which could give me all of them, and came up understandably blank.

Which is why I recommended what I did.  IMO, it's futile to try and find that _one perfect game_ you can play forever.  Instead, spread your wings - play lots of games.  Don't settle on a single game, because you'll always end up missing something you want.  Instead, try a lot of games, and treasure them for the things they do well.  If they don't do something well, play some sessions in another game that _does_.

So yeah, that's my two cents.  It's not about house-ruling until you make your perfect D&D.  It's about accepting that there's no perfect game and branching out even wider, finding a few games that scratch your most important itches.

-O


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jan 5, 2010)

Mercurius said:
			
		

> *Play something else.* This proves more problematic with the group as they may not want to. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to either as I _love _Dungeons & Dragons, I'm just not crazy about any particular edition of it! All things considered I still like 4th edition the best, although the gap between it and _Pathfinder_ is closing rather quickly (Not to mention I'm very intrigued by _Trailblazer). _Which leads me to...
> *Create my own version*, a self-proclaimed "5th edition" (aka, "fantasy heartbreaker"). I've kind of started doing this, and it almost seems like a natural progression for many serious DMs, especially as their interest in RPGs veers from "serious" to "hardcore." But I'm very curious about the proposition of combining my favorite elements of every edition of D&D, as well as _Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, True20, Trailblazer, _and maybe others--and still being able to use published books.



You shouldn't DM something that your heart isn't in, so I say do one of these. If you're even a decent DM, your players should be happy with whatever system you prefer. And if not, one of your players can step up to the plate and run a campaign for you.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 5, 2010)

Lots of great responses—too many to reply to, so I’ll just focus on a few.



MrMyth said:


> I've got to agree, here. Gamer default psychology makes powers into limitations, but the 4E rules explicitly provide ways to use them in whatever creative or free-form fashion one desires - it simply is a matter of getting people into the right mindset.
> 
> Similarly, magic items aren't less exciting than they were in the last edition - the problem is mainly that they look that way when presented without much background, alongside dozens of similar items. Either add more flavor, or fiddle with the items themselves to make them more exciting. (But be careful - I did just that, and realized that lots of fiddly little benefits from an item means lots of fiddly little bonuses that never get remembered or used.)




Yes and no. This reminds me of how my wife and I have moved a bunch of times in the ten years we've been together and never seem to settle into one spot for more than a year or two without getting antsy. On one hand we know that, to quote Ram Dass, "Wherever you go, there you are," meaning, you can't escape yourself and the primary factor in being happy in any place is internal, it is "the right mindset." But there are other factors, like the place itself. So it is a balance. On one hand, the main thing is how you use it, but on the other, what it is is important.

But I do agree that we have an enormous amount of freedom and power in optimizing what is before us, and in the context of 4ed--or any edition of D&D--this involves flavoring the soup how we like it. The deli factor might play into WotC: most delis under-salt food so that people can salt it to their own taste.



MrMyth said:


> I'm certainly not saying you have to take this approach of course, or that there is any fault for not doing so - but I think a lot of the problems you have can be solved by house rules, which the system very much allows for. Maybe not the Character Builder, but that's a bonus tool on top of the system itself, not an enforcer of the rules. (And many of these issues can be dealt with without dealing with it at all.)




It is good advice that I agree with, which is why I'm dabbling with creating my own "D&D: Mercurius' Ultimate Edition."

 


LostSoul said:


> Here are two different ways to approach description.
> 
> The first works like this: player decides on course of action -> description of action -> mechanical resolution -> description of outcome.
> 
> ...





 Thanks Lost Soul, this is EXACTLY what I was trying to get at in terms of my problem with the Power system in 4E. Of course you can still use page 42, but the Powers make it easy not to. I’ve been trying to encourage my players to “do something cool” and I think Piratecat’s system will go a long way to helping that.

 


Raven Crowking said:


> Bunk.
> 
> I was told this when I was dissatisfied with 3e, and for a while I bought it. I can even link to the post where I said so waaaayyyyy back when. But you know what? I started a project to retrofit the rules to the way I wanted to play, and the magic is as strong as it ever was. Stronger, even, because it is informed by decades of experience.
> 
> ...





 On one level I agree with the nostalgia, or at least that it plays a major part. However, what you point at is what could be called the “deeper potential” of human imagination. A child’s imagination is awake and vital, while most adults’ are sleeping. Yet when an adult’s imagination wakes up and is taken seriously—is engaged in fully—it is truly a magical thing. 

_Beyond the Great Wall lies a Realm of Infinite Wonders…_

 


Markn said:


> Feeling frustrated, I've been reviewing old editions for what I like and don't like and have begun work on what I like to call "The Definitive Version of D&D" blending elements from several editions. It's still in early creation and is a ton of work.
> 
> Maybe we should start a support group!




No doubt! It sounds like we’re on the same page—we’ll have to compare our personal “Definite Versions of D&D.”

 


Chrono22 said:


> At the root of it, the differences you are talking about exist because the 4e designers' vision of D&D wasn't very expansive.




 I’m surprised no one took up the points of your provocative, but excellent post.



Chrono22 said:


> _I_ believe we play pnp RPGs because they are collaberation/imagination engines- they allow each participant to add his own intentions, interests, and experiences to the pool. The appeal of pnp RPGs is that the play experience is calibrated for the individual- he gets what he wants (be it power, fame, success, or freedom).




 This is well put.
 


Chrono22 said:


> _I_ think the thing that makes D&D unique, and is inherent to its nature is a *feeling of fellowship*, an *adventurous spirit*, and a *sense of wonder*.






Chrono22 said:


> The *feeling of fellowship* is usually derived from a sense of shared risk, and how differences among the individuals become a strength- the group can accomplish more than the individual.
> The *adventurous spirit* is usually derived from how the PCs perceive themselves in respect to their world and environment. They don't know what lies around the corner or beyond the sunset- and they want to. Curiousity drives them. This aspect of D&D isn't something you can give players- you can only reward it.
> The *sense of wonder* is derived from unreal experiences, new experiences, and the unknown. It's challenging old thinking, rewarding lateral thinking, and seeing things in a new light.





 Again, really nicely put.



Chrono22 said:


> Taken in this light, D&D's emphasis on swords & sorcery, dragons & dungeons seems contrived. Fellowship doesn't have to be party-based, wonder can be found in a teacup, and an adventurous spirit is something that can be cultivated by challenging your preconceptions in any form.
> 
> Really, though, the reason 4e feels "off" is because the designers' intentions didn't account for these things. They confused D&D's subject matter with its purpose. They confused their own playstyles with some kind of universal constant. They narrowed its focus, limited its scope. You say 4e is "watered down". No, it's just very concentrated- but its a concentration of features you don't associate with your own experiences of D&D.




 I might not feel quite as strongly as you do about this, but I think there is a lot of truth to what you say.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 5, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Really, though, the reason 4e feels "off" is because the designers' intentions didn't account for these things. They confused D&D's subject matter with its purpose. They confused their own playstyles with some kind of universal constant. They narrowed its focus, limited its scope. You say 4e is "watered down". No, it's just very concentrated- but its a concentration of features you don't associate with your own experiences of D&D.




This pretty much nails it.

To put a more positive spin on it: D&D was a game that scratched a lot of different itches for a lot of different people in a lot of different ways. The designers of 4th Edition picked a "sweet spot" and reworked the entire game to focus on that "sweet spot".

If it actually was your sweet spot, then the game is fantastic.

But if it wasn't your sweet spot, then 4th Edition is a complete disaster.

For example, look at the way classes play. WotC's designers are pretty upfront about the fact that they wanted to make all the different classes play in the same way. They did that very successfully... and in the process eliminated all the other ways of playing the game that lots of people used to enjoy.


----------



## Hjorimir (Jan 5, 2010)

weem said:


> Someone somewhere (I don't think here at ENW, but I could be wrong) had a system drawn up of ways to spend the fate points in 4e. We tweaked them a bit, and a friend put them on a card he made - then he set up a 3x3 sheet of them to print and cut - I just asked him about it but it's at home otherwise i would post it.
> 
> Anyway, some of the options for using one include getting a +3 to attack for your daily, +2 to attack an encounter, +1 anything else (all AFTER having rolled). There were a few more things on there (not coming to mind atm)... maybe a re-roll... and possibly an extra action. To hideout was ever discussed before that, I just kind of wanted one all of a sudden... he could have denied me, but he also may have then given me another one. If you know the Aspect/Fate system you already have an idea of how it works, etc.
> 
> ...



I follow. Thanks, weem.


----------



## Markn (Jan 5, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I kinda-sorta agree with you.
> 
> IMO, the reason no game does exactly what I want it to is because I want mutually exclusive things, only all at once.  I want the speed and flexibility of rules-light, but I want the tinkering and system mastery of rules-heavy.  I want heavy RP, but I also want tons of die-rolling action.  I want the constant danger of immediate death, but I want PCs to be robust.  I want exotic classes and races, but I also want traditional swords & horses fantasy.  I want magic swords, lightsabers, The Computer, vampire slayers, rat-catchers, giant robots, and mi-go.
> 
> ...




And cake.  Don't forget that you want to eat cake too!


----------



## Obryn (Jan 5, 2010)

Markn said:


> And cake.  Don't forget that you want to eat cake too!



The cake is a lie.

Sorry to break it to you like this.

-O


----------



## Markn (Jan 5, 2010)

What?  Damn!  Then it must be pie!  Orc pie!


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 5, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> For example, look at the way classes play. WotC's designers are pretty upfront about the fact that they wanted to make all the different classes play in the same way. They did that very successfully... and in the process eliminated all the other ways of playing the game that lots of people used to enjoy.




Such as?


----------



## Glyfair (Jan 5, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> *Dice4Hire, *I hear you and agree. One thing I appreciate about pretty much every edition of D&D is that it says jsut that: "Bend and break it until it is yours." I do wish they gave that option with Character Builder.



I know it's a hard thing to do, but if Character Builder is the problem, why not just throw away Character Builder?  Once you have a house rule that can't be worked around when using the Character Builder, then just disallow it's use.

I suspect one of two things would happen.  Either your group would find ways to use both the house rules and CB at the same time (perhaps just by pencilling in the changes on the CB character sheet), or you will lose the dependence on CB.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 5, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> *Jack99, *you had me until you said "...as much fun as I do." My goal is not to have as much fun as you or anyone else--heck, we have no way of comparing how much fun we have--but to optimize my own experience, and that of my group. But it isn't only that, or perhaps even mainly that--it is also a matter of aesthetics.




Sorry that I lost you. It means that I am having a lot of fun, and I hope you find a way to have that too, nothing else.

Good luck


----------



## FireLance (Jan 5, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> Such as?



The key element is probably a variety of resource management models ranging from: almost purely at-will abilities (fighter and rogues/thieves) to almost purely daily abilities prepared in advance (clerics and wizards) to daily spell slots or power points used to activate effects from a pre-selected list (sorcerers, psions and "specialist" spellcasting classes like the warmage and the beguiler) to more esoteric resource management models such as blade magic, incarnum and vestige binding.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 5, 2010)

Regarding the "it's just nostalgia" idea, I like Philotomy's comments:



			
				Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> The idea behind "rose colored glasses" is that your perception is being altered, and that you aren't seeing things as they truly are. If you're "looking back through rose colored glasses," it means that you're not seeing clearly, with the implication that time has tricked your memory, making the past seem better than it actually was. You only see the good stuff through the rose colored glasses. So this is a neat turn of phrase, a flippant dismissal of any fond feelings for older editions like OD&D. Nevertheless, while glib, the phrase doesn't apply to me and my enthusiam for OD&D.
> 
> Rose colored glasses only "work" when you're looking back on an experience. Once you actually go back and experience it, again, the glasses stop working. At that point, the experience must stand or fall on its own merits (or lack thereof). I'm not looking back fondly on OD&D, I'm currently playing it. When I say I like it, it's not because rose colored glasses have skewed my perception of the past; it's because I like the experience I'm currently having. Rose colored glasses? Nope.




There's certainly a nostalgia factor in wanting to try old editions, but the fact is that a lot of people are also having as much fun with them as the did "back in the day".


----------



## vagabundo (Jan 5, 2010)

I've had some of your concerns myself - since cracking open the books.

But the core of 4e fits me like a glove and I can change or ignore the other parts to my liking; focusing on different modules or ripping them out entirely.

I would like WotC to release a Unearthed Arcane that would have some optional systems to try, but the basics are very transparent in 4e and I feel confident to DIY it.

I've got Star Wars Saga on its way to me now. I'm interested to see some of the variant rules used there and maybe apply it to my 4e game.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 5, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Regarding the "it's just nostalgia" idea, I like Philotomy's comments



Thanks for the quote, it's really accurate. You don't know how much is nostalgia and how much is because of the system's true merit unless you try it again.

I've tried it once and it didn't work for me. There were just too many things (some of which I'd completely forgotten about) that I didn't like. Additionally, my priorities have changed in the 25+ years I've been playing rpgs. I used to love highly 'realistic', simulationist systems, now I prefer systems that simply 'play' well.

Regarding the solution to create your personal, custom 'definite D&D edition', I'm not sure if this will actually work well. Having done this back in the 2e days, I've found two problems:

1. While I, as the DM, was super-happy about my version of D&D, my players didn't really care all that much about my changes. Sure, they went along with every change I made, but looking back, I think they'd been happier if I had simply played the game as-is (as much as you actually could, since 2e pretty much required a certain amount of house-ruling).

2. The second problem was that I could no longer use any official new material without modifying it to fit into my 'edition'.

Both problems combined lead to the campaign's death after about three years which was the beginning of a long break. I didn't play any rpgs for about a year and then spent several more years trying different systems until I returned to D&D shortly before 3.5 was released.

Anyway, that's of course just my personal experience. There seem to be a lot of people that are happy to play old editions or retro-clones or heavily customized versions of D&D.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 5, 2010)

I played 1e a few months back with my high school gaming group, running through Expedition to the Barrier Peaks until I got randomly killed by a no-saving-throw death trap. It was really fun, but I missed some of the tactical richness from later editions. Due to the module, I really missed the lack of any NPCs to roleplay with. And I DEFINITELY didn't miss insta-kill death traps!

Stupid death trap.

I don't think nostalgia plays a huge role in my gaming, other than always trying to catch that sense of "this is so frikkin' cool!" that comes with a new game. I like some of modern RPG advancements too much to give them up on a long-term basis.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 5, 2010)

Glyfair said:


> I know it's a hard thing to do, but if Character Builder is the problem, why not just throw away Character Builder? Once you have a house rule that can't be worked around when using the Character Builder, then just disallow it's use.
> 
> I suspect one of two things would happen. Either your group would find ways to use both the house rules and CB at the same time (perhaps just by pencilling in the changes on the CB character sheet), or you will lose the dependence on CB.




If it was just me, I would, or I would include it as optional--and that is probably what I'll end up doing. But the group, comprised of mainly casual players, doesn't have the same issues I have with it afaik, and I think enjoy CB (as do I).

I'm just starting the project of not only figuring out how I want to customize 4ed, but what an "ideal version of D&D" would look like to me. I might transition my group into that eventually, but it would be a gradual process. Depending upon how different it is from the 4ed RAW, CB may or may not be usable in th end.



Jack99 said:


> Sorry that I lost you. It means that I am having a lot of fun, and I hope you find a way to have that too, nothing else.
> 
> Good luck




But I _am _having fun, and I _do _enjoy 4ed. Actually, the way I am not having as much fun as I would has less to do with the rules system itself, and more to do with group dynamics--but that is another discussion entirely. 

In some ways my beef is less practical and more aesthetic. I enjoy RPGs both to play, but also as an artform in their own right, and the discussion and inquiry into what could almost be described as the "Epistemology of RPGs."

But I am realizing that there are a few small to moderate things that I could tweak to increase my (and hopefully the rest of the group's) enjoyment, that would lead to deeper immersion, more magic, wonder, spontaneity and fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> I'm just starting the project of not only figuring out how I want to customize 4ed, but what an "ideal version of D&D" would look like to me. I might transition my group into that eventually, but it would be a gradual process. Depending upon how different it is from the 4ed RAW, CB may or may not be usable in th end.





You could consider telling your players that:

*  They are not getting treasure bundles ala 4e.  They get what they find, and if they find more, or find less, that is up to them.

*  Not all encounters will be scaled to them.  They need to be willing to scout, to run, etc.   

*  It will be up to the players to choose balanced encounters.  Little risk means little reward.  Larger risks bring larger rewards.  Deciding what you can handle is part of the game.

*  The world abounds in minor artifacts.  You can't buy them in a shop.  
(Then crack open the 2e Encyclopedia Magica and go to town.  4e-ify anything you like, and let "balance" hang.)

*  Characters no longer level in lock-step.  

Then go to the 4e rules forum, and find some ways to shorten the combat grind.

This should cover 90% of what ails 4e (IMHO)



RC


----------



## JediSoth (Jan 5, 2010)

4E was out for nearly a year before I finally bought the books and started to run a game of it (so I guess I was never actually on the bandwagon). I loved the ease of prep on the GMing side, but I was surprised how "swingy" combats could be, depending on the mix of characters. (e.g. a handful of regular monsters with many minions - no wizard = LONG combat, 1 wizard = MUCH shorter combat, because the wizard was the only capable of mass damage). Some of my players felt stifled by the lack of RP rules; they felt 4E was only about combats, despite my efforts to try to lead them into RP situations. The lack of non-combat options in their powers tended to make them feel that combat was the ONLY options for their characters (which is more a play-style incompatibility with 4E than a flaw in the system itself, I think).

The game was fun while we play it, but it never really felt like D&D to me. It felt more like a fantasy superhero game.

I played it for the first time at Gen Con '09. I didn't care much for my experience, which, admittedly, was probably due to the DM and the scenario (a con game tourney module). It really soured me on the game.

I haven't played or run 4E since.

I'd give it another shot as a player, but not vanilla. Maybe Eberron or Dark Sun when it's available. I'm not sure I want to run it again. I don't really care much for the system as a game for fantasy gaming.

I really wish the online tools were available for something like Pathfinder. The ease of game prep is the hardest thing to give up.

There was a time when I lamented the loss of all the third party support for D&D, but now, I think the fragmentation of the base, as it were, is a good thing. There are so many new and different games out there now, it makes me feel like I did in the 80s: so many awesome games and too little time to play them all (though it sure was fun trying).


----------



## malkav666 (Jan 5, 2010)

Mercurius,

My own position resonates with your in many ways. I was on board with 4e from the beginning (was even a regular poster on the wotc forums waiting for new info each day until the general negativity of the edition warring there soured me to the place). When the game came out I had my books day one and by the end of the first week of release my group was romping through keep on the shadowfell having a great time. We actually played through the first 4 published 4e modules, and even started the DDI track (the rivenroar module and the one immediately after it).

My own groups disenchantment started off kind of slow and did not happen at the gaming table. We started talking about some of the other games and campaigns we had been in over the years (some of use have been playing D&D together since we were 10, so our group has been together for a long time as some of us just started popping year 30 this year) and decided to try and convert one of our older campaings over to 4e and dust off some old characters that needed to get back in the game. The conversion was a nightmare and almost nothing remained of the orginal characters but their names and the names of their classes for most of them. But we plodded on and tried the campaign and started to realize slowly that we (meaning our group, not the system) just were not able to play the way we used to with the new rules.

Over the next few months their enthusiam for the system just kind of dwindled. We played it for a good solid year and had some good times, but around the time we were playing our third and 4th characters my players started complaining of all the classses feeling the same, and all of the monsters feeling the same, and eventually it led us to take a break from 4e for a little while. We finished off a high level 2e game that had another chapter in it, and then when my turn to run came back up we revisited our 3.5 evil campaign and played through another adventure I had designed for that group.

After those two adventures which took about 5 months to finish my group got together and we made the descision to leave 4e on the shelf for the long term (I still have my D&D 4e adventures and I still buy more of those types of products every now and again, with the intent of doing a blast through them one day as we all still own the books). We went back to 3.5 and played there for a bit, when Pathfinder was released we picked it up and gave it a whirl using Monte Cook's Dungeon-a-day as the testing ground for it, and eventually decided to start a campaign. We have two rotating campaigns using the system going right now. We are about to start the 5th module in Age of Worms in one of the campaigns and are on the second module in a very modified homebrewish Rise of the Runelords campaign in the the other.

3.5/Pathfinder is a heavier system for sure and sometimes we need a break and we do some boardgaming during those breaks (right now we are starting each session off with an encounter or two of the WHFRP 3e mini campaign we are playing, it takes about an hour and is very boardgamy and my group enjoys it in those increments).

All in all I don' t think 4e is a bad system it just turns out it was not for us. I suggest if you are feeling disenchanted to try something else for a bit. Maybe play some games your group alrready owns for a few sessions and then take a look at whats out there and come to a concensus as a group as to what you want to try next.

love,

malkav


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You could consider telling your players that:
> 
> *  They are not getting treasure bundles ala 4e.  They get what they find, and if they find more, or find less, that is up to them.




I've already been doing this, mainly because I started running the game before I read the part about parcels.



> *  Not all encounters will be scaled to them.  They need to be willing to scout, to run, etc.
> 
> * It will be up to the players to choose balanced encounters. Little risk means little reward. Larger risks bring larger rewards. Deciding what you can handle is part of the game.




Already done.




> *  The world abounds in minor artifacts.  You can't buy them in a shop. (Then crack open the 2e Encyclopedia Magica and go to town.  4e-ify anything you like, and let "balance" hang.)




I'm thinking of differentiating between "enchanted" or "glamoured" items, those that have plus bonuses or minor magical effects--like most in the game--and artefacts of varying degrees of power, but are more unique, powerful and interesting (and in my world, game form the high civilization that existed before the magical apocalypse that just ended).

I might even throw something in like any enchantments are temporary; that is, the +3 sword you buy in the Ye Olde Magick Shoppe will fade over time--that the ability to make permanent magic items has been lost.

I'm still thinking on it. The point being, I don't have a problem with being able to buy magic items in shop(pes), but I want to bring magic and mystery back to them.

_*  Characters no longer level in lock-step.  
_ 
Level in lock-step? What do you mean?

_Then go to the 4e rules forum, and find some ways to shorten the combat grind.

_ Yes. I'm thinking of applying the, what is it, -33% monster HP, +25% PC damage, common house rule. Or just reduce monster HP by up to half.



> This should cover 90% of what ails 4e (IMHO)




For me it covers about 70%, but still doesn't touch powers and a couple other minor things.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 5, 2010)

My next campaign is going to do away with magic items. I'm going to go with inherent bonuses, and legendary/divine boons, as well as some grandmaster training... (AKA visit the ancient monk on the hill to learn the power of the whirling blade...)

I'm going to make artifacts the real "magic items" in the game, and possibly only use martial classes, with rituals being the only way to cast "spells."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2010)

Levelling in lock-step is an artifact of WotC-D&D that assumes all PCs are of the same level.

Powers I can't help you with (at least not within the confines of 4e).

Best of luck!


RC


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jan 5, 2010)

I have the same problem with the CB. Well, not the same exact problem because I refuse to use it. I like using house rules too, and from what my players tell me the CB makes using them too bothersome. The CB might make things a bit easier, but I'm old school in this regard -- I believe in pen and paper, and that anything a computer can do I can do equally or better.

Another thing about the CB is that while it is cheaper than buying a bunch of books, I _don't actually have the books._ Which is an issue for me, because for whatever reason I just don't like reading books on a screen. I want to hold it in my hands. Also, I don't know if WotC has said anything about this, but what happens to all those virtual books when the next edition comes along? I suspect they'll go the way of the dodo.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jan 5, 2010)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> ...I believe in pen and paper, and that anything a computer can do I can do equally or better.



 Can you compute pi to 2.7 trillion decimal digits?


----------



## Scribble (Jan 5, 2010)

Infiniti2000 said:


> Can you compute pi to 2.7 trillion decimal digits?




Yeah I did that once, I beat the computer too, but then I died of a heart attack.

Oh wait no that wasn't me, that was John Henry, and he built a railway through a mountain.  I think he hated sandbox games or something.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 5, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> Such as?




True low-level play where the PCs are fragile. (1st level characters in 4th Edition

True high-level play. (The abilities which defined high-level play were largely removed from 4th Edition.)

Old school fighter-type classes. (All classes now come with powers.)

Old school wizard-type classes; i.e. classes whose abilities are basically completely customizable from one adventuring day to the next. (Some vestiges of this remain in 4th Edition, but only in a significantly muted form.)

(People often talk about how "all the classes play the same". This isn't actually true. But it is true that the variation between the classes, while meaningful, is happening within a very narrow mechanical slice of the range found in previous editions.)

These are the large examples. There are also subtler and more arguable examples, as well: The loss of support for certain styles of play resulting from the heavily dissociated mechanics, for example. Or the WotC design ethos that monsters have a "lifespan of five rounds [and] that means it basically does five things, ever, period, the end" (as stated by David Noonan). Designing monsters to support those five rounds of combat -- and nothing else -- has a _huge_ impact on styles of play focused beyond thoes five rounds of combat.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 5, 2010)

keterys said:


> Honestly, I think the best trick is to play some very different games, to get a feel for things. Something not at all D&D, so you can see what's good or bad about things, and what you liked or didn't like, and different ways people approach things.
> 
> Piratecat's where I'd go next - take it all a bit less seriously and stretch the system out a little bit.
> 
> ...




A good DM can make almost any game system fun. That's why I've always told people "I may not like or be interested in that game. But if you have a good idea and really want to run it, I'll play." 

I never really sought out Mech Warrior games. But I knew a guy that did such a great job running the game, I'd play with him any chance I got. Even for one offs and the like. 

I'd even play 4E again if a DM I knew ran a good game wanted to run a 4E campaign. A good story idea and an enthusiastic DM will always trump the game system for me.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jan 5, 2010)

Infiniti2000 said:


> Can you compute pi to 2.7 trillion decimal digits?



I didn't say I can do it faster; I said better. 

I realize my sentiments aren't completely rational, but if Socrates can do it so can I! (Did you know that Socrates railed against the newest technology of his time -- writing things down -- the way that some modern people rail against computers and electronics? He thought that not having to memorize every little tidbit of information would make people stupid and lazy, which is probably true to a certain degree.)


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 5, 2010)

JediSoth said:


> 4E was out for nearly a year before I finally bought the books and started to run a game of it (so I guess I was never actually on the bandwagon). I loved the ease of prep on the GMing side, but I was surprised how "swingy" combats could be, depending on the mix of characters. (e.g. a handful of regular monsters with many minions - no wizard = LONG combat, 1 wizard = MUCH shorter combat, because the wizard was the only capable of mass damage). Some of my players felt stifled by the lack of RP rules; they felt 4E was only about combats, despite my efforts to try to lead them into RP situations. The lack of non-combat options in their powers tended to make them feel that combat was the ONLY options for their characters (which is more a play-style incompatibility with 4E than a flaw in the system itself, I think).




It's a systemic flaw. You used to be able to memorise and cast spells like _Charm Person_ or _detect thoughts_ to assist in roleplaying encounters without taking 10 minutes plus and performing a ritual. In fact, _Charm Person_ or _Detect Thoughts_ could be very subtle spells, yet they don't exist in 4E in a form useable for non-combat encounters or in a subtle way.

There are alot of spells like that in the new edition. For example, polymorph-based infiltration is not real possible in 4E as far as I could tell from the base rules. 

The quick teleport in and knock open the door rescue mission is not going to be the same in 4E. You won't be casting teleport in combat any longer or _knock_. 

So no, it isn't just a play style issue. It's inherent in the system, which is more limited than previous editions of D&D primarily because the magic system is far more limited.

So now you hack your way in and hack your way out of just about everything. Though some DMs do creatively use skill challenges to resolve encounters. Skills challenges were a nice addition to the game, though at times all that rolling is pretty boring and lessens immersion.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 5, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> There are alot of spells like that in the new edition. For example, polymorph-based infiltration is not real possible in 4E as far as I could tell from the base rules.




Actually, it is, but you need the PHB2. Druids have a utility power that lets them _wild shape_ into a tiny, unobtrusive animal. Polymorph is strictly a druid shtick these days.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 5, 2010)

> So now you hack your way in and hack your way out of just about everything. Though some DMs do creatively use skill challenges to resolve encounters. Skills challenges were a nice addition to the game, though at times all that rolling is pretty boring and lessens immersion.




I kind of felt the same way about spells being used to overcome social challenges, to be honest; they were pretty dull. The silver-tongued rogue is always the second best option because the wizard has a social gun that kills with one shot (though save negates). I prefer systems where the silver-tongued rogue is the first choice to go to for bluffing your way past the guards, or the cleric can trust an inspirational speech to have as great a chance as anything.

I dunno, maybe we just don't play like the generic "you" who hacks their way in and hacks their way out of just about everything, but I didn't see a reduction in non-combat negotiations because the quick fix of the spell was taken away. Skill checks are still skill checks, as before, skill challenges are what you want to use if a situation has taken on the comparable gravity of a combat encounter (without being about combat). 

The main thing is that skill challenges are designed to engage everyone at the table, like a combat: everyone gets a turn. This is a very good idea, but it also suffers terribly if you give poor examples, like social challenges where Intimidate is an auto-fail: you're pretty much punishing the fighter (or other classes who only have Intimidate as a social class skill) for taking part, which goes against the idea that engaging all players is a good thing. 

Is it really only "some" DMs who use skill challenges, though? Man, that seems horrid. It's like playing 3.5 and only "some" DMs using the craft items rules.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Actually, it is, but you need the PHB2. Druids have a utility power that lets them _wild shape_ into a tiny, unobtrusive animal. Polymorph is strictly a druid shtick these days.




Hee! It was pretty entertaining when the gnoll druid in my brother's campaign took that. It seemed amusing that such a prideful creature could lower herself to being a tiny, inoffensive herbivore for the purposes of stealth, but it was decidedly useful.


----------



## JediSoth (Jan 5, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> <SNIP>
> 
> Is it really only "some" DMs who use skill challenges, though? Man, that seems horrid. It's like playing 3.5 and only "some" DMs using the craft items rules.




I can't speak for ALL DMs of 4E, but I know it took me many sessions to even attempt a skill challenge (and I had to read many different accounts of them first) because of the horrid way they were explained in the DMG.

As a 3.X DM, I never used the craft items rules, though I didn't stop my players from using them if they wanted to...though in the 7 or so years of playing 3.X, I never actually had a player try to craft an item using those rules.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 5, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> True low-level play where the PCs are fragile. (1st level characters in 4th Edition



I'll agree with this.  If you want to play an ordinary-people game or a farmboy-to-hero game, 4e isn't the right system for it.  I make WFRP2 my first choice, when I'm looking for this.  (And it's a heck of a system for it, too.)



> True high-level play. (The abilities which defined high-level play were largely removed from 4th Edition.)



That kinda depends.  If by "abilities" you mean "hugely-powerful spells which can be cast in the midst of battle", then yeah.  Those are gone.  But if you're talking about martial abilities, 4e does a much better job, IMO, for high-level play - your fighters, rogues, rangers, and the like have a lot more options in this case.

Also, if I wanted true high-powered gaming, I might give Exalted a spin rather than work with any of the various D&D's.  Playing demigods is, IMO, kind of a niche that requires a lot of mechanical tweaks.  I don't think using the same system I've been using up to godhood cuts it at that point.  YMMV, of course. 



> Old school fighter-type classes. (All classes now come with powers.)



Yep, those are definitely missing.  I love returning to 1e - or even Call of Cthulhu d20 - for simplified characters.



> Old school wizard-type classes; i.e. classes whose abilities are basically completely customizable from one adventuring day to the next. (Some vestiges of this remain in 4th Edition, but only in a significantly muted form.)



No, if you're looking for a truly Vancian wizard, they're not in 4e.  This would be the biggest category I'd choose 3.5e (or maybe Arcana Evolved) for.



> These are the large examples. There are also subtler and more arguable examples, as well: The loss of support for certain styles of play resulting from the heavily dissociated mechanics, for example. Or the WotC design ethos that monsters have a "lifespan of five rounds [and] that means it basically does five things, ever, period, the end" (as stated by David Noonan). Designing monsters to support those five rounds of combat -- and nothing else -- has a _huge_ impact on styles of play focused beyond thoes five rounds of combat.



These are a lot more arguable.  Specifically, I think you're undervaluing what 4e can bring to the table.  There are some aspects of D&D playing that, IMO, 4e does better than any previous edition.  There are some aspects that 3e does better.  There are plenty that 1e/2e do better, too.



Celtavian said:


> It's a systemic flaw. You used to be able to memorise and cast spells like _Charm Person_ or _detect thoughts_ to assist in roleplaying encounters without taking 10 minutes plus and performing a ritual. In fact, _Charm Person_ or _Detect Thoughts_ could be very subtle spells, yet they don't exist in 4E in a form useable for non-combat encounters or in a subtle way
> ....
> So no, it isn't just a play style issue. It's inherent in the system, which is more limited than previous editions of D&D primarily because the magic system is far more limited.
> 
> So now you hack your way in and hack your way out of just about everything. Though some DMs do creatively use skill challenges to resolve encounters. Skills challenges were a nice addition to the game, though at times all that rolling is pretty boring and lessens immersion.



If the kind of game you want to play is one where a wizard has a swiss pocket knife of spells which can be inventively used to bypass or defeat any social or infiltration challenge, then 4e is not that game.

My argument - and it's been made before, so I won't belabor the point - is that by removing this element of 1e-3e play, the skill system has been placed at the front and center for exploration and interaction.  This can be through skill challenges _or _good, old-fashioned narrative resolution (like in 0e-1e).  Also, with adequate prep time, some timely 4e rituals can help a ton.

What moves this away from a friendly discussion about what systems do what well is, IMO, your last assertion that the only way through social and exploration-style play in 4e is to hack your way through it.  That's a little uncalled-for.

-O


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 5, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> For me it covers about 70%, but still doesn't touch powers and a couple other minor things.




The easiest thing to do would be to assign a penalty to the attack roll if the player doesn't describe the PC's action.  -4 for no description, -2 for a boring one.

Once the players start describing their attacks, listen to the details and make them have an effect on resolution.

"Tide of Iron."  -4 to hit.
"I attack him and follow up with a push from my shield." -2 to hit.
"I come in low, almost crouching; then I push up, my shield slamming into his, forcing it to the side.  Once I'm right in his guard I stab up with my longsword at his face."  +2 to hit for the move, and if it does his shield will be out of place, potentially giving him a -2 AC/Ref.  If the PC was using a short thrusting weapon he could have got himself another +2 to hit.


I don't think that's a great fix but it's along the right lines.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Find a game you want to play, or _*make*_ the game be one you want to play.
> 
> Buy into "What you want is nostalgia anyway, and you can never recapture it" and it will become the truth.




I actually completely agree... As one example- For years I was bored bored bored of the monsters in the game... 4e brought that original "ooooohhhh monster!"ness back for me, because of the way the monsters are set up. 

I still think nostalgia plays a bit, but that's equally true for everything in life.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I actually completely agree... As one example- For years I was bored bored bored of the monsters in the game... 4e brought that original "ooooohhhh monster!"ness back for me, because of the way the monsters are set up.
> 
> I still think nostalgia plays a bit, but that's equally true for everything in life.




Kewl Beans!

I am sure that, for everyone who dislikes Game X, there will be at least one more who finds just what he or she is looking for.  Life is too short for games you aren't enjoying.  Thankfully, there are a lot of games out there.  If one isn't just right for you, you can always Frankenstein a bunch of them together until you have what you want!  


RC


----------



## Scribble (Jan 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Kewl Beans!
> 
> I am sure that, for everyone who dislikes Game X, there will be at least one more who finds just what he or she is looking for.  Life is too short for games you aren't enjoying.  Thankfully, there are a lot of games out there.  If one isn't just right for you, you can always Frankenstein a bunch of them together until you have what you want!
> 
> ...




Heh I don't think I've ever actually played a game 100% as written in the books... Maybe the first year or so of basic OI played? But after that it was Advanced Basic D&D (basic with lots of stuff stolen from AD&D) then some 1.75 (2e with lots of stuff from 1e) then 2.75 (3e with lots of stuff from 2e) then 3.75 (3.5 with elements of 3e...)  

Even my current 4e games are influenced by a lot of older system material.


----------



## Truename (Jan 5, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> The easiest thing to do would be to assign a penalty to the attack roll if the player doesn't describe the PC's action.  -4 for no description, -2 for a boring one.




Combat takes long enough as it is. Perhaps a damage bonus instead, to make up for the extra time required to think up and use detailed descriptions?


----------



## Chrono22 (Jan 5, 2010)

Obryn said:


> What moves this away from a friendly discussion about what systems do what well is, IMO, your last assertion that the only way through social and exploration-style play in 4e is to hack your way through it.  That's a little uncalled-for.
> 
> -O



I understand people get emotionally invested with their characters/campaigns, but 4e (or any gaming system) doesn't need people to defend it. It's not a person, its feelings won't get hurt.
It's called-for because that's what he believes. If you disagree with his assertions and want to make him see the error of his ways, then show him with a positive argument in support of your views. Telling him his opinions are uncalled for is uncalled for.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 5, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> It's called-for because that's what he believes. If you disagree with his assertions and want to make him see the error of his ways, then show him with a positive argument in support of your views.




Which is how edition wars start.

We were doing so well...


----------



## Chrono22 (Jan 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Which is how edition wars start.
> 
> We were doing so well...



I thought editions wars start because people hop into threads and shout "edition war!" without reading the content of the posts?
If making a positive claim that pertains to your own belief about a topic inevitably leads to edition war, then every thread on this site is an edition war.
OMG!

^Not that I'm implying you did so... but if someone takes issue with a claim, challenge the claim don't disrepute the post.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 5, 2010)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> (Did you know that Socrates railed against the newest technology of his time -- writing things down -- the way that some modern people rail against computers and electronics? He thought that not having to memorize every little tidbit of information would make people stupid and lazy, which is probably true to a certain degree.)



I see your (light hearted) appeal to authority and raise you.
(Did you know that Einstein basically said that memorizing things that could be easily looked up was waste of mental energy)


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 5, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> I thought editions wars start because people hop into threads and shout "edition war!" without reading the content of the posts?




Okay, to be more specific: "Showing people the error of their ways," even with the best intentions, when the subject is something like "[In 4E] you hack your way in and hack your way out of just about everything," is how edition wars start.


----------



## keterys (Jan 5, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> It's called-for because that's what he believes. If you disagree with his assertions and want to make him see the error of his ways, then show him with a positive argument in support of your views. Telling him his opinions are uncalled for is uncalled for.




People can have whatever opinions they want, but saying those opinions in an inflammatory manner is never a good idea on a messageboard. Whether it's a knitting, cooking, gaming, or whatever board.

So, the manner in which he said his opinion was uncalled for, not the having the opinion in the first place. People should try to understand the way in which their words can and will be interpreted and coach their postings accordingly. Especially when posting about something subjective that will surely invite someone to post an opposing and argumentative viewpoint (Hint: Folks RP in every system. Don't try to knock their ability to RP in any version of D&D, Rifts, Mechwarrior, Amber, or even Chess. It's just not worth opening that kettle)

Not that bringing it up is necessarily a good tactic, either, which is why I ignored it initially myself. But chastising someone for chastising him? Not going to improve matters either. So, hey, let's all just chill out and stay civilized.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 5, 2010)

I have a sudden impulse to start roleplaying my chess pieces.

But then my pawns are going to start having arguments with my king when he orders them to sacrifice themselves, and the bishops will take the pawns' side while the knights make dismissive comments about revolting peasants, and once the queen starts yelling "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!" it'll all go downhill fast.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 5, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> I understand people get emotionally invested with their characters/campaigns, but 4e (or any gaming system) doesn't need people to defend it. It's not a person, its feelings won't get hurt.
> It's called-for because that's what he believes. If you disagree with his assertions and want to make him see the error of his ways, then show him with a positive argument in support of your views. Telling him his opinions are uncalled for is uncalled for.



It's not about opinions or beliefs.  It's about productive versus unproductive _statements._  We can hold different opinions all day, and as long as we're making productive statements, we won't get into edition wars or useless squabbling.

"So you hack your way into and out of everything" isn't a statement that lends itself to a good discussion.  It's dismissive, and dismissive posts are a quick way to kill an otherwise-solid discussion.

IMO, it's better to call out unproductive statements and try to keep the conversation on a strong footing, than engage with them.  Heaven knows I'm perfectly happy to debate merits and flaws - I've been doing it this whole thread.  (EDIT: And yeah, I could have ignored it, but I was responding to his other points as well.)

-O


----------



## Chrono22 (Jan 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Okay, to be more specific: "Showing people the error of their ways," even with the best intentions, when the subject is something like "[In 4E] you hack your way in and hack your way out of just about everything," is how edition wars start.



My above points were mostly sarcastic. I actually think edition wars start when people approach the subject from an emotional and personal mindset. To a person with this way of thinking, an "attack" on his edition is perceived as an attack on himself because he associate themselves with the edition on a personal level. When he thinks of his edition, he thinks of the good times he's had with it. Any kind of (positive or negative) normative statement about his game is seen as either a validation or invalidation of his own experiences.
So, don't take anything anyone says personally. It's a game, you can't hurt its feelings. If you find yourself getting upset at what another poster says, and you start to respond to "defend" your edition- what are you defending? The edition or your own feelings? If it's the former, it doesn't need your help. If it's the latter, you are taking things too personally.

Edit: and taking anything on this forum as being a _productive_ statement is a stretch at best.


----------



## keterys (Jan 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I have a sudden impulse to start roleplaying my chess pieces.
> 
> But then my pawns are going to start having arguments with my king when he orders them to sacrifice themselves, and the bishops will take the pawns' side while the knights make dismissive comments about revolting peasants, and once the queen starts yelling "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!" it'll all go downhill fast.




True. Might be easier to go for a more Harry Potter Chess RP scene. Or History of the World.

Somehow, I suspect those might be very different gaming groups. Very different.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 5, 2010)

My experience is that edition wars (and flame wars in general) result from Poster A having one opinion, and Poster B having the opposite opinion, and each poster growing increasingly frustrated with his inability to persuade the other that he is obviously in the wrong:

*Poster A:* AD&D is an Everquest clone.
*Poster B:* No, it isn't. For one thing, it's 1979 and Everquest hasn't been invented yet.
*Poster A:* The similarities are obvious, though. They both have hit points and elves.
*Poster B:* That's irrelevant. Everquest isn't going to exist for a couple decades, so nothing can be a clone of it.
*Poster A:* Your point is invalidated by the fact that we're talking about it. This is a hypothetical conversation, so anything's possible.
*Poster B:* Look, if you can't understand that it's impossible to clone something that doesn't exist yet, you just don't grasp how time works.
*Poster A:* Your statement that I don't grasp how time works is pretty dumb considering you posted it on the Web from 1979.
*Poster B:* This is idiotic. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
*Poster A:* That's rich. The clueless one here is clearly you.
*Poster B:* Violator of causality!
*Poster A:* Anachronistic fool!
*Mod:* Folks, stop messing with the space-time continuum. This thread is closed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> My experience is that edition wars (and flame wars in general) result from Poster A having one opinion, and Poster B having the opposite opinion, and each poster growing increasingly frustrated with his inability to persuade the other that he is obviously in the wrong.





Agreed.  And more often because neither poster holds his or her opinion strongly enough to be able to simply ignore the other.  The poster who is sure X is not for him, or is sure that X is for her, isn't the poster who is engaged in edition wars.  The poster who is trying desperately to convince himself or herself is.  IMHO and IM (firsthand) E.

OTOH, the mods are the only "communications police" on EN World.  If they do not believe the OP is in violation of The Rules, wouldn't it be better to either ignore the post or try to discuss in a non-confrontational manner?

(And yes, pot meets kettle here, but a recent conversation with Umbran convinced me that he was right about this.)

RC


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> OTOH, the mods are the only "communications police" on EN World.  If they do not believe the OP is in violation of The Rules, wouldn't it be better to either ignore the post or try to discuss in a non-confrontational manner?
> 
> (And yes, pot meets kettle here, but a recent conversation with Umbran convinced me that he was right about this.)




Fair enough. I think we're sliding into a war over whether this is an edition war. 

Anyone got anything further on the original topic?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> *Mod:* Folks, stop messing with the space-time continuum. This thread is closed.




This is seriously funny, though.  I've got to give you some XP when my ability to do so refreshes!

RC


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 5, 2010)

Ok I didn't read this whole thread. To the OP I would suggest trying a few games and finding the one that comes closest to doing what you want. Odds are high you will never find the perfect RPG, you sound like me. A tinker someone that loves to tinker with the rules and adjust them to do things we want to do.

For me that has turned out to be Pathfinder, only because it comes closer with less work than any other. I love Rolemaster I really do but I utterly hate the magic system so much so that to play RM I have to completely gut and replace the magic system and thats a ton of work. I have played a variety of other games and DnD editions from basic boxed set ODnD to AD&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, PFRPG, Conan and a host of other D20 variations.

Right now as I already stated I found the system that comes closest to what I want out of a game system with the least amount of work on my part to get there.

So i think thats what you need to do, go play everything you can get your hands on for awhile each till you find the one that gets closest to what you want and then house rule the rest.

Good luck on finding your system.


----------



## nedjer (Jan 5, 2010)

Dark Mistress said:


> Ok I didn't read this whole thread. To the OP I would suggest trying a few games and finding the one that comes closest to doing what you want. Odds are high you will never find the perfect RPG, you sound like me. A tinker someone that loves to tinker with the rules and adjust them to do things we want to do.
> 
> For me that has turned out to be Pathfinder, only because it comes closer with less work than any other. I love Rolemaster I really do but I utterly hate the magic system so much so that to play RM I have to completely gut and replace the magic system and thats a ton of work. I have played a variety of other games and DnD editions from basic boxed set ODnD to AD&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, PFRPG, Conan and a host of other D20 variations.
> 
> ...




A post that says 'this what I like about my system' instead of twisting my arm up my back and saying, 'the gnomes' noses aren't pointy enough in your game.'


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> and once the queen starts yelling "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!" it'll all go downhill fast.



I thought that happened when you roleplayed with a deck of playing cards...


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 6, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> But I _am _having fun, and I _do _enjoy 4ed. Actually, the way I am not having as much fun as I would has less to do with the rules system itself, and more to do with group dynamics--but that is another discussion entirely.
> 
> In some ways my beef is less practical and more aesthetic. I enjoy RPGs both to play, but also as an artform in their own right, and the discussion and inquiry into what could almost be described as the "Epistemology of RPGs."
> 
> But I am realizing that there are a few small to moderate things that I could tweak to increase my (and hopefully the rest of the group's) enjoyment, that would lead to deeper immersion, more magic, wonder, spontaneity and fun.




When you start of by saying things like "I am not sure I like 4e anymore", I am pretty sure that you are not having as much fun as I. 

With that said, I do actually have a few things I do not like either, about 4e. One of them is the economy and the other being the magic items. I have "fixed" that problem by removing all creation of items and potions (thus giving me back the control of what is in the campaign) and custom making all magical items. In general, better items with more powerful effects (as opposed to more options), but fewer of them. I wanted to use inherent bonuses, but a couple of players felt strongly about that, so I let it go (for now). 

Cheers


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 6, 2010)

What I don´t like is that you usualy say: I use power ... and put my mini there...

I always freaked out when a player said: "i use the stealth skill to go there unnoticed" instead of: "i sneak there trying to remain unnoticed"

And I catch myself putting monsters here and there instead of describing the action... and this is when i stop liking 4th edtion.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 6, 2010)

Obryn said:


> These are a lot more arguable.  Specifically, I think you're undervaluing what 4e can bring to the table.  There are some aspects of D&D playing that, IMO, 4e does better than any previous edition.  There are some aspects that 3e does better.  There are plenty that 1e/2e do better, too.




Honestly, I have yet to see anything that 4E does well that you couldn't do equally well in previous editions. If you're looking for an out-of-the-box default of "this entire campaign will be played at the mid-level power range from previous editions", 4E gives that to you. But doing that in previous editions required about 10 seconds of house ruling ("roll up 6th level characters and I'll be awarding 1/10th the normal XP"), and that still gave you a wider range of supported play styles.

One of the reasons 3E continues to get played at our tables is that our circle of gamers isn't unified in its taste: Previous editions of D&D weren't a one-size-fits-all solution, and were thus capable of catering to a wider and more diverse audience.

But like I say: If the 4E designers chose your sweet spot, then you're in luck. They did a great job of addressing that one style of play. And you don't have to worry about anyone with different tastes mucking it up for you.


----------



## Gort (Jan 6, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Honestly, I have yet to see anything that 4E does well that you couldn't do equally well in previous editions. If you're looking for an out-of-the-box default of "this entire campaign will be played at the mid-level power range from previous editions", 4E gives that to you. But doing that in previous editions required about 10 seconds of house ruling ("roll up 6th level characters and I'll be awarding 1/10th the normal XP"), and that still gave you a wider range of supported play styles.
> 
> One of the reasons 3E continues to get played at our tables is that our circle of gamers isn't unified in its taste: Previous editions of D&D weren't a one-size-fits-all solution, and were thus capable of catering to a wider and more diverse audience.
> 
> But like I say: If the 4E designers chose your sweet spot, then you're in luck. They did a great job of addressing that one style of play. And you don't have to worry about anyone with different tastes mucking it up for you.




I disagree.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 6, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Honestly, I have yet to see anything that 4E does well that you couldn't do equally well in previous editions. If you're looking for an out-of-the-box default of "this entire campaign will be played at the mid-level power range from previous editions", 4E gives that to you. But doing that in previous editions required about 10 seconds of house ruling ("roll up 6th level characters and I'll be awarding 1/10th the normal XP"), and that still gave you a wider range of supported play styles.




I disagree. Seriously, even taking your suggestion at face value - playing a balanced game at 6th level indefinitely clearly can't compare to playing a balanced game over 30 levels of character advancement. 

I'm not sure what you think 4E fans like, but an unchanging 6th level game isn't it - it is the benefit of having an entertaining and balanced game that still lets us play average heroes who eventually become epic movers and shakers. Or a game where we can focus on our character concepts without worrying about that crippling our characters in combat. Or a game where we can try out crazy things in combat without the DM needing to stop the game for half an hour and consult rulebooks. 

Now, I'm not saying earlier editions couldn't potentially offer all this, or that 4E alone is able to present these things. But these are all elements that 4E offers and many fans enjoy, and I think your view of the game seems to completely disregard them. 



Beginning of the End said:


> One of the reasons 3E continues to get played at our tables is that our circle of gamers isn't unified in its taste: Previous editions of D&D weren't a one-size-fits-all solution, and were thus capable of catering to a wider and more diverse audience.




Similarly, I've seen 4E games played purely hack-and-slash, and 4E games focused on roleplaying and intrigue. I've sat down at LFR tables where people just wanted to show off their cool powers, tables where they wanted to experience the next part of the regional story-arc, and tables where people spent half the session cracking jokes and playing word-games with faeries in the woods. 

The LFR examples are particularly compelling for me, since I recall how I saw a lot of people driven _away_ from Living Greyhawk as it grew more and more focused on just being about the challenge and the power-game. Now, that was admittedly not just due to the 3rd Edition rules, but also the design of LG itself - but the fact remains that WotC tried to learn from their previous mistakes in their presentation of LFR. And in my personal experience, they have definitely succeeded in presenting an environment that welcomes a lot of different types of gamers in a way that LG had trouble with. 

In any case, I think every edition has been able to be played in a variety of ways. I don't think 4E is any different. I don't even think the goal of 4E is to be any one thing, and there are certainly plenty of elements in the rules - and plenty of advice in the DMG (and DMG2) - that seems specifically designed to allow for multiple styles of play.


----------



## bytor4232 (Jan 6, 2010)

4E is okay.  I played it a bit, but I didn't like it more than 3E, and certainly don't like it more than 0E and 1E, my games of choice.  I would probably play 4E if WOTC ever made good on the online game table.  Thats what I was most excited about, and it seems like 4E was tailored around online play.  Its a shame they never got that online game table thing off the ground.  That would sell me on 4E, big time.

I was waiting to jump on the bandwagon, it just never went down my street.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 6, 2010)

Gort said:


> I disagree.




I agree with Gort's disagreement.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 6, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I'm not sure what you think 4E fans like, but an unchanging 6th level game isn't it - it is the benefit of having an entertaining and balanced game that still lets us play average heroes who eventually become epic movers and shakers. Or a game where we can focus on our character concepts without worrying about that crippling our characters in combat. Or a game where we can try out crazy things in combat without the DM needing to stop the game for half an hour and consult rulebooks.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying earlier editions couldn't potentially offer all this, or that 4E alone is able to present these things. But these are all elements that 4E offers and many fans enjoy, and I think your view of the game seems to completely disregard them.




This is well said. Really, the appeal of any one game is never going to be one central element: it's going to be a combination of elements. 4e is good if you like game balance and you also prefer 30 potential levels of balance to 5-8. It is not good if you like a wide variety of levels to play through but prefer a more dramatic shift of empowerment across those levels. 

Every opinion on a game is best thought of as a checklist. 3e will check a greater number boxes of priorities for some players, 4e for others. These boxes might be things like "this game reminds me of my favorite gaming days in my youth" or "my wife loves this edition and I don't like sleeping on the couch". Everyone's checklist is different. And it is such a colossal waste of time to try to focus on one particular box and act as though it shouldn't be on someone else's list -- or that it is the entirety of someone else's list.


----------



## keterys (Jan 6, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> "my wife loves this edition and I don't like sleeping on the couch".




One of my player's (who happens to be the wife of another player) doesn't like guns. She's all good with fireballs and arrows and catapults or whatever, but guns (and gun-like derivatives like phaser rifles) are an instant turnoff where she's no longer playing.

And oh yeah does that weed out a lot of game systems and rule supplements. 

Sometimes it's hard to predict those boxes.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 6, 2010)

What about cannons?  Those are pretty much a staple of a lot of games I run (pirate-y themed ones)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 6, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Everyone's checklist is different. And it is such a colossal waste of time to try to focus on one particular box and act as though it shouldn't be on someone else's list -- or that it is the entirety of someone else's list.




Or that it is even on someone else's list.  

Well said.


----------



## celloshane (Jan 6, 2010)

Gort said:


> I disagree.




That's excellent as differing viewpoints are vital to lively debate.  Since debate is often useful for shaping informed opinions I must now ask, do you have a rebuttal?  

As for the OP, I've been frustrated with 4e's fit for my gaming style for some time now.  There are many features of 4e I like, while others are very off-putting.  It's like putting on a pair of pants and finding that one measurement is perfect but the other is way off.  You want to keep the pants because they're in style, but you know someone's going to have to do some major tailoring before you can wear them.

I'm not ready to give up on houseruling 4e yet.  I've got a couple ideas, but I haven't gotten very far on writing them down and codifying them into actual rules yet.  It's been mentioned before but it bears repeating: A 4e version of Unearthed Arcana (3e style) would probably help a lot.  All in all it's very frustrating, both 3.x and 4e need a significant amount of modification (that I don't really have time for) but I'm not knowledgeable enough about other systems to know if I should be looking at another one.  (Well not counting PF, TB, and a little RQ, all of which have some elements I like).  Anyway, like Merc I'm still examining my options and trying to decide which is best for me.


----------



## firesnakearies (Jan 7, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Every opinion on a game is best thought of as a checklist. 3e will check a greater number boxes of priorities for some players, 4e for others. These boxes might be things like "this game reminds me of my favorite gaming days in my youth" or "my wife loves this edition and I don't like sleeping on the couch". Everyone's checklist is different. And it is such a colossal waste of time to try to focus on one particular box and act as though it shouldn't be on someone else's list -- or that it is the entirety of someone else's list.





This is very well said, and rings true to me.


$


----------



## Zustiur (Jan 7, 2010)

I fall in the category (if there is such a thing) of slowly pulling myself onto the bandwagon.
I didn't like the sound of 4E when I heard about it pre-release. I didn't like the way the book of nine swords (I think that was the book) classes worked.
I got the 4E books and immediately hated the system. BUT as my only regular gaming group was switching to 4E I made sure I gave it a go. 

At first all the things I hated really got in the way, and I toyed with the idea of leaving the group. Then we reached a suitable point where I could swap out my character for a new one, and take better advantage of the intra-party role-playing. This made a tenfold difference to my enjoyment.

Over a year later and I definitely look forward to each session (monthly), and I'm even getting ideas of how I'd run a 4E game myself.
BUT most if not all of my original gripes are still present. What I'm realizing is that to me, 4E is a separate game. I love playing it, but to me it doesn't capture the D&D feeling. RPG? Sure. Fantasy? Sure. D&D, no not really. 

There are just too many 'sacred cows' of D&D missing from 4E from my perspective. However, the more I read threads like this one, the more I'm convinced 4E isn't the problem. The group/DM/campaign is the problem.

I could enjoy 4E a lot more if minor things were changed but as yet the only houserules we seem to have are to do with action points.

One thing I'd really really like to try, is to forget about which power's a character knows. Each character would be able to use any power from their class. 
I'm not sure how this would fit together exactly, but I'm thinking along the lines of - you still follow the #'s for how many you can use per encounter, per day etc. But you can choose from any of your available powers at the start of that period.
i.e. at the start of the day you pick your daily powers. 
After each short rest you pick your encounter powers.
Each round you pick whatever at-will you feel like using.

What I suggest is discussing your complaints with the players. If they're all happy with things exactly as they are, I don't advise changing anything. If they are fed up with some of the same things, then see what suggestions they can come up with.

But mainly, one thing I think you may be struggling with (and one of my personal gripes) is that powers dictate how players think. I have these powers therefore that's all I can do. Try taking their at will powers away for an encounter and saying "You know what kinds of things at wills can do, so just say I'm going to do this or that to get this or the other benefit, and we'll work it out from there." Use the famous p.42 to adjudicate.

After they've done that for one encounter they should be more open minded about trying interesting tactics instead of always using the same powers.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jan 7, 2010)

Obryn said:


> IMO, the reason no game does exactly what I want it to is because I want mutually exclusive things, only all at once.  I want the speed and flexibility of rules-light, but I want the tinkering and system mastery of rules-heavy.  I want heavy RP, but I also want tons of die-rolling action.  I want the constant danger of immediate death, but I want PCs to be robust.  I want exotic classes and races, but I also want traditional swords & horses fantasy.  I want magic swords, lightsabers, The Computer, vampire slayers, rat-catchers, giant robots, and mi-go.




See except for the speed and flexibility requirement, you can accomplish all that playing RIFTS heh.  I hesitate to recommend the Palladium system to anyone tho.  I love the world story, but ye gods is the system awful


----------



## weem (Jan 7, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Every opinion on a game is best thought of as a checklist. 3e will check a greater number boxes of priorities for some players, 4e for others. These boxes might be things like "this game reminds me of my favorite gaming days in my youth" or "my wife loves this edition and I don't like sleeping on the couch". Everyone's checklist is different. And it is such a colossal waste of time to try to focus on one particular box and act as though it shouldn't be on someone else's list -- or that it is the entirety of someone else's list.




Yes indeed - this is a great way of framing the issue, I dig it.


----------



## Mark (Jan 7, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Every opinion on a game is best thought of as a checklist. 3e will check a greater number boxes of priorities for some players, 4e for others. These boxes might be things like "this game reminds me of my favorite gaming days in my youth" or "my wife loves this edition and I don't like sleeping on the couch". Everyone's checklist is different. And it is such a colossal waste of time to try to focus on one particular box and act as though it shouldn't be on someone else's list -- or that it is the entirety of someone else's list.





The question is sometimes not a matter of which boxes are checked but whether or not some games even have certain boxes available for checking.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 7, 2010)

Zustiur said:


> I could enjoy 4E a lot more if minor things were changed but as yet the only houserules we seem to have are to do with action points.
> 
> One thing I'd really really like to try, is to forget about which power's a character knows. Each character would be able to use any power from their class.




I've allowed any encounter and any daily powers to be used in combat, without choosing in advance which ones.  It makes things easier.

Another house rule I've used is that for the cost of two action points, an additional encounter power can be used again in the same combat encounter (after all the encounter powers have already been used up).


----------



## Engilbrand (Jan 7, 2010)

Why would they need to spend multiple Action Points to use another Encounter Power? You can do that anyway.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 7, 2010)

Engilbrand said:


> Why would they need to spend multiple Action Points to use another Encounter Power? You can do that anyway.




This is after they are all used up, that I allow one to be used an additional time for the the cost of two action points in the same combat encounter.

(The previous phrasing wasn't particularly clear).


----------



## Windjammer (Jan 7, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I'd argue you have a fourth option (which isn't necessarily the best one for you, I dunno, but it's there): fix the bits that are wobbly for you.
> 
> For instance, you mentioned that people are feeling locked in by their powers. One thing working well to help us avoid "power railroading" is that I had everyone make up a card that says "Do something cool." It's a constant reminder that the player can completely ignore their powers and try a stunt to gain some other result




Ey, great minds think alike. Here's what I did. We're using WotC' Power Cards which come with a useless DDI promo card. So all you need is a felt tip pen and some self-adhesive white paper (cut this as suits). 








However, the card is useless without a very good GM picking up the players' cues using that card. As PirateCat says here:



Piratecat said:


> I just adjudicate damage and effect on the fly (repeatability means less damage, as does a particularly effective special effect like blindness. I raise damage the first couple of times people try this to encourage its use.)




I'm even more extreme in diverting from what the 4E DMG, page 42, recommends to happen as a result of players using (something like) the WildCard. However, I'll use Jeff Rients' words to illustrate what I'm talking about, as his example really serves best as a reminder just how much freedom from the hardwired mechanics are possible - and how enjoyable they make the game. (Needless to say, that advice is edition-neutral.)



			
				Jeff Rients said:
			
		

> How to Awesome Up your Players:
> 
> 4. *The game is neither the mechanics nor the rules* - Don't let the mechanics dictate anything they don't have to. ...
> 
> Last night Gruul the Half-orc had a bead drawn on one of the bad guys and loosed two feathered shafts into him. This dude only had 2 hitpoints left and Gruul hit him with two critical strikes. In some games those crit rolls would have been wasted. Any two arrows hitting would have iced that mofo. But Jon (the DM) freaked my  out when he then called for Jason (Gruul's player) to roll two to-hits against another foe standing directly behind the first. The shots hit and damage is tallied. Jon: "The first guy totally explodes and the arrows pass through him, into the second guy, who drops dead." Do you see what Jon did there? He went over and above the call of the mere rules to allow Jason's guy to totally kick ass. In-character this did much to cement Gruul's reputation in the party as a badass mofo with the bow. Out-of-character my appreciation of Jon's DMing went up a big ol' notch.




The OP makes a very good point, however, that all these fun effects are avoided by the hardwired 4E ruleset (see his reference to the vorpal sword), and in the end - given how all in this post is edition neutral, he may be better served to use another edition to base his game on.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 8, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I know that I'm continuously in wonder at Sagiro's DMing (we're 19th lvl in a 3.5 game that started back in 2e), and I think I'm on my way to getting that same feel for my 4e games.  I think I agree with RC, in that we've captured "magic" in every edition we've played. It has a ton to do with your group and your campaign, more so in my opinion than a rules set itself.  It just takes work to keep the players involved, intrigued and on the edge of their seat for what happens next.
> 
> I like 4e right now because it's so much easier for me as a DM. My prep time has dropped from 3 hours a game to 30 minutes. That leaves me more time to plot, and that makes me happy. But I'm sure I'd get that same benefit with other game systems as well.



I cannot help but wonder if, for some of us, prep time is part of the fun. I know that it is for me, though prep time for my Pathfinder game is more along the lines of six hours for four sessions of four hours each, not quite an hour and a half per game. More time spent all at once, less over the course of the adventure.

I very seldom plot the game all that close to the wire, and feel vaguely guilty when I do. So I take my time, and plan for an adventure or two down the pipe.

Much of the advice (limiting races, feats, classes, etc..) is good for any edition - and can help shape the game world. Not every setting has to have everything.

The Auld Grump


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I cannot help but wonder if, for some of us, prep time is part of the fun. I know that it is for me...




http://www.enworld.org/forum/pathfi...thfinder-bestiary-preview-ii.html#post4937631


			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> I should note... monsters in the PFRPG are not "easy" or "fast" to create. I don't consider "easy" and "fast" to be selling points for creating gaming material. That role is and should be filled by things like the simple templates, or by the fact that a GM prepares for the game before play begins... having been a GM for decades, *I've actually always believed that building the game is just as fun (and is often MORE fun) as it is to play the game.*



 emphasis mine

I know I LOVE prep time.  So much that it becomes impossible for me to identify what my personal ratio of prep to play really is.  I know I can run decent games purely on the fly.  But I also know that I run better games when I do some prep.  And I also know that I spends hours and hours tinkering with plot and characters and places.  But those hours are spent not as prep that needs to happen so I can play, they are spent as having a blast time.  It has been a very long time since I spent hours building an npc only to have that go down in 5 rounds.  If an npc is intended to go toe to toe with the PCs, then I spend an appropriate amount of time building him.  But that 8th level npc that gets a 10 min write-up for 30 minutes of play time may very well have a boss or buddy who gets a two hour write up and back story for ZERO play time because he never directly steps foot on stage.  That is an extreme case.  

To me a very large portion of the fun is not the action itself (which is quite fun) but the context and interactions that drive the events and relationships.  

It is like writing a song.  Time at the table is like letting the other players go into these crazy improv solos that fit my music but I never would have thought of myself.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> The OP makes a very good point, however, that all these fun effects are avoided by the hardwired 4E ruleset (see his reference to the vorpal sword), and in the end - given how all in this post is edition neutral, he may be better served to use another edition to base his game on.



Eh? What about 4E makes you unable to do things such as jrients' example?


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 8, 2010)

Mark said:


> The question is sometimes not a matter of which boxes are checked but whether or not some games even have certain boxes available for checking.




I really don't think that's true. The checklist that is your opinion is something you create. The individual player is the one who comes up with a list of things like "reminds me of the good old days," "fighters kick the amount of ass I want them to kick," or "there should totally be rules for vampire werewolves." Sure, many games will not even try to check off some of the boxes on your list, but the importance assigned those boxes is completely different from player to player, sufficiently so that arguing about any one box (no matter how much you want to check it off) can get dang counter-productive dang fast. 

_Especially_ when a box appears for the same game, with the same wording, on different people's checklists: and one can satisfactorily check it off and the other cannot. If one person has checked off "fighters kick the amount of ass I want them to kick" for a given game, and another is irritated because it's left blank, nobody gets anywhere unless you actually look at the reasons why that is — _without_ assuming that the answer is "One of these people must be wrong." 



TheAuldGrump said:


> I cannot help but wonder if, for some of us, prep time is part of the fun. I know that it is for me, though prep time for my Pathfinder game is more along the lines of six hours for four sessions of four hours each, not quite an hour and a half per game. More time spent all at once, less over the course of the adventure.




I think that's true for a lot of people, but you'd also see a huge variance between just what parts of prep time are fun. I love coming up with weird architectural details, trying to figure out distinctive features for NPCs, or jotting down extra names I might need. I am less enamored of filling out stat blocks, unless they're something I can use again and again (like a supervillain in a nonlethal solutions sort of RPG, or a disposable monster the players might encounter more of later on). 

I know guys who love rooting around like a haruspex in the guts of the d20 system at its fiddliest, including one guy who enjoyed building complicated things out of a game he never ran just to see what he could do. I also know folks who would just as soon jot down a stat block as "5 dice melee, 4 dice social, 8 health". I think it's not about how much prep time a game requires, but how much it enables you to spend as much prep time as you like on the things you like prepping best, and as little as possible on the things you like prepping least.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 8, 2010)

I should just let Barastrondo write all my posts for me from here on out.

-O


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 8, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I think that's true for a lot of people, but you'd also see a huge variance between just what parts of prep time are fun. I love coming up with weird architectural details, trying to figure out distinctive features for NPCs, or jotting down extra names I might need. I am less enamored of filling out stat blocks, unless they're something I can use again and again (like a supervillain in a nonlethal solutions sort of RPG, or a disposable monster the players might encounter more of later on).




It can change over time, too.  For a couple of years after 3e came out I was hooked on prep and character builds, but now I lean toward retro-clones because wading through the details makes me nauseated.


----------



## N0Man (Jan 8, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> It's a systemic flaw. You used to be able to memorise and cast spells like _Charm Person_ or _detect thoughts_ to assist in roleplaying encounters without taking 10 minutes plus and performing a ritual. In fact, _Charm Person_ or _Detect Thoughts_ could be very subtle spells, yet they don't exist in 4E in a form useable for non-combat encounters or in a subtle way.




I strongly disagree with the phrase "systematic flaw".  It seems to imply that it's an objective fact rather than a matter of taste, or that it was oversight or lack of planning.  It may not be your taste, but these were clearly intentional design decisions with specific reasons behind them.

You may think Charm Person and Detect Thoughts assist roleplaying, however others (including WotC) feels that these tie the hands of the DM and completely break stories, invalidates encounters, and can solve a mystery with no more effort than casting one of many plot-breaking spells.  Since these types of spells do completely break many social encounters, I personally feel that they *hurt* roleplaying, not help it.

Plus it often leads to ridiculous arm races between players and DMs.  Players memorize their list of broken spells, and DMs are forced to either let the players breeze his storylines with no real work, or he has to make his NPCs setup magical defenses against things, and this can repeat.



> There are alot of spells like that in the new edition. For example, polymorph-based infiltration is not real possible in 4E as far as I could tell from the base rules.



I'm not sure why you'd think this.  There are definitely polymorph, shape change, and disguise effects in 4E that most certainly could make this possible.  Though, I suppose the Polymorph keyword didn't really appear in the first year of books.



> The quick teleport in and knock open the door rescue mission is not going to be the same in 4E. You won't be casting teleport in combat any longer or _knock_.



Not as a party, but several classes (and races) have usable teleport powers in combat.

As for Knock, I think again this is an intentional feature.  They want Wizards (or other ritual casters) to be able to use Knock as an option in case you don't have someone with Thieving skill, but in a way that doesn't invalidate the skill.  I think it's a reasonable compromise.  If you have to get a door open during combat, there's still the option to bash it in.

I've also seen attempting to open a magically locked door become part of a skill challenge in combat.  While some members had to fend off the monsters, others could use skills such as Thievery, Arcana, or brute force to slowly remove the defenses of a door (or gate, wall, portal, etc) while in combat.



> So no, it isn't just a play style issue. It's inherent in the system, which is more limited than previous editions of D&D primarily because the magic system is far more limited.
> 
> So now you hack your way in and hack your way out of just about everything. Though some DMs do creatively use skill challenges to resolve encounters. Skills challenges were a nice addition to the game, though at times all that rolling is pretty boring and lessens immersion.



You certainly more limited in a lot of plot, story, and encounter breaking powers.

Also, many spells that acted as a replacement for skills of previous editions have been toned down, removed, or turned into slower casting rituals in order to make skills or the classes that tend to have those skills more useful instead of being invalidated by casters.

They've tried to make skills more useful.  A lot of people dislike how many skills were combined so that a smaller set of skills are present, and feel that actually reduced the impact of skills, but if you think about it that's exactly the opposite of what it does.

Decreasing the number of skills, making skills more broad, and making sure every class has a few skills to pick has the effect of greatly increasing the chances of someone in a party having a needed skill and makes it less likely that even your Fighter can often contribute when skills can be useful, rather than just slinking to the back of the party and wondering when the next combat will happen.

You see, many of these things that you dislike and see as flaws, some of us think are things that are healthy for gameplay.  It's all about what style of game you want to play.  For me, I prefer the 4E style.


----------



## N0Man (Jan 8, 2010)

I do want to add, that there are a few things that bug me about 4E... though it's not really 4E's fault.

The Combat powers work so well and are so interesting that many people get caught up in the combats and forget the game has a lot more to offer.

Too many players in 4E seem to get too caught up in the character sheet, and their lists of skills, powers, and abilities and forget about doing things that aren't on the sheet.  Frankly though, I've found many players have done this in every edition.

Too many DM's run sloppy skill challenges and treat the usable skills as a to-do list that either they read to the players they can try (with no reason how they apply to the situation) or just let players call out skills (again without saying how they are using the skill).  Skill challenges can be run well, but I think they are greatly misunderstood or misused.

I often find that there's so much edition hatred and bias on the internet that goes on that it's often hard to get players to come into a new game with a fresh unbiased outlook.  I've found that almost every new player coming in that came into my games with those biases ended up playing their character in ways that just reinforced those biases (and I don't even think they intend or realize it).

On the other hand, I've loved playing 4E with people who were clueless about it, didn't know about the debates and edition wars, and often who never even played D&D before.  Many of these players were fun, adventurous, and sometimes more creative than the standard player.  Since they didn't know about the supposed limits of 4E, they didn't have any reason to hesitate to go past them. ;-)

Also, not enough players really have taken to heart how much 4E promotes reskinning, refluffing, substitution, improvising, and trying to make the game your own.  There's a lot more power and depth in 4E than many give it credit for.  It has it's weaknesses (for example, if you want to be a character specializing in disarming your opponent, or if you want to just play a simple crafter (which really is a poor fit for D&D adventures anyway) but it still has a lot of power.

I also want to add, before 4E, I never wanted to DM, but now I think it's lots of fun.  I never wanted to play a healer (Cleric) before 4E, but Leaders in 4E are great.  Also, before 4E, Warriors bored me completely, but I wouldn't mind playing them now.  I find that overall, they've done a good job of making all classes fun.

Now I admit that spell casters are a trade off.  Casters can do more at level 1 than ever before, and don't ever completely run out of spells, and those are great things.  However, they'll never get the ridiculous ton of spells they can memorize per day like in previous editions.

However, I still think it's better for the health of the game.  It gives more classes a chance in the spotlight instead of just being sidekicks to the wizard.  Spells are less likely to completely overshadow and invalidate skill based classes (though with extra costs of time and money, many Rituals still exist for a pinch).  It also reduces prep time for wizards every rest, trying to decide what they want to memorize (that is if they don't just memorize the same list every day anyway, effectively nullifying the advantage to their great selection).

Trust me, I had misgivings about casters too, but after much thought, I reluctantly had to admit that it made for a more balanced, more team-oriented, and more manageable game.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 8, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Actually, it is, but you need the PHB2. Druids have a utility power that lets them _wild shape_ into a tiny, unobtrusive animal. Polymorph is strictly a druid shtick these days.




No. It isn't. Because one class can polymorph does not make polymorph based infiltration a reality for groups as it used to be. I wonder how long that utility power lasts?


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 8, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I kind of felt the same way about spells being used to overcome social challenges, to be honest; they were pretty dull. The silver-tongued rogue is always the second best option because the wizard has a social gun that kills with one shot (though save negates). I prefer systems where the silver-tongued rogue is the first choice to go to for bluffing your way past the guards, or the cleric can trust an inspirational speech to have as great a chance as anything.
> 
> I dunno, maybe we just don't play like the generic "you" who hacks their way in and hacks their way out of just about everything, but I didn't see a reduction in non-combat negotiations because the quick fix of the spell was taken away. Skill checks are still skill checks, as before, skill challenges are what you want to use if a situation has taken on the comparable gravity of a combat encounter (without being about combat).
> 
> ...




Still possible with 3E skill rules. Not like 4E improved on the skill system.

I prefer magic systems that aren't completely focused on combat. 4E is almost completely focused on combat magic.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 8, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> No. It isn't. Because one class can polymorph does not make polymorph based infiltration a reality for groups as it used to be. I wonder how long that utility power lasts?




5 minutes. But how was it a reality for groups in prior editions, if they were lacking the two relevant classes? Or are you saying that the whole group in 4e can't polymorphed and thus infiltrate as a group?


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 8, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I'll agree with this.  If you want to play an ordinary-people game or a farmboy-to-hero game, 4e isn't the right system for it.  I make WFRP2 my first choice, when I'm looking for this.  (And it's a heck of a system for it, too.)
> 
> 
> That kinda depends.  If by "abilities" you mean "hugely-powerful spells which can be cast in the midst of battle", then yeah.  Those are gone.  But if you're talking about martial abilities, 4e does a much better job, IMO, for high-level play - your fighters, rogues, rangers, and the like have a lot more options in this case.
> ...




I think I mentioned specifically a rescue mission, not 4E in general. I use that as an example because it is a mission I've ran a few times, either a teleport rescue operation or a teleport assault operation. Now that option was taken away in 4E.

Exploration and social interaction play is easily done in 4E. I do not claim that it is not.

But you cannot do things like I mentioned as you could before. The wizard had a truly unique role in the group as did the cleric. That role is no longer as unique due the focus on damage and combat capabilities for all classes as well as class balance.

I get that many players abused the magic system to stand heads and tails above their fellow melee types. I get that that probably wasn't to fun for players of melee at time. But I certainly didn't expect the answer to be a complete and utter neutering of the magic system. Yet that is what they did. And it wasn't necessary to incorporate the other elements into the game.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 8, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I actually completely agree... As one example- For years I was bored bored bored of the monsters in the game... 4e brought that original "ooooohhhh monster!"ness back for me, because of the way the monsters are set up.
> 
> I still think nostalgia plays a bit, but that's equally true for everything in life.




The monster creation process was pretty interesting in 4E. I like the idea behind it, though the implementation was a bit boring after a while. But it does give the DM alot of freedom to create surprising and potent monsters from the depths of their imagination.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 8, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> 5 minutes. But how was it a reality for groups in prior editions, if they were lacking the two relevant classes? Or are you saying that the whole group in 4e can't polymorphed and thus infiltrate as a group?




In prior groups they had spells like _mass polymorph_ or you memorise _polymorph_ multiple times or _disguise self_, _veil_, _mass invisibility_ or other such spells such as illusions.

As an example, I use an illusion spell to run creatures off a bridge using the old 3E rules. I also used to use illusion spells to draw out ambushes. Something I was not able to do in 4E.

4E neutered the creative caster. Why do you think a few of us hate the game? We got alot of mileage out of the previous editions magic system, and it wasn't throwing _fireballs_.

One time we were fighting a cadre of leveled arrow demons and I concocted a strategy that took up almost all of my spell slots as the clerics just to put the melees in a position to take out the arrow demons because it was our best option. It was creative use of windwall, teleport, invisibility, and other such non-combat spells to get the job done.

That type of planning and strategy was completely absent from 4E in 11 levels. Every class focused mostly on taking the best possible powers for their given level and using them over and over repetitiously. Then they used those powers even when they weren't needed just because they could. 

That was the playstyle I saw encouraged by 4E. Whereas in 3E in our particular groups, there was a great deal more reliance on party support. The cleric players had to know how to provide defense against a mob of negative energy creatures or having resist energy spells ready for dragons or harsh magical creatures. 

It's one of those things I chalk up to the "experiences differ" aphorism. 3E encouraged a greater degree of interactivity and reliance than 4E for our gaming group. Whereas 4E encouraged min-max power choices and a stronger focus on what an individual character could versus what a well-prepared party can do. One of the main reasons being the lack of options. Once powers are chosen, they are set. The cleric and wizard never used to be in that box and even smart melees used options like sunder or disarm to improve their combat options.

To some 4E seems like a game that expands options, to a player like me it limits options. It comes down to differing experiences with the exact same game systems. That's how it usually works.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 8, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> I wonder how long that utility power lasts?




That's not entirely clear, actually. It says, "Until the end of the encounter, you can use wild shape to assume the form..." That could be read as meaning the form lasts until the end of the encounter, or it could be read as meaning you can assume the form at any time before the end of the encounter and stay in it as long as you like. The wild shape class feature has no duration limit.

For that matter, in a typical medieval city, you don't even need the utility power. Just turn into a big dog or something.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 8, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> 4E neutered the creative caster. Why do you think a few of us hate the game? We got alot of mileage out of the previous editions magic system, and it wasn't throwing _fireballs_.



Fireball is bad, in the face of save or suck/die or no save wonders. Your 'creative use' just means finding the best options. Why use fireball when you can insta-kill enemies by running them off a false bridge? Creative use for me was casting Solid Fog just beyond the melee line, effectively sealing off any ranged combatants from the melee. Then I did that every encounter. Over and over. (I was a beguiler, so had sorcerous-style casting.)

Also, take a look at Ghost Sound to create ambushes, and as far as magical items not being used out of combat, wondrous items would like to have a word with you. And I'm not sure you can complain about rituals being reserved for out of combat and then complain that items focus on combat.

On another note, what "interactivity and reliance" did the non-casters of your party offer in 3E? Are you sure their jobs were not better filled by a wizard with Polymorph, a Cleric with Divine Power, or a Druid shapeshifted?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> 4E neutered the creative caster. Why do you think a few of us hate the game? We got alot of mileage out of the previous editions magic system, and it wasn't throwing _fireballs_.



There's a difference between being a creative caster, and being a caster with a spell for every occasion. 4E did remove a lot of the "Solve Problem X" spells from the game. One might argue that it forces casters to be _more_ creative with their casting, since they lack the ready-made spell for the occasion.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Then I did that every encounter. Over and over.



Good thing you have game that moves away from encounter based powers.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2010)

N0Man said:


> I reluctantly had to admit that it made for a more balanced, more team-oriented, and more manageable game.



I have very openly and with no reluctance whatsoever proclaimed these truths regarding 4E on these boards.

But what if you are speaking to someone who finds the price in diversity and mechanical realization of character to be a terrible trade off for an unneeded improvement in balance?
What if "team-oriented" is a totally negligible value?
What if another game that does a better job at other aspects of play is also completely manageable so that "more manageable" is of no benefit?

I'm not saying: "therefore 4E sucks".  Obviously for some people it is just what the doctor ordered.  But I am saying there are very legitimate reasons for finding 4E a much less satisfying game than other options out there.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 8, 2010)

> That was the playstyle I saw encouraged by 4E. Whereas in 3E in our particular groups, there was a great deal more reliance on party support.




This statement baffles me.  In prior editions it is about maximizing outgoing damage and minimizing incoming damage to an individual character.  People who try to go it alone by choosing powers and feats that make themselves awesome get slaughtered.  You have to rely on the fighter to have your back, the cleric to heal you, the rogue to do damage, and the mage to disrupt and scatter the opposition.  A 4e party that doesn't do party support properly are as good as dead.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Good thing you have game that moves away from encounter based powers.



The game moved toward the power system to avoid spamming things that could be used in abusive ways they were not intended to be used for. Like the old flour-in-the-eyes example; once that works once some players insist on their character carrying around bags of flour to throw at their enemies. Rather than the DM having to contort to counter that in some contrived way, it can be included in the power system. (The rogue has a sand-in-the-eyes power IIRC).

It's one way to help the DM deal with such situations.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> The game moved toward the power system to avoid spamming things that could be used in abusive ways they were not intended to be used for. Like the old flour-in-the-eyes example; once that works once some players insist on their character carrying around bags of flour to throw at their enemies. Rather than the DM having to contort to counter that in some contrived way, it can be included in the power system. (The rogue has a sand-in-the-eyes power IIRC).
> 
> It's one way to help the DM deal with such situations.





I think that there are better methods, personally.  You can use the old flour-in-the-eyes in my game, without it dominating play (as there are a potentially unlimited number of such tricks to try, limited only by the imaginations of the participants).

The new Doctor Who RPG has a suggestion that, if a character keeps trying the same thing, after three rounds the opponent can prepare for it, so that it gets harder to succeed.  I rather like that rule, and it fits well with what the game designers are attempting to accomplish.

The point is that the 4e designers chose _*a way*_ to deal with a potential problem, though for not all groups _*the best way*_, and there is a trade-off inherent in the method chosen by the 4e designers.  Not everyone will think that trade-off worth it.  Others will think it is the best thing since sliced bread.  Mileages will definitely vary.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The point is that the 4e designers chose _*a way*_ to deal with a potential problem, though for not all groups _*the best way*_, and there is a trade-off inherent in the method chosen by the 4e designers.  Not everyone will think that trade-off worth it.  Others will think it is the best thing since sliced bread.  Mileages will definitely vary.



Obviously. Just as Gygax's way of dealing with things isn't for everyone either.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Obviously. Just as Gygax's way of dealing with things isn't for everyone either.




Exactly so.

I would be doing an inordinate amount of work, with RCFG, if I thought Gygax's way was automatically best!  


RC


----------



## Obryn (Jan 8, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> But you cannot do things like I mentioned as you could before. The wizard had a truly unique role in the group as did the cleric. That role is no longer as unique due the focus on damage and combat capabilities for all classes as well as class balance.



Note - _I'm not disagreeing with you _that the inventive Wizardly Swiss army knife of useful spells is largely missing from 4e.  Rituals patch the gap, but really are only helpful if you have prep time.



> I get that many players abused the magic system to stand heads and tails above their fellow melee types. I get that that probably wasn't to fun for players of melee at time. But I certainly didn't expect the answer to be a complete and utter neutering of the magic system. Yet that is what they did. And it wasn't necessary to incorporate the other elements into the game.



It's again a matter of focus.  Like I mentioned before, if the Wizard can't solve the party's out-of-combat problems with creative spell use, it puts the party's skills (and their creative use of the environment) to work instead.  Some people like this, and some don't.  It's one of those checkboxes Barastrondo mentioned.  3e has something 4e doesn't have, and by removing something 3e had, 4e has required them to pursue other options that some players will like more.

I'm not going to try and convince you the 4e way is inherently better.  It isn't - it's just different.  There are, however, rational D&D players who legitimately prefer the 4e way, just as there are rational D&D players who legitimately prefer the 3e (or 1e or 2e) ways.  And there are rational D&D players who don't care one way or the other, and will decide what to play based on other elements entirely.  Frankly, I feel fortunate that we have all these great gaming options open to us.

-O


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 8, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Good thing you have game that moves away from encounter based powers.



Yes! All my game! Stay away from it! I have _both_ games, thank you, and though I don't want to play 3E anymore, I had much fun with it in its time. If you were wondering my point, it was that the particular issue the quoted poster had with 4E also exists in 3E. Hell, I still enjoyed casting Solid Fog every encounter, but did I feel creative and versatile? Not really. I stopped wasting rounds doing what I thought was 'interesting' after the first couple sessions and did what was most effective...which I suppose made it interesting, in that winning a combat sort of way.

I really do wish that criticism of 4E variety, creativeness, versatility of casters, and that sort of thing, came with a more specific review of the rituals system. The argument that everyone can have rituals (with a feat) and therefore casters are not 'special' I think is synonymous with "I want to be more powerful/interesting/fun than martial characters, no matter what."

Without a more specific review, I feel like people look at rituals, see a lack of "Color Spray" or any various spell with potent combat effects and short casting time, and say 4E killed the creative caster without evaluating what actually is there. Utility powers suffer the same fate, it seems.

I feel without this specific review, criticism of the versatility of 4E casters is actually an argument against the potency of 4E casters, which could be harder to defend given the general agreement that 3E casters far outweigh the power of non-casters after a few levels.

There are 34 Level 1 Rituals in 4E currently, according to the compendium. Here are a few:
Amanuensis: copies writing from a source material to your own material. Possible use: transcribing literature from the forbidden library, or from the wall of the forbidden temple.
Fastidiousness: keeps you completely clean. Possible use: while the rest of the party is covered in gore, maybe you should do the talking to the nobles.
Magic Mouth: when conditions that were set are met, a message is spoken. Possible uses: Warn the captain of the guard of what you have found at the scene, while you continue the adventure deeper in the dungeon.
Tenser's Floating Disk: hover disk!
Banish Vermin: ward an area from rodents, insects and the like
Animal Messenger: send an animal to deliver the message

None of these pop out and say GET ME! like color spray(3E) or grease(3E) does, given their potency. But are they without utility, versatility, or interest?


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 8, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> None of these pop out and say GET ME! like color spray(3E) or grease(3E) does, given their potency. But are they without utility, versatility, or interest?




IMO, the main problem with rituals is that they take at least 5 minutes (typically longer) to perform. They cannot be done in the heat of action and thusly have greatly reduced interest, utility, and versatility.

For instance, were the casting time a single round, even the possibilities for the rituals you listed are greatly increased. IMO, much of the creative utility of magic commonly found in pre-4e editions of D&D has been removed and replaced by tactical utility.

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Yes! All my game! Stay away from it! I have _both_ games, thank you, and though I don't want to play 3E anymore, I had much fun with it in its time. If you were wondering my point, it was that the particular issue the quoted poster had with 4E also exists in 3E. Hell, I still enjoyed casting Solid Fog every encounter, but did I feel creative and versatile? Not really. I stopped wasting rounds doing what I thought was 'interesting' after the first couple sessions and did what was most effective...which I suppose made it interesting, in that winning a combat sort of way.



But the difference is that you have gone from you bringing the issue to the game over to the game bringing the issue to you.
For you personally it is clearly six of one, half a dozen of another.

So you played 3E as a button pushing game and therefore it is no problem that 4E plays the same.  

Those of us who don't play 3E as a button pushing game see a difference.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> The game moved toward the power system to avoid spamming things that could be used in abusive ways they were not intended to be used for. Like the old flour-in-the-eyes example; once that works once some players insist on their character carrying around bags of flour to throw at their enemies. Rather than the DM having to contort to counter that in some contrived way, it can be included in the power system. (The rogue has a sand-in-the-eyes power IIRC).
> 
> It's one way to help the DM deal with such situations.



I'd prefer the game move towards modeling the fantasy interaction I like and stop assuming the DM needs so much help in everything.  If you play in a game in which players are likely to start caring around bags of flour (and since you brought it up as an example, I assume you see this as a problem worthy of systemic resolution) then there is only so much that can be achieved.

I'm more interested in a game that gives the DM credit for not needing help and being able to work with good players.  

It is way cool that there is a game for flour wielding players and help needing DMs.  But it isn't my thing.


----------



## Mort (Jan 8, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> Still possible with 3E skill rules. Not like 4E improved on the skill system.
> 
> I prefer magic systems that aren't completely focused on combat. 4E is almost completely focused on combat magic.




This is only true if you completely ignore rituals (checking the DDI there are 268 now and the number is constantly growing). Many of the utility spells in prior edditions are rituals in 4e - and I think the system is better for it because there is no longer what I would call the "six second solution" to every problem. And while the wizard does not have exclusive access to rituals he has the easiest time getting them and gets many for free.

On the "six second solution" I guess got pretty sick and tired of the mage had such an advantage over most classes:
 - locked door - the rogue can try to pick it and may succeed and takes a few rounds (will automatically fail if wizard locked though) or the mage can just Knock it which takes less than one round and is guaranteed.
- Open courtyard - the rogue can hide and try to sneak past, or the wizard can cast invisibility.

- large cliff? the party faces an arduous climb - except that by any level worth mentioning flying spells and or magic is ubiquitous.

Etc.

4e has knock too - but it takes 10 minutes and involves an arcana check. Which means the rogue with good thievery actually has a reason to use it. Same with the other magic solutions, they're there but not always the obvious (usually default) choice.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I'd prefer the game move towards modeling the fantasy interaction I like and stop assuming the DM needs so much help in everything.



That's fine, but not all games have to move in that direction. If older version of D&D have the direction you like, that's great, but not all editions necessarily have to play the same way.



BryonD said:


> If you play in a game in which players are likely to start caring around bags of flour (and since you brought it up as an example, I assume you see this as a problem worthy of systemic resolution) then there is only so much that can be achieved.



No, I don't need a systematic solution for that, it's just an example off the top of my head that I've seen both in old Dragon forum letters and on messageboards. In my own games, a quick word with the player would be enough. But that doesn't work for everyone.



BryonD said:


> I'm more interested in a game that gives the DM credit for not needing help and being able to work with good players.



Not all DMs are blessed with good players. Those DMs deserve some help, I'd say.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 8, 2010)

Mort said:


> On the "six second solution" I guess got pretty sick and tired of the mage had such an advantage over most classes:
> - locked door - the rogue can try to pick it and may succeed and takes a few rounds (will automatically fail if wizard locked though) or the mage can just Knock it which takes less than one round and is guaranteed.
> - Open courtyard - the rogue can hide and try to sneak past, or the wizard can cast invisibility.
> 
> ...




Keep in mind that in editions prior to 3E these "six second solutions" took resources that were not as exactly as plentiful/available as they were in 3E. Choosing to prepare a knock, or invisibility spell carries more weight when there isn't a local Wands n Scrolls R -US franchise on every corner.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 8, 2010)

I know it's cliche by this point, but... page 42 is what fills in the gaps, for me. Rituals handle things out-of-combat, but for creative spell use in combat, page 42 is my starting point on how to resolve it. If someone wants to use Ray of Frost to freeze the pool of water their enemy is standing it, I might require an Arcana check in addition to the attack roll, and success might let the attack immobilize the enemy instead of slowing them. I've seen character's use Ghost Sound to draw away the enemies attention and gain combat advantage, things like that. 

I know that some might not feel this is the same thing - it relies on the DM deciding how things works, and while the guidelines help with that, they are only a starting point. And it may ultimately feel arbitrary compared to coming up with the creative uses that one _knows_ are going to work within the rules. But... it is still a solid way to resolve creative ideas in combat, and typically results in creative actions that _help_ the combat but don't instantly end it. 

In many ways, I find that more enjoyable than finding some obscure loophole between two powers that vaporizes an enemy on the spot. 

In terms of just using non-blasty powers in creative ways to control the battlefield (as in the example of using Windwall, Teleport, Invisibility)... yeah, I think people are _vastly_ underestimating utility powers. Controlling the battlefield is what the wizard does, and stunning or blasting groups of enemies isn't his only option. One can totally set things up to break up enemies with cleverly placed walls, leave decoys to draw enemies to the wrong places, turn allies invisible, set up arcane gates to teleport them to where they can do the most good. Walls, illusions, teleports - these all still exist, and a good wizard can completely alter the course of battle without ever blasting enemies with a fireball. 

Finally, in terms of certain 'plots' being out of the question, such as "teleport into the heart of the enemy stronghold, rescue the princess, book it back to safety"... if the DM is interested in such a plot, they can easily make it happen. They can come up with a ritual or set up NPCs that can allow the party to make their teleport rescue. 

If the DM isn't interested, then they can't - as opposed to the DM having the party cleverly use teleport to bypass his entire adventure. Or thus having to come up in advance with anti-teleport magic to prevent this. And then having the party come up with anti-anti-teleport magic to let them go ahead anyway. And back and forth, and so on, and... 

Yeah, I know that some _enjoy_ that level of competition between the players and DM, and figuring out exactly the right tool to ensure they have the upper hand. It could be a lot of fun. But it could also be downright poisonous, and I can understand why they wanted to get away from that style of gaming. As it is, the same exact plots are available if they are the game the players want to play, and the DM wants to run. 

It's easy to look at 4E and feel like there aren't those opportunities there anymore. Before, the DM could set things out like a puzzle - "the princess is locked in a tower, how will you get in to rescue her?" 

And the party could climb the walls, or break in through the front door and fight their way up to the top, or fly in on a magic carpet and break her out through the roof, or teleport in, or sneak past the guards invisibly, or pop in through the astral plane, or summon allies to break the princess out, or try to trick the guards into moving the princess and then rescue her along the way... or any number of other things I can't think of. 

But... you _can_ still do most of those in 4E. Maybe not at level one, but by paragon, most of those seem viable - you can climb walls, you can get flying mounts or items, you have teleportations that will let you breach the walls, you can sneak, you can use invisibility, you can distract or deceive the guards, etc. There are rituals that could help, there are utility powers that could be used for polymorphing, filling the halls with fog, or any number of other things. You probably wouldn't be running things in combat rounds (if not actually fighting), and might instead be using a skill challenge as part of this, or could use a blend of skill challenge and combat (as the party sneaks around, and occasionally needs to ambush some guard minions before they can raise the alarm.) There are any number of approaches you could take - just like before. 

There might be some previous options you don't have now. There might be some new ones you didn't have then. Odds are good that regardless of what your options are, it will be a significant undertaking - in some ways, I prefer that to "I cast Teleport. We grab the Princess. I cast Quickened Teleport." 

Anyway. Skills, stunts, rituals, utility powers. That really does open up a _lot_ of options in the system. Yes, it can be easy to fall into the trap of never looking past the character sheet. But the options are there for those who want to use them.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jan 8, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Keep in mind that in editions prior to 3E these "six second solutions" took resources that were not as exactly as plentiful/available as they were in 3E. Choosing to prepare a knock, or invisibility spell carries more weight when there isn't a local Wands n Scrolls R -US franchise on every corner.




And, needless to say, every edition's resource management system works better when there are consequences for constant camping/resting (i.e., attempting to circumvent the resource allotment).


----------



## Mort (Jan 8, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Keep in mind that in editions prior to 3E these "six second solutions" took resources that were not as exactly as plentiful/available as they were in 3E. Choosing to prepare a knock, or invisibility spell carries more weight when there isn't a local Wands n Scrolls R -US franchise on every corner.




That's absolutely right. I should not have generalized to "prior editions" when, in fact, 3e was the edition that made scrolls etc. so easy to generate and therefore truly showed the problem.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> In my own games, a quick word with the player would be enough. But that doesn't work for everyone. Not all DMs are blessed with good players. Those DMs deserve some help, I'd say.




I want to make sure I understand you.

Let's say you've got a player who wants to throw flour in the eyes of his opponents all the time, and he insists on carrying around bags of flour.

Your solution is to have a quick word with the player.

But you also see the value in a ruleset that codifies the ability to throw flour into the eyes as something you can only do once per encounter. That way, for DMs who deserve some help, they don't have to have a word with the player, it's right there in black and white.

And can I further infer that you consider this a forward evolution of the game?


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> That's fine, but not all games have to move in that direction. If older version of D&D have the direction you like, that's great, but not all editions necessarily have to play the same way.



Of course not.  But if a game in question presumes the DM needs help, it is going to include concessions that likely don't appeal to a DM that doesn't need help.  Whereas a game that presumes the DM doesn't need help, won't be constrained to trying to help the DM.  



> No, I don't need a systematic solution for that, it's just an example off the top of my head that I've seen both in old Dragon forum letters and on messageboards. In my own games, a quick word with the player would be enough. But that doesn't work for everyone.



 Can you offer an example that DOES apply to you?



> Not all DMs are blessed with good players. Those DMs deserve some help, I'd say.



Again, I'm perfectly fine with having a game for those that need help.  Just don't try to tell me that a game that assumes you need help is no different than a game that assumes you don't.


----------



## Mark (Jan 8, 2010)

Any roleplaying game I ever run allows a player to have his character carry around as many bags of flour as he sees fit to carry.  No quick word required.  More sophisticated creatures think of it as breading.


Just wanted to be on the record.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I know it's cliche by this point, but... page 42 is what fills in the gaps, for me.



And that's cool.

But _for me_ the idea that one page of rules is going to solve the problems is the opposite of a solution.  One size does not fit all.  In any and every game I run page ZERO fills the gaps.  And it even jumps ahead and replaces areas that are not gaps but simply things I believe need changing.

The idea of the GM making the call is the sacred cornerstone of good gaming.
And I can sit down with a group of friends and have them describe characters and start grinding away in a very fun 100% ad hoc game.

But I still like published RPGs because consistent rules that cover situations in an appropriate and satisfying, consistent manner is value added.  

I always have and always will make calls in any game.  The need to make calls does not detract from the value of the game.  But that is a constant.  When judging a games merits, it should be set aside and the actual game mechanics assessed for what they actually do.

And when I do need to make rulings, please don't try to give me a single page to cover the contingencies.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Keep in mind that in editions prior to 3E these "six second solutions" took resources that were not as exactly as plentiful/available as they were in 3E. Choosing to prepare a knock, or invisibility spell carries more weight when there isn't a local Wands n Scrolls R -US franchise on every corner.



Exactly so. Many of the issues with 3e that we are debating here, stem from the ease on which various kinds of magical items are assumed to be available* and the fact that many restrictions on spell casters that existed in AD&D have been lifted.

*Let's not also forget that in AD&D there is no such thing as a wand of cure light wounds... there are several kind of wands, but you can't just put any low level spell in one.


----------



## N0Man (Jan 9, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> IMO, the main problem with rituals is that they take at least 5 minutes (typically longer) to perform. They cannot be done in the heat of action and thusly have greatly reduced interest, utility, and versatility.
> 
> For instance, were the casting time a single round, even the possibilities for the rituals you listed are greatly increased. IMO, much of the creative utility of magic commonly found in pre-4e editions of D&D has been removed and replaced by tactical utility.




You're right, they would vastly increase the utility, versatility, and *power* of ritual casters.  What some consider "creative spell casting", some consider cheesing or breaking an encounter.  It's obviously an intentional choice to make many effects less broken and take spells that they believed *should* be utility spells and take them out of combat.

It's true that a party will no longer be able to run from a monster, shut the door and arcane lock it and suddenly be safe, though it can still help make camping in a dungeon safer.

It's true that you can no longer use rope trick to just jump out of countless sticky situations and lay low until things cool down, however it still can be used to get a much needed rest or even to hide out to ambush targets later.

It's true you can no longer cheese a combat with a caster by silencing them right off the bat.

The vast majority of Rituals that one would *want* to use in combat are those that really do break or cheese an encounter.  It often has the result of the caster overshadowing the skills and abilities of the other classes.

It can also be more of a pain for the DM who has to take into account ways that his challenges can be circumvented, ways to prevent that, and ways the players will circumvent his ways of preventing it, etc.

However, most rituals still can be useful in the right situation, and many of them can be used to prepare for a combat and offer some advantage.

Let's also not forget the advantage of not having to memorize rituals.  In 3E, if you needed one of these abilities as part of your plan, and if you didn't have a bunch of utility spells prepared on scrolls already, you often had to stop, camp for the night, and prepare new spells for your plan to work.

Rituals may take more time to cast, but you have every ritual you know and have ingredients for at your fingertips ready to *begin* casting at any time, without taking a full rest.  I think that's and underrated feature.

Also, it allows players to broaden their character concept and allow nontraditional character classes to dabble in some magic without actually multi-classing in order to fit their character's theme.

It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's a very legitimate design with some good reasons behind it, that at least some people do agree with.


----------



## N0Man (Jan 9, 2010)

BryonD said:


> And that's cool.
> 
> But _for me_ the idea that one page of rules is going to solve the problems is the opposite of a solution.  One size does not fit all.  In any and every game I run page ZERO fills the gaps.  And it even jumps ahead and replaces areas that are not gaps but simply things I believe need changing.
> 
> ...




I'm going to have to disagree.  I think P. 42 is a work of beauty, because it gives some very easy to understand principles on how to break down an action for what it really is and how to interpret that into a resolution.  I think giving a DM good insight to allow them to resolve countless actions pretty easily based on principals that can be easily remembered and utilized is a great way to go.

I think this is a much more elegant solution than trying to create a subsystem for every single possible action a player might perform and hope you covered all of them.

As someone new to DM'ing, that page made me feel more confidant about being able to resolve unusual actions as well as freed me of the burden of having to understand tons of subsystems that I would need to reference every time an unfamiliar situation came up.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 9, 2010)

N0Man said:


> As someone new to DM'ing...



Thats fine because this is a completely different point.
If you want to call it a good teaching aid for new DMs I'll offer no arguement.

But I'm not speaking as or for new DMs.  Teaching is well and good, but let's also take full advantage of no longer needing to be taught.

And as a tangent, the claim of "a subsystem for every single possible action a player might perform" is a total red herring.

Aside from liking pg 42 for new DMs, do you really disagree with the rest of my statement?
Do think that one size fits all is a good policy?
Do you think GM calls is not a critical cornerstone?
Do you think that the merits of a set of mechanics should be based more on one DMs ad hoc rulings moreso than the entirety of the system itself?


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 9, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Those of us who don't play 3E as a button pushing game see a difference.



What do you mean? What does button pushing game mean exactly? And, if you could, include rituals in your description of how 4E is necessarily "button pushing" and how 3E is not necessarily "button pushing."


----------



## BryonD (Jan 9, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> What do you mean? What does button pushing game mean exactly? And, if you could, include rituals in your description of how 4E is necessarily "button pushing" and how 3E is not necessarily "button pushing."




What I mean is:


			
				fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> Then I did that every encounter. Over and over.



You will need to explain to me how rituals in 4E caused you to play 3E this way in order for me to possibly offer any insight into the relevance.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 9, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> For instance, were the casting time a single round, even the possibilities for the rituals you listed are greatly increased. IMO, much of the creative utility of magic commonly found in pre-4e editions of D&D has been removed and replaced by tactical utility.
> 
> joe b.



What's the difference between creative utility and tactical utility in combat? As creative as I felt when I first cast 'zone of silence' and 'invisibility sphere,' I just punched the rogue who'd been training in stealth and move silently hilariously in the face, and I spread it around to the whole party. But that's a different problem...and a problem worth mentioning. 

On another note, has anyone played in a 3E game with no casters who doesn't like 4E?

In my game, rituals take 1 minute to cast. They really aren't meant to be used in combat, and 10 rounds is sitting out of combat just as much as 10 minutes.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 9, 2010)

BryonD said:


> You will need to explain to me how rituals in 4E caused you to play 3E this way in order for me to possibly offer any insight into the relevance.



What? I played 3E before 4E. I 'button-pressed' because it was the best choice most of the time. Solid Fog is an amazing spell, huge controlling opportunity, probably the best a beguiler had at that level (Level 8? Level 4 spell.) But not every spell was used in combat, for instance the zone of silence and invisibility sphere I mentioned in a post a few minutes ago. I mean in order to say 4E is a button pressing game and 3E is not, you should include criticism of the ritual system.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Keep in mind that in editions prior to 3E these "six second solutions" took resources that were not as exactly as plentiful/available as they were in 3E. Choosing to prepare a knock, or invisibility spell carries more weight when there isn't a local Wands n Scrolls R -US franchise on every corner.



This assumes that the 3e DM _had_ a Wands 'n' Scrolls R Us - by no means was that universal.

Typically, in my own games, the ratio is typically 70% found magic items, 20% party made items, 10% purchased - with a waiting period on purchased items, since there typically _wasn't_ a convenient pile of scrolls waiting....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Mort (Jan 9, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> This assumes that the 3e DM _had_ a Wands 'n' Scrolls R Us - by no means was that universal.
> 
> Typically, in my own games, the ratio is typically 70% found magic items, 20% party made items, 10% purchased - with a waiting period on purchased items, since there typically _wasn't_ a convenient pile of scrolls waiting....
> 
> The Auld Grump




A 3e wizard gets scribe scroll for free. If there is any downtime at all, the wizard can cheaply and easily scribe all the utility scrolls he needs. This is why the argument that the 3e wizard has to sacrifice precious spell slots if he wants utility and versatility is a fallacy (edited for earlier typo).


----------



## Ant (Jan 9, 2010)

I agree with the Auld Grump.  In my 3.5e games trying to sell or buy magic items in town was often an adventure unto itself.


----------



## Mort (Jan 9, 2010)

Ant said:


> I agree with the Auld Grump.  In my 3.5e games trying to sell or buy magic items in town was often an adventure unto itself.




same question - what about the fact that the 3e wizard could easily make them (especially scrolls)?

I was in a game where magic items of any kind were exceedingly rare to find, and there were certainly no magic item shops. This made my mage's (actually fighter/mage but leaning more on mage as levels went up) ability to scribe scrolls much more powerful not less so.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 9, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> This assumes that the 3e DM _had_ a Wands 'n' Scrolls R Us - by no means was that universal.
> 
> Typically, in my own games, the ratio is typically 70% found magic items, 20% party made items, 10% purchased - with a waiting period on purchased items, since there typically _wasn't_ a convenient pile of scrolls waiting....
> 
> The Auld Grump




I commend you for it, and adhere to the same philosophy, but that would be a house rule. The default assumption is that the players (PCs) can either create or buy whatever they want. Perhaps not _whenever _they want or _wherever _they want, but that level of customization is assumed.

Terrible design decision, FWIW.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 9, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> This assumes that the 3e DM _had_ a Wands 'n' Scrolls R Us - by no means was that universal.
> 
> Typically, in my own games, the ratio is typically 70% found magic items, 20% party made items, 10% purchased - with a waiting period on purchased items, since there typically _wasn't_ a convenient pile of scrolls waiting....
> 
> The Auld Grump




And there isn't anything wrong with that at all. It was not the default condition of the RAW is the point. I run my 4E game with only a few trinkets for sale and everything else must be won as treasure. Thats far from the default for the game but it works for us.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 9, 2010)

Mort said:


> A 3e wizard gets scribe scroll for free. If there is any downtime at all, the wizard can cheaply and easily scribe all the utility scrolls he needs. This is why the argument that the 3e wizard has to sacrifice precious spell slots if he wants utility and versatility is a phallacy.




I've got a 3E wizard who spends all of his downtime scribing scrolls. Here are my observations:

(1) He generally doesn't go for the stuff that duplicates things that the other characters can accomplish by using their skills. That's a waste of time and money.

(2) His scrolls do extend the versatility of the character and the party, and also supplements the depth of their available power on days when they really need to keep pushing forward and don't have the luxury of pulling back and resting to restore their spells.

(3) But they do carry a significant cost in the aggregate. At 8th-level he's now a level behind the rest of the PCs half the time and the drain on his funds was sufficient that the party concluded they needed to all chip in to cover his costs.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 9, 2010)

You don't have to duplicate another classes ability to over shadow them in what they do.
The argument I seen was something like : don't disarm traps you trip them up safely and easily without die roll or chance of harm to anyone for instance by summoning a pony in the right location. And that pony could alternately be a source of strength for carrying things or used as bait to distract monsters, or temporarily block them from approaching, or as supper if you are hungry ... the list is huge. Basically versatility = power, hang knowledge.

8th level I never heard as being abusively powerful.(In AD&D I heard that level touted as one of the funnest and most cross class balanced).


----------



## N0Man (Jan 9, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Thats fine because this is a completely different point.
> If you want to call it a good teaching aid for new DMs I'll offer no arguement.
> 
> But I'm not speaking as or for new DMs.  Teaching is well and good, but let's also take full advantage of no longer needing to be taught.




I'm not sure what you are suggesting here... that the DMG shouldn't waste space with stuff that is useless to people who are experienced enough that they don't need the DMG?



> And as a tangent, the claim of "a subsystem for every single possible action a player might perform" is a total red herring.



Not really, because otherwise it's all a matter of what actions *you* think should have been explicitly defined, which is completely different than what other players think should be defined.  What comes up and is useful varies greatly from group to group, and it's impossible to accommodate for everything people want to do, and so they offer some very good guiding principals.



> Aside from liking pg 42 for new DMs, do you really disagree with the rest of my statement?
> Do think that one size fits all is a good policy?



No, which is why I've stated many times in this thread that just because some people really dislike some design choices doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate reasons for them and that others don't believe they are an improvement.

It's also a good reason to help teach DM's some guiding principals to start with, so that they can then decide what works best for them and their group and adapt it as needed.  The DMG does not discourage DM's from making the game their own, quite the opposite.



> Do you think GM calls is not a critical cornerstone?



Absolutely, but uninformed and poor GM calls can really ruin the fun too.  Again, the DMG offers a lot of suggestions, advice, and guidelines.  I wouldn't consider P. 42 (or most other parts of the DMG) to be hard rules, but rather helping DM's get a feel for the art of DM'ing and learning to make their own calls by giving examples of generally balanced resolutions.



> Do you think that the merits of a set of mechanics should be based more on one DMs ad hoc rulings moreso than the entirety of the system itself?



Now this is a question that is completely subjective, because it hinges on personal preference.

I personally think that having a bunch of confusing subsystems that have I (personally) would frequently have to reference and re-reference when they occur to not really be a huge advantage to a game system where I am not really trying to run a simulationist style game, but rather just want to focus on story, drama, characters, fun and action.

I think that teaching guiding principals of how to resolve the vast majority of things is a better approach than how to resolve a small number of things hand picked by the designers, which may or may not apply to your particular game.

Over time, these resolutions will likely tend to become increasingly more consistent and solid as a GM learns from experience and learns to apply resolutions from the past to new unexpected actions in the future.

Giving me a better grasp of principals makes me feel a lot more free to improvise and feel confident about it.

In my opinion, P. 42 fits right in with the old adage, "Give a man to fish, feed him for a Day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

However, I realize that some people want everything to be defined in explicit detail.  It's a matter of taste and what people feel comfortable with.


----------



## Windjammer (Jan 9, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> One time we were fighting a cadre of leveled arrow demons and I concocted a strategy that took up almost all of my spell slots as the clerics just to put the melees in a position to take out the arrow demons because it was our best option. It was creative use of windwall, teleport, invisibility, and other such non-combat spells to get the job done.
> 
> That type of planning and strategy was completely absent from 4E in 11 levels.




That's what I'm baffled about regarding 4th edition as well. Even a pretty standard computer RPG like _Dragon Age_ features the possibility of mages creating new spell effects by combining 2+ spells (or casting them in close succession), and the game has lots of options for you to combine different characters' combat options. 

4E reduces that to PC 1 helping PC 2 by creating combat advantage or damage vulnerability. That's a bit too little, which is why I expect 5E to re-introduce that aspect of gaming. The casting time requirement of rituals all but ensures that the most creative spells in the 4E system aren't used inside combat.


----------



## Windjammer (Jan 9, 2010)

Mort said:


> is a phallacy




Freudian slip?


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 9, 2010)

N0Man said:


> Giving me a better grasp of principals makes me feel a lot more free to improvise and feel confident about it.
> 
> In my opinion, P. 42 fits right in with the old adage, "Give a man to fish, feed him for a Day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."



My main issue with P. 42 is one that has already been discussed at length, but not in this thread. There are absolutely no indications on conditions... just tables for damage. IMO, typical improvised actions are far more useful for conditions, such as blinded, restrained, etc... in this regard, the terrain powers from DG2 are probably more inspiring.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 9, 2010)

Mort said:


> same question - what about the fact that the 3e wizard could easily make them (especially scrolls)?
> 
> I was in a game where magic items of any kind were exceedingly rare to find, and there were certainly no magic item shops. This made my mage's (actually fighter/mage but leaning more on mage as levels went up) ability to scribe scrolls much more powerful not less so.



I have never found it to be a problem in my game.

Scrolls are certainly valuable.  And self-made scrolls have been useful on many occasions.  But only in ways that added to the fun for both players and DM.
Low level utility scrolls in particular are very nice.  A cheap CL1 scroll of Comprehend Languages, for example.  

But scrolls still take some time and resources.  And it has always worked out decently for me.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 9, 2010)

N0Man said:


> I'm not sure what you are suggesting here... that the DMG shouldn't waste space with stuff that is useless to people who are experienced enough that they don't need the DMG?



No, I'm following on to the comment I already made an you replied to.



			
				me said:
			
		

> But for me the idea that one page of rules is going to solve the problems is the opposite of a solution. One size does not fit all.






> Not really, because otherwise it's all a matter of what actions *you* think should have been explicitly defined, which is completely different than what other players think should be defined.  What comes up and is useful varies greatly from group to group, and it's impossible to accommodate for everything people want to do, and so they offer some very good guiding principals.



 Thats pretty much a non sequitur there.  You seem to have forgotten that we are only talking about situations not covered by the rules wherein the DM must make a call.  So the idea that this calls for something for every possible action is already out of contact with the point.  But then beyond that, for your statement to hold one must presume that every DM ruling is suddenly unique.  Disagreeing with your defense of one page of text being a one sizes fits all solutions in no way claims that there is no consistency in the rulings.  It was a total red herring.  




> No, which is why I've stated many times in this thread that just because some people really dislike some design choices doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate reasons for them and that others don't believe they are an improvement.



Exactly, which is why I don't like trying to say that the answers are on one page.  Thanks for agreeing.



> It's also a good reason to help teach DM's some guiding principals to start with, so that they can then decide what works best for them and their group and adapt it as needed.  The DMG does not discourage DM's from making the game their own, quite the opposite.
> 
> Absolutely, but uninformed and poor GM calls can really ruin the fun too.  Again, the DMG offers a lot of suggestions, advice, and guidelines.  I wouldn't consider P. 42 (or most other parts of the DMG) to be hard rules, but rather helping DM's get a feel for the art of DM'ing and learning to make their own calls by giving examples of generally balanced resolutions.



Again, if you constrain yourself to DMs that need help, I've got no dispute. But either the DM learns and thus comes over to my side of the debate, no longer needing help and no longer seeing one page of solution as the way to go, or the DM doesn't learn.  The latter case speaks for itself.


> Now this is a question that is completely subjective, because it hinges on personal preference.



REALLY?  So you can say that a terrible game is good just because it is run by a good DM?  I'm not talking about a good DM making a fun experience with a terrible system.  I'm talking about declaring the mechanics themselves to be of high quality.



> I personally think that having a bunch of confusing subsystems that have I (personally) would frequently have to reference and re-reference when they occur to not really be a huge advantage to a game system where I am not really trying to run a simulationist style game, but rather just want to focus on story, drama, characters, fun and action.



But you are wrong because your game makes puppies cry.
 
Come on, that wasn't even a response you offered there.  

So you think a bunch of *confusing* subsystems that you have to keep going back to is a bad thing and story and action is fun?  Gee.  



> I think that teaching guiding principals of how to resolve the vast majority of things is a better approach than how to resolve a small number of things hand picked by the designers, which may or may not apply to your particular game.
> 
> Over time, these resolutions will likely tend to become increasingly more consistent and solid as a GM learns from experience and learns to apply resolutions from the past to new unexpected actions in the future.
> 
> ...



And once that man knows how to fish, he will stop going back to page 42 and agree with me.  Or, he might just keep going back to pg 42 for the free fish and never really learn.  Either way my way looks vasty better to me.


----------



## Goonalan (Jan 9, 2010)

Just wanted to add my 10 cents worth-

I too have fallen in and out of love (or whatever the emotion is with 4e)except I went the other way, hated it for a good long while- then, slowly at first, learned to love it. Oh, I'm a DM- and haven't played D&D (as a player) since 1985- see below for reasons.

Your points

Treasure- yep, so I chenged it, or rather when I needed to change things I did- port over whatever it is thats needed form any other edition, or game, re-write powers, add a bit of flavour. So Farkill is wielding his +2 Chainsaw of Moradin, he's actually not in Moradin's goodbooks at the moment, so part of his character arc is to worm his way back in- which will, he thinks, get his chainsaw a few extra powers and the Dwarven Lords blessing. The chainsaw has freakishly good powers, and some not so good powers that are triggered on critical failures- why because I felt like it. The chainsaw will probably be Farkills holy weapon from when he found it (level 6-ish) to... the end- he's fast approaching level 11 now and he's still in love with the weapon, even after it slipped from his arms in the midst of a battle with a giant undead centipede and almost severed his own arm- crit on self. The rule is- and my players know this, send hints as to what you want, the kind of thing, and together we'll sort something out- I tend to only use the D&D companion as a guide these days, change the name of the thing, the powers, the flavour- or else just make things up. I know it make my stuff less portable (to other games) but... I'm the DM- I rule. Oh and on a crit, for certain of the chainsaw's  powers- it removes a random limb- and has done so twice in game so far.

In a few sessions, actually probably next session, one of the characters is going to discover his mother's head in a sort of snow globe- which is going to turn out to a mad artefact of sorts, with all manner of strange powers, and of course quirks, including berating said player for his tardiness, failure to enquire as to her well-being every five minutes or so, and will generally become the bane of his life.

Rock, our Dwarven Fighter has had his Everful Boot of Stout since, well first level- as soon as the Diplomacy and Bluff checks are needed, he's got his arm around the guards shoulder, easing off the boot, and then offering it up to said guard with a wink and a mumbled- 'get a taste of this!'

How about this for magic items- Rock above, has now found out that he is not flesh and blood (probably) and is in fact a Dwarforged- I kind of android/replicant style 7 of 9 thing- he discovered a place called the Creation Forge and details of Project R0, initiated by Creator Klum- or R0CK for short. He then discovered project R1CK- the player didn't know I was going to do this, I just thought- well it doesn't have to be true... let's run with it a while.

Actually I could go on for an age about the Magic Items the players have found- from the toasted sandwhich maker- which was initially thought to be some sort of fiery shield, to the inflatable rubber ring with ducks head that caused Farkill to float off into the air.

Once you let go of the rules, or else the stuff that's written in the book, then the world's your bivalve mollusc (oyster).

My point Magic Items- make them anyway you want.

Miniatures- if it wasn't for Maptool then I'd not have a game. The gaming group here in Grimsby (there's only one) don't play 4e- they just don't, it's dirty. Therefore maptools it is- which is ace, and that's that.

Although I've played 4e without maptools- using paper, and a pen. Or a whiteboard and magic markers, or with cans of sprite in place of the Water Elemental. At one point I would give my Mrs. a list of all the monsters I thought would be in the next session and she'd go out and buy sweets that some how fit the bill- huge jelly snakes, chocolate mice, ferrero roche flameskulls etc. Yeah the paper thing is a bind but- meh. Pen, squared paper and a rubber- that's all you need really. Oh and with the sweet enemies to the victor the spoils.

Character Builder- to be honest I haven't used it in over a year. My players still use it all the time, and have no problem making changes, mainly due to the fact that we play in maptools and all the tokens have macros which do everything for us- include alter all the PCs stats as and when effects take place- that mark enemies automatically etc. I am still peeved that Wizards have dropped the Gaming Table but maptools is ace- see my thread below for the tails of our group- later on with groovy pictures.

Powers- use them and abuse them, as long as I think it's going to work, every action gets a ruling from me, the limit is the limit of your imagination. Sure I balance things, that's obvious. But Rock wants a power that does X then he'd better send me some suggestions, we tinker with it a while and hey presto. It sounds like your stuck in the Power box still- reading the text and doing that everytime. If there's something missing then either make it up, or else bend an existing power to meet your need- a couple of sessions ago Farkill was ridding a Visejaw Crocodile through the sewer, with his chainsaw buried in the creatures brain- steering it via the chainsaw and using it as a sort of battering ram. Rock regularly drops his weapon and takes to doing non-power stuff- the other week he leapt over a water filled chasm, grabbed a Firebat from the air- mid descent, and then held the thing down- underwater now, until its flames went out (for good), he also invented the jaccuzi. Cathal, another Fighter, has in the past picked enemies up and used them as weapons. Rock once grabbed a Feygrove Choker and spun it about his head- like stretch armstrong the creatures limb getting longer and longer until... boing- and off it went, landing some forty feet away. Eruan, our Wizard, regularly dances into combat with the bad guys and then steps straight back out again- provoking AoO, and giving the Rock or Cathal, who have marked the creature the opportunity to AoO first- it's a patented move now.

Maybe we haven't been playing the game long enough- 1 game/week (usually), 54 sessions in with my latest campaign, but my players don't go encounter- see if it needs a daily- then at-will. They tend to look at the situation in hand, and say- 'I'd like to run, leap on the cart, leap from the cart onto the roof of the building and then grab the rooftop archer, hopefull tripping him and using him as a sled to slide back down the roof and over the edge- landing on the cobbles below using said rooftop archer as a cushion. What do I roll?'

Which makes some people giggle, it takes a minute or two more, but if it works- then everybody's trying it, or something like it some time soon after. And when it doesn't work, when the character ends up instead tripping over and going face first into the building having misjudged his leap, then the damage isn't too bad- not enough to discourage him from trying something similar again. And it still gets a laugh.

Last session my players fought their way through the tainted town of Fallcrest- the entire city balnketed in a black cloak, full of bloodmist, and strange veins that were insubstantial in places, fungi that were dissolving the unconscious bodies of the citizens of the city- all trapped in some sort of coma-like trance, oh we do the high spec9ish) fantasy elements, it's just that we also mix it up a little.

The final encounter the PCs were surprised, and then charged, by a gang of necrotic Slugs- none of the Slugs got anywhere near to the PCs in the charge round- double move 4 squares. The players were in stitches- it was an end of the night thing I'd set up- 4e is good like that, you can swap encounters in (same for all variations of D&D actually). The slugs have some very odd powers, which I've invented of course.

My point is- what do you want from the game, the powers, the magic items?

Find someone that shares your dream/ideas, or rather some people- then do that.

I found my players either here on ENworld, by advertising, or on other similar websites- I didn't particularly ask them what they wanted from the game- I just said anything goes, and send me any ideas you have. Someone bent the rules a little, someone else invented a ritual that was very similar to a spell from 3e, and then it snowballed.

I hope you get what you want/need from the game- everything in maptools takes time to do- whether it's inputting the powers as they stand in the book, or else making up brand new stuff- I can live with that if it gets me the game I want to play, and my players don't seem to mind either.

Cheers Paul


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 9, 2010)

N0Man said:


> You're right, they would vastly increase the utility, versatility, and *power* of ritual casters.  What some consider "creative spell casting", some consider cheesing or breaking an encounter.  It's obviously an intentional choice to make many effects less broken and take spells that they believed *should* be utility spells and take them out of combat.
> 
> It's true that a party will no longer be able to run from a monster, shut the door and arcane lock it and suddenly be safe, though it can still help make camping in a dungeon safer.
> 
> ...




Designing a system to deliberately minimize creativity in response to challenges (because of the desires to see the challenge go as the creator of the challenge conceives) is *poor *design. Having encounters that don't "play out as planned" because of player creativity is a *good *thing.

The thought behind saying "breaking an encounter" is deeply rooted in the CRPG environment - wherein challenges have a pre-determined methodology of success because designers are working within a limited paradigm. An rpg encounter can *never *be "broken" or "cheesed" because that means that the creator of the encounter considers certain ways of solving the problem "the *right way*" and other ways of solving the problem as "the *wrong way*". Designers in rpgs do not have a limited paradigm as the players are not reliant upon an interface to determine reality. How a problem is solved isn't the DM's or the designers responsibility in rpgs - that's one of the challenges of the G in RPG for the players.

It does not matter how a problem is solved. Hell, it doesn't even matter if a problem is not solved at all. The game's not about a series of challenges *that are overcome*. The game is about a series of challenges. The results of the challenges are entirely in the player's hands.



> Let's also not forget the advantage of not having to memorize rituals.  In 3E, if you needed one of these abilities as part of your plan, and if you didn't have a bunch of utility spells prepared on scrolls already, you often had to stop, camp for the night, and prepare new spells for your plan to work.




And there's a problem with that? There's nothing wrong with facing a challenge that cannot be overcome immediately. That not "not fun." Having such encounters adds another data point in the Player's thinking - another mobile piece in the rpg game. They have to plan and account for the possibility that they may need something they don't have and have to wait longer than they would like to gain the ability. 



> Rituals may take more time to cast, but you have every ritual you know and have ingredients for at your fingertips ready to *begin* casting at any time, without taking a full rest.  I think that's and underrated feature.
> 
> Also, it allows players to broaden their character concept and allow nontraditional character classes to dabble in some magic without actually multi-classing in order to fit their character's theme.
> 
> It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's a very legitimate design with some good reasons behind it, that at least some people do agree with.




Those are the benefits of the ritual system.

joe b.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 9, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> Designing a system to deliberately minimize creativity in response to challenges (because of the desires to see the challenge go as the creator of the challenge conceives) is *poor *design. Having encounters that don't "play out as planned" because of player creativity is a *good *thing.




Agree, albeit with one caveat. 



> The thought behind saying "breaking an encounter" is deeply rooted in the CRPG environment - wherein challenges have a pre-determined methodology of success because designers are working within a limited paradigm. An rpg encounter can *never *be "broken" or "cheesed" because that means that the creator of the encounter considers certain ways of solving the problem "the *right way*" and other ways of solving the problem as "the *wrong way*". Designers in rpgs do not have a limited paradigm as the players are not reliant upon an interface to determine reality. How a problem is solved isn't the DM's or the designers responsibility in rpgs - that's one of the challenges of the G in RPG for the players.




I don't agree that CRPGs are the things that have encouraged a shift toward reducing the ways to handily (recognizing that every group has a different definition of "handily") overcome an encounter. Maybe they've played a part, but I think it has a lot to do with the amount of effort needed to stat out an encounter in the first place, which is loosely related to the graying of the RPG population. When a game system requires a fair amount of time to stat out an encounter "adequately" and the encounter is then overcome in five minutes with a clever application of a spell or magic item or skill, the GM winds up considering whether running a solid ongoing game is worth the investment in time. If you can only game one night every two weeks? It's an all the more serious consideration. 

Game designers should dread the idea that many people want to play their games, but not many people want to run them. I really don't mean to undercut the players, but by and large GMs are the biggest evangelists a game has, the best way to grow a community. Several of the decisions I've see regarding D&D seem to take that thought very seriously. They go too far for many people's tastes, which certainly proves that it is a razor-thin edge to walk, but much of what I see seems designed with the explicit intention of giving the DM less work required to make a good encounter, and making sure that encounter justifies the work in at-table play.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 9, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> Designing a system to deliberately minimize creativity in response to challenges (because of the desires to see the challenge go as the creator of the challenge conceives) is *poor *design. Having encounters that don't "play out as planned" because of player creativity is a *good *thing.



Separate 3E casting and player creativity and I'm right on board. There's nothing inherently creative about spellcasting. You can cast spells creatively, just like you can do any action creatively; that's the greatness of having a DM. If it's otherworldy effects you want in order to be creative with, see rituals.



jgbrowning said:


> And there's a problem with that? There's nothing wrong with facing a challenge that cannot be overcome immediately. That not "not fun." Having such encounters adds another data point in the Player's thinking - another mobile piece in the rpg game. They have to plan and account for the possibility that they may need something they don't have and have to wait longer than they would like to gain the ability.



Your quote from a couple pages back:


jgbrowning said:


> IMO, the main problem with rituals is that they take at least 5 minutes (typically longer) to perform. They cannot be done in the heat of action and thusly have greatly reduced interest, utility, and versatility.



So, waiting 10 minutes is bad, but waiting a whole day is good?


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 9, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> It does not matter how a problem is solved. Hell, it doesn't even matter if a problem is not solved at all. The game's not about a series of challenges *that are overcome*. The game is about a series of challenges. The results of the challenges are entirely in the player's hands.



Keep in mind the word _challenge_. Is it okay to cast a single spell and the combat is essentially over? Is that still a challenge? Two spells? What if it's the same spell every encounter? Does it matter that non-casters are left entirely out of the equation, or in other words, does it matter to have a challenge for everyone vs. just for the casters?


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 9, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I don't agree that CRPGs are the things that have encouraged a shift toward reducing the ways to handily (recognizing that every group has a different definition of "handily") overcome an encounter. Maybe they've played a part, but I think it has a lot to do with the amount of effort needed to stat out an encounter in the first place, which is loosely related to the graying of the RPG population. When a game system requires a fair amount of time to stat out an encounter "adequately" and the encounter is then overcome in five minutes with a clever application of a spell or magic item or skill, the GM winds up considering whether running a solid ongoing game is worth the investment in time. If you can only game one night every two weeks? It's an all the more serious consideration.




That's very possible. I've always been a fly by the pants DM who does very little prep, so that may be a facet I'm downplaying.



> Game designers should dread the idea that many people want to play their games, but not many people want to run them.




I utterly agree.



> Several of the decisions I've see regarding D&D seem to take that thought very seriously. They go too far for many people's tastes, which certainly proves that it is a razor-thin edge to walk, but much of what I see seems designed with the explicit intention of giving the DM less work required to make a good encounter, and making sure that encounter justifies the work in at-table play.




I think that such is a factor in the design, but such goals are almost always in opposition to providing enough fiddly bits to keep the players happy. The more wiz-bang the players can do, generally the more work the GM has to do.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 9, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Separate 3E casting and player creativity and I'm right on board. There's nothing inherently creative about spellcasting. You can cast spells creatively, just like you can do any action creatively; that's the greatness of having a DM. If it's otherworldy effects you want in order to be creative with, see rituals.




I don't think one can separate creativity from spell casting because creativity exists with any tool. If spell casting contains no otherworldly effects, I'd argue it was spell casting in name only.



> Your quote from a couple pages back:
> So, waiting 10 minutes is bad, but waiting a whole day is good?




Yes. Waiting 10 minutes reduces the interest, utility, and versatility of rituals. Waiting a day (or the possibility that such may occur) to gain resources increases the number of environmental variables players have to game with.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 9, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Keep in mind the word _challenge_. Is it okay to cast a single spell and the combat is essentially over? Is that still a challenge? Two spells? What if it's the same spell every encounter? Does it matter that non-casters are left entirely out of the equation, or in other words, does it matter to have a challenge for everyone vs. just for the casters?




The use of the word was in relation to something complex enough to require "a plan" in order to see if a challenge can be brought to a successful outcome in the players' opinions

joe b.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 9, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> That's very possible. I've always been a fly by the pants DM who does very little prep, so that may be a facet I'm downplaying.




Yeah. In many cases it takes a certain willingness to wing it, and to say "you know, I don't need to run the math for all the facets of this villain's class, I just need to figure out what he's going to use most often." Though I enjoyed 3e D&D, I think it hit the apex of the preparation problem, as it combined a robust and complicated antagonist creation system with the lethal "villains are expected to die, not to recur" mentality of D&D, and topped it all off with plenty of player goodies that allowed for the quick kill or quick bypass. 

You can absolutely get around those problems, of course. But if you're running the game the way the books teach you to, it's gonna be problematic. You have to not fear a later audit. Of course, for some people the "build a villain" phase is part of the fun. But if it isn't... ouch.



> I think that such is a factor in the design, but such goals are almost always in opposition to providing enough fiddly bits to keep the players happy. The more wiz-bang the players can do, generally the more work the GM has to do.




Hence the razor-thin line. It's an unenviable situation, exacerbated by the size of D&D's player base.


----------



## keterys (Jan 9, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> An rpg encounter can *never *be "broken" or "cheesed"




While I agree that RPG encounters shouldn't be on rails that you can't deviate from, and seeing the wacky ways people improvise and get through things is great...

I must completely disagree. RPG encounters, plots, and campaigns can most certainly be broken or cheesed. Some systems use a sort of escalation warfare of countermeasures that block teleportation, divination, whatever to preserve certain stories, but there's a certain amount of benefit to the DM preparing two hours to run a game, let's call it Agricola, and not finding out that he actually ended up with Pandemic, a wholly unknown to him option. 

Ie, 1st level wizards don't have the power to level towns because it's not necessarily good for the game. Or at least it's likely good for the game for there to be a period of time in which the wizard is unable to do that, before working up to when he can.

Scry and die is not necessarily good for the game. Where/when it is good for the game, well, has a lot of variance of opinion.


----------



## RiTz21 (Jan 9, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> ...I'll leave it at that for now. Please don't take this as an attack on 4th edition--I am talking about my own experience of it, which is obviously based upon my personal tastes. But I am wondering if anyone's experience resonates with my own? I've heard a lot of folks not like 4ed from the start, but not many that started liking it but gradually "fell off the bandwagon." Did you start out liking 4th edition and gradually become disenchanted? Or what about the converse--did you start out not liking it and then enjoyed it?




My D&D group (composed of 30-50yrs old) had no liking for what they saw in the new 4th edition system, and decided to stick to 3.5 (they had invested a lot in books for it). More recently, with Paizo's Pathfinder coming out, all our games have switched to Pathfinder - We're still learning the differences from 3.5, but this seems to be the road we will be heading for the foreseeable future... I believe that those who have had a chance to play the earlier systems are less inclined to jump on the 4th bandwagon.

RiTz21


----------



## Mort (Jan 9, 2010)

RiTz21 said:


> My D&D group (composed of 30-50yrs old) had no liking for what they saw in the new 4th edition system, and decided to stick to 3.5 (they had invested a lot in books for it). More recently, with Paizo's Pathfinder coming out, all our games have switched to Pathfinder - We're still learning the differences from 3.5, but this seems to be the road we will be heading for the foreseeable future... I believe that those who have had a chance to play the earlier systems are less inclined to jump on the 4th bandwagon.
> 
> RiTz21




My group is also 30s to 50s, all of us have played from 1st eddition or earlier. Yet we are all having a blast with the 4e system (I'm having fun DMing it and they certainly seem to be enjoying playing it). 4e is a certainly a different system, a much bigger change than 2e to 3e but I would not hold your observation as near universal.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 9, 2010)

RiTz21 said:


> I believe that those who have had a chance to play the earlier systems are less inclined to jump on the 4th bandwagon.
> 
> RiTz21



I don't actually think you'll find that this is the case on ENWorld.

I've played D&D since the early eighties, starting with the three-punch red book, and moving through 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5 before 4e.  Lots of others on here are similar.  Quite a few never switched over to 3e, and several who started with 3e haven't switched to 4e.  (Heck - I still _run _a 1e game, too.)

I don't think there's any connection between D&D experience, and whether or not a given player or DM enjoys 4e.  It's a matter of preferences, and what you value in a gaming system - nothing more.

-O


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 9, 2010)

RiTz21 said:


> My D&D group (composed of 30-50yrs old) had no liking for what they saw in the new 4th edition system, and decided to stick to 3.5 (they had invested a lot in books for it). More recently, with Paizo's Pathfinder coming out, all our games have switched to Pathfinder - We're still learning the differences from 3.5, but this seems to be the road we will be heading for the foreseeable future... I believe that those who have had a chance to play the earlier systems are less inclined to jump on the 4th bandwagon.
> 
> RiTz21




I think its the opposite. It's all based on personal experiences of course, but the vast majority of people I know or heard about who haven't switched, are people who discovered D&D during the 3.x era.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 9, 2010)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I commend you for it, and adhere to the same philosophy, but that would be a house rule. The default assumption is that the players (PCs) can either create or buy whatever they want. Perhaps not _whenever _they want or _wherever _they want, but that level of customization is assumed.
> 
> Terrible design decision, FWIW.



As got pointed out, long before 4e was announced - the 3.X rules do _not_ say that magic items can be easily purchased, nor is that even particularly implied, except possibly for certain (Forgotten Realms?) settings - so no, it is not a even house rule, but rather a setting decision. What they do have is how long it takes to create magic items - and that it takes just as long for an NPC as it does for a PC. And since the village priest is ministering to the village for most of his day, he will get around to the scrolls when he gets around to it.

He is more likely to have some potions of healing, since he will not need to be there to personally use them, an assumption that he is likely have for a stockpile of scrolls...

As for Wizards creating their own scrolls... they have a few that they keep for contingencies. Knock comes to mind, put they much prefer if the expendable professional thief property relocation expert opens the door for them - scrolls cost money. Now wands.... a wizard seems more likely, in my campaign, to carry about two wands of regularly used offensive spells than anything else - for some reason Fireball remains the most popular, with Magic Missile for those things that are immune to fire.

Then again, I have never experienced the 15 minute adventuring day problem either, so likely it is my crew.  (Hey guys! I just said something nice about you!) It seems like everyone pretty much holds the line together, the wizard does not go Nova, but conserves his spells, though until the Reserve feats came out he was still the limiting factor on the adventuring day (just closer to six hours than fifteen minutes, and once I had to pretty much tell the players that a fifteen _hour_ adventuring day was not a good idea, they would have been facing the big bad while sorely depleted).

Another consideration that comes to mind 3e vs. 4e - I wonder if the fans of versatile wizards are one of the major chunks of resentment toward 4e? I know that it is for me, though my own biggest bone is the GSL (grrrrr). Play for them has to be one of the biggest edition changes.

The Auld Grump, rambling because he needs to eat....


----------



## Mort (Jan 9, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> As for Wizards creating their own scrolls... they have a few that they keep for contingencies. Knock comes to mind, put they much prefer if the expendable professional thief property relocation expert opens the door for them - scrolls cost money. Now wands.... a wizard seems more likely, in my campaign, to carry about two wands of regularly used offensive spells than anything else - for some reason Fireball remains the most popular, with Magic Missile for those things that are immune to fire.




when our characters were about 9th level, we explored a wizards tower. Every door of any consequence was wizard locked; meaning the rogue (in all of his pixie 30 DEX glory) had exactly 0% of opening any of the doors. Knock, on the other hand, got through the doors quite nicely. It's disparity like this that sours me a bit (and I was the one playing the mage, the rogue was even less thrilled).


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 9, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I've played D&D since the early eighties, starting with the three-punch red book, and moving through 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5 before 4e.  Lots of others on here are similar.  Quite a few never switched over to 3e, and several who started with 3e haven't switched to 4e.  (Heck - I still _run _a 1e game, too.)
> 
> I don't think there's any connection between D&D experience, and whether or not a given player or DM enjoys 4e.  It's a matter of preferences, and what you value in a gaming system - nothing more.




Very similar experiences here; fell down the hole because my mother got me the red box with the Erol Otus art at a highly impressionable age. I don't think it's about what editions you played; I think it's about what kind of experiences you've gotten out of gaming, and what you want to get out of future games. For instance, 4e enables a lot of gaming habits that I picked up in my 2e days back in college in ways that 3e didn't. Not that 3e isn't an excellent system, and not that 4e doesn't have anything I would rather they'd done differently, but I find I must be squarely in the 4e target audience for some reason or another.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 9, 2010)

Mort said:


> when our characters were about 9th level, we explored a wizards tower. Every door of any consequence was wizard locked; meaning the rogue (in all of his pixie 30 DEX glory) had exactly 0% of opening any of the doors. Knock, on the other hand, got through the doors quite nicely. It's disparity like this that sours me a bit (and I was the one playing the mage, the rogue was even less thrilled).



That would piss me off too - an I might have my good friends Mario and Luigi pay a visit to the DM. (They call themselves plumbers, but that's only because of the work they do with lead pipes.  )

That comes down to a DM deciding to screw over one of the PCs, and is seriously not cool. Not the system - the adventure was specifically set up to screw the PC.  It messes with the wizard as well, because he has to dedicate those resources that could have been better used on other things.

The Auld Grump


----------



## N0Man (Jan 9, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I don't actually think you'll find that this is the case on ENWorld.
> 
> I've played D&D since the early eighties, starting with the three-punch red book, and moving through 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5 before 4e.  Lots of others on here are similar.  Quite a few never switched over to 3e, and several who started with 3e haven't switched to 4e.  (Heck - I still _run _a 1e game, too.)
> 
> I don't think there's any connection between D&D experience, and whether or not a given player or DM enjoys 4e.  It's a matter of preferences, and what you value in a gaming system - nothing more.




I'll definitely agree here.  My first exposure to D&D was when I bought used copies of the AD&D PHB, DMG, and MM.  I played 2E for years, and then 3E.  After 3.5, my play became much more rare.  However, I'm also a fan of 4E, and feel that in many ways it kind of feels like many of the things I liked from both 2E and 3.0, and changing other things into something new (that I also approve of).

It's not perfect, but it's a strong system and accomplishes what I want from a system rather well.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 9, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I don't think one can separate creativity from spell casting because creativity exists with any tool. If spell casting contains no otherworldly effects, I'd argue it was spell casting in name only.



What I meant was that 3E style spell-casting doesn't necesarily equal creativity while 4E style is the opposite. Creativity in encounters is good, but that does not mean the incredible power of 3E casters is required or good; that's what I meant by separating the goodness of creativity in a game, from spell casting.





jgbrowning said:


> Yes. Waiting 10 minutes reduces the interest, utility, and versatility of rituals. Waiting a day (or the possibility that such may occur) to gain resources increases the number of environmental variables players have to game with.



Interest? No. Versatility? No. How would time effect those things? Rituals are indeed versatile, and while it could be debated how interesting they are, I don't see how time affects how interesting their results are. Utility I can see. Some stuff you want to be able to fire off in a short amount of time. You want to send off an animal messenger quickly to warn the guards, not wait 10 minutes to the point where you could have gone yourself.

In any case, dailies are still in 4E, so you still have to wait a day for that. Wizards have the spellbook feature so they switch out spells, like taking out fireball if they're in the red dragon's lair or whatever. While waiting can reduce the utility of rituals, "There's nothing wrong with facing a challenge that cannot be overcome immediately." I agree with you, there.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 9, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> What I meant was that 3E style spell-casting doesn't necesarily equal creativity while 4E style is the opposite.




I'd have to disagree. I think the intentional design of 4e is to reduce as many variables in spell-casting as possible to have only damage (or the removal of such), condition (or the removal of such), or movement (or the hindering of) effects. To simplify, if a spell doesn't do one of the above to a piece of plastic on the grid during combat, it doesn't exist. There are exceptions to that simplification, of course. 4e spells are specifically designed to reduce "creative" potential because damage/condition/movement balance in combat is more important than using arcane lock to split an enemy group into two groups.

That, IMO, means that magic in pre-4e editions is inherently more creative, if for no other reason that it can be used in both combat and non-combat spheres simultaneously, allowing for greater creative potential. I think this is indicated by the design choices of the 4e design group in how they developed 4e spell casting, rituals, and especially in magic items.

Take water breathing as an example. If a 4e party member in full armor falls into a lake, there's no chance of swimming down and casting water breathing to save him.



> Creativity in encounters is good, but that does not mean the incredible power of 3E casters is required or good; that's what I meant by separating the goodness of creativity in a game, from spell casting.




Honestly, I've never seen the powers of casters in pre 4e editions as being incredible - at least until at very high levels where one would assume the power would be incredible. This may be a rare experience, but my games haven't been overshadowed by spellcasters.



> Interest? No. Versatility? No. How would time effect those things? Rituals are indeed versatile, and while it could be debated how interesting they are, I don't see how time affects how interesting their results are. Utility I can see. Some stuff you want to be able to fire off in a short amount of time. You want to send off an animal messenger quickly to warn the guards, not wait 10 minutes to the point where you could have gone yourself.




Interest: casting silence in combat is, IMO, more interesting than being unable to do such - it leads to more combat permutations. Versatility: being able to cast silence in combat is more versatile than not being able to do such. Utility: silence that is both combat and non-combat usable contains more utility.

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 9, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> I think its the opposite. It's all based on personal experiences of course, but the vast majority of people I know or heard about who haven't switched, are people who discovered D&D during the 3.x era.



I know a lot of people who played prior editions and didn't go to 4E (certainly including myself).  But the only observation I can make it that it seems to make no difference.


----------



## Mort (Jan 9, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I'd have to disagree. I think the intentional design of 4e is to reduce as many variables in spell-casting as possible to have only damage (or the removal of such), condition (or the removal of such), or movement (or the hindering of) effects. To simplify, if a spell doesn't do one of the above to a piece of plastic on the grid during combat, it doesn't exist. There are exceptions to that simplification, of course. 4e spells are specifically designed to reduce "creative" potential because damage/condition/movement balance in combat is more important than using arcane lock to split an enemy group into two groups.




The problem is - only casters had this kind of versatility. Still do really, as a you could probably convince your DM to lock the door for a round or 2 with cantrip. 



jgbrowning said:


> That, IMO, means that magic in pre-4e editions is inherently more creative, if for no other reason that it can be used in both combat and non-combat spheres simultaneously, allowing for greater creative potential. I think this is indicated by the design choices of the 4e design group in how they developed 4e spell casting, rituals, and especially in magic items.




I don't see this as magic being creative (after all it's not "creative" to lock a door, grease a floor, web a hallway etc. it's what the spells are meant to do). I see it as magic being more versatile which gives the mage a leg up on non-spellcasters. 4e chose to address this disparity; the solution is not for everyone but there was a definite reason for it. Mages can still do amazing things far above the ability of non-mages, but they take time to do it, meaning sometimes a non-magic solution is preferred or even necessary. And yes I have a bias here, I'm glad that the mages "six second solution" to nearly every problem is reduced in 4e.



jgbrowning said:


> Take water breathing as an example. If a 4e party member in full armor falls into a lake, there's no chance of swimming down and casting water breathing to save him.




You mean someone actually has to swim down and pull him out, or get him out of his armor so he can pull himself out without using magic? The horror! Sorry couldn't resist, I just detest when magic becomes the solution to every problem in a game. IMO this limits creative thinking to a great degree rather than enhancing it.





jgbrowning said:


> Honestly, I've never seen the powers of casters in pre 4e editions as being incredible - at least until at very high levels where one would assume the power would be incredible. This may be a rare experience, but my games haven't been overshadowed by spellcasters.




Mages have spells that can make or break a combat. Easy example, _Evard's Black Tentacles_, can take a fight versus multiple opponents from difficult to cakewalk as soon as it's cast. But forgetting that, the 3e mage can easily step on the toes of the rest of the party while minimally impacting his ability to do his own role - that, not "incredible power" is my issue.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 9, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I find I must be squarely in the 4e target audience for some reason or another.




Myself as well- at least pretty close to square 

FWIW (as related to the recent topic of old timers prolly not liking 4E as much as younger players)- I started with the LBBs in the late 70s. Progressed through 1E and B/X, glossed over most of 2E (only because I quit gaming for several years) came back at the tail end and into 3E which is SO not my cup of tea. 4E hits a (good) nerve with me too for the most part- which I could ramble on about for quite some time, but I will spare everyone


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 9, 2010)

Mort said:


> I don't see this as magic being creative (after all it's not "creative" to lock a door, grease a floor, web a hallway etc. it's what the spells are meant to do).




When I say creative I mean available for use outside of the intended. I don't have a bunch of examples, because well, I'm not feeling creative right now. Something like using continual light to create a lure to draw up a big fish from the bottom of a deep river as opposed to using it as a light source for vision as it was intended.



> You mean someone actually has to swim down and pull him out, or get him out of his armor so he can pull himself out without using magic? The horror! Sorry couldn't resist, I just detest when magic becomes the solution to every problem in a game. IMO this limits creative thinking to a great degree rather than enhancing it.




I'd disagree. The option of multiple solutions means (more than likely) a greater possible chance for a creative solution. If you only have a hammer, you have less opportunity for creativity than you do if you have a hammer and a saw.



> Mages have spells that can make or break a combat. Easy example, _Evard's Black Tentacles_, can take a fight versus multiple opponents from difficult to cakewalk as soon as it's cast. But forgetting that, the 3e mage can easily step on the toes of the rest of the party while minimally impacting his ability to do his own role - that, not "incredible power" is my issue.




I never really had that happen either. An Evard's tentacles is useful (and if someone wants to spend 900gp and 36xp to scribe a scroll - more power to them) but there's only a few per adventuring day and they are available for use against the party.

I guess my experience is very different than others. For example, I wouldn't be pissed or upset in the least about investigating a wizard's tower that had every important door arcane locked. I mean, well of course the important doors are arcane locked. Is the wizard supposed to be an idiot or something? To me, that's not stepping on the toes of any classes's role - that providing an environment that's believable for adventuring.

joe b.


----------



## Mort (Jan 9, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> When I say creative I mean available for use outside of the intended. I don't have a bunch of examples, because well, I'm not feeling creative right now. Something like using continual light to create a lure to draw up a big fish from the bottom of a deep river as opposed to using it as a light source for vision as it was intended.




I have a problem with "creative" use of magic. To me, the limiting factor in spells is that they do one thing; want to do something else? find another spell or use a non-magic solution.




jgbrowning said:


> I'd disagree. The option of multiple solutions means (more than likely) a greater possible chance for a creative solution. If you only have a hammer, you have less opportunity for creativity than you do if you have a hammer and a saw.




The problem is when the wizard has a tool chest and everyone else only has a hammer. That's the issue I'm talking about.




jgbrowning said:


> I guess my experience is very different than others. For example, I wouldn't be pissed or upset in the least about investigating a wizard's tower that had every important door arcane locked. I mean, well of course the important doors are arcane locked. Is the wizard supposed to be an idiot or something? To me, that's not stepping on the toes of any classes's role - that providing an environment that's believable for adventuring.
> 
> joe b.




Well yes, of course the wizard would be an idiot to not wizard lock every important door. Just like it would be unrealistic to not encounter undead in an ancient cemetery (at least in D&D). But if there are too many situations where  one class is gimped while another always has good solutions and options, the disparity can become jarring for the players.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Mort said:


> I have a problem with "creative" use of magic. To me, the limiting factor in spells is that they do one thing; want to do something else? find another spell or use a non-magic solution.




Well, that concept would be pretty foreign considering the history of the magic in the game.



> The problem is when the wizard has a tool chest and everyone else only has a hammer. That's the issue I'm talking about.




To me, that's not an issue. It's really only a problem with a wizard with a large spell collection and time to prepare for the situation. He's a specialist's specialist with enough time, but for every day adventuring I've never found them to be that much better than other classes.



> Well yes, of course the wizard would be an idiot to not wizard lock every important door. Just like it would be unrealistic to not encounter undead in an ancient cemetery (at least in D&D). But if there are too many situations where  one class is gimped while another always has good solutions and options, the disparity can become jarring for the players.




The players could try not invading successive wizard controlled areas or try getting out of the cemeteries for a while. If one environment favors one class and the players are finding that a bit boring, well, leave that environment and go somewhere different. Or have a GM that knows how to spice things up, even when they are similar.

*shrug*

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 10, 2010)

JeffB said:


> Myself as well- at least pretty close to square



It must be square.  Not even fireballs are round in 4E.  
(No offense, just couldn't resist)


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Jan 10, 2010)

I can sympathize with the Original Poster.  I don't hate 4e, but I can honestly say I don't like it as much as I liked 3.5.  For one, I think powers for all classes added unnecessary complication to non-magical classes.  ...Although that's probably my frustration over *always* rolling poorly every time I try using my Dailies talking. 

Meanwhile, I've played Pathfinder about 4 times, and I've never had a frustrating playing experience with it.  Sure, my Ranger and my Paladin don't have any "Nifty-Cool Powerz", but they do their jobs well enough, and I don't miss the powers.

I'll stay play D&D 4e when offered, but I think Pathfinder does D&D better then D&D 4e does.


----------



## N0Man (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> To me, that's not an issue. It's really only a problem with a wizard with a large spell collection and time to prepare for the situation. He's a specialist's specialist with enough time, but for every day adventuring I've never found them to be that much better than other classes.




Really?  Most wizards I saw played in 3E tended to keep lots of spells on scrolls, and just pop out the scroll that they needed.  They'd always have a stash of the utility spells on scrolls whenever possible.



> The players could try not invading successive wizard controlled areas or try getting out of the cemeteries for a while. If one environment favors one class and the players are finding that a bit boring, well, leave that environment and go somewhere different. Or have a GM that knows how to spice things up, even when they are similar.




What environment is a wizard not good in, aside from anti-magic zones?


----------



## N0Man (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> The thought behind saying "breaking an encounter" is deeply rooted in the CRPG environment - wherein challenges have a pre-determined methodology of success because designers are working within a limited paradigm. An rpg encounter can *never *be "broken" or "cheesed" because that means that the creator of the encounter considers certain ways of solving the problem "the *right way*" and other ways of solving the problem as "the *wrong way*". Designers in rpgs do not have a limited paradigm as the players are not reliant upon an interface to determine reality. How a problem is solved isn't the DM's or the designers responsibility in rpgs - that's one of the challenges of the G in RPG for the players.




Seriously, do you realize how many little notes and rules have been added to a lot of simple spells over the years to prevent them from being abused by "creative spellcasting"?

Take the simple level 1 spell *Enlarge*.  In 2E, the text "the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by growth" was added from the original AD&D because players would want to do stuff like enlarge a person in their armor and crush them to death in it with a level 1 spell.  In 3E, they added, "Multiple  magical  effects  that  increase size  do  not  stack", because players decided that 2 Enlarges are better than 1.

That's just one example.

Many spells have had additional disclaimers and restrictions added onto them over time through the various editions in order to prevent certain overpowered "creative casting".  For you to tell me that cheesing encounters is not possible in a true RPG, only in a CRPG, is completely false.



> It does not matter how a problem is solved. Hell, it doesn't even matter if a problem is not solved at all. The game's not about a series of challenges *that are overcome*. The game is about a series of challenges. The results of the challenges are entirely in the player's hands.




What some people believe (including the 4E designers) was that casters just had so many tricks up their sleeves, frequently that were used in ways that weren't really intended, that they frequently overshadowed non-magic users to severe degrees.  All too often the result of the challenge is more about the characters (and classes), not the players.

It's really obvious that 4E design is intentionally working to try to allow different classes share the spotlight and get their chances too.  Magic users weren't pushed into the backseat, but rather everyone else is getting more turns in the front seat now.



> And there's a problem with that? There's nothing wrong with facing a challenge that cannot be overcome immediately. That not "not fun." Having such encounters adds another data point in the Player's thinking - another mobile piece in the rpg game. They have to plan and account for the possibility that they may need something they don't have and have to wait longer than they would like to gain the ability.




As it was pointed out by someone else... the scenario I presented neglected to consider just how common scrolls were in 3E.  It's been a while since I played, so I almost forgot about that.  It kind of makes the point for either of us rather moot.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 10, 2010)

Mort said:


> when our characters were about 9th level, we explored a wizards tower. Every door of any consequence was wizard locked; meaning the rogue (in all of his pixie 30 DEX glory) had exactly 0% of opening any of the doors. Knock, on the other hand, got through the doors quite nicely. It's disparity like this that sours me a bit (and I was the one playing the mage, the rogue was even less thrilled).



What an awesome adventure for the party wizard!

A master of his craft, at the cusp of greatness, testing his magical skills against the arcane defences of a senior mage.  Why should a rogue be the one to shine in that adventure?  And if, through the magical mastery of the PC wizard, the party finds the elder mage, does the wiz have the ability to sneak under a lab bench and throw a sneak attack to prevent a shower of fireballs destroying the party?

The party's rogue will have a hundred and one opportunities to do his schtick, before and after the wizard's tower.  Should every scenario be massaged into blandness in order to provide equal scope for all classes and characters?

And, well...pixie rogue with 30 DEX.  Some D&D games neatly demonstrate why Exalted needed to be published.



			
				NOMan said:
			
		

> Take the simple level 1 spell Enlarge. In 2E, the text "the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by growth" was added from the original AD&D because players would want to do stuff like enlarge a person in their armor and crush them to death in it




Sounds like a dozen kinds of awesome to me.  How disappointing that players should be restrained with rules to compensate for DMs who can't handle lateral thinking.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 10, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> How disappointing that players should be restrained with rules to compensate for DMs who can't handle lateral thinking.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 10, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Sounds like a dozen kinds of awesome to me.  How disappointing that players should be restrained with rules to compensate for DMs who can't handle lateral thinking.




Casting enlarge to crush someone to death isn't creative.  It's nothing more than a player trying to abuse the RAI by quoting the RAW.  

While being a rules lawyer does require a certain degree of lateral thinking, IMO it isn't the kind I want in my games.  It's like trying to argue that if a character holds a sword between his teeth, he should be able to make extra attacks (because the books don't say you _can't_).


----------



## JeffB (Jan 10, 2010)

BryonD said:


> It must be square.  Not even fireballs are round in 4E.
> (No offense, just couldn't resist)




I LOL'ed- no offense taken in the slightest   (its just a silly game of make believe after all)


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 10, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> Casting enlarge to crush someone to death isn't creative.  It's nothing more than a player trying to abuse the RAI by quoting the RAW.




QFT.

How disappointing sloppy vagueness which enables sneaking in of genre breaking effects gets confused as a good thing and a rules feature and rules lawyering gets confused as desireable lateral thinking.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 10, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> QFT.
> 
> How disappointing sloppy vagueness which enables sneaking in of genre breaking effects gets confused as a good thing and a rules feature and rules lawyering gets confused as desireable lateral thinking.



A roll eyes fits nicely here.  Basically we have a misrepresentation of an off-hand example being QFT'd.

If "genre breaking" is a concern then 4E should be way down the list of viable options.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 10, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> And, well...pixie rogue with 30 DEX.  Some D&D games neatly demonstrate why Exalted needed to be published.
> 
> ...
> 
> Sounds like a dozen kinds of awesome to me.  How disappointing that players should be restrained with rules to compensate for DMs who can't handle lateral thinking.




These two sentences are so incredibly interesting next to one another. Why does the pixie rogue not sound like a dozen kinds of awesome, disappointingly restrained with rules to compensate for DMs who can't handle lateral thinking? Why is crushing someone to death with a 1st-level spell not the sort of demonstration why Exalted needed to be published? Truly, everyone plays D&D in a completely different fashion.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> When I say creative I mean available for use outside of the intended. I don't have a bunch of examples, because well, I'm not feeling creative right now. Something like using continual light to create a lure to draw up a big fish from the bottom of a deep river as opposed to using it as a light source for vision as it was intended.



Just pointing out that this kind of creativity is limited by the DM and not any particular ruleset. 4e allows this as much as any other system and as the set of utility spells increase we will see more of this kind of thing. 
In fact all the DM advice in 4e encourages this kind of thing.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

N0Man said:


> Really?  Most wizards I saw played in 3E tended to keep lots of spells on scrolls, and just pop out the scroll that they needed.  They'd always have a stash of the utility spells on scrolls whenever possible.




We had different experiences. I guess my running a campaign where spells are only gained at level and by acquiring scrolls makes a big difference.



> What environment is a wizard not good in, aside from anti-magic zones?




Any that he doesn't have the right spells for?

joe b.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 10, 2010)

Mort said:


> You mean someone actually has to swim down and pull him out, or get him out of his armor so he can pull himself out without using magic? The horror! Sorry couldn't resist, I just detest when magic becomes the solution to every problem in a game. IMO this limits creative thinking to a great degree rather than enhancing it.



I completely agree with this line of thinking. When the DM says "Character X is drowning", the response "I cast _water breathing_ on him" is not a creative solution. It's just using a spell in the way it was intended to be used.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> Any that he doesn't have the right spells for?



"We rest for the night."

Far too common a problem in 3E, in my experience. The wizard isn't optimally prepped, so the rest of the party hangs around while he gets prepped.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

N0Man said:


> Seriously, do you realize how many little notes and rules have been added to a lot of simple spells over the years to prevent them from being abused by "creative spellcasting"?
> 
> Take the simple level 1 spell *Enlarge*.  In 2E, the text "the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by growth" was added from the original AD&D because players would want to do stuff like enlarge a person in their armor and crush them to death in it with a level 1 spell.  In 3E, they added, "Multiple  magical  effects  that  increase size  do  not  stack", because players decided that 2 Enlarges are better than 1.
> 
> ...




I guess we, unsurprisingly, have a difference of opinion. I view many of those spell clarifications as statements about corner-cases regarding power of an object rather than statements about cheesing encounters through creative use of said object.

I've always let players do what they want. If they find a tactic that works very well and they want to use it over and over and over, more power to them. If they find that boring, well, they can decide to not use that tactic.



> What some people believe (including the 4E designers) was that casters just had so many tricks up their sleeves, frequently that were used in ways that weren't really intended, that they frequently overshadowed non-magic users to severe degrees.  All too often the result of the challenge is more about the characters (and classes), not the players.




IMO, much of the hubbub about magic-users overshadowing other players was based upon the *potential *of magic-users to do such, not the actuality as seen at the game table.



> It's really obvious that 4E design is intentionally working to try to allow different classes share the spotlight and get their chances too.  Magic users weren't pushed into the backseat, but rather everyone else is getting more turns in the front seat now.




True. In exchange for magic becoming almost exclusively a tactical manifestation concerned with damage/condition/movement that maps almost exactly with non-magical abilities.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> Just pointing out that this kind of creativity is limited by the DM and not any particular ruleset. 4e allows this as much as any other system and as the set of utility spells increase we will see more of this kind of thing.
> In fact all the DM advice in 4e encourages this kind of thing.




I disagree. Rule sets play large roles in determining the kind and type of creativity by which the tools provided by the rule sets can be used. As a silly example, chess allows for no creativity as concerns piece movement.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I completely agree with this line of thinking. When the DM says "Character X is drowning", the response "I cast _water breathing_ on him" is not a creative solution. It's just using a spell in the way it was intended to be used.




Well then, think of a situation in which casting waterbreathing in under 10 minutes (in a creative manner) is possible if you find my off-the-cuff example lacking. Use that situation as an example of creativity.

I'll argue that one can be almost inherently more creative with something that has a less of a casting time than one can be creative with exactly the same something that has a longer casting time. There are exceptions, of course, but I would say it's a good general rule.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> "We rest for the night."
> 
> Far too common a problem in 3E, in my experience. The wizard isn't optimally prepped, so the rest of the party hangs around while he gets prepped.




Again, that's something that's not common in my experience. And anyway, how is that really a problem? Choosing to rest when there's no negative effects or risks in doing such doesn't seem like much a problem to me.

joe b.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> Again, that's something that's not common in my experience. And anyway, how is that really a problem? Choosing to rest when there's no negative effects or risks in doing such doesn't seem like much a problem to me.
> 
> joe b.




Heh. I just pictured a gang of adventurers as a group of very powerful, dangerous speed users. "Can't sleep now... we can make it to the bottom level. We can make it! We can make it! I'm tell you man, can't sleep now, can't sleep now..."


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I disagree. Rule sets play large roles in determining the kind and type of creativity by which the tools provided by the rule sets can be used. As a silly example, chess allows for no creativity as concerns piece movement.
> 
> joe b.



Chess is not DM'ed and any game that is not DM'ed is played by an agreed set of rules. Any game that is DM'ed allows for things to happen that are not covered by the rules if the DM and players are willing to work that way.

rpg were invented by people and referees getting creative with the rules and play of a wargame.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I'll argue that one can be almost inherently more creative with something that has a less of a casting time than one can be creative with exactly the same something that has a longer casting time.




Well compose an argument for it? so far as I can tell you have made a fairly bald assertion with nothing backing it. Break it down so the premise, assumptions and conclusion reveal themselves.

you could use this as a starting point:

1) adaptable use of abilities are most likely to be required in emergencies
2) emergencies have time constraints
3) so abilities with less time to prepare/use are mostly likly to be used adaptably.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> Chess is not DM'ed and any game that is not DM'ed is played by an agreed set of rules. Any game that is DM'ed allows for things to happen that are not covered by the rules if the DM and players are willing to work that way.
> 
> rpg were invented by people and referees getting creative with the rules and play of a wargame.




The rule of "This game is played with a DM" influences the creativity of a rules set, does it not? Is your argument that all rpgs are equally creative? If that's not what you mean, you agree with my saying that rules-sets do influence creativity and that some are more creative-inducing than others.

I think rules-sets massively influence creativity - that's one of the reason why there are so many different types of them, IMO.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Well compose an argument for it? so far as I can tell you have made a fairly bald assertion with nothing backing it. Break it down so the premise, assumptions and conclusion reveal themselves.
> 
> you could use this as a starting point:
> 
> ...




I don't think I need an argument for the obvious.

Two exact spells: one cast in 1 round, one cast in 10 minutes. Which one allows for more creative uses? In what situation could the 10 minute version be *more creative* than the 1 round version. Even if one says, "With the added time restraint, the 10 min version means that people have to be more creative to find it useful," I'd reply with, "The guy with the 1 round version can say 'I'm going to wait 9 minutes and 9 rounds before casting the spell so I'll be as exactly as creative as the longer cast variety in my using of the spell."

It's the gaming equivalent of "Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than you."

The more utility something possesses, the greater probability it will be creatively used.

joe b.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I don't think I need an argument for the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> The more utility something possesses, the greater probability it will be creatively used.




Something useful under more conditions is more likely to not need to be used creatively.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Something useful under more conditions is more likely to not need to be used creatively.




Something that is useful under more conditions can have restraints put upon it by the user to exactly mimic the thing that cannot be used under as many conditions and thereby contains all the potential creativity of that restraint within it.

Just. Stop.

joe b.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> Something that is useful under more conditions can have restraints put upon it by the user to exactly mimic the thing that cannot be used under as many conditions and thereby contains all the potential creativity of that restraint within it.
> joe b.




The self restrained usage is not an example of creativity inducing conditions ...


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 10, 2010)

I can use my plant growth spell to make any plant available grow at 1000x the speed ... he has an oak growth spell and can use it to make any oak available. It is a restraint.

The person restrained in this case by plant type has to find a way to introduce his plant type in to the scenario... planting a bunch of them around his castle... promoting them through a religion he controls. (Carrying a handful of acorns around in his pocket).

 "Necessity is the mother of invention"


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> The self restrained usage is not an example of creativity.




False.

Any point in this?

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> I can use my plant growth spell to make any plant available grow at 1000x the speed ... he has an oak growth spell and can use it to make any oak available. It is a restraint.
> 
> The person restrained in this case by plant type has to find a way to introduce his plant type in to the scenario... planting a bunch of them around his castle... promoting them through a religion he controls. (Carrying a handful around in his pocket).




The unrestrained person can do the same thing the restrained person can, therefore the unrestrained can be just as creative as the restrained in addition to being able to be more creative in ways the restrained cannot.

The unrestrained can say, I won't use my plant growth on anything but Oaks. Oh lookie! I have no oaks. Now I must do all this "creative" stuff to use my spell.

I don't believe wish is the spell with the least possible creativity in the game just because it has the most utility.

joe b.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 10, 2010)

Need inspires creativity more than anything else... if you dont "need" to do something different the tried and true gets used.  I find that incredibly obvious so a self induced limit which will not occur in practice... is not an inducement to creativity.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Need inspires creativity more than anything else... if you dont "need" to do something different the tried and true gets used.  I find that incredibly obvious so a self induced limit which will not occur in practice... is not an inducement to creativity.




Restrictions don't create creativity, they're just restrictions. Utility increases creativity. That's why we continue to have so many creative new things coming out of metallurgy and so few creative new uses for flint knapping.

Don't bother responding. I won't respond to you. Just assume I'm wrong and move along.

joe b.


----------



## Mark (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> Restrictions don't create creativity, they're just restrictions. Utility increases creativity. That's why we continue to have so many creative new things coming out of metallurgy and so few creative new uses for flint knapping.





That's a great analogy for the difference between a game that assumes players can do anything then gives a facilitator some guidelines for how to adjudicate and a game that just gives rules for the things anyone is allowed to do then a few more suggestions for how a facilitator is to deal with anything else that wasn't covered.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> Restrictions don't create creativity, they're just restrictions. Utility increases creativity. That's why we continue to have so many creative new things coming out of metallurgy and so few creative new uses for flint knapping.





If something is more useful when it is used creatively it will be even more useful... but its usefulness does not induce more creativity it establishes more conditions under which it doesn't need to be creatively used.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Mark said:


> That's a great analogy for the difference between a game that assumes players can do anything then gives a facilitator some guidelines for how to adjudicate and a game that just gives rules for the things anyone is allowed to do then a few more suggestions for how a facilitator is to deal with anything else that wasn't covered.




Yep. Rules are wave function collapses. Not that a I'm a quantum physicist )), but before a rule is stated there are more possibilities than there are after a rule is stated. Each rule may create new possibilities, but those tend to wave function collapse as well by the creation of even more rules.

That's why a good GM is better than good rules, IMO. Even a poor game can be fun with a good GM, but the reverse is rarely true.

joe b.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> Well then, think of a situation in which casting waterbreathing in under 10 minutes (in a creative manner) is possible if you find my off-the-cuff example lacking. Use that situation as an example of creativity.



My point is that the fact that you couldn't cast _water breathing_ in under 10 minutes forces you to be more creative in your solutions. Casting the right spell at the right time is not creativity.

I agree with Garthanos that a spell's potential for creativity is much less important than a player's need for creativity in determining how creative players get. If I have _water breathing_ available I don't need a creative solution to the problem. If I lack _water breathing_ (or more generally, _solve problem X_), or if it takes 10 minutes to cast, then I need to get creative to save that character from drowning, or whatever problem X might be.


----------



## Reigan (Jan 10, 2010)

I can tell the same tales and present the players with the same sorts of challenges using 4e as I've always been able too. If I hadn't, I probably wouldn't have liked 4e either. Now the solutions to those challenges have changed, you can't scry, teleport in, teleport out and rescue the princess from the impenetrable fortress any more but you can rescue her another way, involving everybody, not just the wizard snapping his fingers three times.

Concerning the drowning fighter, I'm sure the player would have relished finding out all those points invested in the swim skill (one of the few class skills) were wasted.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> The rule of "This game is played with a DM" influences the creativity of a rules set, does it not? Is your argument that all rpgs are equally creative? If that's not what you mean, you agree with my saying that rules-sets do influence creativity and that some are more creative-inducing than others.
> 
> I think rules-sets massively influence creativity - that's one of the reason why there are so many different types of them, IMO.
> 
> joe b.



Rules are not creative nor are rpgs, it is players and DMs that are creative. Some systems may encourage creativity more than others because they faciltiate the DM in coming up with ad hoc ruling on the fly that are conscistent. Though I am not sure we both mean the same thing by creativity. 
To me the example of using waterbreathing spell to save the drowning character is not creative.


----------



## Mort (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I don't think I need an argument for the obvious.
> 
> Two exact spells: one cast in 1 round, one cast in 10 minutes. Which one allows for more creative uses?




     This is the disconnect. It's not which spell allows for more creative uses, it's which spell allows for more creativity from the players. If _water breathing_ takes one round then any time someone is drowning or needs to go under water that's the thing to use. If on the other hand, it takes 10 minutes the players have to think of some other way to save the victim (like use that swim skill for example, or lower a pole in or, well, be creative). _water breathing_ stops being the default no-brainer option and just becomes an option to use, to be weighed by the time factor ("well we could use water breathing or we could risk the swim to the bottom without it, it's faster but has more risk").   

     You could argue that the swim skill has infinite uses while _water breathing_ is limited use, but really, how often is the DM going to pull the "save drowning victim" or "retrieve something under water" shtick per adventure? 



jgbrowning said:


> In what situation could the 10 minute version be *more creative* than the 1 round version. Even if one says, "With the added time restraint, the 10 min version means that people have to be more creative to find it useful," I'd reply with, "The guy with the 1 round version can say 'I'm going to wait 9 minutes and 9 rounds before casting the spell so I'll be as exactly as creative as the longer cast variety in my using of the spell."
> 
> It's the gaming equivalent of "Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than you."




Again the 10 minute version promotes creativity by not being the default obvious option. As for "Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than you." - that's exactly why 3e mages can be irksome at mid levels and above.



jgbrowning said:


> The more utility something possesses, the greater probability it will be creatively used.
> 
> joe b.




But also the greater the probability it becomes the obvious default option thereby stifling actual player creativity.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> My point is that the fact that you couldn't cast _water breathing_ in under 10 minutes forces you to be more creative in your solutions. Casting the right spell at the right time is not creativity.
> 
> I agree with Garthanos that a spell's potential for creativity is much less important than a player's need for creativity in determining how creative players get. If I have _water breathing_ available I don't need a creative solution to the problem. If I lack _water breathing_ (or more generally, _solve problem X_), or if it takes 10 minutes to cast, then I need to get creative to save that character from drowning, or whatever problem X might be.




Perhaps we could Harrison Bergeron the players as well to get more creativity out of them. It's obvious that those who are hampered are more creative than those who are provided a wider array of useful tools.

The guy with scotch tape has to be more creative than the guy with duct tape because duct tape is more useful! Oh, come on. I'm bored with this. Its ridiculous.

joe b.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 10, 2010)

Reducing play options doesn't increase creativity any more than reducing rations increases gourmet cooking. Creativity requires tools, resources, time, and mental energy... long casting times reduces the available tools in any situation, cuts resources to a fraction, frequently leaves you in a situation where you must act quickly and haven't prepared, and forces you to spend mental energy on employing the tools you have at all instead of trying to figure out how to use them creatively.

Really, we are discussing the fallacy of the broken window. Time spent figuring out how to get off a ten minute casting time could be spent defeating evil. In theory, 4e was written to discourage lots of sitting around trying to get the most out of wonky, hard-to-use uberspells, and yet...


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Mort said:


> Again the 10 minute version promotes creativity by not being the default obvious option.




No, it limits creativity because any possible creative situation that could involve water breathing in less than 10 minutes cannot happen anymore. You can't have any creativity involving water breathing in less than 10 minutes. No more. All gone. Can't do that.

Any "creative" response that could occur under the 10 minute water breathing scenario is *equally possible *under a less than 10 minute water breathing scenario.

However, such a "creative" solution has less utility, and is less likely to be used. Much like one doesn't use a screwdriver to hammer a nail, when one has a hammer about.

However, if one doesn't have a hammer, one can't be creative with a hammer. Just like if one doesn't have a less than 10 minute waterbreathing, one cannot be creative with it.

Ok. I'm done talking about creativity in response to utility. Increased utility provides increased creativity. Limiting utility only provides a creativity that *is still available *under the increased utility scenario.

joe b.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> Perhaps we could Harrison Bergeron the players as well to get more creativity out of them. It's obvious that those who are hampered are more creative than those who are provided a wider array of useful tools.




No, I think I see the point. The whole group must get more creative at the moment of truth, if they're denied the access to one creative player who was allowed time to prepare a versatile amount of tools beforehand. You have to search for an answer to the question "what do we do?" at the moment of truth, because the answer wasn't predetermined when one player picked his spells for the day. 

The difference to some extent is the difference between deckbuilding and at-the-table play, to borrow a metaphor from Magic. The better you build your deck, the fewer variables you're unprepared for. That said, during play the deck is functioning as you built it rather than being spun into extemporaneous new configurations. Part of the creativity went when you were picking your cards, and the rest is doing your best to execute the plan you had in mind back then. When you picked _water breathing_, that's when you were planning for the contingency: when there's a sudden "oh no, he's drowning" and you have _water breathing_ in your hand, the actual act of casting it is no great act of creativity. 

That said, deckbuilding is itself a creative act. Whether you put more stock in the creativity of coming up with solutions with whatever's at hand or in the creativity of anticipating problems and carrying the tools to deal with them all is really a matter of play style.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> No, I think I see the point. The whole group must get more creative at the moment of truth, if they're denied the access to one creative player who was allowed time to prepare a versatile amount of tools beforehand. You have to search for an answer to the question "what do we do?" at the moment of truth, because the answer wasn't predetermined when one player picked his spells for the day.




The creativity induced by the lack of a tool should not be confused with the creativity allowed by access to a tool. Even when one has access to a tool, one can be just as creative as those who lack it while having all the additional creativity of having it by simply *choosing to not use the tool*.

There is no creativity gained by not having a tool that is not also available to those who have the tool and choose not to use it. The guy with the 1 round waterbreathing can say "I need to save my spell for later, let's figure out some other way to save the poor sod." The guy without the 1 minute waterbreathing cannot and cannot use waterbreathing in any creative manner that involves a time frame of less than 10 minutes.

All the creativity possible in the 10 minute version of waterbreathing is a *subset *to all the creativity possible in the 1 round version of waterbreathing.

And I know I said I was done talking about it, but I wanted to respond to someone else who's in the biz because I didn't want to appear rude.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 10, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Reducing play options doesn't increase creativity any more than reducing rations increases gourmet cooking. Creativity requires tools, resources, time, and mental energy... long casting times reduces the available tools in any situation, cuts resources to a fraction, frequently leaves you in a situation where you must act quickly and haven't prepared, and forces you to spend mental energy on employing the tools you have at all instead of trying to figure out how to use them creatively.
> 
> Really, we are discussing the fallacy of the broken window. Time spent figuring out how to get off a ten minute casting time could be spent defeating evil. In theory, 4e was written to discourage lots of sitting around trying to get the most out of wonky, hard-to-use uberspells, and yet...



A lot depends on point of view, I never liked D&D (prior to 4e) utility magic, the blam and the effect goes off never seemed to be really magical since it did not evoke the ritual stuff you read in myth or other fantasy stories. 
I like the 4e ritual system and that it actually takes time because you have to create your ritual space and do the stuff. At the table from a player prespective it is pretty much similar in term of time to narrate and the only real differene is that you cannot use the ritual as an insta-fix for something unlike the spells in older systems.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 10, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> No, I think I see the point. The whole group must get more creative at the moment of truth, if they're denied the access to one creative player who was allowed time to prepare a versatile amount of tools beforehand. You have to search for an answer to the question "what do we do?" at the moment of truth, because the answer wasn't predetermined when one player picked his spells for the day.



I think this is very well put.

I also see Joe's point, and in a sense he is correct. However, I don't think it's significant. In RPGs you have a theoretically infinite number of things that players and characters can do. If you take away some portion of those options (by increasing casting time to make some spells not as useful in this sense anymore), then you still have a nearly infinite number of things that players and characters can do.

So 4E has moved the creativity to play, rather then prep, as Barastrando described. The wizard will have to think on his feet rather than think ahead. That is a difference in playstyle, but to call it "less creative" is not valid.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 10, 2010)

Regarding water breathing, and 3.5 vs 4E, It is easier to let the water breathing sit in the 4E spellbook and be accessible than in the 3.5 one. 

10 minutes is a lot better than a full day. In 3.5 I allowed my players to have "open slots" that the wizards nd clerics and such could fill on the fly in the games, to get past the problem of not having the correct spll for the situation, so the game could flow better.

Of course this just made the melee types more obsolete, and made the casters better at being able to upstage them.

I am glad that casters have been brought down several notches. Now the party as a whole needs to be creative, not jsut he caster side.


----------



## Mark (Jan 10, 2010)

If my friends and I agree that I am going to facilitate a creative exercise over a weekend in an otherwise empty office building and then I begin telling them that they can only use chairs without wheels on them, the lights can only be on for ten minutes every hour and they cannot use pens, I am not increasing their chances at being creative.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> All the creativity possible in the 10 minute version of waterbreathing is a *subset *to all the creativity possible in the 1 round version of waterbreathing.




This I agree with. But is it more or less likely to manifest itself? If it's less likely to show up because the 1-round waterbreathing is the sensible default answer, then overall you have fewer groups coming up with different uses of the resources available to them, even though they all have a wider range of resources available. The potential is there, but the question of whether it's actualized is a decent one. And I think that's what drove the design decisions of 4e — the thought that you can reduce the number of potential specific solutions to see a wider variety of innovated solutions. 

Of course, the overall true benefit is that there's a wider variety of potential and actualized solutions to the whole "what will our play experience be like?" question of gaming. But that's kind of tangential (even if I think it's the best thing about there being such a variety between 3e and 4e in the first place).


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> So 4E has moved the creativity to play, rather then prep, as Barastrando described. The wizard will have to think on his feet rather than think ahead. That is a difference in playstyle, but to call it "less creative" is not valid.




I don't think I'm understanding what you mean. In order to use waterbreathing, a 4e wizard most definitely must think ahead, not on his feet. Nothing's been moved from prep to play. The only difference between 3e and 4e waterbreathing prep-wise is the memorization of the spell for the day (which can be completely removed if a scroll is available) and that's come at the loss of never being able to use waterbreathing in under 10 minute's time (5 I think with a scroll).

joe b.


----------



## Garmorn (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I don't think I'm understanding what you mean. In order to use waterbreathing, a 4e wizard most definitely must think ahead, not on his feet. Nothing's been moved from prep to play. The only difference between 3e and 4e waterbreathing prep-wise is the memorization of the spell for the day (which can be completely removed if a scroll is available) and that's come at the loss of never being able to use waterbreathing in under 10 minute's time (5 I think with a scroll).
> 
> joe b.




Yes, but from my point of view in 4e it could easily be the fighter that has the ritual not the Wizard.  4e has moved the tool box from being the spell casters monopoly to belonging to any PC that wants it.

Now instead of the Wizard having a huge box of power tools.  The entire party has an option to having a tool box of hand tools.  There is no reduction in the ability to accomplish a task, just the removal of the Wizards 100 in 1 tool that is better then rest of the party bone knifes and bear skins.

In 1e and 2e it was a well know fact that wizards could and did become over powerful.  That there where many spells that destroyed the game.  Just think back on all of the how to nerf this spell threads there use to be.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 10, 2010)

House Rule: Rituals take a single standard action to cast.

I wouldn't use it, but man, that's an easy change.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> This I agree with. But is it more or less likely to manifest itself? If it's less likely to show up because the 1-round waterbreathing is the sensible default answer, then overall you have fewer groups coming up with different uses of the resources available to them, even though they all have a wider range of resources available. The potential is there, but the question of whether it's actualized is a decent one.




Yes, it's a decent question, but to say that an unactualized potential means a lack of potential is greatly inaccurate. One is not more creative without something than one is with something - regardless if that creativity actualizes in an individual case - if for no other reason than that one gains increased creative potential by having that something which the person without that something can never have.



> And I think that's what drove the design decisions of 4e — the *thought that you can reduce the number of potential specific solutions to see a wider variety of innovated solutions*.




I'd really disagree with this, so much so that I think, in fact, the opposite. I think 4e design shows a deliberate increase in potential specific solutions (the spread of "spells" to all classes - coupled with reduced variables in those "spells") in order to see a reduction in the variety of innovated solutions because innovated solutions are hard to "balance" and have the appearance of favoring some classes over other classes.

I think the design decision that drove the creation of rituals is the need to have classes be combat equal (although with the skinning of difference) and composed of quantum skill packets, equalized in combat, reduced to damage/condition/movement and their respective opposites healing/condition removal/movement reduction.

Removing almost everything that did not map to the above 3 areas is what caused the creation of rituals, IMO. Rituals are merely the remnants of prior editions, allowing the appearance of brand continuation in the face of obvious and significant gaming differences. Rituals were than "opened" up to anyone (although not really as you must have the right feat) to compensate for a loss of immediate utility by the appearance of overall utility. ie. you can't use it quickly, but you can use it more often.

joe b.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 10, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> A lot depends on point of view, I never liked D&D (prior to 4e) utility magic, the blam and the effect goes off never seemed to be really magical since it did not evoke the ritual stuff you read in myth or other fantasy stories.
> I like the 4e ritual system and that it actually takes time because you have to create your ritual space and do the stuff. At the table from a player prespective it is pretty much similar in term of time to narrate and the only real differene is that you cannot use the ritual as an insta-fix for something unlike the spells in older systems.




That's a different reason to prefer ritual magic than creativity.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> The only difference between 3e and 4e waterbreathing prep-wise is the memorization of the spell for the day (which can be completely removed if a scroll is available) and that's come at the loss of never being able to use waterbreathing in under 10 minute's time (5 I think with a scroll).



And much more importantly, rituals don't need to be memorized. It's not a question on whether or not they memorized it, it's can they find a way to use it. Thus, switching from prep to play.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Garmorn said:


> Yes, but from my point of view in 4e it could easily be the fighter that has the ritual not the Wizard.  4e has moved the tool box from being the spell casters monopoly to belonging to any PC that wants it.
> 
> Now instead of the Wizard having a huge box of power tools.  The entire party has an option to having a tool box of hand tools.  There is no reduction in the ability to accomplish a task, just the removal of the Wizards 100 in 1 tool that is better then rest of the party bone knifes and bear skins.




Which is one of the cool things about 4e rituals. If you've got the right feat, you can use rituals. But it does require at least a feat for most classes, so it's not completely opened up. And there is a potential reduction in the ability to accomplish a task if that task is time specific while there is a potential gain in the ability to accomplish a task if the task is not time specific.



> In 1e and 2e it was a well know fact that wizards could and did become over powerful.  That there where many spells that destroyed the game.  Just think back on all of the how to nerf this spell threads there use to be.




Well, I always viewed those threads as bad playing, not bad rules. That may seem harsh, but oh well. I never had jerk players, or at least I never had them for very long.

joe b.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I don't think I'm understanding what you mean. In order to use waterbreathing, a 4e wizard most definitely must think ahead, not on his feet. Nothing's been moved from prep to play. The only difference between 3e and 4e waterbreathing prep-wise is the memorization of the spell for the day (which can be completely removed if a scroll is available) and that's come at the loss of never being able to use waterbreathing in under 10 minute's time (5 I think with a scroll).
> 
> joe b.



No, unless I am misunderstanding you. Memorisation is pretty much the point, no?
The vancian wizard requires that they figure out in advance what they might need and have it memorised or create scrolls of the same. 
For example, I run a wizard character in an occasional campaign that has being going on for years and using a couple of different systems but is now converted to 4e. So I have the ritual Shadow Bridge that I picked because it was similar to a spell I had in the system that the campaign was originally using. 
Now in the last session, we were tasked to protect a artist and ensure that he completed this painting in the town. Now this guy had a history of doing paintings that brought fantastical luck or disaster to towns where they were created. 
It turns out that the painting was in itself a ritual and when he completed it two demons appear and we are tasked to retrieve the crown of the Witch Queen that ruled the town about 2000 years previously and we had half an hour to do it. 
So when we go into the town we found the tallest building nearest the keep and I cast Shadow Bridge on the roof, directly to the roof of the Keep so bypassing the castle defenses. 

So I think that that was creativity in using resources at hand, rather than creating resources in advance that casters in older versions of D&D engaged in.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> And much more importantly, rituals don't need to be memorized. It's not a question on whether or not they memorized it, it's can they find a way to use it. Thus, switching from prep to play.




You still have to have a ritual and you still have to have the ritual components, and (if you're the wrong class) you have to have a feat - getting those things requires prep. In addition, if you want to use any rituals in combat, you absolutely must *prep* them beforehand, because you can't cast them in combat. It's not play, it's still prep.

Although I find the distinction between prep and play a blurry one. IMO, prep is play. But I think you can "play D&D" when you don't have a group around, you just can't play all the aspects of the game. I'm kooky like that. I don't view spell-selection as separate from play - it's just a different type than combat or social interactive play.

joe b.


----------



## Gimby (Jan 10, 2010)

I think there's a difference in what people are seeing as creativity here.  Personally, I'm with Barastrondo here.  When I think creativity, I'm thinking the scene in Apollo 13 where mission control has to figure out how to attach two incompatible components together with only the very limited gear found on the damaged module - the "mailbox" described about halfway down here : Apollo 13 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If they had a universal connector on board, using that isn't (to me) creative, it's just using the tools for what they are meant for.  To shift this away from D&D a moment, and to explain where I'm seeing the differences in perception,  consider Exalted.  In that, we can compare two types - the Solars and the Sidereals.  

The Solars have abilities that are widely applicable and very powerful.  If they want to solve a problem, they do it in the most straight-forward fashion.  The creativity here is not in the details of how they solve the problem, but at a strategic level - taking down a corrupt noble can be done in a variety of fashions, so its all about picking the one you like.   

The Sidereals on the other hand, have abilities that are as (or occasionally more) powerful than the Solar ones, but limited in strange ways.  For example, a Solar has what's effectively a Charm spell which gives them wide ranging power over your reactions.  The Sidereal equivilent allows you to convice anyone you talk to you are lying.  So a Sid has to use more creativity at the implementation stage to get you to do things his way.  

So perhaps we are looking at this in different ways - someone in a relaxed office enviroment may be free to be more blue sky creative than someone in the situation described by Mark, but the ones in Mark's office are going to have to be more creative to get any work done at all.  Maybe look at it this way - if your box is small, then its more likely that you are going to have to think outside it to solve your problem.  If it is large, then there are more solutions within the box, so you are less likely to need to think outside it.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> You still have to have a ritual and you still have to have the ritual components, and (if you're the wrong class) you have to have a feat - getting those things requires prep. In addition, if you want to use any rituals in combat, you absolutely must *prep* them beforehand, because you can't cast them in combat. It's not play, it's still prep.
> 
> Although I find the distinction between prep and play a blurry one. IMO, prep is play. But I think you can "play D&D" when you don't have a group around, you just can't play all the aspects of the game. I'm kooky like that. I don't view spell-selection as separate from play - it's just a different type than combat or social interactive play.
> 
> joe b.



I think that I am getting a handle on you now.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> So I think that that was creativity in using resources at hand, rather than creating resources in advance that casters in older versions of D&D engaged in.




You only had the resource at hand because you had prepped it beforehand. IMO, there's no material difference between what you did and what you would have done had you used a scroll or cast a memorized spell in 3e. Had you not the ritual (prep) and the components (prep) you couldn't use the ritual. IMO, not much difference than 3e. However, in the 3e version you probably wouldn't have had to wait 10 minutes (just guessing, I don't have the book Shadow Bridge appears in... FR I think?) 

joe b.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 10, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> Yes, it's a decent question, but to say that an unactualized potential means a lack of potential is greatly inaccurate. One is not more creative without something than one is with something - regardless if that creativity actualizes in an individual case - if for no other reason than that one gains increased creative potential by having that something which the person without that something can never have.




I think the perception of "less creativity" that you disagree with is predicated on results. If you see more homogeneity in results, things feel less creative. To shift the example, take flight in combat, or the scry-buff-teleport. These options are so efficient that they easily dominate unless players make a specific effort to avoid using the most efficient thing as often as it would work (not something human beings are noted for), or unless GMs work hard to make those options undesirable for various reasons. When all potential solutions are closer together in efficiency, more are tried. When one's a standout, it tends to dominate. 

Hence the perception of "less creativity": it's not really about perception, but what happened over the course of the campaign. I think there's some serious merit to both sides of the argument. 



> I'd really disagree with this, so much so that I think, in fact, the opposite. I think 4e design shows a deliberate increase in potential specific solutions (the spread of "spells" to all classes - coupled with reduced variables in those "spells") in order to see a reduction in the variety of innovated solutions because innovated solutions are hard to "balance" and have the appearance of favoring some classes over other classes.




To my mind, the increased importance of skills has really made it too close to call as far as the variety of innovated selections go. In practice, it is _insane_ the kinds of things you can simulate with a skill challenge. There's a really good example in Dungeon about how to use the skill challenge rules to run a Helm's Deep-style siege, for instance. 

I also have to say that the appearance of favoring some classes over others than can't entirely be described as a misperception. I've seen groups where CoDzillas do indeed dominate, and some classes might as well not show up. The kicker is that they weren't really doing it _wrong_ — they were just doing it differently than I prefer to. 



> I think the design decision that drove the creation of rituals is the need to have classes be combat equal (although with the skinning of difference) and composed of quantum skill packets, equalized in combat, reduced to damage/condition/movement and their respective opposites healing/condition removal/movement reduction.




I think you've got it mostly down, though I have to say that class differences make them very unequal in certain aspects, more than mere skinning. Things _read_ very similarly, but the way that a fighter and a warden, for instance, handle in actual play is astounding. They're both defenders, but almost entirely different play experiences. There's some very cunning design in there, stuff that makes me obscenely jealous. I can't help but think equality was a major goal, but one of many, rather than _the_ goal. 



> Removing almost everything that did not map to the above 3 areas is what caused the creation of rituals, IMO. Rituals are merely the remnants of prior editions, allowing the appearance of brand continuation in the face of obvious and significant gaming differences. Rituals were than "opened" up to anyone (although not really as you must have the right feat) to compensate for a loss of immediate utility by the appearance of overall utility. ie. you can't use it quickly, but you can use it more often.




I can't agree with the "merely," because rituals add a different play dynamic. It seems vestigial if it's not quite your thing, or if you really prefer other editions' versions, but ritual magic has become another neat and interesting subsystem in its own right. Of course, I like specific genre or theme emulation in my games, and making D&D do a lot of different things, so I naturally am drawn to the strong points of rituals. They catch the sword-and-sorcery dynamic, for instance, and I don't think that's accidental.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jan 10, 2010)

dvorak said:


> CIHYS.
> 
> This is usually meant as a gibe.
> 
> ...




I am not really going to comment on this entire thread. I have read a portion of 4E and found I was reading a completely different game than DnD. Instead I play Pathfinder.

I am going to say that its funny that you have to houserule to do something like this. Your character has an action left yet technically by the core rules you can only stand there and watch a fellow adventurer fall to his death. Little too rules tight for me.

To me pen and paper should never become a "Choose your own Adventure" paperback. The rules should never tell me all my choices. When that becomes the case then I really am playing a computer game where a 3 foot tall fence keeps my archmage at bay because the programmer did not include jumping or climbing.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 10, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I think the perception of "less creativity" that you disagree with is predicated on results. If you see more homogeneity in results, things feel less creative. To shift the example, take flight in combat, or the scry-buff-teleport. These options are so efficient that they easily dominate unless players make a specific effort to avoid using the most efficient thing as often as it would work (not something human beings are noted for), or unless GMs work hard to make those options undesirable for various reasons. When all potential solutions are closer together in efficiency, more are tried. When one's a standout, it tends to dominate.




I never had any scry/buff/teleporting issues in my games. It worked when it worked for the PCs and didn't work when it didn't. It's a good tactic, but so common that anyone with any ability has thought of countermeasures.



> To my mind, the increased importance of skills has really made it too close to call as far as the variety of innovated selections go. In practice, it is _insane_ the kinds of things you can simulate with a skill challenge. There's a really good example in Dungeon about how to use the skill challenge rules to run a Helm's Deep-style siege, for instance.




I've never found skill challengess that interesting as they're something I think most GMs have been doing for decades. You'd say to your players, "What do you want to do?", ascribe a probability, and then move on to the next what do you want to do and probability.



> I also have to say that the appearance of favoring some classes over others than can't entirely be described as a misperception. I've seen groups where CoDzillas do indeed dominate, and some classes might as well not show up. The kicker is that they weren't really doing it _wrong_ — they were just doing it differently than I prefer to.




Which is one of the reasons I find wizard bashing rather funny. IMO, clerics and druids were almost always more powerful than wizards.



> I think you've got it mostly down, though I have to say that class differences make them very unequal in certain aspects, more than mere skinning. Things _read_ very similarly, but the way that a fighter and a warden, for instance, handle in actual play is astounding. They're both defenders, but almost entirely different play experiences. There's some very cunning design in there, stuff that makes me obscenely jealous. I can't help but think equality was a major goal, but one of many, rather than _the_ goal.




Perhaps I should explain myself more concerning combat equality - the goal was to make things appear different because the mix of the three primary aspects are different for each class, but the aspects are all the same. 

To simplify, if you want to do something other than damage/condition/push pull in combat, fuggeddiaboutit. The combat rules are designed as one would design a minis wargame and the roleplaying aspect is only icing upon it, IMO, with the flavor text existing only to minimize the brutal directness of the continual push/pull/damage/condition repetitiveness. Although you can do other things, they're almost always less optimal than what is provided via every class's spells, exploits or whichever word they use to skin the power.



> I can't agree with the "merely," because rituals add a different play dynamic. It seems vestigial if it's not quite your thing, or if you really prefer other editions' versions, but ritual magic has become another neat and interesting subsystem in its own right. Of course, I like specific genre or theme emulation in my games, and making D&D do a lot of different things, so I naturally am drawn to the strong points of rituals. They catch the sword-and-sorcery dynamic, for instance, and I don't think that's accidental.




Perhaps my merely is a bit hyperbolic, but I do think the ritual system probably resulted as something like "Well, we have all this stuff left over that we took out of combat because we want to rigidly control combat actions, options, and balance, so now what do we do with it?" kinda thing.

joe b.


----------



## Garmorn (Jan 11, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> I am not really going to comment on this entire thread. I have read a portion of 4E and found I was reading a completely different game than DnD. Instead I play Pathfinder.




This I agree.  Actually I think there are 4 distinct D&D games. Old/Basic D&D,  1/2e. 3.x and 4e.  

I can't say any thing about the first.  Never saw or played it.  1/2e was the commercial version of Gygax campaign.  It was the first and the balance was designed after wargames.  As a game designed with out any knowledge base is shows what the designer considered fun.  (No disrespect, that was the only data he had.)  It is a loose, moderately rules light system. It was designed for the DM to control the game and balance.  You had to have a good DM for a long term campaing to even be possible.

3.x is just the opposite of 1/2e.  It was designed to impower the players.  Tight rules.  Lots of options an attempt to power up all of the classes and some what improve the balance between classes.  It ended up being amind at a different style of play the 1/2e best supported.

4e seems to be an attempt to create a new balance system that still allows the feel and stories of the older editions.  There was an attempt for the first time to make things easy for the DM.  This is did in spades when it comes to the mechnics but no system can make the world building part easy.  It also ended up being best for different style then the others.  



DocMoriartty said:


> I am going to say that its funny that you have to houserule to do something like this. Your character has an action left yet technically by the core rules you can only stand there and watch a fellow adventurer fall to his death. Little too rules tight for me.



To do this in any version you would have to house rule.  All of the initative systems say you only act on your turn or under some special conditions.  Unless you are playing with out initative or have a set of rules that I have never seen this is not allowed in any verision of any game I have played.  (But it is a common DM ruling to allow this type of reaction).


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I think you've got it mostly down, though I have to say that class differences make them very unequal in certain aspects, more than mere skinning. Things _read_ very similarly, but the way that a fighter and a warden, for instance, handle in actual play is astounding. They're both defenders, but almost entirely different play experiences. There's some very cunning design in there, stuff that makes me obscenely jealous. I can't help but think equality was a major goal, but one of many, rather than _the_ goal.




I just realized I should pull this out and expound a bit on my preference concerning gaming that may make my point of view a bit more understandable.

I'd never say that someone's combat design makes me obscenely jealous. I'm not that interested in combat. To me, combats have absolutely no meaning except in relation to why the combat is occuring. The why is what I find more interesting than the how do we fight question. I prefer games with quick combats and long roleplaying/exploration/looting sequences. Combats are what happens when there's no other choice or when you've done something wrong.

Others play because they like the combat. I find combat, in general, tedious. I like to roleplay, not roleplay fights.

joe b.


----------



## Mark (Jan 11, 2010)

Gimby said:


> So perhaps we are looking at this in different ways - someone in a relaxed office enviroment may be free to be more blue sky creative than someone in the situation described by Mark, but the ones in Mark's office are going to have to be more creative to get any work done at all.  Maybe look at it this way - if your box is small, then its more likely that you are going to have to think outside it to solve your problem.  If it is large, then there are more solutions within the box, so you are less likely to need to think outside it.





Restricting what someone can do within the box doesn't change the size of the box.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Gimby said:


> I think there's a difference in what people are seeing as creativity here.  Personally, I'm with Barastrondo here.  When I think creativity, I'm thinking the scene in Apollo 13 where mission control has to figure out how to attach two incompatible components together with only the very limited gear found on the damaged module - the "mailbox" described about halfway down here : Apollo 13 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




When I think creativity, I think how can I take the vast multitude of parts available to me and build the Apollo 13. 

joe b.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 11, 2010)

Clearly, there are some folks on this board who believe that an Atari 64 is a better outlet for creativity than a Mac.  After all, all those restrictions on the Atari's processing, graphics, and sound serve to make it a better computer!

4e's balance requires intentional restriction both of the existence of emergent properties, and the ways in the allowed emergent properties can be utilized.  Creativity requires making use of emergent properties in unexpected ways.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that, the greater the inherent balance, the less the inherent allowance for creativity.  


RC


----------



## Gimby (Jan 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Clearly, there are some folks on this board who believe that an Atari 64 is a better outlet for creativity than a Mac.  After all, all those restrictions on the Atari's processing, graphics, and sound serve to make it a better computer!




Actually, I'm going to somewhat agree with this.  

Lets take a couple of old 8bit computers, the Sinclair Spectrum and the Commodore 64.  These had extreme limitations on memory, processing power and so on.  However, over time the software written for them steadily increased in scope and power.  How? Creative use of the resources available.

In the Spectrum for example, it was found that the system clock was run at two seperate locations for reliability, and you could squeeze out more performance by tricking the second location into running your code rather than the system clock.  

For the C64, the graphics chip couldn't display the colour orange.  Simply not possible.  Until, in the dying days of its popularity a couple of coders worked out how you could display orange by leveraging a different bit of hardware.  

Here the point is to eke out the maximum efficiency from limited tools.  That takes creativity.  Given Moore's law, there often isn't the same drive in some modern software (some, not all.  Efficency is still a drive for many programmers, but not as much a neccesity) - won't run on the current hardware? Wait six months and run it on an upgraded machine.  

Now, is an art package on a modern Mac a vastly better outlet for my creative urge than the crude one on my C64? Absolutely.  Is the fact that I can get a drawing package working at all on my C64 a testament to the creativity of the programmers? Also true.  

If the question is "Which provokes the more creativity", then the question of whether or not the Mac or the Atari 64 is overall the "better computer" is kind of moot.  The Atari will demand that creativity in a way that the Mac won't, but the Mac will allow for the creativity in ways that the Atari won't.  

As a side issue, there's also the issue of accesibility and expectation. When's the last time you wrote a game from scratch on your Mac?

So, different types of creativity.


----------



## Supergyro (Jan 11, 2010)

*Creativity*



jgbrowning said:


> The creativity induced by the lack of a tool should not be confused with the creativity allowed by access to a tool. Even when one has access to a tool, one can be just as creative as those who lack it while having all the additional creativity of having it by simply *choosing to not use the tool*.





Someone who uses creativity when they have the ideal tool at hand is not being 'creative' in the constructive use of the term, they are being foolish and wasting time (and time wasted creatively is still time wasted). 

Creativity (the kind that we want to encourange in people) is what you use when you do *not* have the ideal tool at hand.  This type of creativity is heartily encouranged when the toolbox is not as flexible.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 11, 2010)

Gimby said:


> Here the point is to eke out the maximum efficiency from limited tools.  That takes creativity.




Eking out the maximum efficiency from ANY set of tools takes creativity. With better tools, the maximum efficiency is just higher.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I never had any scry/buff/teleporting issues in my games. It worked when it worked for the PCs and didn't work when it didn't. It's a good tactic, but so common that anyone with any ability has thought of countermeasures.




That's an aspect of denial, though, isn't it? "There are common countermeasures to this popular tactic"? Just curious. 



> I've never found skill challengess that interesting as they're something I think most GMs have been doing for decades. You'd say to your players, "What do you want to do?", ascribe a probability, and then move on to the next what do you want to do and probability.




I've long maintained that one of the reasons combat is usually so detailed in most game systems is that it's one of the few thing you can point to where everyone at the table can be expected to be engaged. It's where "waiting your turn" happens on an action-by-action basis, not on a scene-by-scene basis. You don't frequently see one of the key elements of a game to be looking for ways to engage the entire group in the same fashion out of combat: having preparing for a siege, figuring out a way to rescue a prisoner, or stealing a ship being the kind of situation where everyone goes an action at a time and nobody's really the load. 



> To simplify, if you want to do something other than damage/condition/push pull in combat, fuggeddiaboutit. The combat rules are designed as one would design a minis wargame and the roleplaying aspect is only icing upon it, IMO, with the flavor text existing only to minimize the brutal directness of the continual push/pull/damage/condition repetitiveness. Although you can do other things, they're almost always less optimal than what is provided via every class's spells, exploits or whichever word they use to skin the power.




Just not my experience, I guess. I've got the kind of group where there's always at least one player who's looking to achieve those extra objectives, and there they are. I see double moves, runs, skill use... all kinds of things crop up in combat. It's probably like the scry/buff/teleport thing; a non-issue for some groups because of the way they're inclined to play anyway, crippling for others. 



> Perhaps my merely is a bit hyperbolic, but I do think the ritual system probably resulted as something like "Well, we have all this stuff left over that we took out of combat because we want to rigidly control combat actions, options, and balance, so now what do we do with it?" kinda thing.




I don't think that's the case, at least from the impression I've gotten of the designers and their previous work. When ritual magic actually feels like something sword-and-sorcery, and you've seen stabs taken at that in 3e products, it seems like there's more of a foundation than "rigidity." 



> I'd never say that someone's combat design makes me obscenely jealous. I'm not that interested in combat. To me, combats have absolutely no meaning except in relation to why the combat is occuring. The why is what I find more interesting than the how do we fight question. I prefer games with quick combats and long roleplaying/exploration/looting sequences. Combats are what happens when there's no other choice or when you've done something wrong.




I find "why do we fight" paramount as well — but I also like a system that doesn't treat combat as something to be hurriedly gotten over with as soon as possible. If there's to be combat at all, I like it to be interesting. This is true of anything where there should be die-rolling, to be honest. Lace & Steel's deck of cards for modeling duels and social repartee, for instance. The ultimate display of options and creativity is not to use a system at all, just to roleplay without pad, paper or dice. If I'm going to actually limit my options by using a system in the first place, why not pick one that justifies itself by the way it handles? 

Of course, I've said before that I like themed games a lot. Combat as a punishment for not finding other options suits some themes, but there are some source materials where fight scenes are a reward for the viewer, be it a duel in a Dumas or Sabatini work, or an epic set piece in _Red Cliff._ It seems only appropriate to use games where combats are fun to play through on both a mechanical and visual level for that sort of thing.


----------



## Gimby (Jan 11, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Eking out the maximum efficiency from ANY set of tools takes creativity. With better tools, the maximum efficiency is just higher.




Sure, but if the issue is creativity, then maximum efficiency isn't always desirable.  If a character has an at-will (however you manage this, power, wand, feat, whatever) "solve problem" spell then clearly you reach maximum efficiency.  It also requires zero creativity to apply.  

-edit To expand slightly, if your tools are very powerful, then often you won't need the maximum efficiency you can get out of them, a routine application will often serve your purpose just as well.  The more powerful your tools are, the more extreme the problem needs to be to strech your application of them.  I can open nuts with a hard work and a needle or a hammer, but the needle can't open coconuts.  However, if I only want to open nuts, I don't need to creatively apply the hammer. 

Even with less extreme cases, you can run into this.  

Taking the drowning Fighter example.

We have a boat with the party and an assortment of adventuring gear in.  The fighter falls overboard.  

If our Wizard has the "solve problem" spell, he clicks his fingers and the fighter reappears back in the boat. 

If the Wizard has the Water Breathing spell and it doesn't require touching the target or line of sight, he clicks his fingers and the Fighter is no longer drowning but you still need a way to come up with a way to get him back onto the boat.

If the Wizard's Water Breathing spell requires touch, now you need to figure out how to get the Wizard down to the Fighter.

If the Wizard's Water Breathing spell needs a 10 minute cast, then its off the table and you need to figure out how to use your adventuring gear to save the Fighter.  

Which of these situations requires the most creativity?

But if we have a long range, no line of sight Water Breathing spell, then this opens up a bunch of other options for facing challenges, that a 10 minute cast one doesn't.

So we're back to different sorts of creativity.  Some situations *demand* creativity, some situations *allow* creativity.  These will vary as to the flexibility and power of tools available.  Saying that restrictions *prevent* creativity is, to me, nonsense.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 11, 2010)

Gimby said:


> So we're back to different sorts of creativity.  Some situations *demand* creativity, some situations *allow* creativity.  These will vary as to the flexibility and power of tools available.  Saying that restrictions *prevent* creativity is, to me, nonsense.



I think this point needs to be repeated as it goes to the crux of the creativity question.

The poorer the tools, the more creativity will be required. 

The better the tools, the more creativity will be possible. 

In (for want of a better term) objective-driven games in which the players have specific goals or tasks to complete, restricting the tools provided to the players increases the difficulty of the game and the amount of creativity required to achieve the objective, and is thus not always bad.

In (again, for want of a better term) more "blue sky" games where the creativity of the outcome (however you measure it) is as or more important than achieving specific objectives (if any) in the game, then restricting the tools provided to the players reduces the quality of the outcomes possible and is thus more unambiguously bad.

Hence, depending on what are your objectives of play, "You can't do that" is either acceptable as part and parcel of the challenge, or an unnecessary restriction.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 11, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> Casting enlarge to crush someone to death isn't creative...It's like trying to argue that if a character holds a sword between his teeth, he should be able to make extra attacks (because the books don't say you _can't_).



If that's an apt analogy for you, we're obviously coming from perspectives so far removed that debating will probably be fruitless.



Barastrondo said:


> These two sentences are so incredibly interesting next to one another. Why does the pixie rogue not sound like a dozen kinds of awesome, disappointingly restrained with rules to compensate for DMs who can't handle lateral thinking? Why is crushing someone to death with a 1st-level spell not the sort of demonstration why Exalted needed to be published? Truly, everyone plays D&D in a completely different fashion.




Because one is an exercise of creativity using a spell which is a mainstay of D&D, while the other is a "turn it up to 11" exercise in nullifying the ability score range and creating superhero PCs.  The unwilling enlargee still gets a saving throw. If the DM thinks it's a RAW abuse, give the save a big bonus.  I'd rather do that for a player than say their imagination and cunning is invalid.

This is really a topic for another thread, but the 3-18 attribute range is designed to indicate the very limits of abilities for humans.  A human with an 18 score is at the top of the race's potential.  Due to inherent abilities, some races may score a 19 or 20 in an attribute, and they are truly legendary and possibly unique.  When you get into mid-20s, those are the attributes of demigods and avatars.

Having a pixie with 30 DEX raises the question of what dexterity is meant to represent and undermines the simulation goal of the 3-18 range.  Whether such extraordinary PCs belong in an adventuring party is up to each individual group, but personally I'm bored by that sort of powergaming, and consider it the province of Exalted, not D&D.

Indiana Jones lashing his bullwhip onto a beam and swinging across a room to catch the princess because he's a skilled, heroic mortal isn't the same as Superman idly drifting across to do it because he's an invincible flying alien.

I don't agree with the premise that restricted options restrain creativity.  Take a basic limitation: encumbrance.  When equipping a character, I enjoy figuring out how much stuff my PC can lug about and still be effective in an adventure.  That limitation presents a planning challenge and I enjoy seeing how my choice of gear pans out.  I see planning spell selections in the same way.

A lot of the criticism of Vancian casting seems predicated on an assumption that a caster will know exactly which spells they'll need to get out of hock on an adventure.  If _water breathing_ saves a PC from drowning, then that's either pure luck or clever reconnaissance.  I don't see how it becomes a cheesy get-out-of-jail-free card in any circumstance.  It's equally possible that _water breathing_ won't get used, and to have it the caster gave up a spell that may have saved the day.

Then there's the fact that magic _is _special.  Why shouldn't it cause extraordinary circumstances occasionally?  I've never witnessed this apparently common setup of the mage dominating every situation with spells, because a role of the DM is to balance that stuff out.  If an adventuring mage is becoming the sine qua non in a campaign, he's also going to become the target of fear and assassination.  With great power comes great threat.

The comparison between old game computers and roleplaying limitations is very interesting.  I had a Commodore64, then upgraded to an Amiga.  At that age I was also a slavish follower of game magazines, and read every review of every game.  And do you know what the most common criticism of early Amiga games was?  That they were nice to look at, but often boring to play, because the *limitations *of the C64 forced developers to make the gameplay complex and engaging, rather than churn out bland, one-dimensional games with 30 DEX...I mean pretty graphics.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 11, 2010)

Gimby said:


> Sure, but if the issue is creativity, then maximum efficiency isn't always desirable.




But again, that is not the same thing as creativity being possible.



> If a character has an at-will (however you manage this, power, wand, feat, whatever) "solve problem" spell then clearly you reach maximum efficiency.  It also requires zero creativity to apply.




True. However, I can not think of too many examples of such things. 



> Saying that restrictions *prevent* creativity is, to me, nonsense.




I will hazard a guess you have little experience with bureaucracies.


----------



## Gimby (Jan 11, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> But again, that is not the same thing as creativity being possible.




Its not, no.  It does however read somewhat as to how likely you are going to see a truly creative solution to a problem in play.  

In any case, my main thrust is that for any edition of D&D, creativity *is* always possible, just that it manifests in different fashions.



pawsplay said:


> True. However, I can not think of too many examples of such things.




Scry-and-die comes close in 3e, as an example.  There are countermeasures but they tend to be non-core and require that any serious opposition has significant magical backup.  I'll not argue that it's perfect, just that it's an incredibly versatile and powerful tactic.  



pawsplay said:


> I will hazard a guess you have little experience with bureaucracies.




Hah! I will admit to a certain amount of creative bypassing of bureaucracies however


----------



## Ourph (Jan 11, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Eking out the maximum efficiency from ANY set of tools takes creativity. With better tools, the maximum efficiency is just higher.



Exactly correct. It seems to me the question is where you want "maximum efficiency" to fall on the power scale.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 11, 2010)

FireLance said:


> I think this point needs to be repeated as it goes to the crux of the creativity question.
> 
> The poorer the tools, the more creativity will be required.
> 
> ...



That is a pretty accurate summation.

Sometimes the limitations make sense (the slavers have taken all of your belongings, you will have to make due with what you can scavenge) sometimes they don't (sorry, even though you have climbed up the pile of rubble you discover that an invisible wall blocks you from going that way - you will have to go the long way around, if you can find it (Fallout 3, I am looking at _you!_))

The Auld Grump


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> When I think creativity, I think how can I take the vast multitude of parts available to me and build the Apollo 13.
> 
> joe b.




From everything I heard where they had designers talking about the process of making space flight happen.... they needed things "they didn't have' and had to come up with new things and bend old things or invent something fresh because it was a problem they had never encountered before.  That is what stuck in their minds when they talk about it later. They didn't talk about finding just right piece amongst the hoard of possible options.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 11, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Having a pixie with 30 DEX raises the question of what dexterity is meant to represent and undermines the simulation goal of the 3-18 range.  Whether such extraordinary PCs belong in an adventuring party is up to each individual group, but personally I'm bored by that sort of powergaming, and consider it the province of Exalted, not D&D.




There's always making them the targets of fear and assassination, for with great power comes great threat.

It's just interesting to me, is all. Some choices of special effects — some skins, if you will — are expected to go beyond the usual boundaries, while others are not. In some games, spellcasters have the permission to go beyond the usual boundaries that others are held behind to make casting magic more special; in other games, players are allowed to play unusual races and/or use a different scale for attributes to make their inherent magic more special. Like I say, everyone plays D&D differently.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 11, 2010)

I want to give kudos to the folks contributing to this thread. I'm really digging it, and it's giving me some inspiration for my house rules as I gear up for a new campaign.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 11, 2010)

Gimby said:


> Scry-and-die comes close in 3e, as an example.  There are countermeasures but they tend to be non-core and require that any serious opposition has significant magical backup.  I'll not argue that it's perfect, just that it's an incredibly versatile and powerful tactic.




Hmm. Hasn't come up much. Truly, at the level at which a party has easy access to greater scrying and lots of "die" spells, that is only one of several very versatile and powerful tactics. Also, scrying allows a Will save and SR, and you get only one attempt per 24 hours. So it works really great on unsuspecting frost giant barbarians, I guess, but not so great against dragons, high level NPCs, etc.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 11, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Because one is an exercise of creativity using a spell which is a mainstay of D&D, while the other is a "turn it up to 11" exercise in nullifying the ability score range and creating superhero PCs.
> 
> ...
> 
> Then there's the fact that magic _is _special.  Why shouldn't it cause extraordinary circumstances occasionally?  I've never witnessed this apparently common setup of the mage dominating every situation with spells, because a role of the DM is to balance that stuff out.  If an adventuring mage is becoming the sine qua non in a campaign, he's also going to become the target of fear and assassination.  With great power comes great threat.



I'm highlighting this as a one of the key tropes of D&D which I'm happy to see changed, namely the idea that anything is possible with magic. There are two seemingly contradictory reasons why I dislike it: first, because it it's too restrictive and second, because it isn't restrictive enough. Confused?  Let me explain.

The "too restrictive" bit comes in when the idea that "anything is possible with magic" becomes twisted into "some things are only possible with magic" and winds up being a statement of limitation instead of a statement of possibility. While limitations have their place in an RPG, I believe that they should always be subordinate to the central theme that nothing is impossible. In other words, limitations may make achieving a goal more challenging, but they should not make it impossible. Limitations might close off certain means, but the players should have alternate ways to achieve their ends. 

The "not restrictive enough" bit comes in when the basic idea gets turned into "anything is possible even with small amounts of magic". This is admittedly a greyer area. Most DMs do want to reward the creative use of spells and other abilities, but may not be happy when the originally creative solution gets used repeatedly and effectively becomes an unanticipated power-up. It's not a problem unique to magic, but magic tends to get more of a pass simply because it is magic.

This is why these days, I tend to take the approach of: "Anything is possible with sufficient skill". This preserves the idea that anything is possible, but broadens it to emphasize that objectives can be achieved with a variety of skills, not just magic, and at the same time narrows it to highlight that certain effects can only be achieved with higher levels of skill.


----------



## Mark (Jan 11, 2010)

FireLance said:


> I'm highlighting this as a one of the key tropes of D&D which I'm happy to see changed, namely the idea that anything is possible with magic.





Could you point that out in the passage you quoted, because I am not seeing it, namely or otherwise.  As to your idea that "Anything is possible with sufficient skill," I would counter that magic is just a skill of a different nature and I would not like that idea either.  Once characters are capable of achieving any goal, no matter the means, the game becomes boring, IMO.


----------



## Mort (Jan 11, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> A lot of the criticism of Vancian casting seems predicated on an assumption that a caster will know exactly which spells they'll need to get out of hock on an adventure.  If _water breathing_ saves a PC from drowning, then that's either pure luck or clever reconnaissance.  I don't see how it becomes a cheesy get-out-of-jail-free card in any circumstance.  It's equally possible that _water breathing_ won't get used, and to have it the caster gave up a spell that may have saved the day.




As was said way up thread (which is admittedly both quite long and way of topic at this point) this may have held true for earlier editions of D&D but not so much for 3e were scrolls become really easy. _water breathing_ is the perfect example of the type of spell that you don't need often, you may never actually need it, but when you need it you *really* need it. As such it's the perfect spell for a scroll, and because the mage likely scribed it levels ago, he's not really feeling the cost later. Same goes for knock, tongues, and a whole host of other "perfect for scrolls" spells. The 3e mage has so much versatility as a result it's scary (and quite boring for the rest of the party really).



Hairfoot said:


> Then there's the fact that magic _is _special.  Why shouldn't it cause extraordinary circumstances occasionally?




     See the problem is 3e magic isn't that special. Sure there's a lot of fluff saying it is and a lot of text about exotic words, ingredients and the like. But at the end of the day, the mage casts a spell, it goes off, does exactly what he wants, and he moves on to the next spell (with extraordinarily few exceptions even at high levels). It's exactly as mechanical as the fighter swinging his sword, only with one shot more fantastic results. 
     I like magic being more powerful in systems where there are risks involved for the caster, but D&D does not do that at all.



Hairfoot said:


> I've never witnessed this apparently common setup of the mage dominating every situation with spells, because a role of the DM is to balance that stuff out.  If an adventuring mage is becoming the sine qua non in a campaign, he's also going to become the target of fear and assassination.  With great power comes great threat.




I've not only witnessed it I've done it - completely unintentionally. I was just trying to play an effective mage - no cheesetastic char-op builds. The DM tried to compensate but because a well played mage is so versatile (and can laugh at spell resistance, btw) he wound up hamstringing the rest of the party long before he could affect my character.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 11, 2010)

Mark said:


> Could you point that out in the passage you quoted, because I am not seeing it, namely or otherwise.  As to your idea that "Anything is possible with sufficient skill," I would counter that magic is just a skill of a different nature and I would not like that idea either.  Once characters are capable of achieving any goal, no matter the means, the game becomes boring, IMO.



While not explicit, it seems to be the idea behind sentences such as:

"Because one is an exercise of creativity using a spell which is a mainstay of D&D" - why just spells and not any other abilities?

"Then there's the fact that magic is special" - why just magic and not any other type of skill?

I agree that magic is just a skill of a different nature. At least, it should be - which was my entire point.  And IMO, part of the attraction of RPGs (at least to me) is that characters are capable of achieving any goal, at least in theory, although not necessarily immediately and certainly not necessarily easily. To me, the choice of what skill to use should be like the choice of what road to take to Rome: they should all get you there eventually, but you may experience different obstacles depending on your choice.


----------



## Mark (Jan 11, 2010)

FireLance said:


> While not explicit, it seems to be the idea behind sentences such as:
> 
> "Because one is an exercise of creativity using a spell which is a mainstay of D&D" - why just spells and not any other abilities?
> 
> "Then there's the fact that magic is special" - why just magic and not any other type of skill?





The first sentence calls for magic to be used in ways not thought of by designers of the game, but I would argue that's also true of equipment, skills, abilities, etc.  Magic is special because it has no real world example as a guide.  When I create a range of weights that can be lifted using the Strength ability, I have real world examples to assess for guidance.  So, too, when I create a rope using skill.  Or when I calibrate the varying effectiveness of weapons or armor.  I don't know.  That's my take on what was said.  Maybe you have it right.  I'll leave it to the quoted to settle it.




FireLance said:


> I agree that magic is just a skill of a different nature. At least, it should be - which was my entire point.  And IMO, part of the attraction of RPGs (at least to me) is that characters are capable of achieving any goal, at least in theory, although not necessarily immediately and certainly not necessarily easily. To me, the choice of what skill to use should be like the choice of what road to take to Rome: they should all get you there eventually, but you may experience different obstacles depending on your choice.





I don't believe that the City on the Hill is ever meant to be reached (unless you're done playing).


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 11, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> I am going to say that its funny that you have to houserule to do something like this. Your character has an action left yet technically by the core rules you can only stand there and watch a fellow adventurer fall to his death. Little too rules tight for me.




I'm pretty anti-4E myself (since it's deliberately designed to be antithetical to everything I enjoy about gaming), but I find your critique of it here funny. It's not like 3E features mechanical support for out-of-turn actions in combat.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 11, 2010)

Mark said:


> Magic is special because it has no real world example as a guide.  When I create a range of weights that can be lifted using the Strength ability, I have real world examples to assess for guidance.  So, too, when I create a rope using skill.  Or when I calibrate the varying effectiveness of weapons or armor.



So. . . would it be fair to say that, using this model of gameplay / game design, only those who utilise 'magic' can go beyond known (or, perhaps, 'reasonable') human limits? Or, in the case of 'demihumans', those limits plus a bit, and even then, in measurable, predictable ways?

I have encountered that perspective before, but I thought I'd ask, just to make sure I understand where you (and possibly others in the thread) are coming from there.

For the record, it's not a perspective I favour. . . _unless_ magic has a price. And then some. So, for D&D as it stands, that would be a 'no'. Not for me, I mean. Actually, I can see what was attempted for 4e, in that way. Just doesn't appeal, personally.


----------



## Reigan (Jan 11, 2010)

Its not just about creativity, I think a lot of this argument is really about individuality. There is a strong desire to be the one that solves the problem (and there is nothing wrong with this) and to be the standout player that everyone else relies on. Spell casting classes where just better at allowing this than the others.

With 4e's team based approach its harder to express your individuality in this way, there is no class that offers the flexibility to be the ultimate lone problem solver. I guess you just have to join the team.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 11, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> . . . _unless_ magic has a price. And then some. So, for D&D as it stands, that would be a 'no'. Not for me, I mean.




The price of power theme is there in 4e I would say not intense enough. The Bloodmage paragon path  (where you strengthen your spells by devoting your own hit points to the act) is one instance available directly in the players handbook... and recently the invokers(divine flavored wizards) own effects have negative consequences on the caster. 

There is also a lot more room to introduce more of that kind of price and maybe allow it to have more impact as well.l

Note taking risky gambits in order to gain more powerful attacks are also available in the martial powers it isn't totally unique to arcane or spell casting context.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I don't think I'm understanding what you mean. In order to use waterbreathing, a 4e wizard most definitely must think ahead, not on his feet. Nothing's been moved from prep to play.



If water breathing the ritual takes 10 minutes to cast, then it cannot be used in a situation where you need to save your fighter from drowning _right now_. That option is gone. You need to get creative, think on your feet. You still have a multitude of options available, if you think creatively, but the _solve problem X_ spell is not one of them.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 11, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> You need to get creative, think on your feet. You still have a multitude of options available, if you think creatively, but the _solve problem X_ spell is not one of them.




I completely understand your point. 

The problem arises when (You have a multitude of options available, if you think creatively) ---> (No, you can' t do that. Or that. Or that. Or that...)

Reducing the number of possible solutions and forcing the player to "think creatively" in order to eventually arrive at a permissible solution is not particularly creative, either.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 11, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If water breathing the ritual takes 10 minutes to cast, then it cannot be used in a situation where you need to save your fighter from drowning _right now_. That option is gone. You need to get creative, think on your feet. You still have a multitude of options available, if you think creatively, but the _solve problem X_ spell is not one of them.




And this is why I personally like the ritual system.

The pre 3e magic system has a cost. Namely spell slots. Water breathing to use as an example came at a cost of a Fireball so really, you would only use Water breathing if you did your prep BEFOREHAND.

If not, you came up with a solution right then and there.

The same thing applies to rituals. The cost is time. If you need it RIGHT this minute, a player is forced to to use the same avenures as he wold in pre 3e. 

Magic is still awesome but it doesn't become the default option.

EDIT: With regard to Waterbreathing ritual itself.

I think a perfect example would actually be today's preview, Glimmer

If you're going to Glimmer, you should ALREADY have this spell in place as it last long enough to cast beforehand.

What the 1e/2e and 4e magic system didn't allow for was to "forget to prepare" OR "mysteriously pushed through a portal to Glimmer"


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 11, 2010)

Yeah. I agree. 

Something like arcane lock to seal off a group is cool, but without that option, you can instead conjure something in the door's space, get the rogue to lock it with thievery, apply a padlock (can you buy them? *shrug*), get the fighter to put his back to it while he fights, get the barbarian to jam it, anybody and throw stuff in the way of the door, bar the door... I don't know. This could be an example of creativity stifled by having the perfect tool for the job, like arcane lock.

I'm glad it's termed the tyranny of fun instead of the tyranny of creativity. I'm so tired of creativity.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 11, 2010)

Rituals are good in theory, but the overly long casting times and expense of rituals relegates them to little used obscurity.  They are so useless in most situations that you tend to forget about them when they actually would be useful.  This is another good example of a good idea that was ruined by it's horrible implementation.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 11, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Rituals are good in theory, but the overly long casting times and expense of rituals relegates them to little used obscurity.  They are so useless in most situations that you tend to forget about them when they actually would be useful.  This is another good example of a good idea that was ruined by it's horrible implementation.




Depends on the ritual. The time factor and the money are non issues since the latter goes away as you level and the ritual is STILL useful/becomes more useful and the time factor IS a balancing factor. (If the casting time was 10 rounds instead of 10 minutes, the people that think it would be too long would still state that it is too long)

Most of the scrying ones are simply not worth it however, but take the example of Waterbreathing.

WB costs 135 gp per 8 people and by the time you're using it to explore Glimmer that's pocket change AND it's probably lasting at least 4 hours.

That's GREAT bang for your buck IMO.

What rituals are is expensive when you first get them....not sure why since they could have done the other way of simply increasing the level (make Waterbreathing a level 13 ritual that costs 27 gp per application accomplishes the same thing)


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 11, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> (If the casting time was 10 rounds instead of 10 minutes, the people that think it would be too long would still state that it is too long)




What is your evidence for this? I have never seen anyone complain about a casting time in any edition that was one minute or less, except in the context of readied spells.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If water breathing the ritual takes 10 minutes to cast, then it cannot be used in a situation where you need to save your fighter from drowning _right now_. That option is gone. You need to get creative, think on your feet. You still have a multitude of options available, if you think creatively, but the _solve problem X_ spell is not one of them.




This issue isn't that having the _solve problem X right now_ and then using it is creative.

The issue is that since you don't have the _solve problem X right now_ spell right now you can't *solve problem Y right now *through a creative use of the _solve problem X right now_.

The issue of creativity has never been about using _solve problem X right now_ to solve _solve problem X right now_. It's been about since you no longer have _solve problem X right now_ you can't be creative with solve problem x right now to *solve problem Y in a creative manner using solve problem X right now*.

Seriously guys, this is why I'm starting to get irked here. I've said it several times and it's like no one's listening. It's not that using a spell do do what it's supposed to do is creative, its that now that one doesn't have those spells one *cannot use them to do things that they weren't explicitly designed to do.* That's the creativity I'm talking about.

That's the creative reduction. The reduction in the tool box that allows for creative uses. When your tool box has nothing that can work in 10 minutes or less anymore - you can NEVER have any creative ideas using any of those tools in that box in under 10 minutes anymore - not just that you can't use the tools for what they were explicitly designed for in under 10 minutes - although you have lost that ability as well. You can NEVER have any under 10 minute creativity using that entire tool box ever again.

Any restriction placed via the ritual system isn't a benefit to creativity, it's a limitation. The way to argue against my statement of "*the ritual system reduces creativity in combat compared to previous editions*" is to say that allowing more than just casters to use rituals opens up more creativity than the previous editions _outside of combat_. Then you're arguing about a creative trade-off. A design decision based upon different goals in the two systems.

And that, IMO, is a good argument. It then becomes a question of preference, of genre emulation, of design goals. It doesn't mean that there hasn't been a reduction in creativity in combat, but it points out that there's been in increase in creativity elsewhere as a counterbalance.

Because seriously, if we pretend for a second  that the "_limitations make for more creativity_" argument is a true one and that reducing the options available for players to use tools increases creativity, we then must think about the fact that now since anyone can use rituals (meaning that *that * limitation has been reduced from previous editions), the conclusion that those who've been arguing against me must reach is that *4e is less creative (as concerns magic use outside combat) because it doesn't have as many limitations on who gets to use that magic.* That since rituals can now be used by anyone, there exists less creativity outside combat in 4e than in prior editions.

Is that really what you guys are trying to say? That all the options presented by 4e in combat, in ritual use, in skill challenges or in any other manner *at all*- that all those options touted by players and the designers as helping everyone be more creative to play the game they want to play - in reality actually means that those playing 4e are being less creative because they have fewer limitations than those playing earlier editions?

This is yet another example of how "limitations force creativity" is a poor argument when placed against "options allow for more creativity than limitations do." Every game system has limits to creativity and options to increase creativity - where those are placed highly influence the play of the game and appeal to different audiences.

The debate then, of course, becomes what is an option and what is really a limitation. That's also an interesting discussion.

But to say limitations create more creativity than options is pretty much bunk. If a guy has 1 tool, he's not going to be more creative than the guy with 100. If a cook has 1 ingredient, he's not going to be more creative than the one with 100. The guy with 100 doesn't *have to* be more creative, but he does have *the ability *to be more creative.

joe b.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 11, 2010)

If (1) the utility of magic is a primary factor causing imbalance in pre-4e D&D, and

if (2) the ability to cast spells creatively increases utility, then either

(A) the ability to cast spells creatively in 4e must be reduced, or

(B) the imbalance in 4e must be relatively similar to that of pre-4e D&D.

Take your pick, but you can't have it both ways.


RC


----------



## Mark (Jan 11, 2010)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I completely understand your point.
> 
> The problem arises when (You have a multitude of options available, if you think creatively) ---> (No, you can' t do that. Or that. Or that. Or that...)
> 
> Reducing the number of possible solutions and forcing the player to "think creatively" in order to eventually arrive at a permissible solution is not particularly creative, either.





Yup.  There's a difference between telling someone to think alternatively and telling them to think creatively, particularly when some of their solutions are pre-emptively rejected no matter how creative they might be.

If you are locked in a box with a crowbar, a piece of paper, and a pen then I tell you that you can only use the crowbar to tap, only use the pen to write, and can only use the piece of paper after an hour . . . telling you to think creatiively is misleading.  What I am really doing is steering you toward only particular solutions while telling you to think alternatively.  The creativity is both stunted and shunted.


----------



## Mark (Jan 11, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> So. . . would it be fair to say that, using this model of gameplay / game design, only those who utilise 'magic' can go beyond known (or, perhaps, 'reasonable') human limits?





At a certain level of magic and only insofar as to also say that only those with the highest strength can lift the largest loads and only those with the greatest sleight of hand will be able to pick a pocket.  Of course, magic can enhance strength and skills but so, too, can great strength seem magical and great skill emulate the miraculous.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Yeah. I agree.
> 
> Something like arcane lock to seal off a group is cool, but without that option, you can instead conjure something in the door's space, get the rogue to lock it with thievery, apply a padlock (can you buy them? *shrug*), get the fighter to put his back to it while he fights, get the barbarian to jam it, anybody and throw stuff in the way of the door, bar the door... I don't know. This could be an example of creativity stifled by having the perfect tool for the job, like arcane lock.
> 
> I'm glad it's termed the tyranny of fun instead of the tyranny of creativity. I'm so tired of creativity.




I wasn't aware that there was something about the existence of arcane lock as a tool that prevents the above from happening. I'm very surprised to find that when arcane lock existed that no one ever could (or did) conjure something in the door's space, get the rogue to lock it with thievery, apply a padlock, get the fighter to put his back to it while he fights, get the barbarian to jam it, anybody and throw stuff in the way of the door, bar the door... 

Really, that's the argument? I'm glad we have one less tool because *now we can have fun?*

Am I talking to a bunch of Old-School Grognards telling me that you have to be more creative to play in a system that features no dwarven wizards and that has demi-human level limits because then you just can't rely upon the 12th level dwarf wizard to do everything for you?

joe "Old-School Grognard himself- but that's beside the point" b.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If (1) the utility of magic is a primary factor causing imbalance in pre-4e D&D, and
> 
> if (2) the ability to cast spells creatively increases utility, then either
> 
> ...




No.

You're equating all of pre 4e D&D as the same thing and others have explictly multiple times that this isn't true.

1e/2e had limitations in magic namely the same thing as 4e. Prep beforehand since Waterbreathing came at the cost of fireball. 

Players didn't say "oh, let's see, I'm a sixth level mage I'll just memorize Waterbreathing instead of fireball, just in case we need it".

They used the spell BECAUSE they knew they were going to need it.

The 3e method of having the right exact spell for the exact situation via scrolls is unique in D&D history since this isn't how magic was used by players before or AFTER.

As an aside, exactly what is "creative" about using Water breeathing to "water breathe"?

THe spell is EXPLCITLY designed to do this and is akin to using a sword to make an attack.

A creative use of a spell is more akin to I don't know Otiluke's Sphere maybe which IIRC allowed for the people inside to survive for a time with a limited air supply


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 11, 2010)

AllisterH,

I've no idea how what you wrote is supposed to relate to what you are replying to.

RC


----------



## keterys (Jan 11, 2010)

Rock, paper, scissors, dynamite must be a better game than just rock, paper, scissors.  One more option, and one that is stronger than the rest, is always good! 

I'd like it if there were a lot more 1 minute rituals. That's a serious limitation of 4e rituals.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I wasn't aware that there was something about the existence of arcane lock as a tool that prevents the above from happening. I'm very surprised to find that when arcane lock existed that no one ever could (or did) conjure something in the door's space, get the rogue to lock it with thievery, apply a padlock, get the fighter to put his back to it while he fights, get the barbarian to jam it, anybody and throw stuff in the way of the door, bar the door...
> .




It depends on the edition you're talking about.

In 1e/2e, the other options listed are very good options since the opportunity cost is that it comes at the cost of a slot.

A slot that even a 20th level mage only has 5 of I might add.

It means that instead of preparing a more useful spell such as an Attack spell, the player had to guess beforehand that there would be a situation would come up where Arcane Lock would be good.

Sure, the more open ended the spell is, the more use one can get (Charm Person was wonderful like that) and thus the more likely a person in 1e/2e would memorize it.

The 3e designers mention that this is something they wanted to get away from, the limitation of choosing specific spells over more general purpose spells/attack spells.

The only problem is that Arcane Lock, without the limitation in 1e/2e and 4e is the BEST option by far. A wand of 50 charges of arcane lock is pocket change even for a 5th level mage, so all those other options become non existent.

It's like looking at car A and car B. If car A has everything car B has and EXTRA but it costs the same (the fully loaded option costs the same as the stock barebones model), nobody is going to buy option B and it no longer really becomes an option.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> That's an aspect of denial, though, isn't it? "There are common countermeasures to this popular tactic"? Just curious.




I honestly a bit confused. I don't think I know what you're meaning so if you could rephrase I'll try to answer.



> Just not my experience, I guess. I've got the kind of group where there's always at least one player who's looking to achieve those extra objectives, and there they are. I see double moves, runs, skill use... all kinds of things crop up in combat. It's probably like the scry/buff/teleport thing; a non-issue for some groups because of the way they're inclined to play anyway, crippling for others.




I understand that such is possible, but I feel that the system was designed to put non-explicit actions as typically sub-optimal actions. That can be said for a lot of things though.



> I don't think that's the case, at least from the impression I've gotten of the designers and their previous work. When ritual magic actually feels like something sword-and-sorcery, and you've seen stabs taken at that in 3e products, it seems like there's more of a foundation than "rigidity."




I have a rather different view-point of D&D. When playing D&D I want to play in the D&D genre, which I believe is distinct from S&W or high fantasy or, in fact, distinct from any _literary _genre.

I'm not looking for D&D to emulate an narrative. D&D is something different. I looking more for the latest edition of D&D to emulate the previous editions of D&D than for it to emulate something extra-game.



> Of course, I've said before that I like themed games a lot. Combat as a punishment for not finding other options suits some themes, but there are some source materials where fight scenes are a reward for the viewer, be it a duel in a Dumas or Sabatini work, or an epic set piece in _Red Cliff._ It seems only appropriate to use games where combats are fun to play through on both a mechanical and visual level for that sort of thing.




As I said above, I don't view narratives as source materials which a game should attempt to emulate. Narratives aren't games, games aren't narratives, IMO. I think games are influenced by source materials, but I'm not looking for emulations. That said, I know my view isn't the common one and that most people play rpgs because they want to play in a world just like book x or movie A, or tv show C. And hell, emulate and influence may break down to something mostly semantic in the end, it's definitely a large gray gradient.

joe b.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> AllisterH,
> 
> I've no idea how what you wrote is supposed to relate to what you are replying to.
> 
> RC




Sorry for being unclear.

To put it bluntly, I have no problem with magic being an option. 

I have no problem with magic being the BEST.

What my problem boils down to is that I think when magic is the BEST with no limtations (or the very weak ones in 3e), it becomes the DEFAULT solution to every problem.

basically, if I have a scenario, there should be the following options.

1. Use Magic.
2. Use Skills.
3. Use a combination of the two (best solution by far).

However, for magic NOT to be the best option by far, it NEEDS limitations otherwise thanks to how the Vancian system works, it always gives the best solution to a scenario.

Which I think reduces creativety. Again, not picking on you specifically RC, but what makes using Water Breathing a creative solution if it's a std action to cast and the scroll cost is not an issue?

re: Time of rituals.

Ritual scrolls cut the casting time in half (10 minutes to 5 minutes). Do people still think that's too long.


----------



## Mark (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> Really, that's the argument? I'm glad we have one less tool because *now we can have fun?*
> 
> Am I talking to a bunch of Old-School Grognards telling me that you have to be more creative to play in a system that features no dwarven wizards and that has demi-human level limits because then you just can't rely upon the 12th level dwarf wizard to do everything for you?
> 
> joe "Old-School Grognard himself- but that's beside the point" b.





I always thought when I got older I would be the one railing against innovation and touting more restrictive gameplay as the way we used to do it and better.  Now I find I have become the rebel. 

_All these kids with their old-fangled ideas and "you can't do this" and "you can't do that!"_  :waggles cane: (figurative but not a metaphor, thankyouverymuch)

The restrictions and limiting of options and homogenization all do have a purpose in that they make programing much easier, so they make the online tools (and ultimately the computer games) much easier to bring to market, but this sadly comes at the cost of many avenues of creativity.  Freeform play, to some extent, cannot exist in tandem with the need for more unified formulas that make the tech possible.  I think the problem is that the tech, itself, is not open.  It is serving two masters, in that is is meant to help the gamer but it is also meant to provide for the bottom line.  Perhaps inevitable and unavoidable, if the tech is to be available at all.  We will see.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> The issue is that since you don't have the _solve problem X right now_ spell right now you can't *solve problem Y right now *through a creative use of the _solve problem X right now_.



I'm sorry, I thought you had introduced the drowning fighter into the conversation. My mistake.



jgbrowning said:


> The issue of creativity has never been about using _solve problem X right now_ to solve _solve problem X right now_. It's been about since you no longer have _solve problem X right now_ you can't be creative with solve problem x right now to *solve problem Y in a creative manner using solve problem X right now*.



Read my previous post. I see your point, but I'm suggesting that the subset of options being eliminated is miniscule compared to the total number of options remaining available, which are nearly infinite.



jgbrowning said:


> That's the creative reduction. The reduction in the tool box that allows for creative uses. When your tool box has nothing that can work in 10 minutes or less anymore - you can NEVER have any creative ideas using any of those tools in that box in under 10 minutes anymore - not just that you can't use the tools for what they were explicitly designed for in under 10 minutes - although you have lost that ability as well. You can NEVER have any under 10 minute creativity using that entire tool box ever again.



That's a fallacy. Your tool box does not have nothing that works in under 10 minutes. Attack and utility powers can also be used creatively, and they take a single action to use. While technically it's optional to allow powers to be used against objects rather than creatures, a DM that would inhibit creativity by disallowing that would disallow creating use of 3.X spells anyway.

So you seem to be stuck on the idea that only rituals have the potential to be used creatively. I diagree. A DM that will allow creative use of rituals will also allow creative use of powers.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 11, 2010)

Mark said:


> Yup.  There's a difference between telling someone to think alternatively and telling them to think creatively, particularly when some of their solutions are pre-emptively rejected no matter how creative they might be.
> 
> If you are locked in a box with a crowbar, a piece of paper, and a pen then I tell you that you can only use the crowbar to tap, only use the pen to write, and can only use the piece of paper after an hour . . . telling you to think creatiively is misleading.  What I am really doing is steering you toward only particular solutions while telling you to think alternatively.  The creativity is both stunted and shunted.




They're different kinds of creativity.

Imagine that the goal is to build a functional bookcase, and Joe has access to a carpenter's workshop while all Bob has is a kitchen (filled with cooking supplies).  
Joe, obviously, is enabled to be far more creative as to what type of case he builds (will he use nails or screws, should he engrave frolicking wood nymphs on the panels, etc).  
Bob, on the other hand, is forced to be far more creative in order to build a functional bookcase in the first place (can he McGuyver the blender into a functioning screwdriver, can he cook some of the contents of the fridge into a binding glue, etc).  
Suggesting that Bob is not as creative as Joe is, IMO, incorrect.  Bob's case will almost certainly not be of the same quality as that which Joe built, but Bob likely had to draw on every last shred of ingenuity he had to build a bookcase that wouldn't fall to pieces at the first stiff breeze.  Both guys display creativity, just in different ways.

Did (pre 4e) D&D really limit creativity by imposing an 8 hour casting time on Identify?  Really?  Or did player's generally come up with any assortment of ways to test the new mystic trinket that they'd found and were eager to understand?  (Let's ignore for the moment your opinion as to whether or not that sort of activity gets old fast.)

I disagree with the idea that the ritual system limits player creativity.  It won't satisfy the player's sense of instant gratification as often as the Vancian system did, and may require a different sort of creativity (McGuyver rather than artist), but to say that it limits creativity is, IMO, a mistake.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> The only problem is that Arcane Lock, without the limitation in 1e/2e and 4e is the BEST option by far. A wand of 50 charges of arcane lock is pocket change even for a 5th level mage, so all those other options become non existent.




If by pocket change you mean 1/2 the wealth of the mage or 1/8th the total wealth of a group of 4, sure. If a party wants to do that, more power to them!

joe b.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 11, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Sorry for being unclear.
> 
> To put it bluntly, I have no problem with magic being an option.
> 
> ...




A reasonable position, but one that has nothing to do with what I posted, which was a logical proposition.

If either (or both) of my two "If"s can be demonstrated to not be the case, then the conclusion drawn might be in error.  Otherwise, the logical inference is clear.


RC


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm sorry, I thought you had introduced the drowning fighter into the conversation. My mistake.




I had as an example of something lost between editions, but not as an example of creativity using a spell. My example of creative use was continual light used not as a source of light for vision, but as a lure to get a big fish up from a deep river. Hey, I'm not that creative. *shrug* Continual light was not designed as "fish lure" but it can be used in such a manner.



> Read my previous post. I see your point, but I'm suggesting that the subset of options being eliminated is miniscule compared to the total number of options remaining available, which are nearly infinite.




I disagree. The importance of the 10 minute time frame in a game heavily focused upon combat, to me, implies that time is of utmost importance. Hence, the removal of that time frame means that the options removed are not minuscule when compared to the options that existed prior to that removal.

I'm not focusing on the creativity available through other options. I'm focusing on the creativity lost from 3e to 4e in the translation of things that became rituals. My other comments about 4e subsystems are tangential and referential to my thoughts about rituals.



> That's a fallacy. Your tool box does not have nothing that works in under 10 minutes. Attack and utility powers




Are not rituals. I'm talking about rituals.

My stance was, in general, rituals are not as capable of being as creatively used as the spells they replaced. My focus is specifically on combat, which is the obvious one since rituals cannot be cast spur-of-the-moment so one cannot use them, more the less use them creatively.



> can also be used creatively, and they take a single action to use. While technically it's optional to allow powers to be used against objects rather than creatures, a DM that would inhibit creativity by disallowing that would disallow creating use of 3.X spells anyway.




That's a big assumption. Powers only affect creatures unless otherwise stated. Creative uses of 4e or 3e tools are only possible because they are not counter to RAW. A 4e GM breaking RAW to allow creative use is not equal to a 3e GM following RAW to allow for a creative use.

Even powers (in general again) are often not as able to be creatively used as the spells they replaced because the designers made powers fit into the damage/condition/move paradigm of the game and *discarded other aspects in the fitting*.



> So you seem to be stuck on the idea that only rituals have the potential to be used creatively. I diagree. A DM that will allow creative use of rituals will also allow creative use of powers.




I've never said that only rituals have the potential to be used creatively. I'd prefer to discuss what I said.

joe b.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> The issue is that since you don't have the _solve problem X right now_ spell right now you can't *solve problem Y right now *through a creative use of the _solve problem X right now_.
> 
> The issue of creativity has never been about using _solve problem X right now_ to solve _solve problem X right now_. It's been about since you no longer have _solve problem X right now_ you can't be creative with solve problem x right now to *solve problem Y in a creative manner using solve problem X right now*.




I agree with your argument, but I think you're selling 4E a little short.

Potential spells with creative uses to save your drowning friend:

Mage Hand 
Prestidigitation
Ray of Frost (maybe?)
Thunderwave 
Icy Terrain 
Feather Fall 
Bigby's Icy Grasp 
Web 

That's up to level 5, there are probably more.

You could also make the argument that, since you can use these spells more often, you have more opportunities to be creative (since you can't creatively use a spell if you don't have it prepared).

I do like rituals, but mostly for the flavour.


----------



## Mark (Jan 11, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> They're different kinds of creativity.
> 
> Imagine that the goal is to build a functional bookcase, and Joe has access to a carpenter's workshop while all Bob has is a kitchen (. . .)





Sure.  Now imagine Joe is told he can't use screws, nails, or a drill.  You are looking to explain how creativity can flourish in adversity but ignoring that the adversity being imposed is a set of restrictions that are unneeded and being added as roadblocks to more expansive avenues of creativity.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> I agree with your argument, but I think you're selling 4E a little short.
> 
> Potential spells with creative uses to save your drowning friend:
> 
> ...




This post is a prime example of what I've been saying all along.

Imagine if the player didn't have Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Ray of Frost (maybe?), Thunderwave, Icy Terrain, Feather Fall, or Bigby's Icy Grasp and only had Web to use as a tool to rescue their drowning friend.

People here have been arguing that that guy, the one with only web, is in a game system that has just as much (*if not more*) creativity in problem solving ability to get their friend out of the water.

People here would argue that the system would be even more creative if you didn't have access to web, because then you'd have to think of something else. And that's more creative!

*sigh*

Options allow for more creativity than limitations. The interesting discussion is when do options become limitations and vice versa.

And, no, I'm not selling 4e short because I'm only talking about the creativity lost concerning the spells that became rituals. I'm not doing a system-wide creativity critique. Never have been. If people would be more willing to discus the obvious negatives in the ritual system (and the obvious positives as well) as opposed to taking any critique of a 4e sub-system as being a critique upon the entire system requiring the marshaling of defenses resulting in ridiculous arguments such as "_limitations improve creativity_" that are utterly antithetical to one of the the core design principles of 4e "*options, not restrictions*" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Really, my simple comment pointing out the lost creativity potential in the new ritual system resulted in people trying to argue that one of the core design principles in 4e was wrong in order to defend against my saying there was some lost creative potential in their favored game.

That's what I'll have to coin as "4irony."

I'm a designer. I critique everything because I want to understand it. Some systems are better than others. Yes, that includes 4e. It's just another system, that's better in some way and worse in others. Not being able to talk about it rationally doesn't make the game one likes better.

joe b.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I had as an example of something lost between editions, but not as an example of creativity using a spell. My example of creative use was continual light used not as a source of light for vision, but as a lure to get a big fish up from a deep river. Hey, I'm not that creative. *shrug* Continual light was not designed as "fish lure" but it can be used in such a manner.
> 
> 
> .




Wouldn't such a thing be covered under the CANTRIP system for the wizard?

Ghost Sound, Light, Prestidigation and Mage Hand are all at-will powers for a wizard.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Wouldn't such a thing be covered under the CANTRIP system for the wizard?
> 
> Ghost Sound, Light, Prestidigation and Mage Hand are all at-will powers for a wizard.




Possibly, as long as the 5 minute limitation wasn't a factor. The cantrips in 4e have a lot of utility and potential creativity in them. My creative use example, as I said, wasn't really that creative, but just an example of using something unexpectedly to achieve a purposed not thought of when the object (spell, item, whatever) was designed.

joe b.


----------



## tyrlaan (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> This post is a prime example of what I've been saying all along.
> 
> Imagine if the player didn't have Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Ray of Frost (maybe?), Thunderwave, Icy Terrain, Feather Fall, or Bigby's Icy Grasp and only had Web to use as a tool to rescue their drowning friend.
> 
> ...



Wait, so we're beating on rituals based on the strawman that player x doesn't have any tool at his/her disposal except the water breathing ritual? 

How is that a different argument from saying that player y in a 3.x game doesn't have any tool at his/her disposal except water breathing, but that person didn't memorize it that day? Should I argue that the 3.x vancian magic system stifles creativity because that person doesn't have the ability to use water breathing when needed? 

It's easy to stack the deck to make a specific mechanic look bad.

Honestly, I don't think you can hold a valid argument about rituals by ignoring powers. I get it. You're saying that if 4e player knows water breathing, it can never be used to save a life, but if the 3.x player knows it, there's a _chance_ it can be used to save a life. But like LostSoul pointed out, there are different options now. Just because spell x in 3.x maps to a ritual of the same name in 4e doesn't mean that's the be all and end all of how to do things. If you look at the rules, hehe, _creatively_, you can find solutions to problems.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 11, 2010)

The whole "water breathing" thing is a strawman, and has nothing to do with joe's point, AFAICT.

"Creative" use of anything requires that the useage expands upon the intended useage of the thing utilized.  Preprogrammed balance requires that the useage of any given thing be known and quantifiable, and therefore must limit "creative" useage.

Every edition includes some tradeoff between these factors.  It must do so in order to be playable as a game.


RC


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

tyrlaan said:


> Wait, so we're beating on rituals based on the strawman that player x doesn't have any tool at his/her disposal except the water breathing ritual?




No. I'm not "beating on rituals."

No. I'm saying that because of the ritual structure, the things that were obvious in prior editions (waterbreathing to save a drowning party member) as well as thing that are not obvious (using waterbreathing to do something creative- don't ask me what as what isn't the point) are no longer creative options for the players.

Creative options may have moved (to powers), creative options may have changed focus (now more people can use the less-useful-than-before) waterbreathing.




> Should I argue that the 3.x vancian magic system stifles creativity because that person doesn't have the ability to use water breathing when needed?




If you want to, feel free. I suspect that's the *exact argument *used that resulted in the creation of the ritual's-that-anyone-can-cast of 4e.



> Honestly, I don't think you can hold a valid argument about rituals by ignoring powers.




Why not? What's wrong with comparing waterbreathing to waterbreathing across the editions? Is there a power that provides waterbreathing that I'm overlooking, one that allows the same type of creative potential that the old waterbreathing possesed?



> I get it. You're saying that if 4e player knows water breathing, it can never be used to save a life, but if the 3.x player knows it, there's a _chance_ it can be used to save a life. But like LostSoul pointed out, there are different options now. Just because spell x in 3.x maps to a ritual of the same name in 4e doesn't mean that's the be all and end all of how to do things. If you look at the rules, hehe, _creatively_, you can find solutions to problems.




That would be an entire critique of a system and I'm surely not going to take the time to do that.  I was just talking about rituals and it would have probably been only a post or two about the subject had people not decided that, since I was saying that a particular sub-system of 4e resulted in less creative potential than in prior systems, there was a requirement to descend into arguments antithetical to the very design principles of 4e to prove my comment wrong.

joe b.


----------



## Reigan (Jan 11, 2010)

If you don't believe you can be creative in 4e it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. As in many things in life, you can be your own worst enemy.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> And, no, I'm not selling 4e short because I'm only talking about the creativity lost concerning the spells that became rituals.




Ah.  I misunderstood.

Yeah, like I said, I agree with you.  *sigh*  It's hard to be as frequently creative using rituals since you can't use them in as many situations.  This should be a no-brainer.

There is something to be said for creative constraints, though, but that's beside the point.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I wasn't aware that there was something about the existence of arcane lock as a tool that prevents the above from happening
> 
> (...)
> 
> Really, that's the argument? I'm glad we have one less tool because *now we can have fun?*



Yep. Pretty much.

Ever watch Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit? It's a comedy sketch, British I believe, that shows a Gandalf-like figure and a BMX (bike) trick rider. BMX bandit forms these intricate plans about bike tricks and defeating bad guys, and the Angel Summoner says "Yes...or, I could just summon the angels?"

Basically, the group is working on the sealing the door and the wizard walks up and says, "Yes...or, I could just cast Arcane Lock." To extend the meaning, "That will be much better than anything you guys could ever do, and it's much quicker." Like you said, you don't think casters ever over-shadowed non-casters (except at "high levels"?), so this argument will mean nothing to you. Clearly, not everyone was playing the same 3E.


----------



## Mort (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> This post is a prime example of what I've been saying all along.
> 
> Imagine if the player didn't have Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Ray of Frost (maybe?), Thunderwave, Icy Terrain, Feather Fall, or Bigby's Icy Grasp and only had Web to use as a tool to rescue their drowning friend.
> 
> People here have been arguing that that guy, the one with only web, is in a game system that has just as much (*if not more*) creativity in problem solving ability to get their friend out of the water.




I think that's a bit of a misconstruction, at least of the argument I made upthread. I was simply saying that 3e offered so many options for the mage (extreme versatility) that creativity was rarely required (why be creative if you have the proper tool e.g water breathing for a drowing person). In addition to having the proper tools allowing for creative spell use makes the mage even more versatile, so much so that the other classes get less opportunity to be creative - because they don't have to be (why should the rogue waste his time ferreting out a lead when the mage can scry, or use prying eyes, or legend lore, or a multitude of other options - for just one example).



jgbrowning said:


> People here would argue that the system would be even more creative if you didn't have access to web, because then you'd have to think of something else. And that's more creative! *sigh*




Well it might require more creativity, but whether that's a good thing is a different question.




jgbrowning said:


> Options allow for more creativity than limitations. The interesting discussion is when do options become limitations and vice versa..




That's it exactly. When 1 or a few characters has so many options that it limits the creativity of the group (because the 1 or  2 characters always have the proper answer/spell/response etc. and the rest of the group has no need to be creative) IMO this crosses a bad line. Where that line is, is a very interesting question.




jgbrowning said:


> And, no, I'm not selling 4e short because I'm only talking about the creativity lost concerning the spells that became rituals. I'm not doing a system-wide creativity critique. Never have been. If people would be more willing to discus the obvious negatives in the ritual system (and the obvious positives as well) as opposed to taking any critique of a 4e sub-system as being a critique upon the entire system requiring the marshaling of defenses resulting in ridiculous arguments such as "_limitations improve creativity_" that are utterly antithetical to one of the the core design principles of 4e "*options, not restrictions*" we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> joe b.




I suppose I'm simply saying that the longer casting time of rituals (and the mechanic in general) is an overall positive. The potential loss of creativity is well worth the (IMO of course) necessary reduction in the mages versatility.


----------



## Mark (Jan 11, 2010)

Reigan said:


> If you don't believe you can be creative in 4e it (. . .)





No one is actually saying that, so no problem there.  What is being discussed are the limits put on creativity by restrictive game rules.  Some believe the limits force greater creativity and others believe it closes some avenues to greater creativity.  Your sig suggests you do not like edition wars so be careful to keep things in perspective.  This is a games mechanics discussion that is avoiding painting people as simply either pro-4E or anti-4E and it has been very fruitful.  Even one 3PP in this discussion that produces 4E GSL material is more closely examining the pluses and minuses of such restrictions with an objectively critical eye, so as a fellow EN Worlder, I implore you not to quash the discussion with edition war language, please.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The whole "water breathing" thing is a strawman, and has nothing to do with joe's point, AFAICT.
> 
> "Creative" use of anything requires that the useage expands upon the intended useage of the thing utilized.  Preprogrammed balance requires that the useage of any given thing be known and quantifiable, and therefore must limit "creative" useage.
> 
> ...




Of course. Speaking generally, the more specific a rule becomes, the less likely a creative use will be found for it outside of how it synergies to other rules in the system. The more rules one has, the higher the probability of the players running into "You can't do that that way, because the rules say you have to do that this way. The only way of doing that is this way."

Its the eternal design struggle between creativity and clarity. Rules that are less clear, tend to have greater creative potential. Rules that are very clear tend to drive usage to those clarified regions to the exclusion of other regions. To me, these are obvious design conflicts.

IMO, D&D has seen a continual progression from less clarity to more programmable usage throughout every edition.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Yep. Pretty much.
> 
> Ever watch Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit? It's a comedy sketch, British I believe, that shows a Gandalf-like figure and a BMX (bike) trick rider. BMX bandit forms these intricate plans about bike tricks and defeating bad guys, and the Angel Summoner says "Yes...or, I could just summon the angels?"




That Mitchell and Webb Look. Great show, IMO, and a particularly funny sketch. But that's quite a bit of hyperbole for an example. It's not like wizards are summoning angels to fix every problem. 



> Basically, the group is working on the sealing the door and the wizard walks up and says, "Yes...or, I could just cast Arcane Lock." To extend the meaning, "That will be much better than anything you guys could ever do, and it's much quicker."




And having that ability can lead the party out of "trying to creatively seal a door because arcane lock is too good" into "Let's get on with the adventure!"

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 11, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Clearly, not everyone was playing the same 3E.



I'm sorry you missed out.  But it isn't too late!!!!


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 11, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I'm sorry you missed out.  But it isn't too late!!!!



Haha, I'm considering pathfinder for when I go back to college in a week because someone in the group already has it. Though, I would probably only play a caster or a martialist(?) from the Book of Nine Swords.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 11, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Basically, the group is working on the sealing the door and the wizard walks up and says, "Yes...or, I could just cast Arcane Lock." To extend the meaning, "That will be much better than anything you guys could ever do, and it's much quicker." Like you said, you don't think casters ever over-shadowed non-casters (except at "high levels"?), so this argument will mean nothing to you. Clearly, not everyone was playing the same 3E.




Or... since arcane lock just makes the job of getting through the door more difficult (not at all impossible), perhaps they could do _both_ if they have sufficient time and make it even _harder_ to get through. 

Too much of the Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit style debating about the wizard "winning" everything fails to take into account the intersection of the two tactics being an even better result than either of the two choices alone... given the right circumstances.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Mort said:


> I think that's a bit of a misconstruction, at least of the argument I made upthread. I was simply saying that 3e offered so many options for the mage (extreme versatility) that creativity was rarely required (why be creative if you have the proper tool e.g water breathing for a drowing person). In addition to having the proper tools allowing for creative spell use makes the mage even more versatile, so much so that the other classes get less opportunity to be creative - because they don't have to be (why should the rogue waste his time ferreting out a lead when the mage can scry, or use prying eyes, or legend lore, or a multitude of other options - for just one example).




For the same reason a 4e rogue wastes time ferreting out a lead when *anyone *now in 4e can consult mystic sages, consult oracle, detect secret doors, comprehend languages, view location, or wizard's sight... etc...

The group as a whole is more effective outside combat due the ritual system than previously. Saying that increasing the effectiveness of the group (now they call all be like wizards) increases the effectiveness of a single member (the rogue in your example) of the group doesn't necessarily follow.

If the rogue doesn't have those rituals, he's actually more likely to be made ineffectual because the other members of the group are more likely to have the ability to do so. Unlike in 3e where there would be a greater chance of the spellcasters simply not having those spells.

The issue, IMO, is one that wizards APPEARED to be able to do everything that everyone else could do, but in reality they weren't everything to everyone all the time and were commonly resources that could be more frail than overpowering. IMO, 4e's taking the tact that everyone should be able to do much of what only particular classes could do before.



> That's it exactly. When 1 or a few characters has so many options that it limits the creativity of the group (because the 1 or  2 characters always have the proper answer/spell/response etc. and the rest of the group has no need to be creative) IMO this crosses a bad line. Where that line is, is a very interesting question.




And now that more people can do the same things, is the creativity of the group just as limited or more limited? I think you may be mixing up the feeling of individual effectiveness in the game with the capability of the group as a whole. They're interconnected, IMO, but are distinctive design issues.

joe b.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 11, 2010)

N0Man said:


> All too often the result of the challenge is more about the characters (and classes), not the players.




This is the heart and soul of WOTC edition game design. Challenges are all about the character and what the character is capable of per the RAW. Challenges designed to actually challenge the player have fallen out of fashion in D&D as designed these days.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> That Mitchell and Webb Look. Great show, IMO, and a particularly funny sketch. But that's quite a bit of hyperbole for an example. It's not like wizards are summoning angels to fix every problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is the adventure. Sealing the door *of eviiill...*


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Mark said:


> This is a games mechanics discussion that is avoiding painting people as simply either pro-4E or anti-4E and it has been very fruitful.  Even one 3PP in this discussion that produces 4E GSL material is more closely examining the pluses and minuses of such restrictions with an objectively critical eye, so as a fellow EN Worlder, I implore you not to quash the discussion with edition war language, please.




Yeah, I've got something like 11 4e GSL licensed products and am probably the 2nd? largest 3rd party publisher for 4e in terms of content published. I'd say Goodman was 1st. Hell, I've got the Freeport 4e Companion coming to print this month, in fact.

Publishing for a system, however, doesn't mean I can't be critical of it, be it 4e, or 3e, or Pathfinder, or 1e or any of the many systems I publish under. I'm not edition waring in any sense. 

joe b.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 11, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is the heart and soul of WOTC edition game design. Challenges are all about the character and what the character is capable of per the RAW. Challenges designed to actually challenge the player have fallen out of fashion in D&D as designed these days.




I'm going to defend BOTH 3e and 4e.

I would argue it has fallen out of fashion since 2e.

I've always assumed that it was 2e that cemented the idea of "playing the character" and not either 3e or 4e. It certainly was reflected in DRAGON articles and the tone of the accessories.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 11, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I'm going to defend BOTH 3e and 4e.
> 
> I would argue it has fallen out of fashion since 2e.
> 
> I've always assumed that it was 2e that cemented the idea of "playing the character" and not either 3e or 4e. It certainly was reflected in DRAGON articles and the tone of the accessories.




I agree.


RC


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I'm going to defend BOTH 3e and 4e.
> 
> I would argue it has fallen out of fashion since 2e.
> 
> I've always assumed that it was 2e that cemented the idea of "playing the character" and not either 3e or 4e. It certainly was reflected in DRAGON articles and the tone of the accessories.




In some way, I'd agree. I think 2e became more about "playing the character" but that doesn't have to mean it was about "challenging" the character as opposed to the player. I think "playing the character" can be entirely separate activity from challenging the character.

IMO, the issue of player challenging vs. character challenging becomes more and more character challenging with the increase in  detailed (quantified) information concerning the abilities of the character (the more powers, feats, skills, spells, magic items, etc..).

IMO, the fewer quantified aspects of a character, the more all challenges become player challenges. The more quantified a character becomes the more the challenges become challenges about the character and "player challenges" become more about tweaking rules-systems for maximization.

A good example is the chess-board puzzle in Ghost Tower of Inverness. That's purely a player challenge - do you know the rules of chess and do you know that that's what's going on? The same thing in 3e and 4e would include some such language as "If the players don't realize they're on a chess board, allow for a Skill X check at DC X for them to figure the problem out."

It moves from player challenge to character challenge with such language.

joe b.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 11, 2010)

IMHO, the issue of "Challenging the Character" began in 2e with the advice to change the result if the character would otherwise die.  In fact, I quit D&D for a number of years (until 3e) because of dissatisfaction with 2e, combined with not really knowing _*why*_ I was dissatisfied until much later.

Like every edition, 2e had a lot of things going for it.  Had I been a wiser man then, I wouldn't have let 2e change how I gamed.


RC


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, the issue of "Challenging the Character" began in 2e with the advice to change the result if the character would otherwise die.




Wow, I musta missed that one. That's some bad advice, there Lou.

joe b.


----------



## Mort (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> For the same reason a 4e rogue wastes time ferreting out a lead when *anyone *now in 4e can consult mystic sages, consult oracle, detect secret doors, comprehend languages, view location, or wizard's sight... etc...




Not quite anyone though, you need the ritual caster feet, you need the ritual and you need the time and money. 4e makes the rogue ferreting out the info the "old fashioned way" or even better having the party do a skill challenge to ferret out the info a viable, usable option as opposed to a secondary backup for when the wizard can't.



jgbrowning said:


> The group as a whole is more effective outside combat due the ritual system than previously. Saying that increasing the effectiveness of the group (now they call all be like wizards) increases the effectiveness of a single member (the rogue in your example) of the group doesn't necessarily follow.




I'd be curious to see how many non-wizards (classes that don't get the ritual caster feat for free) actually bother with it. My educated guess would be not that many, especially if there's a wizard in the group who has it. In other words I don't think the ability of non-wizards to take and use rituals only marginally increased the effectiveness of the group, so I bet it's a non-issue.



jgbrowning said:


> If the rogue doesn't have those rituals, he's actually more likely to be made ineffectual because the other members of the group are more likely to have the ability to do so. Unlike in 3e where there would be a greater chance of the spellcasters simply not having those spells.




In my experience, it was a rare wizard who didn't have enough spells (on scroll or otherwise) to not be prepared for most situations. Certainly the times the rogue was barely effective (graveyards, against prepared wizards, underwater, etc.) seemed to significantly outnumber the times the wizard was barely effective.



jgbrowning said:


> The issue, IMO, is one that wizards APPEARED to be able to do everything that everyone else could do, but in reality they weren't everything to everyone all the time and were commonly resources that could be more frail than overpowering. IMO, 4e's taking the tact that everyone should be able to do much of what only particular classes could do before.



'

Again IME the wizard could and did step on other roles toes, particullarly the rogue. And did so while being able to perform their own role just fine.





jgbrowning said:


> And now that more people can do the same things, is the creativity of the group just as limited or more limited?




The characters can only do the same things if the players choose to focus them to do so, and give up resources elsewhere (at minimum a feat, plus the cost of buying and using all those rituals).  This has interesting implications: If the players all focus on rituals, is the rogue going to do less well at his job because he didn't take a feat that helps with theivery? 



jgbrowning said:


> I think you may be mixing up the feeling of individual effectiveness in the game with the capability of the group as a whole. They're interconnected, IMO, but are distinctive design issues.
> joe b.




I'm just saying that one character's effectiveness (positive or negative really) can impact the need of the rest of the group to be creative; it just doesn't seem that controversial a statement to me.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 11, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is the heart and soul of WOTC edition game design. Challenges are all about the character and what the character is capable of per the RAW. Challenges designed to actually challenge the player have fallen out of fashion in D&D as designed these days.




I disagree and I think the increasingly complex tactical choices and strategic building choices presented to the PC throughout the editions indicates that this is a misinterpretation of what is going on with D&D design.

What is changing is not whether or not the game challenges the player, but in how it challenges the player. The game has developed so that the challenges the player faces are increasingly focused through the character and in how that character is developed as well as played. That's still plenty of player challenge if you ask me.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 11, 2010)

Mark said:


> Sure.  Now imagine Joe is told he can't use screws, nails, or a drill.  You are looking to explain how creativity can flourish in adversity but ignoring that the adversity being imposed is a set of restrictions that are unneeded and being added as roadblocks to more expansive avenues of creativity.




Honestly, I don't think so.  IMO, it's more akin to telling Joe that he can't just pick up the phone and order a ready-made bookcase from the furniture store.

Which rituals can you point to that would increase creativity if they could be cast as a standard action?  Magic in D&D generally just *works*.  It isn't creative to make someone breathe water by snapping your fingers and casting water breathing, nor curing someone's disease by casting Cure Disease, nor to teleport someplace using True Portal.  It's what those spells *do*, and it's no more inventive than when I use my car key to unlock my car door.  

The only rituals that I can think of that would rank as creative are illusions, and there are non-ritual utility versions that can be cast as a standard action.  So no loss there.  Even fighters can potentially create illusions with a 10 minute casting and wizards can do so as a standard action.

Being able to push the auto-win button is undeniably _useful_, but I disagree that it involves any degree of creativity, or that it's loss should be viewed as a loss of creativity.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, the issue of "Challenging the Character" began in 2e with the advice to change the result if the character would otherwise die.  In fact, I quit D&D for a number of years (until 3e) because of dissatisfaction with 2e, combined with not really knowing _*why*_ I was dissatisfied until much later.




There's another factor that I don't think can be attributed to anything published, too. I most often see it expressed as "If Bob is allowed to play a fighter, and his success at combat is based on his character's physical attributes and training rather than his own, why can't I play a silver-tongued rogue and have his success at diplomacy and fast-talking be based on his charisma and training rather than my own?"

It's the old problem that a silver-tongued player can play a character with a Charisma of 7 and be much more persuasive than a tongue-tied player with a character with a Charisma of 17. If you base things on player skill rather than character skill, that's a perfectly logical outcome. Many people find it kind of jarring and unrealistic, though. And it can't really be changed without moving to challenging the character rather than the player: unless you limit your players to playing characters that are no more intelligent, wise or charismatic than they are. And that way lies _fights_.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Mort said:


> Not quite anyone though, you need the ritual caster feet, you need the ritual and you need the time and money. 4e makes the rogue ferreting out the info the "old fashioned way" or even better having the party do a skill challenge to ferret out the info a viable, usable option as opposed to a secondary backup for when the wizard can't.




So the wizard is in the same scenario you described as being the one who can outshine the rogue using rituals?

I'm a bit confused. You say it was bad that a 3e wizard could outshine a rogue by using spells, I then said that anyone in 4e could do the same, and now you are saying that not anyone in 4e will do it because there are some buy in costs so it's probably going to be the wizard doing it anyway. You then add that a skill challenge (instead of just a spell) can now be used to outshine the rogue as something that's supposed to support the argument that outshining the rogue is, in general, a problem with 3e wizards. 

I have to admit, I'm a bit confused. It sounds like you disagree with just one party member being about to poach in on the "realm" of another party member, but you're all for all party members being able to poach into the "realm" of another party member.

And that still kinda sidesteps that the 4e wizard will probably still be able to outshine the rogue in the ways you didn't like in 3e (although it may take 10 minutes now).



> I'd be curious to see how many non-wizards (classes that don't get the ritual caster feat for free) actually bother with it. My educated guess would be not that many, especially if there's a wizard in the group who has it. In other words I don't think the ability of non-wizards to take and use rituals only marginally increased the effectiveness of the group, so I bet it's a non-issue.




So the main increase in utility and creativity of rituals in 4e (the ability of anyone to get them) will probably never actualize because most parties will simply rely upon those classes that get the ritual caster feat for free? That looks like another strike against ritual creativity.



> In my experience, it was a rare wizard who didn't have enough spells (on scroll or otherwise) to not be prepared for most situations. Certainly the times the rogue was barely effective (graveyards, against prepared wizards, underwater, etc.) seemed to significantly outnumber the times the wizard was barely effective.




It came down to how many spells the wizard had access to. Since there were so many spells, the chance of a wizard having the right spells to be prepared for most situations in a "disruptive" mannor came down to the frugality or liberalness of the GM in providing access to those spells. This is exactly the same as providing access to magic items. Those with more magic items are more prepared (in general) than those with fewer. If a GM was not treating spell access equal to magic item acquisition - well, there's your problem... 



> The characters can only do the same things if the players choose to focus them to do so, and give up resources elsewhere (at minimum a feat, plus the cost of buying and using all those rituals).  This has interesting consequences, If the players all focus on rituals, is the rogue going to do less well at his job because he didn't take a feat that helps with theivery?




Possibly, but would he need to do as well considering that the others in the group would simply outshine him anyway?



> I'm just saying that one character's effectiveness (positive or negative really) can impact the need of the rest of the group to be creative; it just doesn't seem that controversial a statement to me.




In my experience, my players are always being as creative as each other, regardless if they're playing fighter, cleric, rogue or thief. They're looking at the entire groups capabilities when thinking creatively, as opposed to only their PC's abilities.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> Which rituals can you point to that would increase creativity if they could be cast as a standard action? Magic in D&D generally just works. It isn't creative to make someone breathe water by snapping your fingers and casting water breathing, nor curing someone's disease by casting Cure Disease, nor to teleport someplace using True Portal. It's what those spells *do*, and it's no more inventive than when I use my car key to unlock my car door.




A creative use of a ritual would be the equivalent of you using a coathanger to unlock your car door, or using your car key to open a package from UPS.

You could of course, argue, that using a coathanger to open a car door isn't a "creative" use, but creative in this discussion has been "a use other than the one for which something was explicitly intended" such as hanging coats (clothes) for the coat hanger.

In addition, you're discounting the ability of using a ritual *exactly as it's supposed to be used*, to be creative in a different manner that would not be possible without the use of the ritual (say using a tenser's floating disk to divert a stream of falling acid off an object so you can grab it before it dissolves, or a sending to time a creative battle tactic impossible without such communication). In other words, you're discarding the ability to use a tool *exactly as it's supposed to be used *in order to use another tool *creatively*.

I don't believe you're actually postulating that there are *no *creative use outcomes *ever *with a ritual were the time reduced to 1 round vs. 10 minutes, are you?

joe b.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> In addition, you're discounting the ability of using a ritual *exactly as it's supposed to be used*, to be creative in a different manner that would not be possible without the use of the ritual (say using a tenser's floating disk to divert a stream of falling acid off an object so you can grab it before it disolves, or a sending to time a creative battle tactic impossible without such communication). In other words, you're discarding the ability to use a tool *exactly as it's supposed to be used *in order to use another tool *creatively*.
> 
> I don't believe you're actually postulating that there *no *creative use outcomes *ever *with a ritual were the time reduced to 1 round vs. 10 minutes, are you?
> 
> joe b.




So instead the fighter uses a shield to divert the acid while the wizard uses mage hand to remove the object from under the stream of acid.  

Instead of casting Sending, the party uses Sending Stones (PH 255) to coordinate the attack instead.  

I'm not seeing a terrible loss of options.

I'm certainly not saying that there are never creative uses for rituals, or even that it sometimes wouldn't be handy to be able to cast rituals as a standard action (there's an epic destiny that does this btw).  I'm just saying that I don't see any significant loss from it, and I think there is even a benefit due to the fact that you can't just Wish all your problems away (by this I mean rendering challenges virtually meaningless by magicking all your troubles away as a standard action).

I never questioned the usefulness of such spells, I merely doubt whether they add any significant amount of creativity to the game.  A ritual like Water Breathing is still plenty useful if you need to explore the sunken city of Atlantis, it's just no longer the go-to option if Tordek happens to fall off the boat.  A slight loss of options perhaps, but options don't necessarily equal creativity in my book.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> So instead the fighter uses a shield to divert the acid while the wizard uses mage hand to remove the object from under the stream of acid.




There's no fighter with a shield. The object weighs more than 20 lbs. 



> Instead of casting Sending, the party uses Sending Stones (PH 255) to coordinate the attack instead.




The party is level 6 and do not have level 11 items.



> I'm not seeing a terrible loss of options.




Seeing them now?

Anyway, this back-and-forth "it's just as creative" argument is a silly one because that assumes the argument was that the creativity lost by having a 10 minute casting time is not regained through other means. That's not the argument. The argument is just that there is a loss of creative potential.

You've already agreed with the argument of the loss of creative potential - you're saying that the losses aren't that bad because there are other ways around the losses. My above example shows that, perhaps, there actually may not be ways around the losses because the creativity involved is circumstantial, not static and balanced. That, perhaps, there may not be "other ways" to make up for a loss and to just assume that there are isn't necessarily the best assumption.



> I never questioned the usefulness of such spells, I merely doubt whether they add any significant amount of creativity to the game.  A ritual like Water Breathing is still plenty useful if you need to explore the sunken city of Atlantis, it's just no longer the go-to option if Tordek happens to fall off the boat.  A slight loss of options perhaps, but options don't necessarily equal creativity in my book.




I think that rituals add a lot of creativity to the game - that they're often the most creative parts of the game because so much of it is about damage-healing/condition-condition removal/movement-hindering movement. Rituals are all the cool things that don't have much to do with the tripartite power construction focus.

And what's been lost is the time-sensitive creativity of 1 round vs. 10 rounds. Creativity may have been gained in other ways, but the loss, IMO, is obvious. Anything that could happen with a 1 round ritual that cannot happen with a 10 round ritual is what has been lost. The amount of creativity that you think is lost depends on how much creativity you think was there to begin with, I suppose.

I tend to think there's a lot more creativity in the interactions of all those rituals with their environments as well as the secondary interactions of the rituals with other object that can then be creatively used than you're giving credit to by saying "a slight loss." For example: since Tordek can breathwater quickly, he has just enough time to jam his shield into the descending underwater portcullis, keeping it open so that the rest of the group can go through later when they all can water breath.

In the end, the importance of the loss is a personal assessment and people will have different opinions. But at least we're no longer arguing that there wasn't even was a loss and that having fewer options for the players helps them better their creative output.

joe b.


----------



## Mort (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> So the wizard is in the same scenario you described as being the one who can outshine the rogue using rituals?
> 
> I'm a bit confused. You say it was bad that a 3e wizard could outshine a rogue by using spells, I then said that anyone in 4e could do the same, and now you are saying that not anyone in 4e will do it because there are some buy in costs so it's probably going to be the wizard doing it anyway.




Yes it will be primarily the wizard doing the rituals and yes this might have the potential to do the same stuff as the rogue but no longer clearly better than the rogue. Take _Knock_ for example: the 3e version is cast within 6 seconds, automatically opens most doors, and can open doors the rogue has 0% chance of opening.  The 4e version of Knock takes 10 minutes and requires an arcana roll, meaning the mage is only going to cast it if the rogue has failed (or if the rogue for some reason cannot pick the lock). The wizard is doing what the rogue can do, but not at well and at some cost - not outshining the rogue.



jgbrowning said:


> You then add that a skill challenge (instead of just a spell) can now be used to outshine the rogue as something that's supposed to support the argument that outshining the rogue is, in general, a problem with 3e wizards.
> 
> I have to admit, I'm a bit confused. It sounds like you disagree with just one party member being about to poach in on the "realm" of another party member, but you're all for all party members being able to poach into the "realm" of another party member.




I was just saying that alternatives to the wizard stepping on toes are good, though it came out a bit muddled. Still, the whole group (as opposed to just one character) participating in such a way to solve a problem, even if it's usually the pervue of only one of the classes, is usually a good outcome. - D&D is a group game after all.



jgbrowning said:


> And that still kinda sidesteps that the 4e wizard will probably still be able to outshine the rogue in the ways you didn't like in 3e (although it may take 10 minutes now).




But the wizard won't be able to *outshine* the rogue. He'll be able to fill in for the rogue at some expense, cost in time and generally not as well so only when necessary.




jgbrowning said:


> So the main increase in utility and creativity of rituals in 4e (the ability of anyone to get them) will probably never actualize because most parties will simply rely upon those classes that get the ritual caster feat for free? That looks like another strike against ritual creativity.




Perhaps so, but seeing as in prior edditions  non-caster classes could, without multiclassing, (for the most part) *never* get access to spells it's still a step up.





jgbrowning said:


> It came down to how many spells the wizard had access to. Since there were so many spells, the chance of a wizard having the right spells to be prepared for most situations in a "disruptive" mannor came down to the frugality or liberalness of the GM in providing access to those spells. This is exactly the same as providing access to magic items. Those with more magic items are more prepared (in general) than those with fewer. If a GM was not treating spell access equal to magic item acquisition - well, there's your problem... .




Yes a DM could certainly restrict access to spells,  but that's recognizing that there might be a problem and dealing with it so I don't see how that conflicts with what I'm saying. The over abundance of magic items is a widely known issue and most DMs know to deal with it. Easy access to spells and the problems it may cause is a lesser known issue and may take unknowing DMs quite off guard.



jgbrowning said:


> In my experience, my players are always being as creative as each other, regardless if they're playing fighter, cleric, rogue or thief. They're looking at the entire groups capabilities when thinking creatively, as opposed to only their PC's abilities.
> 
> joe b.




Well yes, thinking creatively for the group is great and is certainly my experience as well, but that's separate from the discussion of a particular characters' (not necessarily player's) contribution in that regard.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2010)

Heya all, I'm going to have to bow out of the conversation. I've got stuff I should have been doing that just can't wait anymore. (Working on setting up a First Edition tourny at this year's GenCon) and I've been a goober by goofing off so much here.

Thanks for listening to me ramble and for providing some interesting opposite viewpoints!

joe b.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I've never said that only rituals have the potential to be used creatively. I'd prefer to discuss what I said.



Okay, I didn't realize you were intentionally restricting yourself to a small subset of the possibilities. If you're only looking at 3E spells that were translated into 4E rituals, I can't argue with you. My response would only be "so what?"

Such an argument ignores, for example, that other classes now having more possibilities for being creative by dint of their having a variety of power themselves. It also ignores the 3E spells that were translated into 4E powers.

So again, you're looking at a very small subset of potential actions. You're not even necessarily arguing that creativity is reduced in 4E on the whole. Or that wizards can't be as creative when considering their entire toolbox. Just that wizards can't be as creative with the 4E rituals that used to be spells in 3E. I agree. I also submit that's it's a very minor complaint.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 11, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> There's no fighter with a shield. The object weighs more than 20 lbs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The rogue rigs a stone slab to divert the acid while someone else lassos the object.

The party is level 1 and can't cast Sending either, so instead they devise an ingenious method using a time released smoke-signal.  (Honestly, I think that's a pretty silly argument, as there will be periods in a level-based game where your options are limited simply due to level limits.)

Still not seeing it.  If you're really going to tell me that the above scenarios can *only* be solved with your solution, then the problem isn't that the game is restricting your creativity but rather that your railroading DM is. 


There have _always_ been limitations built into the game.  You may as well argue that creativity was stunted by any and all prior spells which didn't have an instant cast time and weren't Wish.  

If Tordek falls off a cliff and you have to save him with Feather Fall rather than conjuring a celestial giant eagle to swoop in and catch him because Summon Monster has a full round casting time, is 3.x really quashing your creativity?  (IMO, no, it isn't.)

Most (if not all) games limit player creativity by putting limits on what the players can do.  In order to avoid limiting creativity you'd need to give the players unlimited Wishes with unlimited power.  At that point the players can literally do anything they can think of, and therefore their creativity is no longer constrained.  However, I'd argue that at that point you really aren't playing D&D anymore (because in all editions of D&D creativity has been limited to the "tools" the PCs have at hand).

It's like suggesting that 4e encourages more creativity because the Rogue has a utility power like Cloud Jump, which the rogue/thief would not have possessed in any of the earlier editions.  I assume, however, it's clear that the suggestion is nonsense?

If game 1 has options A, B, C, D, and E, while game 2 has options C, D, E, F, and G, neither game is limiting creativity any more than the other.  Both limit it, just differently.  Both have an equal potential for creativity.

If you don't have a hammer when you need one, you find a way to improvise.  Therein lies the very essence of creativity, IMO.


----------



## Mark (Jan 11, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> Honestly, I don't think so.  IMO, it's more akin to telling Joe that he can't just pick up the phone and order a ready-made bookcase from the furniture store.





Why restrict him in that manner?  Just allow for the fact that you get what you pay for and if he has the skill to actually make a better bookshelf himself, set up consequences that reflect him getting a lesser bookshelf if he picks up the phone to order one.  If after weighing the consequences and resources (including time) Joe determines that building one is best, then he'll build one.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 12, 2010)

Mark said:


> Why restrict him in that manner?  Just allow for the fact that you get what you pay for and if he has the skill to actually make a better bookshelf himself, set up consequences that reflect him getting a lesser bookshelf if he picks up the phone to order one.  If after weighing the consequences and resources (including time) Joe determines that building one is best, then he'll build one.




The problem with that is Joe can probably get a superior bookshelf for almost no effort by calling the furniture store.  

This was one of my biggest gripes with the old Vancian magic system.  Why chance things using the Hide skill (which could fail on a low roll), when Invisibility gives you a close to perfect success rate (barring the intervention of not so common countermeasures, many of which render the Hide skill useless as well).

I do agree with your idea, however, that if Joe takes the easy way out then he _ought to_ get a lesser bookcase as the result.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 12, 2010)

Mark said:


> Why restrict him in that manner?  Just allow for the fact that you get what you pay for and if he has the skill to actually make a better bookshelf himself, set up consequences that reflect him getting a lesser bookshelf if he picks up the phone to order one.  If after weighing the consequences and resources (including time) Joe determines that building one is best, then he'll build one.




Ah but see only joe has the phone... nobody else can have one "because joe is the phone user class" ... now joe gets high level and can add so many numbers to his book ...one of the numbers will get him anything and by using special yellow pages ( only in version 3 of the game - not available earlier without the special dm monty getting involved) he can store all those very nice numbers. 

In 4e they set up special consequences for the phone call so that no matter how many numbers in your book... what you order takes longer to arrive.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 12, 2010)

All this song and dance is lovely to see and hear, but it still ignores the point.

Balance is achieved by eliminating unforseen synergies.  Creativity is the finding and utilization of unforseen synergies.  Either 4e is more balanced than previous editions, and therefore limits unforseen synergies (and creativity, perforce) more, or it is not better balanced, and does not create said limitations.

You cannot have it both ways.

(Where the balance/creativity fulcrum should lie is another question; one which relies very much on subjective taste.  Denying that there is a tradeoff between the two, though, is irrational.)


RC


----------



## FireLance (Jan 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Balance is achieved by eliminating unforseen synergies.  Creativity is the finding and utilization of unforseen synergies.  Either 4e is more balanced than previous editions, and therefore limits unforseen synergies (and creativity, perforce) more, or it is not better balanced, and does not create said limitations.



I think that's an interesting insight and I more or less agree, but I would refine it slightly further as follows:

1. Creativity in flavor (see the refluffing thread) should have no mechanical effect, so there are few _mechanical_ downsides to being as creative as you want with the flavor.

2. I think the problem is not so much unforeseen synergies as it is _easily repeatable_ unforeseen synergies. In a way, the "best" sort of creativity is when you come up with a way to use your abilities in a certain way to overcome a situation, and then never ever encounter a similar situation again, so that you have to use your abilities differently the next time.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> All this song and dance is lovely to see and hear, but it still ignores the point.
> 
> Balance is achieved by eliminating unforseen synergies.



That is indeed one kind of balance. 
The uber high level versatile utility/power spell caster was imbalanced for more than one reason one reason was because the mechanics distributed the creativity in to the hands of only a small subset of characters/players at the table.  So you can have the same sum of creativity at the table with greater balance, no? I would also assert there are more team synergies now than there used to be as well.


----------



## Mark (Jan 12, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> The problem with that is Joe can probably get a superior bookshelf for almost no effort by calling the furniture store.





Well, that's not serious, since there are a myriad of places that can be called with varying degrees of quality shelves, and if Joe has a workshop, he's likely to be a pretty darned good carpenter anyway.  You're moving the goalposts.




Garthanos said:


> Ah but see only joe has the phone... nobody else can have one "because joe is the phone user class" ... (. . .)





Uh-huh.  You're not just moving goalposts, you've left the stadium.


That's it for me for the time being.  There's really no point to this under the present conditions.  Thanks for your time.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> All this song and dance is lovely to see and hear, but it still ignores the point.
> 
> Balance is achieved by eliminating unforseen synergies.  Creativity is the finding and utilization of unforseen synergies.  Either 4e is more balanced than previous editions, and therefore limits unforseen synergies (and creativity, perforce) more, or it is not better balanced, and does not create said limitations.
> 
> ...




I don't think you're wrong, but I don't think you've considered the entire picture either.

I think the tradeoff can also be between balance and the degree to which the system rewards creativity.

Imagine that the DM describes a boulder strewn hill topped with trees.  As an ogre (a very tough and dangerous enemy) approaches that hillside, one of the players decides he wants to grab a tree branch and use it as a lever to pry free a boulder, sending it tumbling down onto the ogre.

System A isn't much concerned with balance, and therefore with successful resolution of the check to pry the boulder free, the DM decides that the boulder crushes the ogre, who is killed instantly.

System B, however, is very strict about balance.  Based on the player's level the rules state that improvised damage effects shouldn't deal more than X damage, although they may also knock the target prone if it fails it's resistance check.  Upon successful resolution, the boulder rolls down and hits the ogre for X damage, possibly also knocking him prone.

Both systems allow the player equal freedom to creatively exploit the area around him (which the DM merely intended as window dressing).  The difference lies in how the action is rewarded.  System A offers the potential of very large rewards which undoubtedly appeals to the creativity of players.  System B limits the size of those rewards, ostensibly for a better or more challenging play experience.  System A allowed the player to neutralize the challenge in it's entirety, whereas B gave the player a "bonus" to the challenge (shifting the odds of the ensuing combat in his favor).

I think you're mistaken in saying that you cannot have it both ways, because (IMO) there's a third factor (reward) that you haven't accounted for.  The potential exists to have both balance and the potential for creativity, so long as you are willing to limit the fruits that may be reaped from that creativity.  Even the Wish spell had limits as to what it could accomplish, presumably for the sake of balance.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 12, 2010)

The analogies, Captain... they canno' take much more o' this!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 12, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I disagree and I think the increasingly complex tactical choices and strategic building choices presented to the PC throughout the editions indicates that this is a misinterpretation of what is going on with D&D design.
> 
> What is changing is not whether or not the game challenges the player, but in how it challenges the player. The game has developed so that the challenges the player faces are increasingly focused through the character and in how that character is developed as well as played. That's still plenty of player challenge if you ask me.




The character build minigame is indeed a player challenge but it is sort of outside the realm of actual play. Knowing where to put your build resources for maximum benefit does require player know-how.

This results in an in-game problem being solved by the player knowing where to put skill points to get the most out of a skill check, it isn't the player solving the problem.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 12, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The character build minigame is indeed a player challenge but it is sort of outside the realm of actual play. Knowing where to put your build resources for maximum benefit does require player know-how.
> 
> This results in an in-game problem being solved by the player knowing where to put skill points to get the most out of a skill check, it isn't the player solving the problem.



That opens a line of enquiry that goes all the way back to the merits of random character generation.

Is roleplaying about generating the character you imagine, or imagining the character you generate?


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Balance is achieved by eliminating unforseen synergies.  Creativity is the finding and utilization of unforseen synergies.  Either 4e is more balanced than previous editions, and therefore limits unforseen synergies (and creativity, perforce) more, or it is not better balanced, and does not create said limitations.



Well, that's certainly a creative argument. 

Now, if we take the theoretical totality of creativity, then every attempt at balance will naturally eliminate some creativity. But every game that includes even a single rule will do that. If you want ultimate creativity you cannot have any rules. So that's basically a strawman argument (if I understand the term correctly).

Finding synergies (unforeseen or otherwise) is just one of many ways to get 'creative'. I'd also argue that there are unforeseen synergies that don't hurt the overall balance and those that do. Closing loopholes that hurt balance is imho a good thing. So the question is really: How do you decide if something hurts balance?

Older editions of the game often didn't provide rules that limited a spell's effectiveness used 'creatively'. One example that doesn't involve any synergy: using a 'create water' spell to drown someone by creating the water in his lungs.

Later versions of the game specifically didn't allow this. This arguably makes the game more balanced but is this an improvement or not?

There's another problem: it only takes a single person to be creative. Once someone comes up with an idea and communicates it, others will take it up (assuming it's a good idea). So while as a DM I may feel I want to reward a 'creative' player by allowing his idea to work, I'll then have to deal with the copycats who are utterly uncreative and simply repeat the trick. If it's a trick that can be universally applied the game's effectively dead.
In the times of the internet this problem is multiplied athousandfold.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 12, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Now, if we take the theoretical totality of creativity, then every attempt at balance will naturally eliminate some creativity. But every game that includes even a single rule will do that. If you want ultimate creativity you cannot have any rules.




Exactly so.

It is pointless to argue that adding some level of balance doesn't remove some level of creativity; what is actually worth pursuing is an examination of how much balance and how much creative potential are *actually desireable*.

EDIT:  It should also be obvious that, as any system grows, the inherent balance point will slip.  More options = more unpredictable effects (emergent properties) = less inherent balance.


RC


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is pointless to argue that adding some level of balance doesn't remove some level of creativity; what is actually worth pursuing is an examination of how much balance and how much creative potential are *actually desireable*.
> 
> EDIT:  It should also be obvious that, as any system grows, the inherent balance point will slip.  More options = more unpredictable effects (emergent properties) = less inherent balance.



Balance and creativity are defined as what?

In practice, a game with no rules does not necessarily have to be creative at all. It would be something along the lines of someone saying "There's a door. It's locked" and another saying "I open it." With no rules, you could creatively come up with a reason and a plan for why and how you open the door, but it would be a pointless measure. You need some kind of rules aka in this case adversity to overcome.

But, I'm not sure what you mean by balance or even creativity. So maybe I agree, covertly.


----------



## Matt James (Jan 12, 2010)

Rules shouldn't define balance.  It is the responsibility of the storyteller to ensure all participants are obtaining enjoyment out of the given landscape.  Analytical people will break every system.  

This thread was doomed from the start with the title.  I don't consider myself on a bandwagon and think it is insulting to label an entire group for their play choice.


----------



## tyrlaan (Jan 12, 2010)

Matt James said:


> This thread was doomed from the start with the title.  I don't consider myself on a bandwagon and think it is insulting to label an entire group for their play choice.




Doomed? It's gone 20 pages on civil debate.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 12, 2010)

tyrlaan said:


> Doomed? It's gone 20 pages on civil debate.



Fairly civil, yes. Though I don't think anyone has really pointed out the negative connotation carried by the term "bandwagon."


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 12, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> That opens a line of enquiry that goes all the way back to the merits of random character generation.
> 
> Is roleplaying about generating the character you imagine, or imagining the character you generate?




Thats a good point and one that the group should be on the same page about before play. 

To build or generate? That is the question.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 12, 2010)

I am more of a 3E guy, but I do think (and I don't actively play in a 4E game at this time, but have in the past) that 4E did address some of the balance issues people once complained about in 3E. But it is always important to remember, mechanics do impact how the game is played. And it is a little like whack a mole. You fix one problem, but another might crop up. 

No edition is perfect. Each edition of the game tries to handle the game in its own way (often by correcting flaws in the previous edition). Naturally, each edition, because it uses different mechanics, will have a different feel, and people will fall into different camps over which edition they prefer. 

I do have to say, I am impressed with the revamping from a design perspective. They created a lot of interesting innovations. The biggest problem they faced was, they were not creating a new game, but establishing the next edition of D&D, and people are pretty attached to the brand. 

To address the OPs question, I think a more sensible approach is to keep 4E on the shelf, but just take a break from it. Often we tell ourselves that D&D is the only game we can play. Or that we can only play a single edition of the game. But in my group, we switch from game to game every few months (sometimes every 6). Sometimes we play 3E. Other times we play pathfinder, or maybe 4E. And sometimes we try other systems like GURPS, TRI Stat, Unisystem, Savage Worlds, etc. Playing different games, what we've learned to do, is pick the system that achieves the feel we want most for the campaign.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 12, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Fairly civil, yes. Though I don't think anyone has really pointed out the negative connotation carried by the term "bandwagon."




Well, now you have. It's not much of a negative connotation, frankly. I'd be more inclined to call it an "unfortunate choice of words," and even that's giving it more weight than it really deserves IMO.

The fact that the thread went on for 20 pages before anyone expressed a problem with the title - despite plenty of 4E enthusiasts posting - suggests that most folks either didn't have a problem with it, or didn't have enough of a problem to bring it up. For those who do, I suggest pretending the thread title was "Having problems with 4E" and letting it go at that. The OP was clearly not intending to denigrate the 4E community, rather expressing his own growing disillusionment with certain aspects of the system. 



pawsplay said:


> The analogies, Captain... they canno' take much more o' this!




Nice. You'd get XP if I didn't have to spread it around. 

As regards the balance/creativity trade-off, I've been pondering this lately. I do agree that 4E has limited the scope of creativity in combat, largely by trying to eliminate any possibility of taking out an enemy without slogging through that enemy's hit points. And in that sense, "balance" is indeed the enemy of creativity, since hit point and damage ratios are a core element of 4E's brand of balance.

But there are other possibilities for balance. Instead of trying to force everything into a mathematical model of hit points to damage, the goal could be to provide PCs with an array of flexible, general-purpose tools both in and out of combat, and balance them (in a much more intuitive and less mathematical sense) by distributing them as evenly as possible, so that each class has a toolbox of roughly comparable size.

This does run into the problem that magic is expected to do extraordinary things. Casters legitimately expect to have tools to which non-casters do not have access. There are ways to deal with that issue, though; by giving magic costs that non-casters don't have to pay (e.g., ritual components), or by arguing that casters must specialize in magic to an extent that precludes learning advanced non-combat tricks and skills, so non-casters get tools to which casters do not have access as well as vice versa.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 12, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> As regards the balance/creativity trade-off, I've been pondering this lately. I do agree that 4E has limited the scope of creativity in combat, largely by trying to eliminate any possibility of taking out an enemy without slogging through that enemy's hit points. And in that sense, "balance" is indeed the enemy of creativity, since hit point and damage ratios are a core element of 4E's brand of balance.



And not 3E? Doesn't this apply to D&D in general? Bring the monsters to 0 HP to kill them? Do you mean that there are no longer any save or die spells (which would still bring them to 0 HP...) Or are you talking about the lack of Diplomacy cheese? At least intimidate is still nice and cheesy (and ignored in my games, most of the time. Intelligent enemies usually give up when half of them are dead and the players are still up, but not before that.)


----------



## Obryn (Jan 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Balance is achieved by eliminating unforseen synergies.  Creativity is the finding and utilization of unforseen synergies.  Either 4e is more balanced than previous editions, and therefore limits unforseen synergies (and creativity, perforce) more, or it is not better balanced, and does not create said limitations.
> 
> You cannot have it both ways.



I don't think this axiom works.  It sounds pretty, but it's IMO flawed.

If a designer forsees synergies, but does not spell them out, does that really mean a player isn't being creative by finding them?

Do creative and unforseen synergies necessarily unbalance a game?

-O


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 12, 2010)

Matt James said:


> This thread was doomed from the start with the title.  I don't consider myself on a bandwagon and think it is insulting to label an entire group for their play choice.




In what way? A bandwagon is a group of enthusiastic supporters and promoters of an idea. I think that is an apt description of adopters of a new gaming system. I would happily agree that I am on the Pathfinder bandwagon. Bandwagons make me think of parades and popcorn. It's really a compliment.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> . It's really a compliment.




No somebody else is always driving the wagon... you are just along for the ride you quit making your choices (hah) at least that is the negative connotation of "band wagon". Its kind of the lemming heard insult in a different form.

Edit - maybe thats wrong and its just the All or Nothing fallacy.

In any event I think people just decided it wasnt meant insultingly... whatever term was used.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 12, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> No somebody else is always driving the wagon... you are just along for the ride you quit making your choices (hah) at least that is the negative connotation of "band wagon". Its kind of the lemming heard insult in a different form.
> 
> Edit - maybe thats wrong and its just the All or Nothing fallacy.
> 
> In any event I think people just decided it wasnt meant insultingly... whatever term was used.




Even if you are just along for the ride, if you become a disgruntled passenger then you can just hop off and climb aboard a different wagon, or not as you choose.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 12, 2010)

Falling off the bandwagon just means that you were an enthusiastic supporter of a shared cause, but realized at some point you no longer are. It's an insult only in the sense that "popular" is an insult. If I say, "I am no longer doing the popular thing," I am probably criticizing somebody in some sense, but I'm not saying being popular is a bad thing, right? If anything, the title suggests the OP may have realized that not all their reasons for playing 4e in the first place were intrinsic ones, but that they were excited and other people were playing it, too.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> It's an insult only in the sense that "popular" is an insult.




Usually used in context implying those on the band wagon are liking something because it was popular instead of for a reason.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 12, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Usually used in context implying those on the band wagon are liking something because it was popular instead of for a reason.




Whats wrong with that? Being popular IS a reason.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 12, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> And not 3E? Doesn't this apply to D&D in general? Bring the monsters to 0 HP to kill them? Do you mean that there are no longer any save or die spells (which would still bring them to 0 HP...)




Save-or-die could be argued as reducing the monsters to 0 hp, but it certainly isn't "slogging through their hit points." It circumvents the whole hit point mechanic - the monster may have had ten hit points or ten thousand before you nailed it with _finger of death_, but it's just as dead either way. 4E ensures that all monsters take several hits to kill, with the exception of minions which only ever take one hit.

That's not to say I want to see save-or-die return in its original form. There were reasons why 4E got rid of it, and they're valid reasons; few players appreciate having a character unexpectedly zorched out of existence, and it can be a real letdown to have the BBEG die in the first round of combat after rolling a 1 on his Fort save.

But I do think the game would benefit from some tricks that clever PCs could use to take down monsters without having to grind them down hit point by hit point. For instance, situational powers that require some setting up, but leave a monster crippled or dead when you do set them up right. At the moment, the only option I can think of along those lines is making the monster fall off something really high. (Yeah, I know, that's still hit point damage, but it's a huge amount of hit point damage compared to regular attack powers; find a high enough high thing and it can easily be an insta-kill.)


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 12, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Usually used in context implying those on the band wagon are liking something because it was popular instead of for a reason.




Which is sometimes a valid perspective, apart from the black-and-white formulation. People rarely do anything for only one reason.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 12, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Whats wrong with that? Being popular IS a reason.




Nothing's wrong with liking something because it's popular (among other reasons), but claiming that someone other than yourself likes something because it's popular has a pretty common and clear implication that there are no other reasons worth talking about.

I don't think there's much of a bandwagon either way as far as 4e love or hate goes; both are positions with solid foundations in play style and presentation as factors. There's plenty of factionalism, mind, but relatively little "this is what the cool kids are doing." "This is what my group is doing" seems to be the primary factor, mixed with "and I'm thrilled/and I would rather do something else."


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 12, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> At the moment, the only option I can think of along those lines is making the monster fall off something really high. (Yeah, I know, that's still hit point damage, but it's a huge amount of hit point damage compared to regular attack powers; find a high enough high thing and it can easily be an insta-kill.)



Every class as far as I know has some kind of forced movement power somewhere along the line. Really, 4E is probably the best for your example, as the entire party has the opportunity to do it. If they don't have powers, which can happen if they avoid them, then they can always just use bull rush.

Not to mention whether or not there is a high cliff is entirely dependent on the DM, or if its 3E, if there's a higherish level caster around (Stoneshape?)


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Bandwagons make me think of parades and popcorn. It's really a compliment.



People don't use it as a compliment. When sports team X makes the finals they suddenly have a lot more fans, and these new fans are said to be "jumping on the bandwagon" by the existing fans. When the team loses the finals and returns to mediocrity, these new fans are nowhere to be found, having moved on to something new and shiny.

So it's derogatory in that it means "you only like this because it's new and shiny, and when something newer and shinier comes along you'll be gone." Now that can be interpreted in a way that isn't insulting, but the general use of it is as an insult.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Which is sometimes a valid perspective, apart from the black-and-white formulation. People rarely do anything for only one reason.




"Usage Context" counts ... when used in the phrase "falling off the bandwagon" or even "He climbed on the bandwagon (like everybody else)", is it ever meant in a positive light as a component of a bigger well thought out set of reasons? or does it imply specific lack of that and a lack of individuality to boot.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 12, 2010)

If the word "bandwagon" is enough to rile people's feathers, then I really don't see how any friendly debate is possible....


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 12, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> If the word "bandwagon" is enough to rile people's feathers, then I really don't see how any friendly debate is possible....




;-), we were debating if it was a feather ruffler


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 12, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> If the word "bandwagon" is enough to rile people's feathers, then I really don't see how any friendly debate is possible....



Why? Friendly debate normally attacks arguments and ideas, where as "bandwagon" is attacking the person (with a feather. When I read the title I noticed it, but I was cooled down the quarter-degree it raised me by the well-written OP.)


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 12, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> If the word "bandwagon" is enough to rile people's feathers, then I really don't see how any friendly debate is possible....



It obviously wasn't enough, since the discussion has been civil. I only brought it up as a point of interest, since normally on a messageboard the slightest slight is enough to bring out the rage.

But really, if I call you ignorant and you react badly (which is likely), and I say "I only meant that you lack knowledge about this particular thing, I didn't mean that you were unintelligent or anything," should I get a free pass on my choice of words? Perhaps if English is not my first language.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 12, 2010)

I would compare it to "bitterness," actually. If you describe yourself as bitter or embittered, that's very different from choosing to describe someone else as bitter or embittered. Unless that other person has already referred to him/herself as such, of course. In the one instance it's a simple description; in the other instance it's a potentially dismissive ascribing of intent. 

If there were a thread entitled "Bitter about 4e," consider the difference if the original poster were describing himself or if he were describing other people. And if he were describing himself, would it then be fair to use "bitter" to describe everyone else who disliked 4e? I don't think so. A term can go from perfectly neutral to viciously loaded with a shift of context. Incautious use of those words is no small part of why discussions turn uncivil (which this one still hasn't yet, nicely enough).


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 12, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I would compare it to "bitterness," actually. If you describe yourself as bitter or embittered, that's very different from choosing to describe someone else as bitter or embittered. Unless that other person has already referred to him/herself as such, of course. In the one instance it's a simple description; in the other instance it's a potentially dismissive ascribing of intent.



Very well put.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 12, 2010)

[deleted by mistake... d'oh!]


----------



## BryonD (Jan 12, 2010)

Bandwagon has some negative implication because it indicates that a certain portion of the people engaged in whatever the bandwagon is are doing so purely because other people are.  

4E is most certainly a bandwagon.
3E was most certainly a bandwagon.
2E was most certainly a bandwagon.

A great portion of the people who play an edition of Dungeons and Dragons during its turn of being the current version play it because it is "Dungeons and Dragons".

You can get offended by that.
It doesn't make it any less true.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 12, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Nothing's wrong with liking something because it's popular (among other reasons), but claiming that someone other than yourself likes something because it's popular has a pretty common and clear implication that there are no other reasons worth talking about.




But the OP was talking about himself.



> I don't think there's much of a bandwagon either way as far as 4e love or hate goes; both are positions with solid foundations in play style and presentation as factors. There's plenty of factionalism, mind, but relatively little "this is what the cool kids are doing." "This is what my group is doing" seems to be the primary factor, mixed with "and I'm thrilled/and I would rather do something else."




Oh, I definitely heard the band on the wagon playing some music. I was even informed on this message board that in months after 4e was out, 3e fans would all give up and convert anyway. And, of course, there was the gnome...


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> But the OP was talking about himself.




Yes. But if anyone complains that they're not fond of the bandwagon as a general conceit bandied about, particularly by people who "were never on it in the first place," you understand why, perhaps? 



> Oh, I definitely heard the band on the wagon playing some music. I was even informed on this message board that in months after 4e was out, 3e fans would all give up and convert anyway. And, of course, there was the gnome...




Which gnome? The marketing department gnome? 

I dunno. I still don't see too much of a bandwagon either way, particularly in the period that the game is out. The people I know who play 4e do it for all the usual reasons, and the people I know who play 3e do it for all the usual reasons. There's unfortunately still a certain level of emotional investment on both sides of the fence (among only certain players, mind) to disregard the other side's reasons for doing so — to say "you'll eat up whatever WotC gives you" or "you just want casters to keep dominating" or whatever. But some level of that is sadly inevitable, just as there are sports fans who can't want their own team to win without focusing on how much they want the other team to be humiliated.


----------



## Chrono22 (Jan 13, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I dunno. I still don't see too much of a bandwagon either way, particularly in the period that the game is out.



Listen to the music...
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Edit: ^ "Whoops!..." etc. is just another homage to how pathetic the WotC forums truly are.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 13, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Listen to the music...
> Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
> 
> Edit: ^ "Whoops!..." etc. is just another homage to how pathetic the WotC forums truly are.




Interestingly, that thread has a complaint about 4e in the very second post. 
And the fifth. And the ninth. And yet they're reasoned complaints born out of actual play. It's definitely a positive "share the love" thread, but if that's a bandwagon, then the definition fits everything from Order of the Stick discussion to discussions of retro gaming.


----------



## Chrono22 (Jan 13, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Interestingly, that thread has a complaint about 4e in the very second post.
> And the fifth. And the ninth. And yet they're reasoned complaints born out of actual play. It's definitely a positive "share the love" thread, but if that's a bandwagon, then the definition fits everything from Order of the Stick discussion to discussions of retro gaming.



A thread dedicated to declaring "unconditional support" for anything is unarguably fan support for the subject. I don't see people making threads for unconditional support of gurps. Or call of cthulu.
That level of excitement/loyalty is unreasonable. If that doesn't qualify as a bandwagon, then nothing does.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jan 13, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> A thread dedicated to declaring "unconditional support" for anything is unarguably fan support for the subject. I don't see people making threads for unconditional support of gurps. Or call of cthulu.
> That level of excitement/loyalty is unreasonable. If that doesn't qualify as a bandwagon, then nothing does.




Yet the thread doesn't really demonstrate the "unconditional support" that the original poster declares. Right there on the first page is someone saying he'll play 4e, but not run it — which is about as textbook a definition of conditional as I've ever seen. Perhaps the original poster would have liked the thread to be nothing but unconditional love... but it's not. 

Honestly, the whole question of whether people are "on the bandwagon" unconditionally, or because there are no reasons other than popularity, is something that I've been arguing is best left alone. I argue that because I think it's just plain more polite to assume that people have reasons for liking things over and above a desire to follow along. By accepting this, we avoid fewer projection of wrongheadedness on the people who like The Other Game, and can simply talk about what _we_ like. 

May I ask why it's important that I correct my position on this?


----------



## qstor (Jan 13, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I played 1e a few months back with my high school gaming group, running through Expedition to the Barrier Peaks until I got randomly killed by a no-saving-throw death trap. It was really fun, but I missed some of the tactical richness from later editions. Due to the module, I really missed the lack of any NPCs to roleplay with. And I DEFINITELY didn't miss insta-kill death traps!
> 
> Stupid death trap.
> 
> I don't think nostalgia plays a huge role in my gaming, other than always trying to catch that sense of "this is so frikkin' cool!" that comes with a new game. I like some of modern RPG advancements too much to give them up on a long-term basis.




I played 1e the other day with a friend of mine and some guys in a new group and I had a blast. We didn't use minis (not that I *don't* like using minis) and the DM just kinda rolled with things.

Mike


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 13, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Interestingly, that thread has a complaint about 4e in the very second post.
> And the fifth. And the ninth. And yet they're reasoned complaints born out of actual play. It's definitely a positive "share the love" thread, but if that's a bandwagon, then the definition fits everything from Order of the Stick discussion to discussions of retro gaming.




I would say there are OotS and retro gaming bandwagons. If there weren't, there would not be retro gaming, there would just be "Joe's Game" or what have you. And OotS regularly inspires contests to see who can post the latest update first.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 13, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> Yet the thread doesn't really demonstrate the "unconditional support" that the original poster declares.




So? Not everyone is on the bandwagon.


----------



## Chrono22 (Jan 13, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> May I ask why it's important that I correct my position on this?



Because it's not consistent with reality? Some people like things because they are popular. There doesn't have to be another reason. Bandwagon is not a pejorative word unless you make it out to be one. Case in point, this thread- "bandwagon" did not become an issue until someone made it one.


----------



## D'karr (Jan 13, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> "bandwagon" did not become an issue until someone made it one.




Wouldn't that be the definition of an "issue."  If everyone agrees then there is no "issue."

LOL


----------



## BryonD (Jan 13, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> A thread dedicated to declaring "unconditional support" for anything is unarguably fan support for the subject. I don't see people making threads for unconditional support of gurps. Or call of cthulu.
> That level of excitement/loyalty is unreasonable. If that doesn't qualify as a bandwagon, then nothing does.



I don't agree that a fanatical core group is the same thing at all as a bandwagon.  To the contrary, I see a "bandwagon" as meaning there is a significant portion of the fan base that is going along more because it is the thing other people are doing rather than any overly strong attraction to the game.  I don't think this is at all incompatible with a highly devoted base.  But they are different.

Again, I don't claim this is any different for the current edition than any prior.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 13, 2010)

The bandwagon simultaneously exists and does not exist until a thread stating an opinion on 4E is observed. If the thread demonstrates unconditional love, the bandwagon resolves into existence. If the thread is critical, the bandwagon resolves into nonexistence. Similarly, forum members are simultaneously on and off the bandwagon until they reveal themselves as being one or the other.

(While well-established through experimental evidence, the theory of quantum wagonics is not without its detractors. Many still agree with Einstein's statement that "God does not play dice with the bandwagon.")


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 13, 2010)

Now I want to know if bandwagon threads have fat tails or long tails, and if they acknowledge causality.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 13, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> In what way? A bandwagon is a group of enthusiastic supporters and promoters of an idea. I think that is an apt description of adopters of a new gaming system. I would happily agree that I am on the Pathfinder bandwagon. Bandwagons make me think of parades and popcorn. It's really a compliment.



Heh, for some reason that reminds me of Babylon 5 -

Michael Garibaldi: And if I had a baseball bat, we could hang you from the ceiling and play piñata.
Alfred Bester: A piñata, huh? So, you think of me as something bright and cheerful, full of toys and candy for young children? Thank you! That makes me feel much better about our relationship.


Not disagreeing, or agreeing for that matter. But I do like to see a positive spin on things now and again.  Games are something to be enjoyed. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 13, 2010)




----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 13, 2010)

I think the bandwagon got seriously derailed...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 13, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I think the bandwagon got seriously derailed...



But did it produce a new "Motiviational Poster" describing the "falling of the band wagon" meme? 

That's the issue that has been pressing me basically since the thread appeared on the Forum page!


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 13, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Because it's not consistent with reality? Some people like things because they are popular. There doesn't have to be another reason..




I think you have weird levels of acceptance of over reliance on herd instinct response in place of thinking.


----------



## tyrlaan (Jan 13, 2010)

Submit humble request to return to more fruitful on topic discussions for this thread. In other words, can we get back on this thread's bandwagon?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 13, 2010)

tyrlaan said:


> Submit humble request to return to more fruitful on topic discussions for this thread. In other words, can we get back on this thread's bandwagon?




I agree. Let us put aside the naughty B word for a bit.

Lets say that the OP was once an _adherent_ of the 4E system and that this is no longer the case.


_Adherent  _One who has not yet gotten all that he expects to get.


----------



## Chrono22 (Jan 13, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> I think you have weird levels of acceptance of over reliance on herd instinct response in place of thinking.



Actually I hate that type of (non)thinking. It still happens.

But yes, let's get this thread back to the original topic.



4E is a wet dog on a freshly cleaned kitchen floor.
Discuss.


----------



## korjik (Jan 13, 2010)

Are we talking pug or are we talking great dane?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 13, 2010)

korjik said:


> Are we talking pug or are we talking great dane?




Perhaps English sheep dog vs Mexican hairless.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 13, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Perhaps English sheep dog vs Mexican hairless.




You guys are asking the wrong questions.

We ought to focus on figuring how the dog got so wet in the first place and who is responsible for cleaning up the kitchen!


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 15, 2010)

Enough with the shaggy dog stories already! Sheesh!

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 15, 2010)

Digression # .....

How many digressions has this thread suffered thus far? 5, 6 ???


----------



## nedjer (Jan 16, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Actually I hate that type of (non)thinking. It still happens.
> 
> But yes, let's get this thread back to the original topic.
> 
> ...




Spent this afternoon blogging about this. Complete heresy as I suggest that metaphorical hunting dogs hunt and are good for hunters, figurative sheepdogs round up sheep and are good for shepherds . . .

I may at some stage have suggested that different games have different entertainment to offer and even the mighty 4e is not the totally best game for every kind of player in every situation. I humbly beg the forgiveness of 4e zealots and ask you not to click through, as I could do without the hate mail


----------



## qstor (Jan 17, 2010)

nedjer said:


> I humbly beg the forgiveness of 4e zealots and ask you not to click through, as I could do without the hate mail




Do we get hate mail for posting 4e fans are on a bandwagon?

This is from dictionary.com
"bandwagon: 2. 	a party, cause, movement, etc., that by its mass appeal or strength readily attracts many followers: After it became apparent that the incumbent would win, everyone decided to jump on the bandwagon. "

I'd say that by the marketing power of WOTC that there is mass (to a certain extent) appeal of 4e. And by the number of tables at GenCon that it has a movement.

But then maybe Grodog or Matt Finch contribute to the retro-gaming bandwagon? Or Erik Mona and SKR to the Pathfinder bandwagon?

Like a popular sports team 4e has a strong marketing appeal. More so than OSRIC or Swords and Wizardry I'd have to say. So its popular...saying it has a bandwagon might denote problems but then if you enjoy it more power to you. As other have said play the edition that makes you happy. And take it as a matter of pride...

Mike


----------



## Zustiur (Jan 17, 2010)

That's all very nice, but which of you fell onto or off of this particular bandwagon, and WHY?


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 17, 2010)

I'm still curious about how many players "bandwaggoned" from M:tG to 4E.  I'm not a Magic person, so I don't know to what extent 4E was promoted in that community as a natural transition from CCGs into RPGs.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 17, 2010)

I would not know. I transitioned out of MTG about 6-7 years ago.

At that time I saw no overlap between the two sides of the house. I would be curious if that has changed also.


----------



## Pig Champion (Jan 17, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> I'm still curious about how many players "bandwaggoned" from M:tG to 4E.  I'm not a Magic person, so I don't know to what extent 4E was promoted in that community as a natural transition from CCGs into RPGs.




I think it has a lot to do with gaming shops. I know in my area there are two shops that really specialize in RPG's of all kinds (one also does boardgames and the other is more mini and wargame-ish) while the rest are all CCG shops.

Now whenever I visit one of the shops that is CCG prioritized, there is a huge amount of 4E promotion around. Posters, flashy stands, books presented at the front (rather than the corner) of shops but most of all 4E products are also given away as bonus prizes for winning CCG competitions. Guys are also walking around asking people if they've tried DnD, which still kind of weirds me out. 

So it seems shops have decided to promote 4E hand in hand with M:TG.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 17, 2010)

Do you know if there's a subsidy or discount scheme from WotC for shops that run the 4e promo stuff?

The spruiking sounds weird.  Is it done by the store staff or does someone come in specifically for that?


----------



## Pig Champion (Jan 17, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Do you know if there's a subsidy or discount scheme from WotC for shops that run the 4e promo stuff?
> 
> The spruiking sounds weird.  Is it done by the store staff or does someone come in specifically for that?




I'm not sure, I'm not really on friendly terms with the CCG store guys as I don't play M:TG. I only go there for cheaper minis but I'll ask a friend who knows the owners.

Yeah, isn't it? It's done by the store staff. When I was there last, I saw it twice. Once the guy came from around the counter to a bunch of kids and asked and then asked if they'd be interested in trying. The other was when a guy was sorta standing near the DnD books, not sure what he was doing but the guy again was aggressively pushing a book under his nose and explaining the concept.

Now that I think about it, it kinda reminds me of the techniques employed by the gameworkshop staff...Assuming you've been in one of their stores.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 17, 2010)

Pig Champion said:


> Now that I think about it, it kinda reminds me of the techniques employed by the gameworkshop staff...Assuming you've been in one of their stores.




I've found the GW staff pretty obsequious on the couple of occasions I've visited one of their shops in the last few years, but I assumed that was just who they hired, rather than a policy.

If the Magic players express an interest, are they invited to a game, or given a sales pitch for the books?


----------



## Pig Champion (Jan 17, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> I've found the GW staff pretty obsequious on the couple of occasions I've visited one of their shops in the last few years, but I assumed that was just who they hired, rather than a policy.
> 
> If the Magic players express an interest, are they invited to a game, or given a sales pitch for the books?




Just invited to try with a "You can always buy the books when you love it! You. Will. Love. It" implied. At least, that's how I intepreteded it.

In any case, I just thought it strange when you bought up M:TG players since now that I think about it, 4E is pretty much promoted to it's fanbase via my local CCG stores.


----------



## nedjer (Jan 17, 2010)

Zustiur said:


> That's all very nice, but which of you fell onto or off of this particular bandwagon, and WHY?




Totally fell of the bandwagon and I quite like 4e. No problem with making a few patches to speed up combat, consider it a polished 'battle game' and most players liked my roleplaying over combat slant.

Grumbles came with the announcement of the number of books and the schism over 3.5. Players weren't sure about buying another set of books, etc . . . so, I probably went looking elsewhere because people often think of an RPG as expensive without considering how many hours it can deliver.

Since then I wonder if I wasn't looking for a 'better fit' for me. The more 'chess'-like zonal combat, fast turns, some graphics, graphics I control, total customisation of the rules, lightening fast scenario frameworks . . . in the new system was a 'shoe-in'. Sort of 'explore and skirmish' over 'deploy munitions'.

The (OK - unfair it doesn't have to be that way) '20 minutes fun in 4 hours' element was gone, players don't have to pay and are rewarded for playing well instead of knowledge of the rules.

Changing was unsettling until I 'got' it/ sorted the basics from the options but I wouldn't go back. Can't imagine a three hour 'sealed' combat, a PC sheet without text and images, working from a pre-made campaign setting or letting a publisher decide what artwork I want to put in the rules.

And I'm afraid it gets worse. Hooked up with the designers, GMing and playing twice as much as before and just off to spend the rest of the day exploring what seems to be a partially flooded, underground aquarium - where we'd just found cracks in some of the tanks and heard a splash in the dark behind us.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jan 17, 2010)

I really like the system. I feel it's a solid game. But it works so much more smoothly with the Character Generator instead of pouring through multiple books and articles in a sea of seemingly similar, never-ending power "card" options. 

When the Character Gen has the option for me to customize the fluff text and power names, then I'll be interested in hopping back on again. Until then, I'm just in a weird holding pattern.


----------

