# Why I'm done with 4e



## Soraios (Sep 8, 2009)

I've been a player in a 4e campaign since the release of the edition.  Prior to that, I DM'd and played extensively in a series of 3.x campaigns.  I have tried to adapt to the new system (for the sake of my friend who DMs it), but I can't keep playing 4e; the game itself is driving me crazy.

I don't think 3.x is perfect.  High-level encounters, for instance, can be very complicated.  But 3.x is superior to 4e in these ways:

* _The rules are in the background_.  The rules are not constantly superimposing themselves on my in-game experience.  Example: 4e marking.

* _High level of player creativity in character design_.  This only increased as new 3.x materials were released.  4e suffers from "sameyness" from the PHB onward.

* _Vancian magic_.  I prefer it.  It's part of D&D's core identity.  3e honors it (while giving some options for other paths); 4e pays lip service to it (for wizards, anyway) but essentially reinvents the magic system, to its detriment.

* _4e has a very artificial feel_.  The labels/roles are a big part of that; striker, artillery, leader, minion ... where is the mystery and wonder?  The rules encourage metagame thinking and take me out of the game-world and into wargamer mode.

Unfortunately, I don't see how I can ignore these problems.  With 3.x's bloat issues (particularly for prestige classes), the solution was simply to exercise DM control and exclude the material you didn't want.  4e's problems are _inherent_.  You can't play 4e without being smacked in the face with design issues every single session.

As a side comment, while I agree that 4e is certainly easier for a newbie to grasp due to its simplicity, if my first exposure to D&D was 4e I'd probably say to myself after a few sessions, "why not play WoW instead?"  _IMO, Wizards forgot why people play D&D in the first place_.

I want to play a game of D&D that emphasizes a blend of role-playing, story-telling, exploration, adventure, and yes, exciting combat.  I would venture a guess that most of the folks on this forum want the same, though arguably in different proportions.  So I want a game system that allows me to do that with minimal intrusiveness.  I don't want to feel like I'm playing a boardgame or MMO.  For these reasons, I'm starting a pathfinder campaign.


----------



## avin (Sep 8, 2009)

Can i have your stuff? 



Soraios said:


> "why not play WoW instead?"




I can agree with some of your arguments but tell me, do you have any level 80 char on Wow? Being a Wow player myself I don't find 4E as similar as Wow like people use to complain.

Meta and "artificial feel" are things 5E would have to handle to get a bit closer to old D&D... but roleplaying and storytelling, in my opinion, are easier to find away from any edition of Dungeons & Dragons...


----------



## pascale (Sep 8, 2009)

Pathfinder is awsome sauce.

I've been wanting to play one for some time, but can not find a DM for it.  I DM a PF eberron game, and joking threaten to kill off the players so that one them can take over DMing, and I can play a Pathfinder chronicaller...lol.  Enjoy your game and good luck.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 8, 2009)

pascale said:


> Pathfinder is awsome sauce.
> 
> I've been wanting to play one for some time, but can not find a DM for it.  I DM a PF eberron game, and joking threaten to kill off the players so that one them can take over DMing, and I can play a Pathfinder chronicaller...lol.  Enjoy your game and good luck.



The horrible fate of many DMs - they only get to run in the setting and game system that they actually want to play.

As a former Dragonstar and Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes DM I feel with you.


----------



## pascale (Sep 8, 2009)

avin said:


> Can i have your stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with some of your arguments but tell me, do you have any level 80 char on Wow? Being a Wow player myself I don't find 4E as similar as Wow like people use to complain.



I find this interesting. As a casual observer of WoW I notice the simmiliarities right away. (Treasure parcels, marking/agro, recharge times on powers, perception/surprise rules - monster sight radiouse, the artwork, etc) But actually hardcore players say they don't see it. 

Now I say I'm a casual observer of WoW as i do not play it, I tried got a toon up to level 8 (Yippy-skippy, I know) I used to work in a LAN gaming center and that was the game of chioce, my sister in law and her bf are addicted to it, so I watched them play when i spent a month staying with them.

Yet, the wow players with level 80 toons say they don't see the simmiliarities at all. 

On that note sisters B/F with a level 80 toon loves 4e, but wants to play pathfinder. Sister in law with a few level 80 toons could take or level 4e, and would rather play pathfinder...wonder what that means?


----------



## Anand (Sep 8, 2009)

avin said:


> Can i have your stuff?




All my players are WoW players, as myself as a DM. We play WoW together often, but we still enjoy getting together on occasional Saturdays to play D&D (4e, nowadays). It is a very different experience.


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 8, 2009)

Maybe we could just have a meta-thread, "Edition War", and merge all these threads into it? A thousand pages of pointless arguing over whose edition sucks the most. It would probably become self-aware by this time next year.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 8, 2009)

I happen to enjoy 4e and I don't agree with the points that you raised, but I also don't think that it would be productive to discuss them in this thread. However, if anyone else is experiencing the same issues and would like advice on how to address them, please feel free to start another thread. I would be happy to give my views there.

Even though you have decided that it is not the game system for you, I appreciate that you gave it a fair try. I hope you enjoy your Pathfinder campaign.


----------



## avin (Sep 8, 2009)

pascale said:


> I find this interesting. As a casual observer of WoW I notice the simmiliarities right away. (Treasure parcels, marking/agro, recharge times on powers, perception/surprise rules - monster sight radiouse, the artwork, etc) But actually hardcore players say they don't see it.
> 
> Now I say I'm a casual observer of WoW as i do not play it, I tried got a toon up to level 8 (Yippy-skippy, I know) I used to work in a LAN gaming center and that was the game of chioce, my sister in law and her bf are addicted to it, so I watched them play when i spent a month staying with them.
> 
> ...




There's no treasure parcels on Wow. Pereception / surprise compared to aggro gradius? The only thing I can agree is recharge of encounters/cooldowns, because "dailies" exist since ever on D&D.

Having a low level toon and watching friends playing are very different from levelling 1-80. 

Most people who compare both games seem to be people who has no much Wow experience...


----------



## Thanlis (Sep 8, 2009)

pascale said:


> I find this interesting. As a casual observer of WoW I notice the simmiliarities right away. (Treasure parcels, marking/agro, recharge times on powers, perception/surprise rules - monster sight radiouse, the artwork, etc) But actually hardcore players say they don't see it.




Well, you know. In D&D, I don't play more or less solo for the first umpteen levels. I also don't have some sort of global chat channel going all the time while I'm soloing. Nobody yells over to me and asks me to join their guild whenever I start my solo D&D sessions. I don't randomly run into other players while I'm out killing monsters to gather supplies to make a magical sword. 

The terminology's got MMO aspects to it, which is undoubtedly intentional -- it's reminiscent of OD&D's miniatures terminology. It makes it a more appealing game for MMO players who haven't done tabletop. I find it's really easy to look past that terminology and see the differences, though, both in the flippant logic I just used and in deeper ways.

The OP stated a number of preferences as absolute facts. With the exception of Vancian magic, every one of those should be preceded with the words "To me," because it's self-evident that there are also players who would disagree with them. But, hey, it wouldn't be the Edition Wars if there weren't players of both editions willing to state their opinions and preferences as if they were holy writ.

So sorry the game didn't work out for you! Thanks for letting the world know; hope you didn't think it was going to change anyone's opinion either way.


----------



## Soraios (Sep 8, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> Maybe we could just have a meta-thread, "Edition War", and merge all these threads into it? A thousand pages of pointless arguing over whose edition sucks the most. It would probably become self-aware by this time next year.




I'm a newcomer to ENworld and have doubtless underestimated the volume of posts on this subject.  I was merely expressing my opinion based on my experience.  I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, and I was curious to hear from those who tried 4e and switched back, or not, after a year of playing the new system.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 8, 2009)

Soraios said:


> For these reasons, I'm starting a pathfinder campaign.




Good for you, Pathfinder is a good game.  4e works for some groups but not all of them.  Just like Pathfinder will work for some groups but not all of them.  There is nothing wrong with playing a game and realizing it is not the game for you no matter what the game is or what the reasons are.


----------



## Thanlis (Sep 8, 2009)

Soraios said:


> I'm a newcomer to ENworld and have doubtless underestimated the volume of posts on this subject.  I was merely expressing my opinion based on my experience.  I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, and I was curious to hear from those who tried 4e and switched back, or not, after a year of playing the new system.




Sure!

I've been playing 4e since a little bit after release, both as a DM and as a player. At this point, I find the rules are nicely in the background. There was a key moment for me as a DM when I realized that I should stop worrying about understanding everything any PC might do and just accept that I wasn't going to memorize the entire power list. Huge relief.

I've also very much enjoyed exploring the way classes and roles differ. My melee cleric plays very differently than my girlfriend's ranged cleric, and the pacifist cleric I play with from time to time is quite different from either. The implication of power choices turns out to be pleasingly significant in ways I didn't anticipate.

Heh, my current party is hitting that now. One player swapped from a swordmage to a fighter, since he wanted to put out more damage. The party hasn't quite adjusted yet -- they were really used to an arcane warrior who could reach out across the room and prevent a monster from hitting them. Not to mention one who could use arcane fire to pull monsters to them. So they were prone to charging in, taking different risks, and so on. This is... less wise now.

Great roleplaying fodder, all of it. The key there for us is remembering that these tactical combat decisions are being made by characters, and including the emotional responses rather than just refining our player understanding of the battlemap.


----------



## delericho (Sep 8, 2009)

Soraios said:


> I've been a player in a 4e campaign since the release of the edition...  but I can't keep playing 4e




Good for you - you should absolutely play the game that appeals to you, and not play a game you don't enjoy.

(I myself abandoned 4e pretty early on - we only played a single test session. Although we did promise ourselves we'd give it another go if and when we could recruit two more players (to bring the group to the recommended 5 PCs).)



> _The rules are in the background_.




I must say I'm surprised by this - I find that the 3e rules are quite intrusive indeed, especially when compared to rules-lite games. I had thought the more rules-heavy a game was, the more intrusive those rules, and 3e is definately seemed more rules-heavy than 4e to me.



> _Vancian magic_.




This would be a taste issue, rather than an inherent flaw in the system. Remember, just because 4e isn't for you doesn't make it a bad game.



> _4e has a very artificial feel_.  The labels/roles are a big part of that; striker, artillery, leader, minion ... where is the mystery and wonder?




I would have thought you should be able to ignore the roles for the most part. PC roles are intended as an aide for creating characters and parties (what sort of character do you want to play? Okay, try one of these classes. Want something that will fit in the group as a whole? Well, get one of each type first, and go from there.) Similarly, the monster roles are an aide to the DM for encounter design.

Once you're actually in-game, the roles never ever need to be mentioned, or even considered.

Also, do you seriously expect to get "mystery and wonder" from your choice of character class? Surely that's something that should be coming from the in-game experience - from fighting terrible monsters, recovering wondrous treasures, and solving eternal mysteries?



> For these reasons, I'm starting a pathfinder campaign.




Good choice. Though you might also consider looking to other options. I can state with confidence that Star Wars Saga Edition is a great game, as is the 2nd Edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Or perhaps Mutants & Masterminds might suit?

Ultimately, find what works for you, and have fun with it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 8, 2009)

I haven't played any 4E beyond the heroic tier level. I do play WOW and have a level 80 toon. I see some similarities in the combat mechanics and the disenchanting of magic items into components is very WOW like. Overall play experience isn't the same though because of the DM factor. In WOW you can play on several different servers (campaigns) and the play experience will be the same. Different DM's can make playing two different games of D&D vastly different experiences. 

To date, I have not run a 4E game. I plan on starting one fairly soon. This will be the test that makes or breaks the system for me. If I can run the game I want without the system getting in the way, then I will keep using it. 

I was never really into the character building mini-game of 3E, so the simplicity of character options doesn't bother me (especially as a DM ).
I was (and still am) happy just rolling stats, picking a class, buying equipment and getting to the meat of the game.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 8, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> Maybe we could just have a meta-thread, "Edition War", and merge all these threads into it? A thousand pages of pointless arguing over whose edition sucks the most. It would probably become self-aware by this time next year.



Self-aware, and self-loathing.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Sep 8, 2009)

I don't want to get into an edition discussion, but I want to say this. Last weekend I was at our local shop and three different D&D games were going on that afternoon. One was a 4E group of high schoolers/early college kids, the other two were adult groups playing 3.5 (one appeared to be transition to PF.) All of these people were having fun, and I think that is what D&D really is. Whatever gets you and your buddies sitting at a table, killing orcs and taking their stuff is D&D, regardless of what rules you are using to do it.


----------



## Soraios (Sep 8, 2009)

I really enjoyed reading SWSE and I hoped that 4e would follow suit, but for the most part it did not.  I thought Talents were a great mechanic to allow differentiation between characters of the same class.

Your other points are valid.  I was trying (and failing, apparently) to articulate why 4e's "feel" is wrong for me.  I really tried to get into it.

I also recognize that the game system is really secondary to the quality of the DM and players.  This responses posted here are making me reconsider which problems are with the game itself and which lie at my feet and the  rest of the game group.  

One of the other posters here is dead-on right -- DMs end up running campaigns they wish they could play in.


----------



## Orryn Emrys (Sep 8, 2009)

My group actually tried a seven-session 4E run with about 3rd-level characters right when the game came out last summer.  It felt like a fair assessment of the game, and we decided that it wasn't for us.  Unsurprisingly, most of the reasons mentioned by the OP were central to this decision.  (Though, despite regularly playing D&D since the early 80s, I find myself generally unattached to Vancian magic...)

I didn't find the game distasteful in any way.  In fact, the first thing I did upon switching back to 3.5 was start work on a subsystem that allowed me to use a bevy of cool ideas inspired by 4E (and by Pathfinder, actually... and Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and Iron Heroes and Monte's Experimental Might stuff...).  My system is now very popular with my players.

The game's "artificial" feel and the intrusive nature of the rules were very central to our struggle with it, as we tend to play in a very organic style that emphasizes in-character interaction with the environment wherein I, as the DM, generally interpret the most effective manner to apply the rules to the challenge involved.  It's not "transparency" were looking for, as a growing mastery of the rules can be very rewarding to the players, but we prefer a play style that encourages players to think of their characters' abilities as training and talent to be drawn upon as necessary when dealing with a challenge, rather than a codified system of powers with limited accessibility.

I don't know if I explain it very well.  Back in the early days of the Edition Wars, I thought I was speaking very eloquently on the matter... but found that some gamers found it very easy to tear apart the wording of my "argument" to make it seem as if I were being judgmental or short-sighted.  Suffice it to say that the 4E rules are simply too intrusive for us during play.

That being said, I'm actually playing in a 4E game now with some new friends.  It's difficult to adjust to, since I don't like the way the player and the system interact, but I like these guys and they love 4E.  So I'll play for a while.  I like getting together with friends and playing strategy board games and such... it really isn't a whole lot different than that.  (Except that, when I talk in character, the other people at the table offer me mostly blank stares in return... I'm hoping that changes after a few sessions.  *grins*)


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Sep 8, 2009)

FATDRAGONGAMES said:


> I don't want to get into an edition discussion, but I want to say this. Last weekend I was at our local shop and three different D&D games were going on that afternoon. One was a 4E group of high schoolers/early college kids, the other two were adult groups playing 3.5 (one appeared to be transition to PF.) All of these people were having fun, and I think that is what D&D really is. Whatever gets you and your buddies sitting at a table, killing orcs and taking their stuff is D&D, regardless of what rules you are using to do it.




Yes, I think its a wonderful thing that we can all play the style of game we want, with the style of rules we prefer. Everyone can be happy! 

By all means, if you don't like the rule set, for whatever reason, there are plenty of other options!


----------



## avin (Sep 8, 2009)

How I wish I could play one different edition per week ... =/


----------



## Phaezen (Sep 8, 2009)

FATDRAGONGAMES said:


> I don't want to get into an edition discussion, but I want to say this. Last weekend I was at our local shop and three different D&D games were going on that afternoon. One was a 4E group of high schoolers/early college kids, the other two were adult groups playing 3.5 (one appeared to be transition to PF.) All of these people were having fun, and I think that is what D&D really is. Whatever gets you and your buddies sitting at a table, killing orcs and taking their stuff is D&D, regardless of what rules you are using to do it.




This really, at the end of the day no matter which edition you play they all contain the phrase: "The orcs notice you, roll for initiative"


----------



## Badwe (Sep 8, 2009)

edition wars aside, since this _is_ technically endorsing pathfinder, should it not then be moved to the pathfinder board?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 8, 2009)

Soraios said:


> One of the other posters here is dead-on right -- DMs end up running campaigns they wish they could play in.



Well, a good DM _tries _to run the campaign he would want to play in. 
An excellent DM _runs _the campaign he would want to play in.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 8, 2009)

Badwe said:


> edition wars aside, since this _is_ technically endorsing pathfinder, should it not then be moved to the pathfinder board?



Well, I am not a mod, but I don't think so. "Endorsing" Pathfinder is not the primary purpopse. 



			
				avin said:
			
		

> How I wish I could play one different edition per week ... =/



Hehe. I first read something like: "How I wish I could fight in a different edition war per week..."


----------



## Obryn (Sep 8, 2009)

Play the games you enjoy!

No need to have anyone here affirm your preferences.   Not every game is for every player.  Find the game that suits you, not the other way around.  I'm happily running 4e for my dungeon-bashy D&D game, and Call of Cthulhu for my roleplay-heavy rules-light game.  It works out well!!

-O


----------



## Mallus (Sep 8, 2009)

First off, cool. I hope you find the right tool to build your next campaign with. Now with that out of the way... 



Soraios said:


> * _The rules are in the background_.  The rules are not constantly superimposing themselves on my in-game experience.  Example: 4e marking.



You didn't feel that all the bookkeeping required by mid-to-high level 3.5e was intrusive? I sure did, then again, I was running a campaign that ended up with 4 full-progression spellcasters. We couldn't avoid a lot rules talk during heated battles.



> * _High level of player creativity in character design_.



Have you tried Mutants and Masterminds 2e for a fantasy campaign? It's a classless point-buy d20 variant (in case you didn't know). Which means it has the most flexible character generation system of any d20 game. Any character you can make using 3.5e/Pathfinder can be made using M&M2e, plus a metric ton of ones that simply can't/won't work under 3.5e. 

Plus, the game itself ends up being much easier to run that 3.5e.



> ...if my first exposure to D&D was 4e I'd probably say to myself after a few sessions, "why not play WoW instead?"  _IMO, Wizards forgot why people play D&D in the first place_.



Heh, our 4e games are nothing like a MMORPG, they're like more like a sloppy blend of Terry Pratchett and China Mieville's novels and Quentin Tarrantino's films, only with a lot of the quality removed. 

Also, another way to look at it is that Wizards rightly understood that most of the reasons people play D&D can't be found in the rule books, which explains why they provided a robust set of combat resolution tools, a loose framework for conflict resolution, and basically left the rest to the individuals playing.



> For these reasons, I'm starting a pathfinder campaign.



Again, good luck, and have you considered M&M2e? There's a new source book out now for it called Warriors and Warlocks, which is full of advice/fluff for running a pulp fantasy game.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2009)

Always go with what you like.  Life's too short for bad gaming.  Good for you.

Now, might I suggest, if you want a system where the rules don't intrude too much, there's this thing called Savage World's Explorer's Edition.  Might be right up your alley.

I know I'm loving it so far.


----------



## Mircoles (Sep 8, 2009)

What I get from your post is that you played 4e and didn't learn a thing about it. You likely went in to playing it wanting it to suck and making it suck by effort on your part.

Quite honestly, if person can't have fun playing 4e, there is something seriously wrong with them. 

The only reason that you didn't have fun is because you were determined not to. Which seems to be the case with every "we tried it, but didn't like it" thread.

And for the record, the "roles" have always been there and aren't anything new. Which you would know if you had put any real effort in learning the game and having fun, which you obviously didn't.

Also, I don't care what you play. Play what you like. But coming online and making threads like this just incites the edition wars and is compleatly uneeded.

*Admin here. Folks, this is a great example of how not to respond when someone writes something that offends you. Responding with antagonism, blanket statements, insults and the "truth" about what the other person must be thinking are all something that should be avoided. It's okay if not everyone likes the same game you do, and they may play it differently than you; that's okay as well. No one has the right to lecture people on what they should be playing.

If this is in the least bit unclear, feel free to PM me.  ~ PCat*


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 8, 2009)

Mircoles said:


> Quite honestly, if person can't have fun playing 4e, there is something seriously wrong with them.
> 
> The only reason that you didn't have fun is because you were determined not to. Which seems to be the case with every "we tried it, but didn't like it" thread.
> 
> ...




Practice what you preach and the world will be a happier place.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 8, 2009)

Mircoles said:


> Quite honestly, if person can't have fun playing 4e, there is something seriously wrong with them.



Sigh.

As soon as you make it about the person and not about the game, you're definitely part of the problem.

-O


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 8, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Play the games you enjoy!
> 
> No need to have anyone here affirm your preferences.   Not every game is for every player.  Find the game that suits you, not the other way around.  I'm happily running 4e for my dungeon-bashy D&D game, and Call of Cthulhu for my roleplay-heavy rules-light game.  It works out well!!
> 
> -O



I couldn't agree more. I'm running two 4e games and loving them, and I'm playing in a 3.5 game and loving that as well. On the edges I'm playing or running great games of Skulduggery, MnM, and 1e AD&D. Never feel you have to justify your choice, just play what you find fun.

The danger in these sorts of threads is that your experiences are surely very different than other peoples'. Generalizing will always cause people who haven't experienced your problems to disagree with you.

I do agree with one thing mentioned above. Whether it's 4e, 3e or something else, I'm of the opinion that playing a game you're determined to dislike usually makes it intrinsically harder to enjoy. I ran into that with Vampire: the Masquerade when I first played it. It took me some time before I appreciated the game on its own merits.


----------



## Wepwawet (Sep 8, 2009)

Edit: Blah blah (enough with the unnecessary posts )
Sorry, I was trying to edit my post, but I accidentally wrote a new one...



Soraios said:


> * _Vancian magic_.



This is the one thing that made me happy to move on to 4E, never looking back again.

When I DMed 3.5 my game had the entire system heavily house ruled (Unearthed Arcana FTW)


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 8, 2009)

Wepwawet said:


> Quite honestly, if you can't understand that each person's fun is his own matter, there is something seriously wrong with you



It's been dealt with by moderators. Let it lie, please.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> I couldn't agree more. I'm running two 4e games and loving them, and I'm playing in a 3.5 game and loving that as well. On the edges I'm playing or running great games of Skulduggery, MnM, and 1e AD&D. Never feel you have to justify your choice, just play what you find fun.
> /snip




You get to play in 3 games at once?  

I hate you.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 8, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> The danger in these sorts of threads is that your experiences are surely very different than other peoples'. Generalizing will always cause people who haven't experienced your problems to disagree with you.



I also think that folks who post on RPG messageboards - whether it's a result of fan culture, the interwebs, or human nature - have a problem categorizing something as "A good thing that's well-made, and which others may enjoy for legitimate reasons, but which does not fit my tastes."

Even worse, there's sometimes a tendency to extrapolate a bit too far - to claim there's something wrong with a _person_ who likes or dislikes something.  That somehow a person's preference of a game system (or movie, or series of books) puts their deep-seated character flaws on display.  (Like, say, enjoying minions means that you're such a failure and so impotent in real life that you need your character to be enormously badass to compensate.  Or that enjoying rules-light games means you're just not smart enough to play with the big kids in a rules-heavy game.)  It's a crummy line of argument, which turns what could be a nice discussion about the merits and flaws of a game system into an ad-hominem discussion of the merits and flaws of a person.

-O


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 8, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> This really, at the end of the day no matter which edition you play they all contain the phrase: "The orcs notice you, roll for initiative"



Yes! "Roll for initiative" is one of the greatest phrases in the English language.


----------



## Shazman (Sep 8, 2009)

Soraios said:


> I've been a player in a 4e campaign since the release of the edition.  Prior to that, I DM'd and played extensively in a series of 3.x campaigns.  I have tried to adapt to the new system (for the sake of my friend who DMs it), but I can't keep playing 4e; the game itself is driving me crazy.
> 
> I don't think 3.x is perfect.  High-level encounters, for instance, can be very complicated.  But 3.x is superior to 4e in these ways:
> 
> ...




Good for you.  You aren't the first to become disillusioned with 4E and switch to something you like better, and you most certainly won't be the last.


----------



## malraux (Sep 8, 2009)

Edition War?

[grabs chair and readies it uncertainly]




Not to be too critical Soraios, but is there anything in general you want to discuss about your change of rules, or did you just want to announce it?


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 8, 2009)

The D&D brand name has been applied to games so different that someone can easily be enthusiastic about one and find others thoroughly disappointing. It's sort of strange to me that some people should have stuck with 2e and 3e when 4e is the kind of game they really like -- but I'm sure there's plenty of strangeness from each perspective.

Some things are matters of degree, so that a really old hand might say of 3e some of what a 3e fan says of 4e. It's a matter not just of "the trees" but of "the forest". Talk about the new games is strange and stranger to my ears because it's increasingly devoted to concerns, and in jargon, that have more in common with computer games.

What "detailed tactical combat rules" meant back when FRP was a spin-off from historical gaming might seem as bizarre to the video-game set as their concept does to "grognards". Ditto a lot of other things.

I don't know about WoW, but 4e definitely does *not* feel to me like _The Fantasy Trip: Melee_, or _DragonQuest_. It's not just a matter of squares instead of hexes -- the whole fundamental set of premises is different. Nor does it feel to me like any other RPG of which I can think offhand in terms of character generation. The amount of attention to combat factors reminds me most of _Champions_, which however has the context of a lot of rules for all sorts of things.

Those games came out almost 30 years ago. They were popular about the same time as Chaosium's _RuneQuest_, which I think at least one designer of 3e mentioned as an influence. The game certainly evoked for me a sense of "flashback" to a 1980s ethos -- but at least as much a GURPS or a Hero System (4th ed.) as an AD&D one. What I've seen of the late 2e Players Option books seems like a precursor.

From what I gather of stagnation of salaries in the field, my guess is that younger folks -- with a different set of formative adventure-game experiences -- led the design and development of 4e.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 8, 2009)

I hear ya man.

My group tried no less than  aborted 4e games since the game's inception.

1. I DMed a traditional D&D game from levels 1-5. The game died when my players wished to return to the 3.5/Eberron game I was running before 4e came out.

2. Another player ran a 4e Realms game lvl 1-5 (including Spellgard) before ending it due to conflicting schedules. No one was terribly upset to see it go.

3. My primary DM tried Twice. Once running a "humanoids" game (only monster races, not the classic races) designed to have a "for the Horde" feel. It made it 5 sessions level 1-3 (including the Hall of the Mountain King module from GG) before ending mid-dungeon because of player disinterest.

4. Convinced it was the very "WoW" feel of the monster-game, he tried again with "normal" races and classes (abet a homebrewed setting) that lasted 3 sessions before proving to us that no, it wasn't the setting, it was the rules all along.

I went into all four games gung-ho that 4e was amazing and everyone else would like it as well (In fact, all 3 DMs above bought into the game very hardcore before actually playing. No one had a "wait and see" attitude except a two players, one in each group). It was a bunch of things that wore us down.

* Slow, sluggish combats that took forever. We're not a huge "combat-heavy" group, so when a combat against 4 giant spiders takes 30 minutes to complete, we were considering playing some Mario Party instead...

* "Sameyness" of character classes. I played (since I had a PC die and one leave) a swordmage, wizard, rogue (1 session), warlord, and artificer. None sparked my interest. The swordmage did for a bit and the wizard was fun because I built him to be a power-swap PC. I was bored to tears as a warlord, and the artificer felt EXACTLY like him except for being a ranged character. Other people who swapped characters felt similar, esp. those who swapped in the same ROLE. 

* The Math. While D&D has never been forgiving, we found our math downright BRUTAL. In Spellgard we routinely fought monsters hittable on 16+ because we didn't optimize to within an inch of our lives. My swordmage landed his encounter power ONCE in 3 sessions! Save-ends powers were a joke; the 50/50 save mechanic meant more often than not that "kewl power" you just landed (easy target) had a duration of "1 rd" and were pointless against boss monsters (solos & elites) the creatures you WANT to debuff and fight!

* Poor modules. Spellgard was a long and boring slog through the tower of random encounters to meet a bad guy we didn't even know was the final boss until we killed him (anti-climax away). Perhaps WotC can't write good modules then? Well, Goodman Games (of which DCCs are a lifeblood to us) failed to put out much better a module in Hall of the Mountain King; rife with poor rule understanding (A level 9 monster's a decent challenge for 1st level PCs, says so right in the encounter budget!) and lousy encounters (Two ogres, 20x20 room. WHA?). To really bad examples? Probably. Bad enough that I felt 4e crippled two fairly good module writers? Yup. I can't see how the same companies that put out Red Hand of Doom and Cage of Delerium could release such poor work like this one edition later. 

* Supplement Treadmill. As someone who bought every WotC release up to 2007 (when money trouble made it harder to buy the later stuff) I generally liked most WotC supplements. However, I grew to dislike the "staggered release" schedule WotC is using. I disliked how I had to wait for PHB2 and MM2 to get some 'Iconic" elements in the game (like druids and frost giants) and how characters without the "PowerSource Power" books are behind their enhanced cousins (esp. wizards, paladins and clerics). Sure a DDi subscription gives me access to all that stuff, but since I lack a laptop at game, I find (unlike 3e) supplements aren't optional, they're NECESSARY to compensate for design choices as well as stealth-errata (Expertise).

4 separate games. 3 different DMs. 10 months of gaming. We'd all tried it. We all WANTED to like it. It failed for us. Even our WoW lovers hated it. We've moved on to Pathfinder and everyone is happy.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 8, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Some things are matters of degree, so that a really old hand might say of 3e some of what a 3e fan says of 4e. It's a matter not just of "the trees" but of "the forest". Talk about the new games is strange and stranger to my ears because it's increasingly devoted to concerns, and in jargon, that have more in common with computer games.
> 
> What "detailed tactical combat rules" meant back when FRP was a spin-off from historical gaming might seem as bizarre to the video-game set as their concept does to "grognards". Ditto a lot of other things.




4e actually would be bucking the trend if it was made into a computer RPG. More than any other edition, 4e NEEDS to be a turn-based, position-based RPG but frankly, turn-based anything in computer gaming is considered OLD SCHOOL. 

It's why the claim 4e is like WoW is so weird to my ears. 4e's closest computer RPG are the japanese tactical RPGs like Disgaea which are all niche markets.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 8, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> This really, at the end of the day no matter which edition you play they all contain the phrase: "The orcs notice you, roll for initiative"




Unless you're playing a Ninja.



Badwe said:


> edition wars aside, since this _is_ technically endorsing pathfinder, should it not then be moved to the pathfinder board?


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 8, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> We all WANTED to like it.




I know you're being honest here because I remember lots of posts where you were very favorable toward 4E.

To see such a dramatic change is surprising.  I'll be interested to see how Pathfinder does for you and your group(s) in the longer term.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 8, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> 4e actually would be bucking the trend if it was made into a computer RPG. More than any other edition, 4e NEEDS to be a turn-based, position-based RPG but frankly, turn-based anything in computer gaming is considered OLD SCHOOL.




Old school is the best school as far as I'm concerned. Never liked real-time, multi-character games. If I'm managing a multiple character group, I want turn-based games.
I'd definitely check out a turn-based computer RPG based on 4e even if I don't like it on the tabletop as my main RPG.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 8, 2009)

For our group, 4E is working fine, but to each his own.  We did some test sessions before settling on it...and part of the decider for us was how 4E jettisoned elements that we didn't like or felt had long overstayed their welcome.  I can understand that it doesn't work for everyone.

I just know that when my players took down a dinosaur on an island filled with pirates on Friday...no one felt the system was restricting them.


----------



## avin (Sep 8, 2009)

Shazman said:


> Good for you.  You aren't the first to become disillusioned with 4E and switch to something you like better, and you most certainly won't be the last.




This is how I felt when left my old good GURPS games to 2E AD&D, which by that time I hated with all my strenght.

Then, after my internal "system war" get cold I found Baldur's Gate and have a lot of fun. Icewind Dale and Planescape turn my mood from I HATE D&D to "hey, it's not that bad on a PC".

Thanks to these games I found the best game evar: Fallout I.

The same way some people is disillusioned with 4E a lot of people will be disillusioned with Pathfinder, including me. I'm also have no illusions that lots of 4E points I dislike won't change until 5E hits...

No edition is perfect. 3.5 wasn't. 4E isn't.


----------



## amerigoV (Sep 8, 2009)

I get to play in one sporadic 4e game (at best, every other week). Although I enjoy the system, I am not sure it is the system for our group. There is a strong teamwork aspect of the game that is hard for a group of us old, busy in real life gamers to keep up on (since the game is sporadic, it seems to require more reading to figure out how the group can best work together). Several of us have been eyeing Savage Worlds for this reason (I am not dissing 4e, but it just may not fit our needs - and 3.5 was not the best fit either).

On 4e being WoW-like. I play WOW and I too do not get the same feel. However, I played (and really enjoyed) the Baulders Gate series but did not like 2e. The fact that the numbers are in the background does change the feel of the game. If one was to make a video game of 4e, it might play more like WOW than at the table top. The only D&D video game that I have played that "plays" like the tabletop version was Trioka's Temple of Elemental Evil. The engine was turn-based and about a faithful an adoption to the 3.x rules as you could get. Thus, it "felt" like the table top version.


----------



## Oryan77 (Sep 8, 2009)

I agree with everything that every single person has said about every single problem and every single good quality with every single edition.

I played 2e cause I didn't know any better, but it was awesome until I realized I didn't know any of the rules. 

So I switched to 3e cause the rules were so much better than 2e rules, but then the Harm spell sucked so I switched to 3.5. 

3.5 rocked cause they fixed a bunch of stuff that was broken in 3.0, but then 3.5 Fighters sucked, high levels sucked, and the rules bogged me down. So I switched to 4e. 

4e was the bomb cause it was easy to learn & I was a badass at level 1...but the sameness sucked, and pigeonholed roles sucked, so I switched to Pathfinder. 

Pathfinder was nice, but I'm not really sure why, and then it sucked because it's not made by WotC, so then I tried OD&D. 

OD&D was nice cause I can be more free with the rules, but OD&D sucked cause people said I'm too oldschool and that sucks. So I switched back to 2e.

2e was awesome again cause that's what I started with and it brought back a lot of memories. But then I realized that I still didn't know any of the rules. So I switched to 3.0.

3.0 was cool again cause I remembered how much easier the rules were, but then I realized the Harm spell was still way too broken. So I switched to 3.5 again.

3.5 rocked again cause.....


----------



## avin (Sep 8, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> *snip*




Your post is REDICULOUS! Nonsense edition loop! Everybody knows YOU ARE WRONG and the best edition is- ALL HAIL THE HYPNO TOAD!

(XP granted)


----------



## Stereofm (Sep 8, 2009)

To the OP :

Join us man ! Play Pathfinder !


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 8, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> I know you're being honest here because I remember lots of posts where you were very favorable toward 4E.
> 
> To see such a dramatic change is surprising.  I'll be interested to see how Pathfinder does for you and your group(s) in the longer term.




If you had told me that "Next year, not only would you have given up on 4e, you'd be playing two OGL games and loving it" I'd have thought you were cracked. Nevertheless, here I stand.

Will things remain perfect? No. I'll find flaws and start patching hole again. But for now, everyone is happy. Warrior fans got a boost (crit-status ailments, high-level feats and abilities) casters feel they're playing actual wizards and clerics again. Some of my concerns will remain (large statblocks, mutli-book cross-referencing SLAs) I think its a better over-all alternative to the game we want to play than 4e was.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Sep 8, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> I agree with everything that every single person has said about every single problem and every single good quality with every single edition.
> 
> I played 2e cause I didn't know any better, but it was awesome until I realized I didn't know any of the rules.
> 
> ...



This is why _The Worm Ouroboros_ is required reading for D&D.


----------



## Cyronax (Sep 8, 2009)

Well I can't recommend Pathfinder. (I haven't checked it out yet, but if its based off of 3.5 it can't be all bad). That said, the OP said that he liked SWSE and had hoped it'd show up more in 4e. I couldn't agree with that statment more. 

So I can deliver the next best thing, Final Fantasy SAGA rules: Final Fantasy Saga: Final Fantasy in the d20 Saga System. 

Its not my creation! Its not my creation, but I can't recommend this website enough for people who like Talents and enjoy aspect of 3.5 and 4e. 

I would run a campaign using the SWSE corebook (for the Talents, Skills, barebones combat, and general play rules and some equipment) and nearly all things from this website. 

My two cents,

C.I.D.


----------



## Soraios (Sep 8, 2009)

I appreciate all the responses.  My intent was not to inflame the Edition Wars so much as to see what others' experience was after playing 4e for awhile.

I wanted to like 4e.  I have been in the same gaming group for 9 years.  The last thing I wanted to do was quit the group because i can't stand the interaction between this system and our current roster of players.

If you can have fun playing 4e, then you have my sincerest admiration.  You will play a game that has excellent support products and the backing of a giant company.  I wish I liked it, but I don't.


----------



## Thanlis (Sep 8, 2009)

Soraios said:


> I appreciate all the responses.  My intent was not to inflame the Edition Wars so much as to see what others' experience was after playing 4e for awhile.




It's been a pretty decent thread as these things go. 

IMHO, the key is to remember that the people having fun playing 4e are not idiots and they don't have some covert motive for liking the game. Likewise for Pathfinder. Likewise for OSR games. If something is driving you nuts but isn't upsetting other people, it is probably not a universal problem. 

GURPS players, on the other hand, are dangerous freaks.


----------



## mmadsen (Sep 8, 2009)

Gentlegamer said:


> This is why _The Worm Ouroboros_ is required reading for D&D.



Well played, Gentlegamer.  (Joking aside, I too recommend _The Worm Ouroboros_, but only if you enjoy archaic language and Goblins that aren't goblins, Demons that aren't demons, etc.)


----------



## Votan (Sep 8, 2009)

Cyronax said:


> That said, the OP said that he liked SWSE and had hoped it'd show up more in 4e. I couldn't agree with that statment more.




I'd add a third agreement to this statement.  I am still figuring out 4E (my current gaming group prefers 3.X; heavily house ruled) but I really enjoyed the elegance of SWSE.  It seemed to take the best features of both systems.  

In particular, despite some rough edges (low levels with UtF skill focus), the force powers seem to work extremely well and they balanced Jedi and non-Jedi (which was no small feat).  

I'm still contemplating starting up a separate 4E game and have read a fair number of the books (I think I own a dozen) so I'm definitely given the new system a chance.


----------



## coyote6 (Sep 8, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I haven't played any 4E beyond the heroic tier level. I do play WOW and have a level 80 toon. I see some similarities in the combat mechanics and the disenchanting of magic items into components is very WOW like.




It's kind of WoW-like, in that WoW lets you disenchant items into raw materials. But in WoW, you get approximately a zillion different kinds of materials, depending on the item's level and rarity. AFAIK, in 4e, you get residuum from everything. Also, you don't have to grind up an Enchanting skill in D&D, which IMO makes for a massively different (and better; skill grinding largely sucks) feel. 



ExploderWizard said:


> In WOW you can play on several different servers (campaigns) and the play experience will be the same. Different DM's can make playing two different games of D&D vastly different experiences.




Well, the experience on a PvP server might differ from that on a PvE server -- less ganking, anyways. But, yeah, the real person who GMs makes a huge difference. The suckiest system in the world could be a fun game, with the right GM. (And right players, too, of course!)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 8, 2009)

Thanlis said:


> GURPS players, on the other hand, are dangerous freaks.




I am a GURPS player. This is true.


----------



## Maggan (Sep 8, 2009)

*I was done with 4e*

My perspective is one based on conflicting experiences.

My favourite RPGs are Call of Cthulhu and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Any edition, so far. It's all great fun.

I primarily run these games for my group, and have a somewhat similar style when doing so. Lots of social interaction, investigation, few combats, abstract battles not using minis, event based and so on.

The kind of adventures where my group choses not to play D&D. That's what I do best. I ran Tomb of Horrors, and it sucked. I ran Iron Kingdoms, and it turned into WFRP.

But the allure of D&D is always there. I've played D&D since 1984, and have fond memories of the Expert Set opening up outdoor adventuring and exploration on a scale I hadn't seen before. So I played D&D BECM up to level 26, then played Dragonlance and Ravenloft and other classic stuff. Good stuff and bad stuff.

When D&D4 was released, we decided we wanted to try it. One DM bravely took Keep on the Shadowfell and ran us through it. The resulting experience nearly tore our group apart. We couldn't agree on how to play the game, I hated it, and the tactical parts of it were uninteresting to me. Counting squares ... argh!

So I said that I would never play D&D4 again. And some other said they'd never play any previous edition again, because they loved the elements I hated in 4e. So no D&D for us.

It was a strange experience. So we went on to Dark Heresy, with another GM. Then there was a shakeup due to working schedules, and we lost our DH GM. So what to do ...

I stepped up and ran a WFRP arc that was nigh on perfectly executed both by me and the players. It was loads of fun, and it had everything I love about playing roleplaying games. But it took its toll on me, and when we wrapped up the seven sessions, I was a bit burned out on deep and complex plots. And I wanted to try something different, move out of my comfort zone, to see if I could learn something that made my WFRP games a lot better. Things can always be approved, is my belief.

So I bought Dungeon Delve. We created new PCs. I concocted a flimsy campaign premise, and then we dived into it. Very much focused on tactical combat and character advancement. I was planning on running a few of the delves while we were deciding on what to do next.

Sitting on the DM side of the screen totally changed my opinion of the game. I loved it. And the players loved it. We had had our internal flame war on play styles, expectations and pros and cons and all that, and we emerged with a greater understanding of what we wanted from the game.

The delves segued into Scales of War, and that will segue into Revenge of the Giants. The players are psyched, and we are chugging along. Before, we would change games every 7 or 8 sessions (we play once a week), but now we soldier on. D&D4 scratches a lot of itches that my players like to have scratched, while still being fun for me to run.

It doesn't play like CoC or WFRP. And for me it shouldn't. I just need to learn or even relearn how to make the game more D&D:ish, and drop some conceits I've adopted from running other games. To make the experience more like what my group thinks of as D&D. It's all possible within the rules, I just have to work a bit harder to bring it to the surface, since I'm entrenched in my primary style of game mastering.

So the short of it. I understand and respect the opinions of those who feel D&D4 is not a game for them. I've been there myself, and I hated the game. At the same time I think I understand the opinions of those who feel D&D4e is their kind of game. That's where I am now.

I think I would reject playing a PC in D&D4, but I love DMing it. At the same time, if someone said "show me your best game running skills" I wouldn't pick D&D4, instead opting for WFRP.

Strange that, to find conflicting views on the game, all wrapped up in one single gamer. 

/M


----------



## Iron Sky (Sep 8, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, a good DM _tries _to run the campaign he would want to play in.
> An excellent DM _runs _the campaign he would want to play in.




I generally agree with this rule, but I've run campaigns I would have had no desire to play in (at least as it turned out going).

For example, I had a d20 modern game I ran that was intended to be a monster-hunting game and ended up being a survival-horror mystery game (that I used to have no desire to play - now I'm more open).


----------



## BlightCrawler (Sep 8, 2009)

Soraios said:


> With 3.x's bloat issues (particularly for prestige classes), the solution was simply to exercise DM control and exclude the material you didn't want.  4e's problems are _inherent_.  You can't play 4e without being smacked in the face with design issues every single session.




Wait. You like 3E's rule system better because it's easier to ignore the rules system? 

Uh, yeah. What you want is an excuse to tell campfire stories, then, not a game system. Playing the rules and using the rules is part of the fun. It's also a part of good game design.

Because I've played 3E and its problems are just as inherent. They cannot be ignored.  Well, unless you've played the game for years and got used to them. Then you don't ignore them, you just internalize them.

Not liking 4E is fine, but wanting a game you can ignore is baffling. It tells me that you don't actually want a _game_. You want improv tools and cooperative stories. I'd suggest you check out the Jeepform style of roleplaying.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 8, 2009)

BlightCrawler said:


> Wait. You like 3E's rule system better because it's easier to ignore the rules system?




I don't think that's what he said. 

If you're really interested in understanding the OP...I think what he's getting at is that 4e is a much more gamist system as opposed to simulationist.  For some people a more simulationist system allows them to get into the imersion of the game better... for others a gamist system does a better job... for the OP he seems to prefer a simulationist system, simple as that. 



BlightCrawler said:


> Uh, yeah. What you want is an excuse to tell campfire stories, then, not a game system. Playing the rules and using the rules is part of the fun. It's also a part of good game design.




Wow is that what he wants?  Really, because I got a totally different impression by actually reading and thinking about what he posted.  Instead of just trying to fling snark.



BlightCrawler said:


> Because I've played 3E and its problems are just as inherent. They cannot be ignored.  Well, unless you've played the game for years and got used to them. Then you don't ignore them, you just internalize them.




So you agree both systems have problems (albeit different problems)?  Then why is it so hard to grasp that someone might prefer dealing or working around one set of problems as opposed to another?  Why do you seem to think choosing to deal with a set of problems different from the one's you choose to deal with is somehow wrong?



BlightCrawler said:


> Not liking 4E is fine, but wanting a game you can ignore is baffling. It tells me that you don't actually want a _game_. You want improv tools and cooperative stories. I'd suggest you check out the Jeepform style of roleplaying.




Apparently disliking 4e is not alright (at least with you).  You're using hyperbole, he never said he wanted a system to ignore... he said he wanted a system that was less intrusive to his game.


----------



## mmadsen (Sep 8, 2009)

BlightCrawler said:


> What you want is an excuse to tell campfire stories, then, not a game system.



No, what he wants is an old-school game that doesn't pretend the rules can model anything and everything that might come up in free-form play.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 8, 2009)

Soraios said:


> I appreciate all the responses.  My intent was not to inflame the Edition Wars so much as to see what others' experience was after playing 4e for awhile.



We played it to 3rd level.  (Five sessions, I think?)  It was ... okay.

Perhaps oddly, I agree with almost all of your observations about 4E, but I still don't hate it.  I hate aspects of the rules (quite a lot), but I like aspects of the rules (quite a lot).  The weirdest example of this split is that I really like healing surges and HP ... yet really hate the overall healing rules.

We may play 4E again (game is currently in limbo due to football season and the DM's obsession with it).  Nobody is against playing, but nor is anybody clamoring for it.  It's just kinda _blah_.  I know that I'll never DM it, and I know that I'll never get attached and obsessive over my 4E PC like I do over my other PCs.  But I'll play it, if the game continues.


----------



## Arawn76 (Sep 8, 2009)

mmadsen said:


> no, what he wants is an old-school game that doesn't pretend the rules can model anything and everything that might come up in free-form play.




becmi?


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 8, 2009)

BlightCrawler, that's a looong stretch from what I read in Soraios' post. Sorry: nothing there about "ignoring the rules system" -- just a desire not to have it get in the way as 4e apparently does for Soraios. I happen to prefer 1e and its ilk partly because I find 3e too cumbersome. Does someone "not actually want a game" but prefer "cooperative stories" because he or she chooses 4e instead of, say, _Chivalry & Sorcery_, _RoleMaster_ or _Powers & Perils_?


----------



## enrious (Sep 8, 2009)

BlightCrawler said:


> Wait. You like 3E's rule system better because it's easier to ignore the rules system?




Wow, that isn't even close to what he wrote.  He said there was a lot of "bloat" in 3e (and gave the example of more and more prestige classes), but by pruning things down to the essentially the core of 3e by going close to the core 3 books ("the core system"), but in his opinion that wasn't even an option in 4e as "the core system" of 4e is unpalatable for his/their tastes.

I sincerely don't understand how you could reply to what he said with what you did.



> Uh, yeah. What you want is an excuse to tell campfire stories, then, not a game system. Playing the rules and using the rules is part of the fun. It's also a part of good game design.




Combative opening statement undermines a faulty premise (that playing and using the rules is part of the fun, presumably for everyone).



> Because I've played 3E and its problems are just as inherent. They cannot be ignored.  Well, unless you've played the game for years and got used to them. Then you don't ignore them, you just internalize them.




As has been said elsewhere, I don't think they tend to be the same issues, althought I agree both have inherent problems.  I think happiness is reached when you find the system with the problems you can live with.



> Not liking 4E is fine, but wanting a game you can ignore is baffling. It tells me that you don't actually want a _game_. You want improv tools and cooperative stories. I'd suggest you check out the Jeepform style of roleplaying.




Faulty premise still faulty.  I understand this is a continuation of your original paragraph, but please reconsider this in light of what he actually wrote.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 8, 2009)

pascale said:


> I find this interesting. As a casual observer of WoW I notice the simmiliarities right away. (Treasure parcels, marking/agro, recharge times on powers, perception/surprise rules - monster sight radiouse, the artwork, etc) But actually hardcore players say they don't see it.
> 
> Now I say I'm a casual observer of WoW as i do not play it, I tried got a toon up to level 8 (Yippy-skippy, I know) I used to work in a LAN gaming center and that was the game of chioce, my sister in law and her bf are addicted to it, so I watched them play when i spent a month staying with them.
> 
> Yet, the wow players with level 80 toons say they don't see the simmiliarities at all.




I'm a WoW player.  I have 2 80s, 6 or 8 characters (I refuse to use the term "toon") in the 60-70ish range.  I love WoW for what it does, but I don't want any of that anywhere near my tabletop games.  I see the similarities in 4e, and that's one of the reasons why I don't like it.  Any tabletop rpg that attempts to emulate a video game will fall far short of the real thing - just like any video game that trys to emulate a tabletop game will fall short.  4e trys to be a hybrid, and unlike peanut butter and chocolate, it just doesn't work.


----------



## Votan (Sep 8, 2009)

Arawn76 said:


> becmi?




Basic D&D and the systems that followed it (expert et al) that was later combined into the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.  Back inthe day it was the alternative to AD&D (advanced dungeons and dragons).  By the era of 3rd edition of AD&D, we were back to calling AD&D as D&D as the basic D7D line had ceased bing published.


----------



## Soraios (Sep 8, 2009)

I want to thank many of you for making my points better than I did.  Seriously.  

The interesting part of this is that I think I'm alone in my opinion in the game group.  Many of them are D&D Miniatures players and they really love the 'gamist' bits.  

I agree that learning 3.x is no easy chore, especially for a newbie.  However, once we knew the system, it receded into the background as we played the game.  I guess my feeling on 4e was that it's "artificialness" kept intruding on my gameplay experience.  But others at the table were apparently fine with it.

I have other beefs too ... the relative lack of content in the PHB compared to 3.5 PHB ... the difficulty of actually hitting with your encounter/daily powers unless you min-maxed the character ... the list goes on.  But I am glad that there are those besides my table-mates that enjoy it.


----------



## Ravellion (Sep 8, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> just like any video game that trys to emulate a tabletop game will fall short.



Can I be the first to disagree with this (and its counterpart)? The examples of good D&D computer games that stay close to the spirit and somtimes even the letter of the rules are numerous to say the least.

In fact, WoW and Everquest, and Ultima Online (to trace back the pedigree) are in a way derived by the cultural stamp D&D put on fantasy in general, IMO.


----------



## delericho (Sep 8, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> * Poor modules... Two really bad examples? Probably. Bad enough that I felt 4e crippled two fairly good module writers? Yup. I can't see how the same companies that put out Red Hand of Doom and Cage of Delerium could release such poor work like this one edition later.




I'm not familiar with "Cage of Delerium", but "Red Hand of Doom" was really _the_ outstanding adventure from WotC in recent years (rivalled only by "The Sinister Spire" IMO). A lot of their other efforts were fairly lacklustre, and some very poor indeed. So, perhaps it's not that the 4e modules are especially poor, but rather that you've remembered only the best of what has gone before?

With modules in particular, I do think it is important to look not just at the company responsible, but also the particular author. "Red Hand of Doom" was written by Richard Baker (who is usually good value) and James Jacobs (who has a long and impressive record with Paizo, and who at the time was helming a Dungeon magazine that was in something of a golden age). I think it's also possible that WotC just haven't had their 'big guns' write the adventures thus far.

(Of course, "Red Hand of Doom" was also one of the last modules produced before WotC switched to the 'Delve Format'. It may well be that this format constrains authors enough to knock some off their games. Although I rate "The Sinister Spire" very highly, and that uses that format, so maybe not.)


----------



## delericho (Sep 8, 2009)

BlightCrawler said:


> Wait. You like 3E's rule system better because it's easier to ignore the rules system?




That's not what he said. There's a difference between dealing with bloat by not permitting a whole bunch of Prestige Classes, and dealing with rules issues by ignoring the rules on Grappling (for example). What he said resembled the former rather than the latter.

That said...



> Because I've played 3E and its problems are just as inherent.




You're right about this. 3e has problems at high levels that are a feature of the system and are very difficult to get around (complex math, too many buffs and debuffs, turns taking forever to resolve... I think we know them by now).

Honestly, I'm not sure it's meaningful to say "3e is better than 4e" or "4e is better than 3e". They're just very different games. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and some will prefer one, others the other. (Of course, one could say, "Xe is better than Ye _for me_".)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 8, 2009)

> I appreciate all the responses. My intent was not to inflame the Edition Wars so much as to see what others' experience was after playing 4e for awhile.




After playing 4e almost since it came out, I can only (still) give a conflicted opinion. 

A lot of what people are raving about in 4e, I could care less about, or find that 3e does better. Tactical combats? Whoop-dee-doodle-doo, I still hate counting squares, and I find the roles and the powers systems absolutely dull. Free-form DMing? I am more comfortable with a system that handles everything neutrally like 3e than I am with 4e's constant hassle to make stuff up. Ease of monster design? Dude, reskinning and fiddling with numbers is as old as the d20, I don't need 4e to tell me to do that. The suspension of disbelief is in many ways kiboshed, and the sense of the world existing independent of the game has been reduced to an irrelevancy. 

For me, combats always were an important part of D&D, but they weren't the entirety of the game by any measure, and 4e's weakening of many non-combat aspects into mostly "everyone does the same thing all the time and no one cares, you don't need rules for roleplay!" blah is not appreciated by me. 

That said, it does a lot of things right. I appreciate a system that fixes the math, that tries to get rid of accidental suck (overpower I'm less concerned with). The combats are smooth and work absolutely as advertised. The rewards system in 4e is leaps and bounds better than 3e's "Big Six." A lot of the sacred cows of D&D that were truly useless (iterative attacks? slot-based magic?) have been deservedly thrown to the moon never to return. A lot of these things might not sound like much, but they make it VERY hard to go to Pathfinder for me, which improves in many ways, but retains a lot of narm-worthy elements in the name of backwards compatability. 

I'm kind of the philosophy that we need more than Pathfinder can give us, but probably not as big of a change as 4e gave us. I liked 3e, and from my perspective, there's a lot of stuff that can stand to be changed, but there's also things that I wouldn't change for the sake of changing. 4e is mostly a totally different beast, and it's good at what it does, what it does just isn't the only reason I play D&D. 4e is probably also easier to add stuff onto because it's much more modular than 3e, while 3e was more fun to fiddle with because it didn't have that modularity (a change like "dwarves are small-sized" is significant in 3e, but is mostly fluff in 4e). 

4e is solid enough that I don't want to give it up, but I miss a lot of what 3e could do, and I'm trying to find ways to meld the two better. I think 4e can stomach a lot of additions to make it play more like the game I want -- better than 3e can stomach the changes, anyway.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 8, 2009)

Soraios said:


> I appreciate all the responses.  My intent was not to inflame the Edition Wars so much as to see what others' experience was after playing 4e for awhile.




I like 4E, but I have one major complaint.  I call it "Power Fixation", and that is when people stop thinking about the game world and focus on their powers.  They don't think of a character interacting with a fictional world, they think about the number of mechanical choices the game offers them.

I think that's one of the reasons combats last so long - players have so many choices to make.  If the choices were fiction-based, the "right" one may be more obvious to any given player.

I think that attitude can extend out of combat as well.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Sep 9, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> Maybe we could just have a meta-thread, "Edition War", and merge all these threads into it? A thousand pages of pointless arguing over whose edition sucks the most. It would probably become self-aware by this time next year.




COuld we do this?  Please?  It seems edition wars will never die* so the administration might as well give the people what they want.


*they just get more boring.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Sep 9, 2009)

Soraios said:


> I'm a newcomer to ENworld and have doubtless underestimated the volume of posts on this subject.  I was merely expressing my opinion based on my experience.  I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, and I was curious to hear from those who tried 4e and switched back, or not, after a year of playing the new system.




Oh you'll probably draw some 'heat' as it were for this thread but don't let that keep you from posting more often.  Some people (well _gamers_ *ick* ) are unusually sensitive about the edition they play it seems.  Myself I play, and enjoy, most editions of D&D and am going to start trying to get my groups to play some different games in the future.  Believe it or not all D&D all the time (regardless of edition) gets a little boring after 25 years


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> I like 4E, but I have one major complaint.  I call it "Power Fixation", and that is when people stop thinking about the game world and focus on their powers.  They don't think of a character interacting with a fictional world, they think about the number of mechanical choices the game offers them.
> 
> I think that's one of the reasons combats last so long - players have so many choices to make.  If the choices were fiction-based, the "right" one may be more obvious to any given player.
> 
> I think that attitude can extend out of combat as well.





I also think "power fixation" in 4e is, in part (actually a major part), caused by the fact that most of your powers will be based on your highest attribute (along with your weapon/implement/etc. bonus) and thus maximized better than most things ad-hoc'd you come up with based on any other attribute.  Also tactically it is better to go with the bonus I know is good as opposed to the bonus that *might* be as good or better from the DM.  

I honestly think this is one of the pitfalls of having the Power structure in a game that has a large part of it's play devoted to tactical combat. 

 I also have noticed that IMO, the "team" dynamics in 4e really preclude those who may for, in-character reasons or whatever, want to roleplay their character in a sub-optimal fashion in certain situations (such as a character role-playing their fear of snakes, in a combat involving snakes).  Instead their actions can have a much more pronounced effect upon the success or failure of their team as a whole in 4e than in other editions and thus I think it pushes (if not outright forces) everyone to play to their tactical as opposed to narrative or simulationist best.  YMMV of course


----------



## Roland55 (Sep 9, 2009)

Crothian said:


> Good for you, Pathfinder is a good game.  4e works for some groups but not all of them.  Just like Pathfinder will work for some groups but not all of them.  There is nothing wrong with playing a game and realizing it is not the game for you no matter what the game is or what the reasons are.




Hmm.  Perhaps we should have this engraved on the ENWorld Homepage.  Not forever, mind, but for at least a few more years ...


----------



## Roland55 (Sep 9, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> I know you're being honest here because I remember lots of posts where you were very favorable toward 4E.
> 
> To see such a dramatic change is surprising.  I'll be interested to see how Pathfinder does for you and your group(s) in the longer term.




I had a sadly similar experience.

About 7 months with 3 groups.  Did not go well ... for me.  4E is clearly a great game -- my mind can tell that.  It's something else about me that's the problem.

I haven't totally given up, but I can't make myself "click" yet with the new rules.  Since I really don't have much time to play, those were 7 sad months.


----------



## Metus (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm sort of in the boat as Kamikaze Midget in that I'm glad 4e has some changes that 3e needed, but I don't like other 4e changes.

For me, I was all excited about 3rd edition when it was coming out, and out of scale of enjoyment of 1-10, when 3rd edition first came out it was a 9 for me.  Loved it.

With 4th edition, I was wary, but I started getting more and more stoked, more excited.  When it came out, I was crushingly disappointed, as it basically seemed like an MMORPG (not necessarily WoW) in paper form.

That being said, I've found that after seeing 4e, I can't go back to 3e due to the (now) glaring flaws that exist in the system, and exist even in Pathfinder.  Yet at the same time, I'm not really blown away by 4e.  When 4e first came out, it was a 4/10 for me, now a 5.  3rd edition is now a 4/10.

I remember a poster from a previous edition comparison thread mentioning that 4e has improved on enough so that 3rd edition looks shabby, but 4e problems make it look shabby as well.  I'm the same, and so now I have no D&D that I like.  To compound the issue, I don't even like the alternative systems, as I hate-hate-hate-hate WFRP (the funky, over-the-top setting and starting as a rat-catcher and "improving" to different "jobs"?  No thank you) and other fantasy RPGs I've seen.

I play 4e for that 1 point of improvement on the enjoyment scale it has over 3rd edition, and I'm getting ready to run War of the Burning Sky, which looks great, so there's that.

But yeah, I understand what you're saying, OP.  4e is okay, I play it and I prefer it over 3rd edition, but it has a lot of problems that both bother and sadden me.

It is very interesting to see how 4e is going with all the other ENWorlders out there, now that there's been some time to really play it.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

Metus said:


> I'm sort of in the boat as Kamikaze Midget in that I'm glad 4e has some changes that 3e needed, but I don't like other 4e changes.
> 
> For me, I was all excited about 3rd edition when it was coming out, and out of scale of enjoyment of 1-10, when 3rd edition first came out it was a 9 for me.  Loved it.
> 
> ...




Psst...dude, try Earthdawn.  great fantasy game that seems to get everything right that, IMO, D&D does wrong. You don't have to play a d20 game if neither edition excites you.  YMMV of course.


----------



## Primal (Sep 9, 2009)

Soraios said:


> I want to thank many of you for making my points better than I did.  Seriously.
> 
> The interesting part of this is that I think I'm alone in my opinion in the game group.  Many of them are D&D Miniatures players and they really love the 'gamist' bits.
> 
> ...




Soraios, I may not be the biggest fan of 4E, but I must say that I cannot agree with your original post; first of all (and this is already likely pointed out on this thread, but I'm going to repeat it), please remember to include 'in my opinion...', 'I feel that...', 'I think...' etcetera as part of your *opinions*. I simply HATE it when people make blanket statements like "4E is like WoW!" or "3E suxx!" or whatever. It's very impolite and may offend the fans of the edition/system you're criticizing. 

Secondly, while I prefer 3E/PF, I think the system had (and still has) serious problems that become evident after 11th level (often even sooner); especially if there are both optimizers and non-optimizers in the group and the DM is not experienced enough to know how to adjust things on the fly. Of course, your mileage may vary, but having DMed and played D&D for 20+ years, I think my biggest problems with balance have been in 3E (BTW, in my opinion your example of non-optimized PCs not hitting monsters or NPCs is much, MUCH more likely to happen in 3E than 4E -- try doing it at high levels without any "buffs", and I'm betting even your "min-maxed" fighter can't hit an optimized NPC 75% of the time).


----------



## gribble (Sep 9, 2009)

Metus said:


> That being said, I've found that after seeing 4e, I can't go back to 3e due to the (now) glaring flaws that exist in the system, and exist even in Pathfinder.  Yet at the same time, I'm not really blown away by 4e.  When 4e first came out, it was a 4/10 for me, now a 5.  3rd edition is now a 4/10.



You know, I hadn't really thought about it like this before, but this comment pretty much sums up my feelings on 3e/4e too at the moment. I'm not as vehemently against both as you are (after all, I play in a weekly 4e game and I'm about to start playing in a weekly Pathfinder campaign), but neither game is really that flash in my eyes any more.
It's a sad way to be really...


----------



## Metus (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Psst...dude, try Earthdawn.  great fantasy game that seems to get everything right that, IMO, D&D does wrong. You don't have to play a d20 game if neither edition excites you.  YMMV of course.




As a huge FASA (and Shadowrun) fan, I did check out Earthdawn before and wasn't too impressed.  However, I just saw that the latest edition has come out.  I'm definitely interested in checking that out!  Thanks for pointing it out to me.


----------



## Eridanis (Sep 9, 2009)

Anyone who tries to turn this so-far civil discussion into a flame war will be bounced from the thread - or from the boards, depending on how egregious your post is. Keep it polite, please.


----------



## Wik (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I also have noticed that IMO, the "team" dynamics in 4e really preclude those who may for, in-character reasons or whatever, want to roleplay their character in a sub-optimal fashion in certain situations (such as a character role-playing their fear of snakes, in a combat involving snakes).  Instead their actions can have a much more pronounced effect upon the success or failure of their team as a whole in 4e than in other editions and thus I think it pushes (if not outright forces) everyone to play to their tactical as opposed to narrative or simulationist best.  YMMV of course




Yes.  Totally found that in my own play experience.

In fact, last night, we came across Myconids.  As a player, I love myconids, and I didn't want to fight the little guys - I know they're dangerous, and I happen to like them (I also hate how 4e made them bad guys, but that's another story).  

I wanted to play it as fear, but I knew if I backed out, I'd be sitting on the sidelines for a good hour, and the rest of the group could get screwed.  So, we ran the fight.  

I did refer to them as "orcs" for most of the fight, which I'm glad to say, the rest of the group picked up on (except the GM, henh henh).  Comments like "wow, these orcs fight strange.... for orcs."  and so on.


----------



## Perram (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm currently finding myself in the same internal struggle as a GM/DM.  But for slightly different reasons.  

I was really strong in the 'pro' 4e camp for its launch and several months afterward, but drifted over to the Pathfinder crowd when I started disliking some of the policy decisions of WotC.

But even towards the end of 3e I was getting a little bit overwhelmed by all the book keeping on my end.  Balance was never really a concern for me and my groups because we mainly focused on the RP aspects of the game and player skill at the table swung so heavily that it was hard to pin down.

I also want to "Constrain" the powers of my characters towards the low end.  We don't want super-hero fighting, and we don't want to level up out of our characters.  We like to keep our characters for /YEARS/ as the RP is the main reason for playing, not the combat.

And then their is Paizo's campaign setting... which I absolutely love and don't want to give up.

So I find myself a man of two minds, with a love for two different games, unable to make up his mind.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Sep 9, 2009)

Soraios said:


> I want to thank many of you for making my points better than I did.  Seriously.
> 
> The interesting part of this is that I think I'm alone in my opinion in the game group.  Many of them are D&D Miniatures players and they really love the 'gamist' bits.




Oh now see that would suck, imo.  Being forced to play a game I didn't like is no fun at all.  Sorry to hear about that - hopefully you can convince them to try out a few new games.  Variety is the spice of life after all!


----------



## Cactot (Sep 9, 2009)

Orryn Emrys said:


> The game's "artificial" feel and the intrusive nature of the rules were very central to our struggle with it, as we tend to play in a very organic style that emphasizes in-character interaction with the environment wherein I, as the DM, generally interpret the most effective manner to apply the rules to the challenge involved.  It's not "transparency" were looking for, as a growing mastery of the rules can be very rewarding to the players, but we prefer a play style that encourages players to think of their characters' abilities as training and talent to be drawn upon as necessary when dealing with a challenge, *rather than a codified system of powers with limited accessibility.*




Orryn, this is a FANTASTIC explanation of what doesn't "feel right" about 4e to me.

I don't usually like to get in on these debates, so let me preface this with the following statements: This is my opinion, and while I do see many great things about 4e, this has constantly grated on my nerves.  

Here is my take on 4e
1.  I love tactical combat, this is one thing that 4e does well.
2.  I like the fact that accidental gimping of your character is difficult in 4e, especially when you have new players in your group.
3.  I love the character creation mini-game, this 4e does not do well (in my opinion, though this may change a few years down the road with expansions)
4.  I very much miss the ability to create characters around a single (but flexible) theme that has a huge variety of uses in and out of combat.  For example shapeshifting/wildshape, summoning or illusion.

I think I understand why the decision to remove the sky-is-the-limit flexibility was made.  It is extraordinarily hard to balance and requires a good DM to adjudicate.  That being said, I feel it was a huge loss, as it was one of my favorite things about D&D.  The amount of creativity that these features brought out in players was extraordinary, and in my opinion a tragic decision.

That all being said, I am glad for all the people who are enjoying playing 4e, and I definitely understand what people like about it.  Its not like there is a shortage of good games out there (Warhammer FRPG for example).  And as a disclaimer, one of my favorite RPGs is shadowrun, which is one of the LEAST balanced RPGs of all time.

-cac


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 9, 2009)

Interesting. We aren't particularly feeling constrained by the power set, but that's partially because I have my players add a "Do something cool" card to remind them about stunts. The 4e stunting system (DMG page.. 42?) is extremely strong and flexible, and it kills me that a lot of folks forget that it's there.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Interesting. We aren't particularly feeling constrained by the power set, but that's partially because I have my players add a "Do something cool" card to remind them about stunts. The 4e stunting system (DMG page.. 42?) is extremely strong and flexible, and it kills me that a lot of folks forget that it's there.




Honestly PC, and no snark intended, but what is so flexible about 3 different categories (low, medium & high) of damage?  I mean I could get behind this argument if page 42 gave some kind of guidelines for creating an effect other than damage (as more often than not players can do damage more efficiently, and usually with a standard bonus effect, by using their powers) but it doesn't.  There are no guidelines for adjudicating anything besides how much damage a "stunt" should do.  So I am asking... what is so flexible about this?


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 9, 2009)

I like it because those effects are based on the fiction.  That's what makes it so flexible - that and a DM who adjudicates the effects impartially.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Honestly PC, and no snark intended...



No snark comprehended!

Interesting. If you'd asked, I'd have said that this section gave me all the tools I needed to adjudicate stunts: strength vs. fortitude to shove someone and push them, for instance, or dex vs. reflex to grab a tapestry and use it to entangle (slow or daze them). Have I extrapolated all that from other sources such as blog posts, message board posts and podcasts?  If so, I'll be a little embarrassed.

So (since my books aren't nearby) I'm going to assume that section deals with damage only and I pulled the rest out of my butt. If so, it's high quality buttformation! I encourage my players to use the environment to their advantage, just so they won't get lazy and rely solely on the cards, and have even given everyone the equivalent of +1/tier when using stunts. My results are that I see a stunt about once a game, and no one has felt constrained by a lack of options.

Hmmph. If it's _not_ in the DMg, I think I'll go pitch a DDI article.


----------



## aurance (Sep 9, 2009)

Wik said:


> I wanted to play it as fear, but I knew if I backed out, I'd be sitting on the sidelines for a good hour, and the rest of the group could get screwed.  So, we ran the fight.




How would that be different in any other edition?


----------



## D.M.T. (Sep 9, 2009)

Soraios said:


> I'm a newcomer to ENworld and have doubtless underestimated the volume of posts on this subject.  I was merely expressing my opinion based on my experience.  I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, and I was curious to hear from those who tried 4e and switched back, or not, after a year of playing the new system.




My group has been playing 4E for about 13 months now. There are a lot of things I like about it, and we have been having a good time playing it. But... my frustration with the system has grown to the point that I don't mind playing 4E, but would rather play something else. Enter Pathfinder RPG and I realize that even with all of 3.X's faults, it is MUCH closer to the game system I want to play D&D with than 4E. I few quick fixes, maybe a borrowed idea or two from 4E mixed in, and I think I will be happy.


----------



## aurance (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I also have noticed that IMO, the "team" dynamics in 4e really preclude those who may for, in-character reasons or whatever, want to roleplay their character in a sub-optimal fashion in certain situations (such as a character role-playing their fear of snakes, in a combat involving snakes).  Instead their actions can have a much more pronounced effect upon the success or failure of their team as a whole in 4e than in other editions and thus I think it pushes (if not outright forces) everyone to play to their tactical as opposed to narrative or simulationist best.  YMMV of course




There's more tolerance for sub-optimal in other ways. For instance, if you want to have a party of 4 fighters for some role-playing reason, it is much more viable for survival in 4e than in 3e, for mid- to high- levels.

As an aside, I think there's a bit of an expectation that a role-playing character flaw should most of the time be accommodated as a good thing - when as a matter of fact, something like fear of snakes in a snake based combat can and should have significant drawbacks for your party and for yourself. I rather like the paradigm that adventurers that have survived countless lethal combats either do not have such drawbacks, or have learned to control such drawbacks in a way that would only minimally express itself in game terms. Otherwise they'd have died long ago.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 9, 2009)

aurance said:


> How would that be different in any other edition?



Resolving the fight might be shorter. Or not as entertaining and you would be missing less. Heck, if you were playing a spellcaster, you might not be doing anything in a simple fight, except some token crossbow bolts. If you were not playing a spellcaster, you might not be particularly important when the big guns where needed and wouldn't be really missed. 

But in 4E it is not just that everyone can contribute, everyone has to contribute. (Unless the DM throws very easy encounters at you perhaps)


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 9, 2009)

There seems to be a group of people who can't find happiness in 3rd or 4th Edition. 

There's a whole world of RPGs out there to explore!  It make take a lot of work, but there is an RPG out there for you! The Song of Ice and Fire, OSRIC, True 20, Mutants and Masterminds, GURPS, Shadowrun, and Kobolds ate my Baby are just a few of the RPGs out there!


----------



## Wik (Sep 9, 2009)

aurance said:


> How would that be different in any other edition?




In one way, not much.  In another, a lot.

IN earlier editions (particularly those before 3e, but 3e, too), if I opted out of a combat, I'd be sitting on my hands doing nothing, but for a far shorter length of time.  Also, individual combats meant more and less, at the same time (particularly before 3e).  In 4e, the game is built towards X number of players, and if one PC opts out of the fight, the game instantly swings in the favour of the monsters.

I have opted out of fights in earlier editions.  In 2e, I had a gnome who would attack inanimate objects, purely for laughs, in fights I knew weren't "Important", and that was okay.  A few years ago, in 3e, I found myself in an encounter that I (as a player) was uncomfortable with, so I had my character opt out.  And that was fine - I wasn't screwing over the group, because of the way resource management works for 3e.  

Were that to happen in 4e, I'd be out of the game for an hour or more, and it would seriously hurt the group.  

This isn't a bad thing, really.  Just an element of the game.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 9, 2009)

Glad you've found a game more to your liking! 

Pathfinder does indeed look pretty promising (I'll know for sure, when I *eventually* get my copy  . . . later this month), for those who favour the features and emphases clustered around the 3e section of the RPG spectrum.

But certainly, as MichaelSomething says, there are *so many* alternatives, if D&D (or, perhaps, simply any 3e- _or_ 4e-type D&D) doesn't suit your group(s) so much. I think M&M 2nd edition might have been mentioned (prior to MS's brief list) upthread. Either way, I'll just throw in a quick recommendation - we've found it to be extremely liberating, and just tons of fun. At the same time, fairly familiar to those who've played any d20 game.

Anyway, good luck with whatever your group decides to do, now and in the future.


----------



## Dimitris (Sep 9, 2009)

Thanlis said:


> ..
> So sorry the game didn't work out for you! Thanks for letting the world know; hope you didn't think it was going to change anyone's opinion either way.




Pathfinder is successful and IMO its success proves that OGL / 3.5e could and will be the open standard system for D&D - type worlds. 

 Obviously 4e didn't improve the game. It was another game. It may be very nice game. I know a lot of very good games. 

If you prefer the 4e game than the OGL / 3.5e game, it's ok. But don't change your game to 4e because THIS was the decision of THE D&D company and THIS is going to be the new D&D and it is safer to be a follower and go with the crowd. As you have noticed, 4e became just another system. OGL / 3.5e is alive, updated and well supported.

Technically, 4e reminds me an non-interesting wargame based on cards instead of rules and mechanics.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 9, 2009)

Dimitris said:


> Obviously 4e didn't improve the game. It was another game. It may be very nice game. I know a lot of very good games.




How is that obvious?


----------



## Dimitris (Sep 9, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> How is that obvious?



It's not compatible.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Sep 9, 2009)

Dimitris said:


> It's not compatible.




You could say the same for 3.5 versus earlier editions...


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> I like it because those effects are based on the fiction.  That's what makes it so flexible - that and a DM who adjudicates the effects impartially.




What exactly, are the "effects" based upon fiction that you are speaking of?  If you're talking any effect the Player makes up and the DM ad-hoc's, well then that's player inventiveness + great DM'ing... but unless every stunt's purpose is to cause damage, it's not 4e that's giving you these effects... it's your playing and DM'ing skill.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> No snark comprehended!
> 
> Interesting. If you'd asked, I'd have said that this section gave me all the tools I needed to adjudicate stunts: strength vs. fortitude to shove someone and push them, for instance, or dex vs. reflex to grab a tapestry and use it to entangle (slow or daze them). Have I extrapolated all that from other sources such as blog posts, message board posts and podcasts?  If so, I'll be a little embarrassed.
> 
> ...




Hey I think that's great, but I think this happens alot... Page 42 is lauded for all these things but it really doesn't do anything but list level appropriate DC's and level appropriate damage.  As far as attribute vs. save, well I think there were enough examples of this used in the game to instill the idea that this is (mostly) how resisted actions work.  Though again there aren't really any hard and fast rules about which to use and it's mostly a DM call... for instance, in your above Tapestry stunt I probably would have had A Str +Dex vs. Ref and if necessary treated Str+ Dex as a skill for DC purposes...since in essence the character is taking an action and doing two unrelated things (ripping the tapestry down then entangling his foe.).

As far as effects besides damage, page 42 doesn't really give any guidelines.


----------



## Belphanior (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Honestly PC, and no snark intended, but what is so flexible about 3 different categories (low, medium & high) of damage?  I mean I could get behind this argument if page 42 gave some kind of guidelines for creating an effect other than damage (as more often than not players can do damage more efficiently, and usually with a standard bonus effect, by using their powers) but it doesn't.  There are no guidelines for adjudicating anything besides how much damage a "stunt" should do.  So I am asking... what is so flexible about this?




I'm not Piratecat, but you seem to be operating under a very common misconception. Some people think that because there is only one table on page 42 that it only deals with one topic - which would be the categories of damage.

*This is not what page 42 actually is about.*

Rather, it handles three _separate_ things.

1. "The DM's best friend"
This is the good old circumstance bonus of 3.x, just providing a +2/-2 modifier for good or bad situations. This could be clever tricks, useful distractions, particularly (un)convincing lies, and so on.

2. "Cast the Action as a Check"
You have the option of resolving an unusual action as either an attack roll or a skill/ability check. You can pull the rug out from under somebody's feet to knock them prone, throw sand in their faces, maybe even use a scarf to tangle up a construct's gears. Whatever the DM is willing to let you get away with, really.

3. "Improvised Damage"
Based on how devastating and common a source of hurt is, the table tells you how much damage an unspecified hazard might deal.


Part of people's misconception comes from the table, but also the example used: swinging from a chandelier to push an ogre into a fire. This makes people think that the stunt (swinging from a chandelier) causes 2d8+5 fire damage.
*It doesn't.*
The stunt lets Shiera knock an ogre back 1 square. The damage comes from the fact there's a brazier over there. It's important to keep these two things apart, because the damage would have been determined the exact same way if Tide of Iron had been used to knock the ogre back. The example simply combines two seperate rules into one action, but that doesn't mean that all actions are like that. Some improvised damage comes without using a stunt. Some stunts don't do improvised damage at all.


----------



## avin (Sep 9, 2009)

Dimitris said:


> It's not compatible.




I don't see that as a solid argument... maybe I'm reading you wrong, and I  apologize if this is the case, but it's just your opinion 4E didn't improve the game.

3.5 improved over 2E in lots of aspects, but people can argue 2E's worlds were far more interesting and there wasn't an advance in this area.

4E improved over 3.5 in lots of ways, also, but not every single aspect.

Dudes, seriously, this topic is wasted... feeling like the same dead horse: 3.5 players can't see good aspects of 4E and vice-versa. 

Only a few arguments step back from personal taste, IMHO... =/


----------



## Dimitris (Sep 9, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> You could say the same for 3.5 versus earlier editions...




I agree. If you want to say that 4e is D&D even if it incompatible with the previous edition, I agree. I didn't say it is not D&D. I just said it is incompatible with the OGL / 3.5e version of the D&D.

I believe there are a series of reasons for a D&D player to let the system anchored to OGL / 3.5e and express this opinion to WotC (at the end you are voting with your dollar). In my opinion we don't need yet another system to play the same type of worlds. I believe that OGL / 3.5e is 1) sufficient (for this type of game); 2) flexible (there are "mods" that could adjust the system from high-magic to grim-and-gritty); 3) mechanically coherent; and 4) OGL / 3.5e is an open standard. You could also add to this list that its problems are known, there were a very reliable base of players etc. 

Of course there were also important reasons that drive WotC to produce an incompatible system instead of an OGL / 3.5e improvement: address a new market, get the control of the fate of D&D back into the company etc. For the fisrt time, given the OGL and the opportunity that PAIZO catched, they can not force everybody to follow. This opportunity will not be there when they will switch to 5e.

In any case now we have 2 different systems to select. 

Dimitris


----------



## Dimitris (Sep 9, 2009)

avin said:


> I don't see that as a solid argument... maybe I'm reading you wrong, and I  apologize if this is the case, but it's just your opinion 4E didn't improve the game.
> 
> 3.5 improved over 2E in lots of aspects, but people can argue 2E's worlds were far more interesting and there wasn't an advance in this area.
> 
> ...




Sorry, I didn't express it correctly.   I meant they did not try to update or correct the weak points of the OGL / 3.5e but they make a new incompatible version. Essentially this is another system. Given the incompatibility, we are talking for other systems with the same brand name "D&D". 

Dimitris


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 9, 2009)

aurance said:


> As an aside, I think there's a bit of an expectation that a role-playing character flaw should most of the time be accommodated as a good thing - when as a matter of fact, something like fear of snakes in a snake based combat can and should have significant drawbacks for your party and for yourself. I rather like the paradigm that adventurers that have survived countless lethal combats either do not have such drawbacks, or have learned to control such drawbacks in a way that would only minimally express itself in game terms. Otherwise they'd have died long ago.




Indiana Jones would be an excellent example.  He's terrified of snakes, but that doesn't stop him from doing what needs to be done when snakes are around.  If it did, he wouldn't be Indiana Jones.


----------



## Bluenose (Sep 9, 2009)

Dimitris said:


> Sorry, I didn't express it correctly.  I meant they did not try to update or correct the weak points of the OGL / 3.5e but they make a new incompatible version. Essentially this is another system. Given the incompatibility, we are talking for other systems with the same brand name "D&D".
> 
> Dimitris




I don't think you're quite understanding the points that are being raised, or else I'm not. You seem to be saying that 4e shouldn't be called D&D because it's so different from the previous edition. Gnomeworks and avin seem to me to be saying that 3e is just as big a change from the previous edition. And that your conclusion that it's not D&D because it's not compatible is rendered either invalid or irrelevant, since either 3e wasn't a true version of D&D because of it's lack of compatibility, or compatibility is largely irrelevant to the question.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 9, 2009)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> If so, it's high quality buttformation!




Beyonce would be jealous.



			
				MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> There seems to be a group of people who can't find happiness in 3rd or 4th Edition.
> 
> There's a whole world of RPGs out there to explore! It make take a lot of work, but there is an RPG out there for you! The Song of Ice and Fire, OSRIC, True 20, Mutants and Masterminds, GURPS, Shadowrun, and Kobolds ate my Baby are just a few of the RPGs out there!




All of them progressively harder to find or create a group for, or with their own bags of problems (there is no perfect system, after all). 

I also play T20 on occasion (for when I'm feeling constrained by the fantasy genre), and I use FFZ (though it's technically not a totally complete ruleset, I've run and played a few games), and I'm getting some mileage out of Spirit of the Century, but we always come back to D&D. The brand, and what the various systems to _right_, is more powerful than what they do wrong. 

I mean, if the rules were FATAL but the cover said D&D, it would still be easier to find players than for T20. 

(and I'm in NYC, which is hardly a gaming backwater, I can find players of strange games if I look hard enough; for those in more rural areas, it might not even be an option)


----------



## Dimitris (Sep 9, 2009)

Dimitris said:


> I agree. If you want to say that 4e is D&D even if it incompatible with the previous edition, I agree. I didn't say it is not D&D. I just said it is incompatible with the OGL / 3.5e version of the D&D.
> ...



I have said I agree with this.

But still I cannot DM a group in AD&D second edition. And I cannot play in a 4e group. They are incompatible systems. What are the common parts of these systems ? Very few. I believe the reason we call them all "D&D" is not the common mechanics of the systems.


----------



## Dimitris (Sep 9, 2009)

So, 4e is incompatible with OGL / 3.5e and .. 



			
				Dimitris said:
			
		

> I believe there are a series of reasons for a D&D player to let the system anchored to OGL / 3.5e and express this opinion to WotC (at the end you are voting with your dollar). In my opinion we don't need yet another system to play the same type of worlds. I believe that OGL / 3.5e is 1) sufficient (for this type of game); 2) flexible (there are "mods" that could adjust the system from high-magic to grim-and-gritty); 3) mechanically coherent; and 4) OGL / 3.5e is an open standard. You could also add to this list that its problems are known, there were a very reliable base of players etc.
> 
> Of course there were also important reasons that drive WotC to produce an incompatible system instead of an OGL / 3.5e improvement: address a new market, get the control of the fate of D&D back into the company etc. For the fisrt time, given the OGL and the opportunity that PAIZO catched, they can not force everybody to follow. This opportunity will not be there when they will switch to 5e.




And ..


			
				Dimitris said:
			
		

> If you prefer the 4e game than the OGL / 3.5e game, it's ok. But don't change your game to 4e because THIS was the decision of THE D&D company and THIS is going to be the new D&D and it is safer to be a follower and go with the crowd. As you have noticed, 4e became just another system. OGL / 3.5e is alive, updated and well supported.




Dimitris


----------



## Sir Robilar (Sep 9, 2009)

There seem to be a lot of people here who tried 4E, found out it's not theirs but also couldn't return to 3E since they suddenly felt that system's flaws were too obvious to return.

My group was in the same position. We tried 4E and played it up to 6th level, which took almost a year. Then we discussed the rules and found out that most of us were burnt out on them, for reasons that have been said often enough in this thread, but also the following: 4E doesn't do low-magic well and (all IMO of course) it doesn't do simulationist well. My homebrew is a world in which magic is very rare and dangerous. I continuously had to remind the players of that fact, since the rules didn't represent it. This should have been obvious to me after reading the books for the first time of course, but back then I thought I could tweak the system here and there and it would work out ok. 

Still it didn't and we decided to change to another system. We couldn't imagine returning to 3E, so we started looking for other fantasy RPGs. In fact we were so engaged in the campaign, that we wanted to convert without stopping it. The problem was, that there is simply too much choice. RuneQuest, Hero, Savage Worlds, Warriors and Warlocks, Barbarians of Lemuria, and on and on goes the list.

In the end we decided to try True20 and it was just right for us. It is close enough to the kind of D&D we enjoy. Combat is fast and deadly and we could finally stop using miniatures. T20 is meant to be a system which you have to tweak and make your own before you can even start gaming. So we added corruption rules for magic, forbid certain spells, and made some other small tweaks here and there. In the end, and after the whole group had invested work in it, it felt like the right system for what we wanted. 

I encourage everyone who has stranded between systems to look at one of the toolbox games. If you like it, go and create the gaming experience you want from it.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

Belphanior said:


> I'm not Piratecat, but you seem to be operating under a very common misconception. Some people think that because there is only one table on page 42 that it only deals with one topic - which would be the categories of damage.
> 
> *This is not what page 42 actually is about.*
> 
> ...





I'm not operating under a misconception... where does it tell you how or even give guidelines for fairly adjudicating any effect besides damage?  Now it would be different if powers didn't have effects, but because they do some type of balance should be maintained as far as ease of action vs. effect garnered.  I have seen many people post what they feel is the right way to measure the value of effects... but nothing on page 42 helps you with this.


----------



## Belphanior (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I'm not operating under a misconception... where does it tell you how or even give guidelines for fairly adjudicating any effect besides damage?  Now it would be different if powers didn't have effects, but because they do some type of balance should be maintained as far as ease of action vs. effect garnered.  I have seen many people post what they feel is the right way to measure the value of effects... but nothing on page 42 helps you with this.




When you speak of guidelines, I suppose you mean things like "knocking prone is Easy but blinding is Hard"?

I think such guidelines would be entirely worthless because they wouldn't take into account the actual context of the action. Is knocking prone still easy when dealing with a huge four-legged monster? Is blinding still hard when we're dealing with a cyclops instead of a beholder?

Perhaps it's my training as a law student but I find it very easy to take the generic rules from page 42 and apply them on a casuistic basis. Making the rules any more solid than they currently are would, in my opinion, only make them unflexible.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Now it would be different if powers didn't have effects, but because they do some type of balance should be maintained as far as ease of action vs. effect garnered.




How so?  The effects in powers don't change how easy or difficult it is to pull off that effect -- Any given rogue will have an equal chance of hitting with Dazing Strike (Level 1 Encounter) as they do with Stunning Strike (Level 13 Encounter) -- but it determines the level at which the power can be used and with what frequency.

In other words, the difficulty of the stunt shouldn't change based on the resulting effect of the stunt...  Regardless of whether you are slowing, dazing or stunning your target, the relative DC to accomplish that should stay the same, just as it does for powers.  Rather, the effect, much like damage, could (and perhaps should) be based on your character's level.

So, to use Piratecat's example...  A character pulls down a tapestry on an enemy.  A low level character might slow the enemy, a mid-level character might instead daze the enemy, a high level character might stun them instead.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> How so?  The effects in powers don't change how easy or difficult it is to pull off that effect -- Any given rogue will have an equal chance of hitting with Dazing Strike (Level 1 Encounter) as they do with Stunning Strike (Level 13 Encounter) -- but it determines the level at which the power can be used and with what frequency.
> 
> In other words, the difficulty of the stunt shouldn't change based on the resulting effect of the stunt...  Regardless of whether you are slowing, dazing or stunning your target, the relative DC to accomplish that should stay the same, just as it does for powers.  Rather, the effect, much like damage, could (and perhaps should) be based on your character's level.
> 
> So, to use Piratecat's example...  A character pulls down a tapestry on an enemy.  A low level character might slow the enemy, a mid-level character might instead daze the enemy, a high level character might stun them instead.




Powers are regulated by level... so actually there are effects that a PC, using powers cannot do until he is powerful enough.  IMO that's a pretty big balancing factor right there.  If you're going to allow a PC to try anything (instead of as in your example, dictating what the stunt does mechanically and again why would I want the DM to decide what I'm doing when I have powers that I know how they work mechanically?)... then the only way to even this out is too make it harder, unless you flat out say no to things that are to powerful... which leads us back to the question of... how do we judge these things?

Edit: As an example, should it be just as easy to push someone 1 square as it is to push them 5 squares?


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 9, 2009)

We tried 4E when it first came out...well, it would be more accurate to say that *I* tried it, and everyone else in my group just rolled their eyes and fiddled with their dice.  Eventually I got frustrated and dropped the subject.  (grumble grumble...)

So we played 3.5 for a little while, then we gradually started doing the Pathfinder alpha and beta tests.  Now that PF is complete and in publication, we are gearing up to kick off our first all-Pathfinder campaign.

Rules, playability, and flavor aside...I think we are excited about Pathfinder mostly because of the playtesting.  We have a real sense of ownership and pride in that product...it's a great feeling, seeing something in print and thinking to yourself, 'yeah, we gave feedback on that.'  Pathfinder is something we helped create, not something that was imposed upon us.

But a lot of the magic is gone.  Because of the playtest, we've seen it all.  We've tried it all.  Now that the "official" Pathfinder rules are in print, well, it feels like we are buying new copies of a book we've already read a dozen times.  So I am really excited about Pathfinder, but I'm worried about its staying power.

Anyway.  I'm rambling.  I hope you find a game that fits your own particular style of game.  There are loads of games to choose from, as others have said.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

Belphanior said:


> When you speak of guidelines, I suppose you mean things like "knocking prone is Easy but blinding is Hard"?
> 
> I think such guidelines would be entirely worthless because they wouldn't take into account the actual context of the action. Is knocking prone still easy when dealing with a huge four-legged monster? Is blinding still hard when we're dealing with a cyclops instead of a beholder?
> 
> Perhaps it's my training as a law student but I find it very easy to take the generic rules from page 42 and apply them on a casuistic basis. Making the rules any more solid than they currently are would, in my opinion, only make them unflexible.




Wait aminute, what does context have to do with it?  4e is a gamist system, this is running along the same lines as the "knocking prone an ochre jelly"... "but it shouldn't happen"..."just describe it however you want" argument.   It should be based upon level, damage and effect gained (since any monsters with special resistances or factors would have them already in their stat block).  There already seems to be a hiearchy (based upon damage + effect) built into the powers of a class, all one would really need is this formula.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 9, 2009)

Belphanior said:


> When you speak of guidelines, I suppose you mean things like "knocking prone is Easy but blinding is Hard"?
> 
> I think such guidelines would be entirely worthless because they wouldn't take into account the actual context of the action. Is knocking prone still easy when dealing with a huge four-legged monster? Is blinding still hard when we're dealing with a cyclops instead of a beholder?
> 
> Perhaps it's my training as a law student but I find it very easy to take the generic rules from page 42 and apply them on a casuistic basis. Making the rules any more solid than they currently are would, in my opinion, only make them unflexible.




The problem is the power-system doesn't take such things into account. Beholders get no special defense/save bonus vs. Blinding Barrage (rog1D) and neither does a Centaur get a bonus to defend against Topple Over (rog3E).

In fact, using the stunting rules to create such effects, its probably a good idea to go for effects like blinding or stunning than straight damage. 

I think that's what Imaro wants: A hierarchy of "effects" that stunting can do so that not everyone walks around with sand to toss in their foes eyes.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> The problem is the power-system doesn't take such things into account. Beholders get no special defense/save bonus vs. Blinding Barrage (rog1D) and neither does a Centaur get a bonus to defend against Topple Over (rog3E).
> 
> In fact, using the stunting rules to create such effects, its probably a good idea to go for effects like blinding or stunning than straight damage.
> 
> I think that's what Imaro wants: A hierarchy of "effects" that stunting can do so that not everyone walks around with sand to toss in their foes eyes.




Yes or even a mix n match table where a Tier 1 effect (lowest) + high damage stunt at level 1 to 3 has difficulty... X

Edit: Yet whenever page 42 is brought up people act like all of this is already included on it and I just don't understand how to use it... or haven't really looked over it... or whatever.  Now I can, as a good DM, ad-hoc the stuff I'm talking about... but then why should page 42 be praised as strong, flexible or robust for adjudicating stunting in 4e, when all it does (as far as stunting effects go) is produce different damage dice?


----------



## mmadsen (Sep 9, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> The problem is the power-system doesn't take such things into account. Beholders get no special defense/save bonus vs. Blinding Barrage (rog1D) and neither does a Centaur get a bonus to defend against Topple Over (rog3E).



Exactly.  Context, which in many cases should be very important, is streamlined away, arguably to reduce the complexity of the very explicit rules.

A less explicit rule-set might provide fewer clear-cut, detailed rules, but more places, say, for the DM to apply a +2/-2 modifier or to scale up or down effects.


----------



## Belphanior (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Wait aminute, what does context have to do with it?  4e is a gamist system, this is running along the same lines as the "knocking prone an ochre jelly"... "but it shouldn't happen"..."just describe it however you want" argument.




If that were true, then the "DM's best friend" rule also wouldn't have a place in 4e. After all, that's also a rule that takes context and uses it in a game mechanical sense.

The fact that improvised damage is different depending on how dangerous it sounds and how often it can be done is another example of context mattering.

All of page 42 is positively _drenched_ in context. I think people rather overestimate how gamist 4e is and paint a picture that's almost a one-dimensional caricature.


As a complete aside, I do apologize for saying you operated under a misconception. You just have different expectations of what a freeform stunting system should entail.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> (instead of as in your example, dictating what the stunt does mechanically and again why would I want the DM to decide what I'm doing when I have powers that I know how they work mechanically?)...




Because sometimes you might might want want to do something that falls outside the scope of the guaranteed actions your power grant you.



> then the only way to even this out is too make it harder, unless you flat out say no to things that are to powerful... which leads us back to the question of... how do we judge these things?




Wait...  There's lots of other ways to make allowances for the power of an effect: action type (standard, move, minor or free action), duration (end of target's next turn, end of attacker's next turn, save ends), area of the effect (single target, burst or blast), repeatablility (at-will, encounter, daily, once only), magnitude of effect (pushing 1 square or pushing 5 squares ), and so on.

We're not making new powers here.  Nor should we be.  We're using loose guidelines, along with our general knowledge of existing powers and actions, and our previous experiences as a DM to make an impromptu ruling for an action that probably won't happen ever again under the same circumstances.



> Edit: As an example, should it be just as easy to push someone 1 square as it is to push them 5 squares?




Oddly enough, when I judge on stunts, Bull Rush and Charging are two of my baselines for what a character can generally do.

All that said, let go back to something else you mention...



> ...unless you flat out say no to things that are to powerful...




I'm not sure how other DMs run stunts, but here's how it generally goes with me and my players:

The player lays what they want their character to do.  Usually, this is a fairly non-rules abused description.  To use an example this weekend, the party barbarian got himself stunned while fighting some ghouls.  He's still in the front line getting chewed on pretty badly, so my wife, whose rogue is standing right behind him says, "I want to grab him by the collar and drag him back away from the ghouls."

With no real rules for this, but several powers as inspiration, I give her a few suggestions, "You can make an Easy Athletics check as a Move action to pull him back into your square and knock him prone, or you can make a Moderate Athletics check as a Minor action to do the same thing.  You can also make a Difficult Athletics check to move half your speed while pulling him with you...  If you burn a healing surge, you can turn that into a Moderate Athletics check, or move your full speed."

Once I've laid out the options, she gets to decide which option to take, or she can change her mind and do something else completely different.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Yes or even a mix n match table where a Tier 1 effect (lowest) + high damage stunt at level 1 to 3 has difficulty... X
> 
> Edit: Yet whenever page 42 is brought up people act like all of this is already included on it and I just don't understand how to use it... or haven't really looked over it... or whatever.




Oh, certainly not.  I does provide a good start with some basic guidelines for ad hoc rulings (especially for novice DMs, or DMs who simply aren't as talented at it), and the rest is all DM judgement and experience as its always been.

It is by no means a comprehensive set of rules for building powers.  I agree with you on that point.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

Belphanior said:


> If that were true, then the "DM's best friend" rule also wouldn't have a place in 4e. After all, that's also a rule that takes context and uses it in a game mechanical sense.




Eh, I'm going to disagree (though only slightly) here... the +2/-2 allows a DM to bring context into the game if he chooses to, it's optional not something integral to the system itself.  Not to mention being very limited in scope.



Belphanior said:


> The fact that improvised damage is different depending on how dangerous it sounds and how often it can be done is another example of context mattering.




No it's based upon mechanical balance.



Belphanior said:


> All of page 42 is positively _drenched_ in context. I think people rather overestimate how gamist 4e is and paint a picture that's almost a one-dimensional caricature.




Again I think you are confusing mechanical balance vs. gameworld context... in the context of a given situation it may very well be easy enough to repeat an action that causes high damage... yet pg. 42 shows us that it's damage should be reduced because of mechanical balance (it's to repeatable), not because the context of the game world implies it.



Belphanior said:


> As a complete aside, I do apologize for saying you operated under a misconception. You just have different expectations of what a freeform stunting system should entail.




Thanks, I just think it's my experience with other free form systems like the magic in Mage or Talislanta 4e that colors what I judge as a robust free-form system.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> I'm not sure how other DMs run stunts, but here's how it generally goes with me and my players:
> 
> The player lays what they want their character to do.  Usually, this is a fairly non-rules abused description.  To use an example this weekend, the party barbarian got himself stunned while fighting some ghouls.  He's still in the front line getting chewed on pretty badly, so my wife, whose rogue is standing right behind him says, "I want to grab him by the collar and drag him back away from the ghouls."
> 
> ...




All I'm going to point out here is that not once did you reference pg. 42... you made all the effects/checks/balances up yourself which while I think it's cool... I can't help but wonder how in the world do you attribute this stunt ruling to page 42?


----------



## rkwoodard (Sep 9, 2009)

*I am done as well*

I tried 4th edition.  It was fun, but not fun enough to spend tons of money and time learning.  

I looked at Pathfinder, and the page count just made me tired.

So, I went with simple.  I have fell back in love with C&C, and the Siege Engine.  

With enough time/money/energy 3.5-PF, and 4th edition are good.  But for the simple and inexpensive, not so much.

RK


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> All I'm going to point out here is that not once did you reference pg. 42... you made all the effects/checks/balances up yourself which while I think it's cool... I can't help but wonder how in the world do you attribute this stunt ruling to page 42?



Doesn't page 42 not also contain the low/moderate/difficult DCs?


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> What exactly, are the "effects" based upon fiction that you are speaking of?  If you're talking any effect the Player makes up and the DM ad-hoc's, well then that's player inventiveness + great DM'ing... but unless every stunt's purpose is to cause damage, it's not 4e that's giving you these effects... it's your playing and DM'ing skill.




Thanks!

I don't need a table to tell me what happens when someone gets a curtain thrown over him.  He's Blind.  Nor do I need a table to tell me what happens when someone is pushed, has a torch shoved in his eyes, wrapped in cloth and set on fire, knocked down, tackled, etc.

What I do need is a table telling me how much damage attacks should be expected to do and at what level.

There is a difference there - numbers vs. description.  I need the numbers; I don't need the description.

edit: I think we should fork this side-discussion.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Doesn't page 42 not also contain the low/moderate/difficult DCs?




Yes and we've already established this up thread, what we are discussing are the effects and how pg. 42 in any way helps you apply them when stunting.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I don't need a table to tell me what happens when someone gets a curtain thrown over him.  He's Blind.  Nor do I need a table to tell me what happens when someone is pushed, has a torch shoved in his eyes, wrapped in cloth and set on fire, knocked down, tackled, etc.
> 
> ...




Ok, so how do you decide between someone being dazed, stunned or unconscious?  The table would actually be so that you could balance these conditions with level, added damage and difficulty.

Ok, how about restrained or immobilized... you see description is all well and good but different conditions have actual in game effects... so when I do a trick with my whip where I want to have it wrap around someone, and pull them to the ground are they...

helpless, immobilized, prone, restrained, or slowed?  Who decides what condition I've inflicted, I or the DM?  If it's the DM, why am I giving up hard numbers and facts (my powers) to try something cool that I have no idea what it may or may not do (thus it may not be as cool as I thought it was)... or what my chances are to succeed?  I mean these are all questions that might help account for power fixation.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 9, 2009)

Cactot said:


> 3.  I love the character creation mini-game, this 4e does not do well (in my opinion, though this may change a few years down the road with expansions)
> 4.  I very much miss the ability to create characters around a single (but flexible) theme that has a huge variety of uses in and out of combat.  For example shapeshifting/wildshape, summoning or illusion.



The situation for both of these has been much improved over the past few years...  Nowadays, I'm finding it at least as much fun to figure out a character theme and work it through Character Builder as I did under 3e.

It's all about Character Builder, honestly, just like it was all about Heroforge under 3.5...  I can come up with a concept, say "Eladrin Warlock with great Longsword skills" or "Half-Orc Spiked Chain Tempest Fighter" and tweak them to my heart's content.  Multiclassing, Hybrid classing, and so on give me a lot of room to work with.  Just like under 3.5, I can find a certain class, race, feat, item, or ability and use that to build a really fun character.

A year ago, I would have agreed with you without hesitation.  But it's gotten way, way better nowadays. 

-O


----------



## pascale (Sep 9, 2009)

Thanlis said:


> Well, you know. In D&D, I don't play more or less solo for the first umpteen levels. I also don't have some sort of global chat channel going all the time while I'm soloing. Nobody yells over to me and asks me to join their guild whenever I start my solo D&D sessions. I don't randomly run into other players while I'm out killing monsters to gather supplies to make a magical sword.
> 
> The terminology's got MMO aspects to it, which is undoubtedly intentional -- it's reminiscent of OD&D's miniatures terminology. It makes it a more appealing game for MMO players who haven't done tabletop. I find it's really easy to look past that terminology and see the differences, though, both in the flippant logic I just used and in deeper ways.
> 
> ...



 Firstly I do still play D&D 4e I just perfer pathfinder.

No as for those simmiliarities that I noticed, they are just that simmiliarities, I'm not making a case that 4e = wow or anything silly like that.

I am saying that I have noticed a few simmiliarities.  for instances the rules for treasure parcels seem very simmiliar to the loote dropped by "mobs" and bosses in wow.  Also Marking resembles agro to me.  Further the perception/surprise rules in 4e are very simmiliar to the mob site radiouse in WoW.

Dave Noonan wrote a good article ont he subject before comparing 4e to wow was considered a bad thing.  Basically he said that MMos borrowed alot from D&D and then evolved into a really fun games.  Now it is D&Ds turn to borrow from the MMOs to evolve itself.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Ok, so how do you decide between someone being dazed, stunned or unconscious?  The table would actually be so that you could balance these conditions with level, added damage and difficulty.



As a condition gets more critical, the damage gets lower and/or the DC increases.

I'd hardly ever let a PC stun something through a stunt.  Stun is a massively powerful status effect, and I'd make them work for it.   I'd put Blind worse than Daze, and Daze worse than Immobilize, and Immobilize worse than Slow.  Ongoing damage is somewhere in there, too.

But you're right in that the improvisational DC/damage/status table requires a bit of system mastery from the DM to get it just right.  You can't just turn to Page 42 and voila!  You need to exercise thought and judgment; the table just helps you get the math parts right.

-O


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> All I'm going to point out here is that not once did you reference pg. 42... you made all the effects/checks/balances up yourself which while I think it's cool... I can't help but wonder how in the world do you attribute this stunt ruling to page 42?




I didn't, necessarily.  I was only pointing out how the process generally works in my game. You were talking about telling a player no if they want to do something that's too powerful for what their character can do. I try to avoid that by having the players describe what they intend to do, and then giving some options with various mechanical difficulties and benefits for how to accomplish it.

Mainly, my example above, relates to the following section of p. 42:

*Other Checks:* If the action is related to a skill (Acrobatics and Athletics cover a lot of the stunts characters try in combat), use that check. If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check. Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard, or somewhere in between. A quick rule of thumb is to start with a DC of 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character’s level.​
And then, if necessary, referencing the chart for appropriate DCs.

But you're right...  The actual effects of the different option are simply based on my own judgment, and what I generally remember from the actions and powers in the rulebook.  That has nothing to with page 42, aside from the single example they give on that page (Level 8 Rogue: Acrobatics DC 20 = swing on chandelier, Strength attack vs. Fortitude = push one square into brazier).

At another time, in another situation, I might end up ruling it slightly differently because it's an ad hoc ruling, the situation occurs rarely, and it's simply not worth the time and trouble to write it down and dig it back up later.  I've made that clear to my players, and they're fine with it.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Ok, so how do you decide between someone being dazed, stunned or unconscious?  The table would actually be so that you could balance these conditions with level, added damage and difficulty.




Honestly?  I'd probably always go with Dazed.  I'm sure there are situations where I might upgrade to Stunned or Unconcious, but I can't think of any without any in-game context to play with.  Maybe if you punched a guy in the face to Daze him, then choked him out to Stun him, then continued with it to knock him out.



Imaro said:


> Ok, how about restrained or immobilized... you see description is all well and good but different conditions have actual in game effects... so when I do a trick with my whip where I want to have it wrap around someone, and pull them to the ground are they...




Restrained is when you are pinned and nothing can move you.  A spike through the leg would Restrained you.  Immobilized is when you are unable to move on your own.  

I rely on the description of the action to determine between those two effects.  And sometimes I might just ignore the game-based effect and say, "Well, he can't move because his legs are jello, so -Will based movement powers won't move him, but he can be pushed by force."



Imaro said:


> helpless, immobilized, prone, restrained, or slowed?  Who decides what condition I've inflicted, I or the DM?  If it's the DM, why am I giving up hard numbers and facts (my powers) to try something cool that I have no idea what it may or may not do (thus it may not be as cool as I thought it was)... or what my chances are to succeed?  I mean these are all questions that might help account for power fixation.




The DM decides.  Yup, I think those are all important considerations.  I also think it's because powers "just work" no matter what.  I think a heavy-handed DM who overruled powers in certain circumstances would get more stunts.

This is why *I* would do a stunt:

1. I ask the DM how it will be ruled before I start going through with the action, so I'm not playing with unknowns.
2. I want to achieve a specific effect and I don't have a power to do it (or I want to retain my encounter/daily powers).
3. The damage is much greater than what can be done from an at-will attack.


----------



## Sadrik (Sep 9, 2009)

Bluenose said:


> I don't think you're quite understanding the points that are being raised, or else I'm not. You seem to be saying that 4e shouldn't be called D&D because it's so different from the previous edition.



I think he is saying that when most people were on board with some form of 3e/OGL rather than updating that game, still utilizing the OGL as its base, it was decided that making an alternative game was the best choice. People could choose to go to it whether they wanted to or not. 

It was the home run principle- everyone will love this, it will be the big next thing in gaming (like 3e was) but everyone didn't love it. Lots people do love it though. They probably would have fared better with an updated product (even dramatically so) rather than something so different that it felt like an alternative game.

I see this happen in video games a lot too. You have a hit game that was excellent. Then part 2 hits and they throw out a lot and put in what they think is better. Problem is that the original has a huge following and they were looking for an upgrade and what they got was something different. Something different can still be very good, it is just different. It is the consumer's demand not matching up with the producer's product. It is a tricky slope.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

Obryn said:


> As a condition gets more critical, the damage gets lower and/or the DC increases.
> 
> I'd hardly ever let a PC stun something through a stunt. Stun is a massively powerful status effect, and I'd make them work for it.  I'd put Blind worse than Daze, and Daze worse than Immobilize, and Immobilize worse than Slow. Ongoing damage is somewhere in there, too.
> 
> ...






Pbartender said:


> I didn't, necessarily.  I was only pointing out how the process generally works in my game. You were talking about telling a player no if they want to do something that's too powerful for what their character can do. I try to avoid that by having the players describe what they intend to do, and then giving some options with various mechanical difficulties and benefits for how to accomplish it.
> 
> Mainly, my example above, relates to the following section of p. 42:*Other Checks:* If the action is related to a skill (Acrobatics and Athletics cover a lot of the stunts characters try in combat), use that check. If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check. Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard, or somewhere in between. A quick rule of thumb is to start with a DC of 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character’s level.​And then, if necessary, referencing the chart for appropriate DCs.
> 
> ...





Look guys, I'm not saying 42 is useless, all I'm saying is let's call it what it is... DC's and damage.  It's not a robust system for doing out of the ordinary stunts and actions.  I just find it a little absurd when it's touted and held up as way more than what it is by people who are basically filling the holes in with their own skill, experience, rulings or mechanics.


----------



## Gimby (Sep 9, 2009)

pascale said:


> Firstly I do still play D&D 4e I just perfer pathfinder.
> 
> No as for those simmiliarities that I noticed, they are just that simmiliarities, I'm not making a case that 4e = wow or anything silly like that.
> 
> ...




I don't think that theres anyone that will deny that there aren't any similarities between 4e and WoW, but I think people are often suprised/confused by the examples chosen.

For example, you mention suprise/perception and treasure.  

The rules for suprise/perception are almost identical between 3e and 4e - 4e monsters certainly don't have an "aggro radius" in the way that WoW monsters do.  

In WoW, treasure drops of individual monsters and is randomly generated according to a loot table and monsters don't drop their equipment.  In 4e, treasure parcels are set up by encounter rather than by monster and they do drop their equipment.   Hell, in 3e technically treasure is randomly generated off a loot table and drops off individual monsters making 4e less like WoW in this respect than 3e was (this is unsuprising, given WoW's D&D roots and the 3e loot model is the traditional D&D one).   About the only similarity between treasure parcels and WoW loot is "monsters drop loot"

This I think comes to why some people are annoyed at the comparisons - a lot of the times the things brought up are a) not in WoW (say, healing surges) b) not in 4e (say, aggro radii) or c) are in WoW and 4e, but are also present in other editions of D&D (say, monsters dropping loot).  There are valid comparisons to be made (explicit roles, "weight class" of monsters) but they are often the ones not being made.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Look guys, I'm not saying 42 is useless, all I'm saying is let's call it what it is... DC's and damage.  It's not a robust system for doing out of the ordinary stunts and actions.  I just find it a little absurd when it's touted and held up as way more than what it is by people who are basically filling the holes in with their own skill, experience, rulings or mechanics.




Oh, no, don't get me wrong...  I'm more or less agreeing with you here.

I think the page has some good basic guidelines regarding DCs and damage.  I also think that there are one or two basic improvisational DMing epiphanies that not all new DMs figure out on their own (like the advice to have a skill check target a defense).

But if you really want to get the most mileage out of stunts, you need a knowledgeable and experienced DM, and an imaginative and flexible player.


The more I think about it, though, the more it seems that page 42 is simply a device for empowering players and DMs to try ad hoc actions and rulings more often.  I've noticed a certain point of view amongst many D&D players in recent years; the mindset that, "If it isn't in the rulebook, I can't do it."  Having something like page 42 in the rulebook can really help get people past that roadblock, even if the actual rules themselves are sparse or vague.


----------



## malraux (Sep 9, 2009)

Obryn said:


> As a condition gets more critical, the damage gets lower and/or the DC increases.
> 
> I'd hardly ever let a PC stun something through a stunt.  Stun is a massively powerful status effect, and I'd make them work for it.   I'd put Blind worse than Daze, and Daze worse than Immobilize, and Immobilize worse than Slow.  Ongoing damage is somewhere in there, too.
> 
> ...




I personally also think that stunting should be slightly more powerful relative to regular attacks, balanced by requiring creativity by the players (ie, a given stunt only works once).


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Sep 9, 2009)

I've played 4E since it came out and liked it, but as time went on I've become less and less happy with it.

I don't hate it.
There are several improvements from 3E, but some of the other changes I'm not happy with.
I feel lied to about how long it takes a combat to finish in 4E, the one thing they should have improved over 3E.

I would rather Hasbro sell off WotC to KenzerCo so gamers would own the game rather than it be a commodity of a giant corporation.
(If I could the rest of my group to play HackMaster, I'd dump 4E so fast...)

I play D&D once a week.
I play WoW the other 6 days of the week.
4E is very similar to WoW.
It may not be a 1:1 match, but it's close enough to warrant the comparisons.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Look guys, I'm not saying 42 is useless, all I'm saying is let's call it what it is... DC's and damage.  It's not a robust system for doing out of the ordinary stunts and actions.  I just find it a little absurd when it's touted and held up as way more than what it is by people who are basically filling the holes in with their own skill, experience, rulings or mechanics.




Not on its own, but combined with the rest of the system you get something that makes it pretty easy for the DM to come up with ad-hoc rulings.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Not on its own, but combined with the rest of the system you get something that makes it pretty easy for the DM to come up with ad-hoc rulings.




Maybe I'm weird but I don't find it any easier or harder to come up with ad-hoc rulings in 3e or 4e, so again not seeing what the great improvement is.  If anything 4e's focus on balance has made me much more wary about rulings.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 9, 2009)

I've had stunt rulings in prior editions where the DM gave far too much (or too little) damage for what we all felt was appropriate.  Page 42 gives a handy guideline for that damage.  It also gives the encouragement to fudge things a bit and not keep everything rigid, which is one of the things a DMG should do.  Advice on running the game.  

Imaro>You are an experienced gamer tho.  There are people that 4E will be their first game.  Having a page like Pg 42 will add a lot to their starting view and give them a firmer base to stand on when making those rulings.  I can only see this as a good thing.  There are plenty of things that are in a RPG that someone will always say isn't needed b/c "anyone can just make that up", but that isn't the point.  Either a)you shouldn't have to make it up or b)there should be guidelines to help you make it up in a fair and balanced fashion.  4E goes for B.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Maybe I'm weird but I don't find it any easier or harder to come up with ad-hoc rulings in 3e or 4e, so again not seeing what the great improvement is.  If anything 4e's focus on balance has made me much more wary about rulings.




Let's say that my action is to throw a curtain over a cultist so he can't see when I stab him in the kidney.  In 4E I make an attack roll, probably Dex vs. Ref (Ref because I'm the DM and I decide that he tries to duck out of the way).  

Right there I know the math more-or-less lines up; the PC has a decent chance of scoring a hit, but it's not a given; the better the monster is, the worse the chance of success, and quicker monsters have a better chance of avoiding the attack than a big brute.

In earlier versions: Save vs. Petrification?  To hit vs. AC?  What AC?  Any proficiency/non-proficiency bonuses or penalties?  AoO, if that misses, melee touch attack using Dex instead of Str, then a Reflex save?  Just a Reflex save?  What's the DC?  Or no Reflex save at all?

If I pick any one of these, how will the math work out?  I'm not sure.  It doesn't scale by level as well.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> I've had stunt rulings in prior editions where the DM gave far too much (or too little) damage for what we all felt was appropriate.  Page 42 gives a handy guideline for that damage.  It also gives the encouragement to fudge things a bit and not keep everything rigid, which is one of the things a DMG should do.  Advice on running the game.
> 
> Imaro>You are an experienced gamer tho.  There are people that 4E will be their first game.  Having a page like Pg 42 will add a lot to their starting view and give them a firmer base to stand on when making those rulings.  I can only see this as a good thing.  There are plenty of things that are in a RPG that someone will always say isn't needed b/c "anyone can just make that up", but that isn't the point.  Either a)you shouldn't have to make it up or b)there should be guidelines to help you make it up in a fair and balanced fashion.  4E goes for B.




I'm not arguing it isn't needed... I'm arguing  pg. 42 is often given way too much hype (mostly by experienced gamers) for what it actually gives guidelines for.  Again... no guidelines for any type of conditions or effects besides damage


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Let's say that my action is to throw a curtain over a cultist so he can't see when I stab him in the kidney.  In 4E I make an attack roll, probably Dex vs. Ref (Ref because I'm the DM and I decide that he tries to duck out of the way).
> 
> Right there I know the math more-or-less lines up; the PC has a decent chance of scoring a hit, but it's not a given; the better the monster is, the worse the chance of success, and quicker monsters have a better chance of avoiding the attack than a big brute.
> 
> ...




Uhm how about Dex check vs. Touch AC? I think a better question is... what does the success of this action mean in mechanical terms, IMHO that's the question that really needs support.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Uhm how about Dex check vs. Touch AC? I think a better question is... what does the success of this action mean in mechanical terms, IMHO that's the question that really needs support.




Ah, I see.  Yeah, our opinions differ; I think the mechanical impact of the action should be pretty obvious by the player's description of the action.  That's the same as any previous edition, or many other games for that matter.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 9, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Right there I know the math more-or-less lines up; the PC has a decent chance of scoring a hit, but it's not a given; the better the monster is, the worse the chance of success, and quicker monsters have a better chance of avoiding the attack than a big brute.
> 
> In earlier versions: Save vs. Petrification?  To hit vs. AC?  What AC?  Any proficiency/non-proficiency bonuses or penalties?  AoO, if that misses, melee touch attack using Dex instead of Str, then a Reflex save?  Just a Reflex save?  What's the DC?  Or no Reflex save at all?
> 
> If I pick any one of these, how will the math work out?  I'm not sure.  It doesn't scale by level as well.



You like the fact that in 4E it is more homogeneous.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Ah, I see.  Yeah, our opinions differ; I think the mechanical impact of the action should be pretty obvious by the player's description of the action.  That's the same as any previous edition, or many other games for that matter.




Why doesn't this same logic apply to discerning how the action should be represented mechanically in the game?

Edit: Or perhaps a better way to phrase this is why does the math matter in performing the action... but not in discerning results?


----------



## Derren (Sep 9, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Ah, I see.  Yeah, our opinions differ; I think the mechanical impact of the action should be pretty obvious by the player's description of the action.  That's the same as any previous edition, or many other games for that matter.




How so? In 4E the impact of the players action is limited by preserving the balance of the combat. That can lead to player actions having less/a different effect than it normally should have, as it having the logical effect would be unbalanced.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 9, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I'm not arguing it isn't needed... I'm arguing  pg. 42 is often given way too much hype (mostly by experienced gamers) for what it actually gives guidelines for.  Again... no guidelines for any type of conditions or effects besides damage




Success vs failure and how to adjudicate it is what the entire left side of the page is about.  The right side of the page is what deals with damage.  Guidelines for success and failure is sometimes the only condition I need.  This page gives some good basic information to the DM and also gives some rough damage figures for non-standard damaging moves.  The page itself gives guidelines for 

"A few combat situations come up rarely enough that the rules for them intentionally aren’t covered in the Player’s Handbook—in particular, mounted combat and combat underwater."

The page also goes on to list when to make things an attack roll and when to make it a skill check, as well as saying context can allow an easy +2/-2 to a situation to help show if it should happen more easily or not.  This page is given a lot of credit b/c it can be bent into many different things.  It is definitely NOT just about damage.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> Success vs failure and how to adjudicate it is what the entire left side of the page is about.  The right side of the page is what deals with damage.  Guidelines for success and failure is sometimes the only condition I need.  This page gives some good basic information to the DM and also gives some rough damage figures for non-standard damaging moves.  The page itself gives guidelines for
> 
> "A few combat situations come up rarely enough that the rules for them intentionally aren’t covered in the Player’s Handbook—in particular, mounted combat and combat underwater."
> 
> The page also goes on to list when to make things an attack roll and when to make it a skill check, as well as saying context can allow an easy +2/-2 to a situation to help show if it should happen more easily or not.  This page is given a lot of credit b/c it can be bent into many different things.  It is definitely NOT just about damage.




So what other *EFFECTS* besides damage does it give guidelines for?  Up thread I already said it was a page of DC's and damage...even in the post you quoted I specifically referenced effects, so I'm not sure what point you are making here?  Except maybe avoidance of what I am specifically talking about.

Edit: I have personally seen people post something along the lines of... One of my PC's wants to do a disarm in combat.  Followed by... hey just use pg. 42 it covers all kinds of improvised stunts.  No, it really doesn't... it covers stunts that do damage but not those that would inflict a condition or other effect.


----------



## Nathal (Sep 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The suspension of disbelief is in many ways kiboshed, and the sense of the world existing independent of the game has been reduced to an irrelevancy.




I agree with the above, but oddly, it has positive side-effects. The ironic thing is that the way class powers are handled allow new players to sit down and become effective in group play---assuming a tiny bit of tactical and strategic savvy---even if they can't "role-play" worth a damn. It used to be (at least for me) that D&D worked best when the individual players were very descriptive and imaginative...but now even a boring player can have an entertaining and effective character. But because actions are now so codified, with video-game like names of powers to choose from, it does reduce the "verisimuilitue" that was important in the Old Skool, if you will. I see it as a double-edged sword, excuse the pun.


----------



## coyote6 (Sep 9, 2009)

Nathal said:


> I see it as a double-edged sword, excuse the pun.




Arming sword or longsword?

Whoops, wrong thread!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 9, 2009)

Part of the reason stunting also isn't a panacea for lack of combat creativity is that it can't violate 4e's role protection. 4e can't allow you, through stunting, to do damage comparable to the striker, or impose effects comparable to the controller or the defender, or grant an advantage comparable to the advantage the leader grants. I think it's totally possible to ignore and be fine with, but 4e values the role balance more than it values going "off-book" in combat. I think this may be part of why we haven't seen rules for imposing conditions -- limiting enemy actions and abilities is essentially the Controller's bag, and allowing just anyone to stun, blind, knock prone, etc., just by being a creative enough player, makes the Controller feel less special. 

Now, I think that there's a middle ground where the Controller still feels special without the dominance of stunts, but I think that is part of what went into the thinking when designing them in the first place. They don't want stunts to replace your normal combat actions because stunts can't be balanced like powers can. 



			
				Nathal said:
			
		

> I agree with the above, but oddly, it has positive side-effects. The ironic thing is that the way class powers are handled allow new players to sit down and become effective in group play---assuming a tiny bit of tactical and strategic savvy---even if they can't "role-play" worth a damn. It used to be (at least for me) that D&D worked best when the individual players were very descriptive and imaginative...but now even a boring player can have an entertaining and effective character. But because actions are now so codified, with video-game like names of powers to choose from, it does reduce the "verisimuilitue" that was important in the Old Skool, if you will. I see it as a double-edged sword, excuse the pun.




Yeah, this is probably true for 90% of 4e's changes: they have a good effect, and a bad effect. The 4e designers are good designers, they just sometimes don't have their priorities in line with mine as to what makes a game enjoyable. I'm sure part of the design was oriented to helping players who might not be tactical geniuses still tactically contribute to a combat. The hallmark of a lot of 4e's changes is just that they throw the baby out with the bathwater: to make sure everyone can contribute tactically, they made tactical combat basically the only game in town, because that's where the design efforts for 4e were focused. 

I'd love for the team to invest as much effort into role-playing a character as they did in running a leader in combat.  The current popular fallacy over at WotC seems to be that "less rules = more role-playing," which doesn't hold much water with me, at least, though it is very...old school...itself. It's the same basic philosophy that 1e and 2e took, and why those games lack decent RP rules and why, coincidentally, Vampire became ascendant. Vampire, though it could run combat, was mostly about playing the role, about political intrigue, about style and the allure of the unknown, and White Wolf fit it nice.


----------



## Gimby (Sep 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Now, I think that there's a middle ground where the Controller still feels special without the dominance of stunts, but I think that is part of what went into the thinking when designing them in the first place. They don't want stunts to replace your normal combat actions because stunts can't be balanced like powers can.




I agree, its a difficult ground to find.  One balancing area could be that powers generally do damage *and* effect while you could rule that stunts just to damage *or* effect.  Or that they require limited terrain resources to pull off (tapestrys and so forth).  Theres problems with these approaches though and they would have to essentially be a complete power creation system to be fully balanced.  Some guidlines, at least, for condition imposition would be helpful.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd love for the team to invest as much effort into role-playing a character as they did in running a leader in combat.  The current popular fallacy over at WotC seems to be that "less rules = more role-playing," which doesn't hold much water with me, at least, though it is very...old school...itself. It's the same basic philosophy that 1e and 2e took, and why those games lack decent RP rules and why, coincidentally, Vampire became ascendant. Vampire, though it could run combat, was mostly about playing the role, about political intrigue, about style and the allure of the unknown, and White Wolf fit it nice.




I'd disagree with your characterisation of Vampire - the first edition rules were little more than a combat engine with the social aspects scarecly more detailed than the 3e/4e diplomacy/bluff/intimidate rules.  The White Wolf rules system family, AFAIK, got its first real "social combat" system with 2nd edition Exalted a couple of years ago.  Vampire certainly talked up the roleplaying and social aspect and the personal horror aspect, but the rules themselves didn't do much to support or encourage that. 

For "real" roleplaying rules you'd have to go to something like Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel or My Life with Master.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 10, 2009)

Gimby said:
			
		

> I agree, its a difficult ground to find. One balancing area could be that powers generally do damage *and* effect while you could rule that stunts just to damage *or* effect. Or that they require limited terrain resources to pull off (tapestrys and so forth). Theres problems with these approaches though and they would have to essentially be a complete power creation system to be fully balanced. Some guidlines, at least, for condition imposition would be helpful.




Personally, I would not mind seeing a stunt system that could effectively replace the powers system.

I mean, it's halfway there right now, what with the DC's and damage. 

But that's just me, and I would probably be content with a more reasonable middle ground than what we have right now. 



> 'd disagree with your characterisation of Vampire - the first edition rules were little more than a combat engine with the social aspects scarecly more detailed than the 3e/4e diplomacy/bluff/intimidate rules. The White Wolf rules system family, AFAIK, got its first real "social combat" system with 2nd edition Exalted a couple of years ago. Vampire certainly talked up the roleplaying and social aspect and the personal horror aspect, but the rules themselves didn't do much to support or encourage that.
> 
> For "real" roleplaying rules you'd have to go to something like Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel or My Life with Master.




Ah, I might've been unclear. My reason for mentioning Vampire was simply to note that role-playing (that is, playing the role of a Vampire) was what was generally appealing about the game. Mechanically, you're right, it wasn't much, but it let you feel like a Vampire, which was the basic appeal of the game: I get to play the role of a vampire. That doesn't necessarily mean it needed social mechanics per se, but it certainly didn't take a "we won't tell you how to role-play" stance, whereas earlier-edition D&D (and 4e) generally do take that kind of stance. 

Though, in retrospect, even that's not quite accurate, since 4e and 2e (and 1e) certainly gave you advice on how to be a big fat hero.  Guess vampires are just sexier.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The 4e designers are good designers, they just sometimes don't have their priorities in line with mine as to what makes a game enjoyable.




I believe we could boil a thousand threads and a few million words down to that.


----------



## Gimby (Sep 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But that's just me, and I would probably be content with a more reasonable middle ground than what we have right now.




Yeah, something like that would make a fine Unearthed Arcana or Iron Heros style book.  



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Though, in retrospect, even that's not quite accurate, since 4e and 2e (and 1e) certainly gave you advice on how to be a big fat hero.  Guess vampires are just sexier.




Comparing my Exalted 2e core and 4e PHB here, the "how to roleplay" and "how to design and characterise your character" advice in 4e is remarkably more substantial than that in the Exalted book, which is something I found suprising (I was sure I recalled a larger section in the Exalted core)


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 10, 2009)

Dimitris said:


> Pathfinder is successful and IMO its success proves that OGL / 3.5e could and will be the open standard system for D&D - type worlds.
> 
> Obviously 4e didn't improve the game. It was another game. It may be very nice game. I know a lot of very good games.
> 
> ...




I wouldn't go as far as saying that 4E didn't improve the game.  I'm in the camp that doesn't like it.  But there are a tonne of people who do.  For me, it's just too different, and Remalthis and others have argued through this thread more effectively than I would, so I've really just been a reader.

But our desire to use systems like Pathfinder is a preference.  The edition war reminds me of the whole PS3 vs. XBox 360 debacle.  What's the point behind spending so much time arguing about which game is better?  Play what you like.

At the end of the day, those of us who don't like 4E don't need to justify those feelings to anyone.  The game's not for us.  Some of us tried it, and just found it didn't scratch the itch, others couldn't bring themselves to try it.

There isn't really a right or wrong answer.  I think the whole idea that one has to play a particular edition, and that only the current edition is "valid" is completely flawed.  4E isn't the only D&D.  It's just the current, supported version. But in another 6 years or so, it'll be replaced by 5E, and 4E will no longer be "current".  But it doesn't mean it's not valid.  It will be just as "valid" a version of D&D as 3.0, 2.0, or 1.0 are now.  As in, they're completely valid....they're just no longer supported.

4E has good points, as did 3rd, 2nd, and 1st.  They all also have their weaknesses.  

On that topic, I just got my Pathfinder core book today, and I'm a happy camper 

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 10, 2009)

Gimby said:


> Yeah, something like that would make a fine Unearthed Arcana or Iron Heros style book.
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing my Exalted 2e core and 4e PHB here, the "how to roleplay" and "how to design and characterise your character" advice in 4e is remarkably more substantial than that in the Exalted book, which is something I found suprising (I was sure I recalled a larger section in the Exalted core)




I seem to recall that the 7th Sea Players Guide and Gamemaster's Guide had lots of good information on roleplaying...not only roleplaying, but stuff like how to develop good plots, the core ideas of most stories, etc. etc.  I would assume that the Legend of the Five Rings RPG has similar levels of information as well (but I don't have it, so I'm not sure).

D&D has always been kinda weak on actual discussions of what roleplaying is, how to come up with good plots etc....at least in the books that I've had.

Banshee


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 10, 2009)

BryonD said:


> You like the fact that in 4E it is more homogeneous.




Yeah!



Imaro said:


> Why doesn't this same logic apply to discerning how the action should be represented mechanically in the game?
> 
> Edit: Or perhaps a better way to phrase this is why does the math matter in performing the action... but not in discerning results?




All I want to know is if the attack succeeds or fails.  I think the game's math works well in that case.  If it succeeds, I know what happens (the action, whatever it was, is successful).

Damage is different because HP are kind of strange.  That's why I like the fact that it has a damage by level chart.



Derren said:


> How so? In 4E the impact of the players action is limited by preserving the balance of the combat. That can lead to player actions having less/a different effect than it normally should have, as it having the logical effect would be unbalanced.




I care less about balance than I do about maintaining the game world's internal consistency.


----------



## Derren (Sep 10, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> I care less about balance than I do about maintaining the game world's internal consistency.




But that is a 3E way of thinking. In 4E the balance comes first.


----------



## vagabundo (Sep 10, 2009)

Derren said:


> But that is a 3E way of thinking. In 4E the balance comes first.




Maybe in your 4e game.


----------



## Nightson (Sep 10, 2009)

Derren said:


> But that is a 3E way of thinking. In 4E the balance comes first.




Enjoyment comes first in the design philosophy.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 10, 2009)

Soraios said:


> But 3.x is superior to 4e in these ways:
> 
> * _The rules are in the background_.  The rules are not constantly superimposing themselves on my in-game experience.




I try really hard to avoid EW threads anymore, but I just have to say I had the complete, total opposite experience with 3E, and I think my jaw actually dropped when I read your statement. I found 3E to be the worst offender I've experienced in this regard barring perhaps something like Powers & Perils, Aftermath, or RMSS.

Amazing how people see/experience things so differently


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 10, 2009)

Derren said:


> But that is a 3E way of thinking. In 4E the balance comes first.




Straight from the rulebooks, you are correct. A 3E DM could always make changes to shift the game towards more balance. Likewise a 4E DM can adjust as needed to create the desired level of consistency and logic.

I have plans to run a 4E campaign, hopefully starting in a couple weeks and you can bet that I will be adding stuff, and tossing out the trash to get the kind of game I want. 

One of the things I want to do is develop a lot more options for stunting because I hate it when character sheets get treated like a game pad.
Here are some basic stunting  ideas I want to develop further:

1) Not limit stunting attempts by artificial restrictions such as per day and per encounter.

2) Base the effectiveness of a stunt on the idea, the available resources, and the amount of commitment from the individual attempting it. The last part is primarily action/resource based. What is the stunt worth to pull off? Better effects/more damage depends on what the player wants to spend to do it. 

Take the old sand in the face trick for example. The player's intent is to blind his enemy for as long as possible. How effective the stunt is depends on how commited the player is to performing it. Is the player willing to spend his standard,minor,and move action, an action point and possibly a healing surge to make sure he screws over the bad guy? If the answer is yes then if the attack hits the bad guy might spend several rounds blinded, but if the player wants to use just a standard action maybe the guy is just dazed until the end of his turn. 

This can help the stunting attempts be a bit less level based and more balanced toward risk and reward. It will also make spamming effective stunts impractical due to the costs involved. 

3) Repeating stunts in the same combat become less and less effective for the cost due to enemies knowing what to look out for.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 10, 2009)

You know... now that I'm thinking about it, perhaps the save mechanism might be best for stunts that inflict conditions... while this still doesn't help in determining what actual condition should be imposed, it does help in determining a duration without much work.  10 or higher and the monster shakes off whatever condition you inflicted.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So what other *EFFECTS* besides damage does it give guidelines for?  Up thread I already said it was a page of DC's and damage...even in the post you quoted I specifically referenced effects, so I'm not sure what point you are making here?  Except maybe avoidance of what I am specifically talking about.
> 
> Edit: I have personally seen people post something along the lines of... One of my PC's wants to do a disarm in combat.  Followed by... hey just use pg. 42 it covers all kinds of improvised stunts.  No, it really doesn't... it covers stunts that do damage but not those that would inflict a condition or other effect.




Note that the example on page 42 includes pushing an ogre one square (into a brazier of hot coals). I think the thing which really confuses people is that while 4E seems very much "you can only do this", page 42 says "do whatever you like". 

So, if you tried to disarm someone the DM can rule that this is a Strength vs. Strength opposed check, or an attack vs Reflex, or something like that. 

Or you can even say, "No, you can't disarm the ogre."

Cheers!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 10, 2009)

MerricB said:


> Or you can even say, "No, you can't disarm the ogre."
> 
> Cheers!




I'm not a huge fan of the flat out "no" response. I would much prefer dismal odds for success that could result in an incredible memorable moment if it somehow succeeds. Just be careful and don't push the odds to a million-to one or such stunts will be pulled off 9 times out of ten.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So what other *EFFECTS* besides damage does it give guidelines for?  Up thread I already said it was a page of DC's and damage...even in the post you quoted I specifically referenced effects, so I'm not sure what point you are making here?  Except maybe avoidance of what I am specifically talking about.
> 
> Edit: I have personally seen people post something along the lines of... One of my PC's wants to do a disarm in combat.  Followed by... hey just use pg. 42 it covers all kinds of improvised stunts.  No, it really doesn't... it covers stunts that do damage but not those that would inflict a condition or other effect.




You seem to be expecting to find a table in the DMG that says "Blindness DC15 Deafness DC17" etc.  I look at page 42 and I think "Hey, I want to take that bowl full of salt and throw it in the bully's eyes to blind him, how hard would that be?" "Uhm...he's kinda drunk right now so his reaction time is a lot worse, we'll call it moderate, DC 17, roll 'em".  

The table on page 42 adjudicates whatever you really feel it needs to.  If I throw salt in someone's eyes, that doesn't mean I'm automatically looking out to the side and then rolling 3d8+4 for damage as well.  If I was using a makeshift weapon to attack him then that is probably when I would be looking at the damage column.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So what other *EFFECTS* besides damage does it give guidelines for?




So, I was just thinking, Imaro...

There was recently a preview article for the DMG II that had stats for a Chandelier that could be cut loose to drop on enemies...  Effectively a single-use stunt-trap that damages enemies beneath it and creates a zone of difficult terrain.

I wonder if they'll include something similar to what you're asking for in the DMG II...  Either guidelines for using conditions as a part of stunts, or a long list of examples that use them.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not a huge fan of the flat out "no" response. I would much prefer dismal odds for success that could result in an incredible memorable moment if it somehow succeeds. Just be careful and don't push the odds to a million-to one or such stunts will be pulled off 9 times out of ten.




One of my least favourite parts of 3e was that "everything could be destroyed". Yes, every door and wall had an AC, hardness and hit points. Yes, occasionally designers put the hardness of the door up a bit, but often that did nothing about tricked-out characters (esp. with adamantium weapons, but often they didn't even need those).

There are times when the DM needs to be able to say "no!"

(Thoughts of Brian throwing pebbles at a demon in KotDT...)

If something is inventive, why, certainly - they can try and I'll say yes. However, not every action must be possible. 

Cheers!


----------



## Imaro (Sep 10, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> You seem to be expecting to find a table in the DMG that says "Blindness DC15 Deafness DC17" etc.  I look at page 42 and I think "Hey, I want to take that bowl full of salt and throw it in the bully's eyes to blind him, how hard would that be?" "Uhm...he's kinda drunk right now so his reaction time is a lot worse, we'll call it moderate, DC 17, roll 'em".
> 
> The table on page 42 adjudicates whatever you really feel it needs to.  If I throw salt in someone's eyes, that doesn't mean I'm automatically looking out to the side and then rolling 3d8+4 for damage as well.  If I was using a makeshift weapon to attack him then that is probably when I would be looking at the damage column.




No, what I'm looking for is guidance on determining the severity of conditions in relation to the appropriate DC's.  The funny thing is that 4e's conditions are quantified and limited this shouldn't be that hard for the designers to do...

Perhaps something like a three tiered system where you have low/moderate and high conditions to inflict... then one could even combine them with damage so that doing a low conditon + low damage is a moderate DC but doing a medium condition + low damage is a Hard DC or something like that... I think I'm gonna work on this some more, I'll post what I come up with later.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 10, 2009)

MerricB said:


> One of my least favourite parts of 3e was that "everything could be destroyed". Yes, every door and wall had an AC, hardness and hit points. Yes, occasionally designers put the hardness of the door up a bit, but often that did nothing about tricked-out characters (esp. with adamantium weapons, but often they didn't even need those).
> 
> There are times when the DM needs to be able to say "no!"




Adamantine spoons.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> No, what I'm looking for is guidance on determining the severity of conditions in relation to the appropriate DC's.  The funny thing is that 4e's conditions are quantified and limited this shouldn't be that hard for the designers to do...
> 
> Perhaps something like a three tiered system where you have low/moderate and high conditions to inflict... then one could even combine them with damage so that doing a low conditon + low damage is a moderate DC but doing a medium condition + low damage is a Hard DC or something like that... I think I'm gonna work on this some more, I'll post what I come up with later.




This is exactly the type of stuff that I want the designers to stay out of.  As soon as some designer puts an "official" table in a book they begin to  handcuff the DM.  That is one of the main reasons I hated DCs for specific effects of skills in 3e.  A DC15 to tumble away from an opponent without provoking?  A DC 25 to tumble through the opponents square?  Shouldn't the skill of the opponent count for something?

I want my players to attempt the stunts, but the situation and the DM are what should dictate whether they have a chance or not.  A table that quantifies each effect and gives it an "in stone" chance removes the freedom the DM currently has.

If a player wants to attempt to blind the ogre, the DM currently can decide if it is doable or not.  As soon as a table gets put in the book then the DM starts to become beholden to the book.

Page 42 gives some good guidelines, an example, and then provides a scalable table for the stuff that mechanically is more difficult to adjudicate (damage).  The effects are left entirely up to the DM.

The DM can already use the existing powers to determine what a stunt should be able to do and how feasible it is.  You attempt to push an opponent 1 square, look at Tide of Iron.  You attempt to push multiple opponent, look at Thunder Wave.  As the DM becomes more experienced he doesn't have to rely on looking at existing powers anymore.  He will have a better feel for his game.

And that is where these things should stay, within the purview of each individual DM.

Each effect already has a description that gives the DM a pretty good idea of how "powerful" a specific effect can be.  Restrained is more powerful than immobilized, Stunned is more powerful than Dazed, etc.  So with that the DM can make some pretty accurate ad-hoc judgements.

I'm glad 4e got away from spelling everything out for the DM.  I hope it stays that way.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 10, 2009)

My preference would be to see something like the Book of Iron Might maneuver system with  attack modifiers comprised of  maneuver  penalties when attempting to pull  off attacks for certain effects (e.g, blind, daze, shift an opponent) and maneuver restrictions (e.g, target gets a save, opposed abiity check, effect only, etc.) that reduce the penalties.  If the final penalty resutls in the character needing a natural 20 to hit, they can't attempt the maneuver.


This gives the DM a system to work with, but still leaves the DM to determine which maneuver elements are involved.  The use of modifiers to attack rolls also means that the relative skill of the opponents (and armor if appropriate) is the factor rather than a set DC


----------



## Imaro (Sep 10, 2009)

D'karr said:


> This is exactly the type of stuff that I want the designers to stay out of.  As soon as some designer puts an "official" table in a book they begin to  handcuff the DM.  That is one of the main reasons I hated DCs for specific effects of skills in 3e.  A DC15 to tumble away from an opponent without provoking?  A DC 25 to tumble through the opponents square?  Shouldn't the skill of the opponent count for something?
> 
> I want my players to attempt the stunts, but the situation and the DM are what should dictate whether they have a chance or not.  A table that quantifies each effect and gives it an "in stone" chance removes the freedom the DM currently has.
> 
> ...




Your argument makes no sense... The DM always decides if something is doable or not.  You seem to be saying that the DM should be forced to scrounge through pages of powers to get a reference for adjudicating effects... but that a concise table that gives him guidelines for this is somehow bad?  Any DM can change the rules and nothing in the books makes one beholden to them.  All you're doing is saying searching for the guidelines in a roundabout way as opposed to them just being presented is better...because... it's better that way...

Taking this reasoning even further, all the DM had to do was look at different powers or monsters to determine ad-hoc damage... I mean we already know that 1d10 dmg is more than 1d8 dmg is more than 1d6 dmg, so with that we should be able to make some pretty accurate ad-hoc judgements... 

In the end, what I'm suggesting would be beneficial to people who want to use it and easily ignorable (as many say their players choose to do with pg. 42 anyway).  If you feel that the book controls the DM... well that seems more a problem with the DM.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Sep 10, 2009)

D'karr said:


> I want my players to attempt the stunts, but the situation and the DM are what should dictate whether they have a chance or not.  A table that quantifies each effect and gives it an "in stone" chance removes the freedom the DM currently has.



I agree with you, although I don't think anyone's suggesting that the DMG should indicate what condition to inflict as a function of what action the player narrates.  What could be useful is guidelines indicating how "powerful" dazes are compared to pushes, to help the DM decide what a "balanced" condition or effect would be for a stunt.  Then again, I am not sure that such a guideline or table is possible.  I would agree that in this case too the DM needs to provide judgement.  After all, this is the part of the game where the players can exercise creativity, and codified rules would only stifle them.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Sep 10, 2009)

MerricB said:


> However, not every action must be possible.




This statement makes me real twitchy.

The moment a game or DM tells me that I cannot do something that would be completely and utterly reasonable to attempt in real life (and digging through a wall with a weapon - while difficult and time-consuming - would count, IMO), is the moment my suspension of disbelief goes out the window.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 10, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> This statement makes me real twitchy.
> 
> The moment a game or DM tells me that I cannot do something that would be completely and utterly reasonable to attempt in real life (and digging through a wall with a weapon - while difficult and time-consuming - would count, IMO), is the moment my suspension of disbelief goes out the window.




Are you saying that you have often smashed through stell doors using your adamantine weapons? Or know of other people who have done just that in real life?


----------



## Vurt (Sep 10, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Are you saying that you have often smashed through stell doors using your adamantine weapons? Or know of other people who have done just that in real life?




What, have you never heard of people digging their way out of prisons with (not-even-remotely-adamantine) spoons?


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 10, 2009)

Vurt said:


> What, have you never heard of people digging their way out of prisons with (not-even-remotely-adamantine) spoons?




Sure, but I can pretty much assure you that they didn't dig out through the steel door.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 10, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> This statement makes me real twitchy.
> 
> The moment a game or DM tells me that I cannot do something that would be completely and utterly reasonable to attempt in real life (and digging through a wall with a weapon - while difficult and time-consuming - would count, IMO), is the moment my suspension of disbelief goes out the window.




The problem was that in 3e, my suspension of disbelief went out the window when high-strength characters could dig through that stone wall in 10 minutes - with no damage to their normal weapons.

I don't object to them taking a long time - that would be fine - but doing it in such a short space of time?

In 3e, a 10 foot unworked stone wall can be tunneled through by four Strength 20 fighters wielding greataxes in about 10 minutes...

Cheers!


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 10, 2009)

Vurt said:


> What, have you never heard of people digging their way out of prisons with (not-even-remotely-adamantine) spoons?



Yeah, but it takes them months if not years.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 10, 2009)

There is a psychological difference the size of a universe between "you can't do it" and "it wouldn't be effective to do it."


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> There is a psychological difference the size of a universe between "you can't do it" and "it wouldn't be effective to do it."




Are you saying that you in the real world could poke a whole in a steel door with a steel dagger? I must admit that I know little of such things, so I am asking, because my guess would be "no".


----------



## Votan (Sep 10, 2009)

ardoughter said:


> Yeah, but it takes them months if not years.




It also damages tools unless they are specifically designed to do this type of digging -- especially with hard rock or steel.  

To use an example earlier in the thread:

"In 3e, a 10 foot unworked stone wall can be tunneled through by four Strength 20 fighters wielding greataxes in about 10 minutes..."

As 10 feet is a thick wall, this seems to remove the need for seige engines!


----------



## PoeticJustice (Sep 10, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> This statement makes me real twitchy.
> 
> The moment a game or DM tells me that I cannot do something that would be completely and utterly reasonable to attempt in real life (and digging through a wall with a weapon - while difficult and time-consuming - would count, IMO), is the moment my suspension of disbelief goes out the window.




I've had players hold grudges on me for not letting them use Scent to smell an approaching zombie in a mausoleum, for not using firearms in the campaign (they're in the DMG!), interceding against PvP spellcasting, and other things I do to maintain the regularity of the game.

Situations like this usually arise when a player is being stupid, whiny, and disruptive, not when a DM is trying to screw over players. We (DMs) have much better and easier methods of doing that--contact poisons, dragon attacks, etc.

So sorry about your suspension of disbelief, but in the end the DM's the boss and you ought to trust him or her to have a good reason for doing what they do.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Sep 10, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Are you saying that you have often smashed through stell doors using your adamantine weapons? Or know of other people who have done just that in real life?




When the game insists on things that have no real-world correspondence, I usually resort to analogy and logic to assist me in reaching sensible conclusions.

Given adamantine's ridiculous hardness, it makes complete sense to me for someone to be able to eventually work their way through any sort of real-world metal.

The times required are probably longer than given in d20. But that doesn't mean it's impossible or even impractical to do.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> The problem was that in 3e, my suspension of disbelief went out the window when high-strength characters could dig through that stone wall in 10 minutes - with no damage to their normal weapons.




I'll agree that the time required to do these sorts of things is probably less than it should be.

I'll also agree with you that the weapons should definitely suffer for the effort. If you use a greataxe to hack through a 10 ft cube of stone, it is probably going to be rather useless after, if not start failing to have any effect somewhere in the middle.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Sep 10, 2009)

PoeticJustice said:


> So sorry about your suspension of disbelief, but in the end the DM's the boss and you ought to trust him or her to have a good reason for doing what they do.




It disrupts my suspension of disbelief no matter which side of the screen I'm on.

If I'm DMing and using a game that does not allow for a full range of sensible answers, or even allow for the possibility of ludicrous things (ie, give me rules for how long it will take to use a spoon to dig through a stone wall [or at least give me the means to calculate it], rather than tell me "it can't be done," even if it takes so long to the point of being completely unreasonable to think that someone would attempt it), that game will rapidly irritate me to the point of either (1) me house-ruling the crap out of it, or (2) I no longer run the game if there are enough such instances.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 10, 2009)

MerricB said:


> In 3e, a 10 foot unworked stone wall can be tunneled through by four Strength 20 fighters wielding greataxes in about 10 minutes...
> 
> Cheers!




The problem here isn't so much the basic idea that everything has a hardness and a toughness.  The problem is instead:

1) Assuming a weapon designed to cleave flesh does equal damage to all non-flesh targets.
2) Not having rules for damaging/dulling your weapon when striking a hard surface.
3) Not understanding that an inanimate objects 'hardness' depends in part on its thickness - especially for brittle substances like glass, stone, ice, etc.  One-hundred and twenty one inch thick stone plates are not equal to a 10' block of stone.
4) Assuming that a person can keep up the same intensity of labor that they do in a brutal melee to the death for the span of 10 minutes or an hour or the like.  This is like suggesting your rate of overland travel should be based on your run speed.

Some suggestions:

1) If the weapon isn't designed to function as a tool for damaging that particular surface, it does only half damage (at best).  So, pick axes are fine for busting down the wall.  Battle axes on the other hand do half damage and weapons like longswords and arrows do but 1/4.  Axes on the other hand would do full damage to wooden doors.
2) If the damage you do to an inanimate object with a blow exceeds the hardness of the weapon you are wielding, the weapon takes damage as well.  This also nicely resolves the problem that a high strength individual can also tunnel through a wall without tools under RAW.
3) Scale both the hardness and the hit point of materials by their thickness (up to some reasonable maximum).  Even glass actually acquires a fairly reasonable hardness (resistance to damage) after a certain thickness because it stop yielding (and hense shattering).  Really hard objects are generally nearly impervious to brute force.  Instead, you have to wear them down slowly using very specialized tools.
4) Assume that over a span longer than a minute or two, a character will keep up at most half as many strong attacks as they would in melee.  Force endurance checks if the player wants to hustle.

Returning to your legitimate gripe, if 4 strength 20 characters started attacking a solid stone wall with axes made for battle rather than chopping something, I'd apply a hardness about 17 to the wall and cause the axes to do half damage.  Without power attack or similar feats, they just aren't going to do credible damage that way, and their axes are going to quickly break if they start forcing them to do work they aren't designed to do.   Moreover, even if they get pick axes or other legitimate tools (bag of holding, right?), the work would go slowly.  Probably faster than it would in real life, but these are str 20 superheroes after all.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 10, 2009)

MerricB said:


> There are times when the DM needs to be able to say "no!"




However, he doesn't have to say that out loud.  The universe does not tell me I am unable to fly before I try by jumping out a two story window.  So, as DM I never tell the players ahead of time if something is impossible.  I'll tell them it looks really difficult and perhaps they've never heard of anyone doing it.  I'll usually explain the consequences of failure if the PCs would know them.  Let them roll the dice and fail if they want to.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 10, 2009)

> Are you saying that you in the real world could poke a whole in a steel door with a steel dagger? I must admit that I know little of such things, so I am asking, because my guess would be "no".




I didn't say squat about the real world. I can't fly around, fight dragons, or cast spells in the real world, either. The game lets me do all sorts of crazy stuff that no one in the real world could do. Suddenly, breaking down a door is taboo?

Nah, there's only a _problem_ with this if somehow that door is there for a metagame reason (to keep the PC's out) and the PC's find a way around that using in-game logic. 

In which case you're boned from the beginning, putting up an absolute barrier where there should be a permeable membrane. 

Rather than asking a DM to be a killyjoy and say "NO YOU CAN'T IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE," it would seem to me to be the better option to tell the DM to not be a pansy about it when players go off-map. 

This is a pretty decent example of an idea that 4e did wonders to embrace: "Say yes."


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I didn't say squat about the real world. I can't fly around, fight dragons, or cast spells in the real world, either. The game lets me do all sorts of crazy stuff that no one in the real world could do. Suddenly, breaking down a door is taboo?




I think we are talking past each other. My original comment was in response to a poster who used real life as an example. For what it is worth, I agree that you should never place a door and say that players can not get past it no matter what idea they come up with.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Sep 11, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> It disrupts my suspension of disbelief no matter which side of the screen I'm on.
> 
> If I'm DMing and using a game that does not allow for a full range of sensible answers, or even allow for the possibility of ludicrous things (ie, give me rules for how long it will take to use a spoon to dig through a stone wall [or at least give me the means to calculate it], rather than tell me "it can't be done," even if it takes so long to the point of being completely unreasonable to think that someone would attempt it), that game will rapidly irritate me to the point of either (1) me house-ruling the crap out of it, or (2) I no longer run the game if there are enough such instances.




That's what you want in your RPG manual? Rules for digging through walls without a shovel? The game effects of Adamant Spoons? 

They omit these things not because they are impossible, but because it's patently ridiculous to waste space with corner case rules and expect DMs to obey them. Far better to be vague and let people running games to decide the exact meaning of a rule than too specific.


----------



## Vurt (Sep 11, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Sure, but I can pretty much assure you that they didn't dig out through the steel door.




Ah, so that's what you meant when you wrote "stell".  And see, here I was thinking I could safely ignore that word and the rest of the sentence would still make sense... ;D


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 11, 2009)

Vurt said:


> Ah, so that's what you meant when you wrote "stell".  And see, here I was thinking I could safely ignore that word and the rest of the sentence would still make sense... ;D




Haha. My bad. Lots of beers and wine tonight, after a long day of work. Gives me fat fingers and my perception (spot) takes a -5 penalty, at least.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Sep 11, 2009)

PoeticJustice said:


> That's what you want in your RPG manual? Rules for digging through walls without a shovel? The game effects of Adamant Spoons?




In effect, yes.

What I want from a rulebook is a solid framework covering a wide variety of possible actions that may arise in-game. I do not expect every action to be covered by the rules; but I expect that, through extension and extrapolation, most actions should be resolvable without resorting to making something up whole-cloth.

Do not give me rules directly for digging through a wall with an adamantine spoon. Give me rules regarding item and object hit points, rules for dealing damage to objects, a general idea of how many hit points and damage resistance various materials have, a general damage table for improvised weapons, and rules covering how making an item out of adamantine changes its properties.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 11, 2009)

> I think we are talking past each other. My original comment was in response to a poster who used real life as an example. For what it is worth, I agree that you should never place a door and say that players can not get past it no matter what idea they come up with.




Fair 'nuff. Though I think if you look at the seed at the core of this conversation, it's not really about what one can accomplish in the "real world," either. It's about giving the DM the tools to say yes. GW wants item stats for that, which is reasonable, but complex. I'm perhaps more comfortable with a more abstract way of dealing with it myself, but either way, we both want something that helps us make that decision. A simple "no" doesn't suffice, but a reasonable way to figure out exactly what it would take certainly does (though I'd like to to be easier than it was in 3e, I do need *something* there!). 

The point of my "psychological distance" post was to point out that putting in place a reasonable challenge is often a much more satisfying way to run the game than to just prohibit the action (however you justify that prohibition). 

I'm really OK with high-strength characters digging through walls with adamantine spoons, because in *actual play*, that only ever becomes an actual issue for metagame reasons.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> A simple "no" doesn't suffice, but a reasonable way to figure out exactly what it would take certainly does (though I'd like to to be easier than it was in 3e, I do need *something* there!).
> 
> The point of my "psychological distance" post was to point out that putting in place a reasonable challenge is often a much more satisfying way to run the game than to just prohibit the action (however you justify that prohibition).




Rather than simply "yes" or "no", it's "No, but..."

Prohibit the completely unreasonable action ("No, you can't dig through solid stone with a wooden spoon, no matter how strong you are."), but throw them a bone by hinting at another more reasonable course ("One of the iron bars in the window of your prison cell is a little looose in its mortar.  Given time, you might be able to use your raw strength to wiggle it out.").


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 11, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Are you saying that you in the real world could poke a whole in a steel door with a steel dagger? I must admit that I know little of such things, so I am asking, because my guess would be "no".



All of the (plausible) stories I've heard about people digging themselves out of prison seem to include a bit about scraping the mortar away from the door frame (or bolts, or window bars, or whatever).  I don't remember hearing about anyone actually cutting through steel to escape a prison; they somehow managed to detach the steel from the stone.

Which makes sense, I guess.  Some older types of mortar are quite a bit softer than the iron, tin, or copper that spoons were once made of.  But this was before the days of epoxy, high density concrete, and nonexpansive grout.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 11, 2009)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Rather than simply "yes" or "no", it's "No, but..."
> 
> Prohibit the completely unreasonable action ("No, you can't dig through solid stone with a wooden spoon, no matter how strong you are."), but throw them a bone by hinting at another more reasonable course ("One of the iron bars in the window of your prison cell is a little looose in its mortar. Given time, you might be able to use your raw strength to wiggle it out.").




For me, I don't like using "unreasonable" as a byline to prohibit action in a fantasy adventure game. 

I would like them to be able to shatter solid stone with a well-placed blow (and maybe blame it on the spoon) with sufficient strength.

Because that way, it's *more fantastical*, and has better consequences when the group later faces a stone golem that they're punching or something. 

But hey, your "No, but..." approach is fine for DMs who don't have the balls to have their PC's punching through solid stone walls with their fists.  (Not that I expect most DM's to have the stomach for that, honestly, just that for me, yes, it works just fine).


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But hey, your "No, but..." approach is fine for DMs who don't have the balls to have their PC's punching through solid stone walls with their fists.  (Not that I expect most DM's to have the stomach for that, honestly, just that for me, yes, it works just fine).




I don't have a problem with PC's punching through solid stone walls with their fist.  I just don't want to see it happen at 1st level, because - among other things - that means that if the PC's can do it, so can almost everyone else.

And that makes the game 'fantastical' in a whole different way that just isn't nearly so nice for everyone.  It's only cool to punch through solid stone walls with your fist, if doing so is heroic.  If you can do it solely because in your world solid stone is roughly as durable as styrofoam, that's not so cool.


----------



## Betote (Sep 11, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> In earlier versions: Save vs. Petrification?  To hit vs. AC?  What AC?  Any proficiency/non-proficiency bonuses or penalties?  AoO, if that misses, melee touch attack using Dex instead of Str, then a Reflex save?  Just a Reflex save?  What's the DC?  Or no Reflex save at all?




CMB vs. the target's CMD


----------



## BryonD (Sep 11, 2009)

MerricB said:


> The problem was that in 3e, my suspension of disbelief went out the window when high-strength characters could dig through that stone wall in 10 minutes - with no damage to their normal weapons.
> 
> I don't object to them taking a long time - that would be fine - but doing it in such a short space of time?
> 
> ...



I can see how this could be a suspension of disbelief problem.
However, for a 4E fan to say that *this* is a sod problem for them makes me do a double take.




Without disputing that it is reasonable to have issues with this, I do think it is entirely reasonable to have no problem with it whatsoever.  You are talking about FOUR strength *20*  characters.  I frequently played in games with 6 PCs, and off the top of my head I don't recall ever having two STR 20 characters going at the same time.  It may have happened.  But I doubt it.  In the games I played the strong guy in town would generally be 15 or 16.  18 was rare (not true for PCs of course, who are rare themselves by definition).  

The idea of pulling together FOUR STR 20 characters seems really rare.
The idea of then using this conjunction of power to plow through a stone wall seems a bizarre waste of resources.
The visual of these four marginally superhuman powerhouses grinding steadily through a stone wall seems freaking awesome!!!!


----------



## BryonD (Sep 11, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> The problem here isn't so much the basic idea that everything has a hardness and a toughness.  The problem is instead:
> 
> 1) Assuming a weapon designed to cleave flesh does equal damage to all non-flesh targets.



I very much agree with this.  I still don't like that items do not wear out under these type conditions.  But it comes up so infrequently that the handful of times something akin to this has happened in play I've informed the players that their weapons will take damage if they put them through so much stress.  And they always said something to the effect that this was reasonable and either dealt with it or made another plan.

And yeah, a sword vs stone wall is just not going to perform like stone versus orc.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 11, 2009)

Betote said:


> CMB vs. the target's CMD




Exactly!  I like that change.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 11, 2009)

BryonD said:


> And yeah, a sword vs stone wall is just not going to perform like stone versus orc.




It's as if the relative hardness of objects was relevant.

Never give your prisoners a piece of chalk to mark the days... they'll just use it to dig through the mortar.


----------



## Henry (Sep 11, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> It's as if the relative hardness of objects was relevant.
> 
> Never give your prisoners a piece of chalk to mark the days... they'll just use it to dig through the mortar.




Add "in D&D" to that, and it's sig-worthy.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> For me, I don't like using "unreasonable" as a byline to prohibit action in a fantasy adventure game.
> 
> I would like them to be able to shatter solid stone with a well-placed blow (and maybe blame it on the spoon) with sufficient strength.
> 
> ...




But you've got admit that much of that depends greatly on the style, tone, setting and genre of the game you're playing.

Punching through a stone wall, for example, is arguably more appropriate in Mutants & Masterminds than it would be in most D&D games, and generally more appropriate in any given D&D game than it would be in, say, Spycraft.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 11, 2009)

I think one of the issues with fighters punching their way through walls is less an issue with hardness and mass and whatnot and more a problem with post 2e stat generation and accumulation.

Pre-3e, stats were static.  What you started out with was what you had, unless you found items or tomes to raise it.  As such, having 18/00 strength was a *huge* deal and made you the literal peak of physical power.  Anything above 18/00 was quite simply inhuman - literally, in that _no human being could naturally reach it_.  A Belt of Hill Giant's Strength gave you the strength of a hill giant.  Furthermore odd numbers in stats still had an effect.  You weren't limited to just sighing in frustration at your 17, knowing that it was useless until you patched it up.

Post-2e, stats were _not_ static.  Every _x_ levels you raised your stats.  This had a *major* change in things.  There weren't belts of ____ giant's strength anymore, because by level 8 you'd have 20 strength already - instead, they were commonly just "belts of +2 strength."  You also saw stats all become heavily rounded into even numbers only.

What's the big issue here?  Simple - having 18 strength was no longer a big deal.  It was expected in many cases.  Having more then 18 strength also wasn't a big deal.  Taking a pick and slamming it into a wall hard enough to break through when you had the strength of a giant is awesome and fits the genre.  Having some bloke who just leveled up a few times do it is dumb and :| worthy.  _Even though the statistics are the same_.  It comes down not to the mechanics behind it, but the flavor and the feel.  When the statistics are stripped away from the feel and just become numbers, they become boring.  

Unless you're a math nerd like me.  Then numbers are _kicking rad_.  But I still prefer them with fluff ;p


----------



## ferratus (Sep 11, 2009)

I rather wish stats didn't go up as levels do.   I don't really understand why they do in 3e and 4e in fact, given that they have bonuses to attacks and/or defenses based on level anyway.  The bonus to stats just seems rather redundant unless you want to say that people do become stronger or smarter as they go up in levels.

The problem with that of course is that it leads to every fighter being the strongest man who ever lived, or every wizard PC being the smartest.  You don't dare put your ability score increases in other stats, because the system provides very little reward for it.

I wouldn't mind it so much if high stats open up new feats, or particular fighting styles, or particular magical techniques.  However, when your ability scores determine how often you hit, or how effective your spells are, you can't deviate from putting all your boosts into your primary score.

So I'd rather have a straight attack score, and leave the 6 ability scores to determine character details rather than character effectiveness.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 11, 2009)

ferratus said:


> I rather wish stats didn't go up as levels do.   I don't really understand why they do in 3e and 4e in fact, given that they have bonuses to attacks and/or defenses based on level anyway.  The bonus to stats just seems rather redundant unless you want to say that people do become stronger or smarter as they go up in levels.
> 
> The problem with that of course is that it leads to every fighter being the strongest man who ever lived, or every wizard PC being the smartest.  You don't dare put your ability score increases in other stats, because the system provides very little reward for it.




Why improve stats? It's another way for a character to improve that each player can decide for themselves. Plus, it means you no longer need to have absolutely top-notch stats in everything you want, you can improve them a little to get that little extra mojo.

I disagree that you only get benefits from improving your prime stats. I think that's a very unfortunate optimization mentality, geared just around offense, to box yourself into. 3e has plenty of reasons to increase more than just your main offensive attribute. Con nets more hp and Fort. Wisdom nets more Will. Dex better initiative and Ref. Intelligence more skills. Strength more bonuses to melee combat. Charisma - well, that one may depend on the class you've got. Most of these stats are useful to improve for most characters if you perceive a deficiency in your stats.

I can accept that focusing on offense if a useful strategy, but I think monomaniacal focus on this strategy is also what leads players to complain about balance issues, particularly when they suddenly find their defenses can't keep up with the offensive arms race.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 12, 2009)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> But you've got admit that much of that depends greatly on the style, tone, setting and genre of the game you're playing.
> 
> Punching through a stone wall, for example, is arguably more appropriate in Mutants & Masterminds than it would be in most D&D games, and generally more appropriate in any given D&D game than it would be in, say, Spycraft.




Yeah, I'll agree that it has to do with the style (mythic, Heracles-and-Samson style fantasy, or more low-key, perhaps Tolkeinesque fantasy). 

But the bottom line here is that adamantium spoons or punching through brick walls or not finding a way to escape the prison cell basically boil down to something that becomes irrelevant at the table if the DM is doing his job right and giving the players a way to accomplish their characters' goals. Nothing like this is a problem (they're all ways to overcome the challenge).


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 12, 2009)

One idea that's floating around in my head is that, in Epic level 4E, PCs might be able to talk a wall into opening up for them.  At Paragon levels they might be able to talk with it and ask it what it's seen.

I need to do more work on the campaign setting first, though.  I think PCs might have to speak in Supernal to do it.


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 12, 2009)

ferratus said:


> I rather wish stats didn't go up as levels do.   I don't really understand why they do in 3e and 4e in fact, given that they have bonuses to attacks and/or defenses based on level anyway.  The bonus to stats just seems rather redundant unless you want to say that people do become stronger or smarter as they go up in levels.
> 
> The problem with that of course is that it leads to every fighter being the strongest man who ever lived, or every wizard PC being the smartest.  You don't dare put your ability score increases in other stats, because the system provides very little reward for it.
> 
> ...




Realize, that in 3.x at least, ability scores in the 19 to 22 range were humanly possible by "mere mortals" (non-epic beings).  The lifting/carrying tables for STR show that 22 and 23 STR would be equivalent to world-record level strength, and 20 or 21 would be world-class strength that would be a professional bodybuilder or Olympic athlete.  The old 2e to 3e conversion book made each 18/XX category equivalent to 1 number above 18, so a 2e 18/22 STR would be converted to a 19.

Also, with the 3e spellcasting system, you can cast spell levels equal to your casting stat minus 10, so you need a 19 INT for a Wizard to cast 9th level spells, and at least it makes sense to say that you have to be particularly bright to cast a Wish, while any average person could learn a cantrip or Magic Missile, and a mediocre mind could never cast mighty magic no matter how much training (i.e. levels).  To have that without stat-boosting items, you'll have to raise your ability scores at some point.  One thing I hated about 2e was being stuck with mediocre stats because you had a weak roll starting out.  In 3.x, as long as you start with at least a 15, a primary spellcaster will never be unable to cast even without stat-boosting items or Wishes, but if you don't have that much you can still be a dabbler and take a few levels and not have problems.

Why should a 1st level fighter be just as good if he has an 11 STR as an 18 and how strong he is should be "flavor text"?  Why should a 1st level Wizard be just as good of a spellcaster if he has a 11 INT and is about to flunk out of Wizard school as an 18 and is a prodigy?  He shouldn't, raw talent counts for a lot, and that's what the ability scores represent.  Bonuses for ability scores are the "talent" part of a characters saves, attacks, skills ect, while their BAB and skill ranks ect. are the "practice and training" part of the equation.  It's that way to make characters less cookie-cutter and more customizable, because that's a very good thing.


----------



## amerigoV (Sep 14, 2009)

Wow, this thread is so off course. Arguing over digging through steel doors with adamantine spoons.... No wonder the OP is giving up on 4e...


----------



## Psion (Sep 14, 2009)

avin said:


> Most people who compare both games seem to be people who has no much Wow experience...




My observations are contrary to this.


----------



## Psion (Sep 14, 2009)

Sir Robilar said:


> There seem to be a lot of people here who tried 4E, found out it's not theirs but also couldn't return to 3E since they suddenly felt that system's flaws were too obvious to return.




If you find yourself in this situation, and you don't think PF will fix your issues with D&D, you might consider Fantasy Craft:

http://www.crafty-games.com/node/348

It's not exactly D&D, but maybe if you fit in the above category, you might need something that isn't exactly D&D.


----------



## Maggan (Sep 14, 2009)

amerigoV said:


> Wow, this thread is so off course. Arguing over digging through steel doors with adamantine spoons.... No wonder the OP is giving up on 4e...




Erm ... the adamantine spoons were a problem with 3e ... wasn't it?

/M


----------



## amerigoV (Sep 14, 2009)

> Erm ... the adamantine spoons were a problem with 3e ... wasn't it?




Exactly. That's why 4e sucks - no Adamantine Spoons. One simply cannot play an Intelligent, Vorpal CE Adamantine Spoon under 4e. That was a cool, viable option under 3e...


----------



## Thanee (Sep 14, 2009)

I'm really not sure a spoon counts as a slashing weapon...

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Voadam (Sep 14, 2009)

Thanee said:


> I'm really not sure a spoon counts as a slashing weapon...
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




Your right, generally sharpening a spoon into a shiv creates a piercing weapon. Luckily the OGL allowed supplements like Arms and Armor 3.5 which has a vorpal style property for piercing weapons.


----------



## Vurt (Sep 14, 2009)

Thanee said:


> I'm really not sure a spoon counts as a slashing weapon...




I think the point of it being a spoon was so that it would hurt more.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 14, 2009)

> I'm really not sure a spoon counts as a slashing weapon...




Quick, somebody look that up. I'm sure _From Stone to Steel_ has an entry for "spoon." It has an entry for nearly every other implement of doom across history and culture. If spoon cannot be found, an entry for "prison chiv" is probably acceptable.


----------



## Henrix (Sep 14, 2009)

What if it's a bohemian ear spoon? Isn't that a slashing weapon?


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 15, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Quick, somebody look that up. I'm sure _From Stone to Steel_ has an entry for "spoon."




Nope, I checked. 

However, it is listed in Weapon Focus: Improvised Modern Weapons, by Aleph Gaming, under the entry for "dinner spoon." It does 1 point of piercing damage, only scores a critical on a natural 20, and has a range increment of 10 ft.

That should silence the "adamantine spoon" critics, since the RAW says "Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon."

Man I love being a rules lawyer!


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 15, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> Nope, I checked.
> 
> However, it is listed in Weapon Focus: Improvised Modern Weapons, by Aleph Gaming, under the entry for "dinner spoon." It does 1 point of piercing damage, only scores a critical on a natural 20, and has a range increment of 10 ft.
> 
> ...




Gah!  it's going to bother me now, until I can find a feat or prestige class to sunder with piercing weapons!

The best I could find was Ranged Sunder, from Complete Warrior.  Lets ranged piercing weapons sunder for half damage within 30 ft.  The spoon does have a 10 ft range increment...  So, maybe toos in a few Bloodstorm Blade levels so you can full attack with your adamantine spoon from range.  Perhaps add in some sneak attack dice for damaging the things carrying the stuff you want to break, and I think it could be a solid build.  Oooh!  Scrolls of Whirling Blade to do a 60 ft line sunder attack with the spoon would be awesome!  ...too bad it's also slashing only...  There's always the Lightning Throw level 8 Iron Heart maneuver...

I love 3E.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 15, 2009)

There is no spoon*.
[SBLOCK=*]No vorpal, adamantine bohemian ear spoons, anyway. At least, not in 4e. Yet.[/SBLOCK]


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Sep 15, 2009)

Done with? I just wanna get started with 4e. 

_:::goes off whimpering into the corner::: _

Stupid life-stuff gettin' in the way of my gamin' fun...


----------



## Emirikol (Sep 15, 2009)

Hey, I finished with 4E too this year.  Switched to WFRP..now we'll see what the new edition brings.  I'm getting to that point in my life where I'm wondering why I still play RPG's when all the action is in boardgames and video games...

jh


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 2, 2009)

Soraios said:


> I've been a player in a 4e campaign since the release of the edition.  Prior to that, I DM'd and played extensively in a series of 3.x campaigns.  I have tried to adapt to the new system (for the sake of my friend who DMs it), but I can't keep playing 4e; the game itself is driving me crazy.
> 
> I don't think 3.x is perfect.  High-level encounters, for instance, can be very complicated.  But 3.x is superior to 4e in these ways:
> 
> * _The rules are in the background_.  The rules are not constantly superimposing themselves on my in-game experience.  Example: 4e marking.




Completely agree. And would add some powers like _Come and Get It_ make no sense when dealing with things like mindless undead or oozes. But some how these creatures respond to insults and taunts. There is no sense of individualized race that lent some believability to monsters.

Then there is power repetition. That really kills your game experience by superimposing the rules. The same encounter powers every fight whether they are needed or not is like throwing ice water on me as a DM. I find it astounding that anyone can defend encounter powers as a rules that easily work into the background. 

I prefer the paradigm that powers are built upon in previous editions. That allows characters to ramp for a big fight while not overusing powers. Encounter powers require a DM to make up ridiculous reasons why they work every fight regardless of circumstance.



> * _High level of player creativity in character design_.  This only increased as new 3.x materials were released.  4e suffers from "sameyness" from the PHB onward.




This is by design. 4E uses the same model for every type of class and every single prestige class.



> * _Vancian magic_.  I prefer it.  It's part of D&D's core identity.  3e honors it (while giving some options for other paths); 4e pays lip service to it (for wizards, anyway) but essentially reinvents the magic system, to its detriment.




I like it better too. Rituals were a good idea. But they were so limiting that they proved useless in battle situations.



> * _4e has a very artificial feel_.  The labels/roles are a big part of that; striker, artillery, leader, minion ... where is the mystery and wonder?  The rules encourage metagame thinking and take me out of the game-world and into wargamer mode.




I would say it makes you feel limited. All the games are artificial. But the roles were the same regardless of what class you chose with very little to differentiate say a paladin from a fighter save for a different main statistic.




> I want to play a game of D&D that emphasizes a blend of role-playing, story-telling, exploration, adventure, and yes, exciting combat.  I would venture a guess that most of the folks on this forum want the same, though arguably in different proportions.  So I want a game system that allows me to do that with minimal intrusiveness.  I don't want to feel like I'm playing a boardgame or MMO.  For these reasons, I'm starting a pathfinder campaign.




My friends all are hardcore WoW players as am I. They all feel 4E is far more like an MMORPG than an RPG. Sure, it isn't exactly like WoW. But it is very much like an MMORPG in terms of gameplay and character design.

All these folkings pointing out how it is different don't want to point out the similaririties and they are many.

The roles are like an MMORPG. With no feasible multiclass capability, you will not see much deviation from the class roles.

Tank: This is your fighter and paladins. They hold aggro, which is very MMORPG like.

Damage Dealer: These are your strikers. In WoW every class that isn't a tank or healer is a damage dealer.

Healer: These are your leaders. They heal and keep the party up. Luckily in D&D 4E they get to throw down a bit to too.

Controller: This is more a subfunction of many classes in WoW. The only comparable MMORPG class I can think of is the Enchanter from Everquest.

Solos are an example of raid bosses. Weak ones albeit, but still an example of raid bosses.

Elites are straight out of WoW.

It's obvious that 4E was designed with the MMORPG market in mind. The previous rulesets were not friendly to MMORPG design. This new ruleset should be friendly for MMORPG design while keeping enough of their tabletop gaming base to keep the community lively I imagine.

I gotta admit I'd play an MMORPG based on 4E character design. All those powers and abilities would look pretty interesting brought graphically to life whereas bringing to life 3.x or prior editions of DnD in an MMORPG would be very difficult.


----------



## nightwyrm (Nov 2, 2009)

I know we just went through Halloween and all, but shouldn't threads that died for more than a month get locked to keep it from getting necro'ed.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 2, 2009)

Celtavian said:


> Then there is power repetition. That really kills your game experience by superimposing the rules. The same encounter powers every fight whether they are needed or not is like throwing ice water on me as a DM. I find it astounding that anyone can defend encounter powers as a rules that easily work into the background.
> 
> I prefer the paradigm that powers are built upon in previous editions. That allows characters to ramp for a big fight while not overusing powers. Encounter powers require a DM to make up ridiculous reasons why they work every fight regardless of circumstance.



I think that's painting all the power sources with a broad brush. I can understand why some might feel this way for martial powers, but for divine and arcane powers? The wizard and the cleric cast the same spells or use the same prayers each encounter because they are able to prepare them again after a short rest. The only difference from previous editions is how long you have to rest before you can regain at least some of your spells or prayers (5 minutes vs 8 hours).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 2, 2009)

FireLance said:


> I think that's painting all the power sources with a broad brush. I can understand why some might feel this way for martial powers, but for divine and arcane powers? The wizard and the cleric cast the same spells or use the same prayers each encounter because they are able to prepare them again after a short rest. The only difference from previous editions is how long you have to rest before you can regain at least some of your spells or prayers (5 minutes vs 8 hours).




yea, and having X number of encounter powers is much worse then 'attack' or 'full attack' right


----------



## Nightson (Nov 2, 2009)

I have had no trouble ever explaining encounter powers.  

Sometimes Come and Get It can be a taunt that makes enemies charge them.

Sometimes Come and Get It is the fighter standing to block the enemies access to his friends, leading no choice but to attack him.

Sometimes Come and Get It is the fighter faking an opening causing the opponents to rush forward trying to finish him off.

Sometimes Come and Get It is the nothing more then all the enemies deciding to attack the fighter and him smashing them.

Combat is abstract.  

Sure I've run into trouble with descriptions before.  Like how a bolt of acid knocks a creature unconscious without killing it.  I generally see that as more of a challenge then an road block.

(Acid examples.  Shock of a hit that causes surface damage.  Shock from a serious wound (should you feel like inflicting one).  The fumes.  Sprayed with small specks of acid, which cause excruciating pain.)


----------



## avin (Nov 2, 2009)

Celtavian said:


> My friends all are hardcore WoW players as am I. They all feel 4E is far more like an MMORPG than an RPG. Sure, it isn't exactly like WoW. But it is very much like an MMORPG in terms of gameplay and character design.
> 
> All these folkings pointing out how it is different don't want to point out the similaririties and they are many.
> 
> ...




How would you adapt 4E to a MMO? How would you deal with interrupts if latency makes Warrior's charge stop yards from the enemy and, only after 5 years, they are fixing Rogue's vanish? As a Hardcore Wow player you can't see how hard would it be to implement the heavily turn based 4E compares to 3.5 to a MMO, unless is turn based...?


4E took roles and stuff from Wow but it don't play like Wow. It plays like Final Fantasy tactics.



We're necroing "Wow is 4E" again...?


----------



## resistor (Nov 2, 2009)

avin said:


> How would you adapt 4E to a MMO? How would you deal with interrupts if latency makes Warrior's charge stop yards from the enemy




Eh, that's not really a new problem.  When I played Guild Wars, hammer warriors could cause knockdown pretty easily, and it was entirely possible for an enemy to start moving away, only to be knocked down a moment later thanks to lag.

Also, Mesmers in GW are a pretty good examples of an MMO controller.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 2, 2009)

Nightson said:


> I have had no trouble ever explaining encounter powers.



Pop quiz role playing.  The mechanics tell you what happens and you invent a justification.

My preference is that you decide what you want to do and the mechanics simulate the outcome.  

It has nothing to do with trouble.  It is just a question of whether it is more fun for the mechanics to control the narrative, or the narrative to control the mechanics.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 2, 2009)

avin said:


> We're necroing "Wow is 4E" again...?




On a necro'd page, at that!

If he mentioned the _class_ necromancer, or necromancy and how it relates to 4e, we'd be set up perfectly.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 2, 2009)

Nightson said:


> I have had no trouble ever explaining encounter powers.
> 
> Sometimes Come and Get It can be a taunt that makes enemies charge them.
> 
> ...




In an RPG? Get out of town!



> Sure I've run into trouble with descriptions before.  Like how a bolt of acid knocks a creature unconscious without killing it.  I generally see that as more of a challenge then an road block.
> 
> (Acid examples.  Shock of a hit that causes surface damage.  Shock from a serious wound (should you feel like inflicting one).  The fumes.  Sprayed with small specks of acid, which cause excruciating pain.)





Every edition of D&D has abstracted combat. What differs are the areas in which creative explanations are needed.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 2, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> I know we just went through Halloween and all, but shouldn't threads that died for more than a month get locked to keep it from getting necro'ed.



Nope. We don't throw out perfectly good threads around here cause of a little dust. It is one of this boards' best features.

Mods can and have locked threads that got revived without any worthwhile reason, but bumps usually get the benefit of the doubt. As to this threads worth, using the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 on the bumper's post can get a mod to pronounce judgment on the bump.

EDIT


			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> > *Originally Posted by Soraios *
> > But 3.x is superior to 4e in these ways:
> >
> > * The rules are in the background. The rules are not constantly superimposing themselves on my in-game experience. Example: 4e marking.
> ...



Agree on this.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 2, 2009)

Celtavian said:


> And would add some powers like _Come and Get It_ make no sense when dealing with things like mindless undead or oozes.



Trying to rationalize how a PC pissed off a carnivorous Jello mold is one of the joys of running 4e. Really, if you're okay with _fighting a Jello mold_ in the first place, why quibble about how someone managed to make it angry?

(BTW, Nightson has it right. CaGI doesn't neccessarily involve taunting an opponent. It can simply mean the opponent has decided to attack the PC using it. Like I said in another thread, CaGI isn't magic, it's metafiction).


----------



## wolff96 (Nov 2, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I also think that folks who post on RPG messageboards - whether it's a result of fan culture, the interwebs, or human nature - have a problem categorizing something as "A good thing that's well-made, and which others may enjoy for legitimate reasons, but which does not fit my tastes."




Bravo, sir.  

I just had to post how much I agreed with your observation here.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Nov 2, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Trying to rationalize how a PC pissed off a carnivorous Jello mold is one of the joys of running 4e. Really, if you're okay with _fighting a Jello mold_ in the first place, why quibble about how someone managed to make it angry?




I can see your point, but can you also see why it would bother some people?

I mean, by your argument, anything goes because we're role-playing in a fantasy setting.  Why have rules or powers--just say what you want to do, and it happens, right?  Its fantasy?

But anything doesn't go--there are rules for almost everything, and plenty of analogues to our (real) world--gravity, sickness, death, etc.--to ground the fantasy in enough "real" to make the drama really matter.

People just have to choose how much logic they want in their fantasy--there's no deciding for anyone else, (or there shouldn't be).  So in your fantasy, molds can become angry due to taunting, and attack the creature taunting them.  In my fantasy, molds are unintelligent and dangerous biological organisms that have no organs with which to hear taunting.

To each his or her own, yeah?


----------



## malkav666 (Nov 2, 2009)

I played 4e in two groups (including my main one) for about a year after release. We collectively decided in both groups that it really was not the game for us for a variety of reasons, some of them expressed in this thread, some not, but certainly expressed somewhere on the internets by this point. So I don't feel a real need to rehash them here again.

When we left 4e, we became game system promiscuous and tried several different games:

M&M: which I liked but I could not really sell the group on a supers game. I plan to try them again with the sorcery supplement for the game next time an open day pops up to see what they think.

Monte Cook's Books of X: We tried spicing up D&D with Monte's books. This went over very well, and some of the rules and systems presented are still used in our games to date.

Dark Heresy: Really only got to play a couple of games of this as we only had a single rulebook, and we could not seem to drum up enough interest to get more rules at the table (as a side note I really want to try Rogue Trader)

Sw Saga: we played this some, and still do on some days (we use the system and CoC d20 to run space horror games)

Pathfinder Beta: We picked this up and participated in the beta and had a good time.


We settled on the final release of Pathfinder for our D&D game. It feels like more of an effort to update 3.x, and since my group really likes that ruleset, it resonates with them. They also really like some of the flavor of the printed campaign setting. Cheliax has probably gotten as much love as Waterdeep at my table as far as places characters "want to be from". Its not really that I feel that 3.x/Pathfinder is a hands down better game than D&D4e. Its just a better game for my group. They did not like the subscription aspects of 4E's marketing. And they liked better the freedom that 3.5/Pathfinders ruleset gave them. Which is weird to some as 3.x/pathfinder definitely uses a much more complex ruleset than 4e IMO.

And to be honest Pathfinder is definitely NOT everything I wanted in an a new version of D&D. But when compared side by side with 4e, it is more in line with my wants for "D&D" flavored play than 4e is. My group tends to play and treat 4e like a board game, and the focus is always on the pawns and the battle mat. We never broke that barrier and saw the diversity that I see spoken about by those that speak about the system in a positive light. Thats certainly not saying that this diversity and freedom does not exist. My groups just never found it with 4e.

But thats all gravy. There is a D&D flavored product in print that my group really digs from both a system and a flavor standpoint. So we went there. Is it the perfect D&D Utopian play experience? Nah, but its good enough to hold the interest of my groups, and the debate over which system to go with has been solved. One group plays a 3.x game, and my main group is playing Pathfinder. And it has been my experience that large pieces of 3.x have made it into play in our PF game, and streamlined PF mechanics are sneaking into the 3.x game. So despite 3.x and Pathfinder being two different versions of a ruleset from two different companies, they are becoming almost synonymous in the eyes of 3.x/ogl community that I lay down the dice with. 

And thats cool for everybody. Its kind of strange having two different editions of D&D flavored stuff in print and being actively supported at the same time in the limelight.But I think its situation in which everyone wins.

love,

malkav


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 2, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Pop quiz role playing.  The mechanics tell you what happens and you invent a justification.
> 
> My preference is that you decide what you want to do and the mechanics simulate the outcome.
> 
> It has nothing to do with trouble.  It is just a question of whether it is more fun for the mechanics to control the narrative, or the narrative to control the mechanics.



I would agree that 4E is mechanics first then narrative_ if and only if_ there was no choice in power selection. If you think "Come and Get It" doesn't fit your character, then you don't pick it! No need for 'justifying' anything if you don't want to. A problem arises if you can't find any power to suit your narrative thought, but more than likely that's just stubbornness more than anything. 

Basically, you come up with a narrative idea, then search through the powers to find a mechanical outcome suitable for the idea. The great thing about 4E is that if you're not sure, the powers themselves, the names and flavor text, are good inspiration.

But, if you were forced to play a certain character, with all the choices already made for you, what's the problem with imagining how a power unfolds? And also, the mechanics first then narrative 'thing' can be applied to any edition of D&D. I do think it's a fair criticism of D&D in general, but it also structures the game in such a way to promote smooth gameplay to those of us who aren't impromptu actors and/or creative writers and story tellers.


----------



## tyrlaan (Nov 2, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> And also, the mechanics first then narrative 'thing' can be applied to any edition of D&D. I do think it's a fair criticism of D&D in general, but it also structures the game in such a way to promote smooth gameplay to those of us who aren't impromptu actors and/or creative writers and story tellers.



Spoken truly. You need to skip over to a system like HERO, where you decide what power you want and then build it, before you find deep support for narrative/special effect driving the mechanics.

On a different note, why do people think 4e is the end of the Vancian system? When I look at 4e, I see a whole bunch of classes, every single one using a Vancian system. Saying the mage isn't a mage seems backwards to me, when I'd argue instead that everyone is a mage. At least mechanically ;-)


----------



## BryonD (Nov 2, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> I would agree that 4E is mechanics first then narrative_ if and only if_ there was no choice in power selection. If you think "Come and Get It" doesn't fit your character, then you don't pick it! No need for 'justifying' anything if you don't want to.



No, this is not the point I'm making.  My point has nothing whatsoever to do with CoGi.  It is about encounter based powers in the first place.  



> Basically, you come up with a narrative idea, then search through the powers to find a mechanical outcome suitable for the idea. The great thing about 4E is that if you're not sure, the powers themselves, the names and flavor text, are good inspiration.



You are talking about character creation.  I am talking about game play.  As has been described above, the narrative in actual play MUST be adaptable to the circumstance.  Which is fine.  But you can't claim that the narrative idea is established when the power is selected and at the same time insist that it is only reasonable to expect to vary the justification as needed.  Which is the point I was responding to.



> But, if you were forced to play a certain character, with all the choices already made for you, what's the problem with imagining how a power unfolds?



Nothing is implicitly "wrong" with it.  But, by the same line of thinking nothing is wrong with spending the evening playing poker or Guitar Hero instead of playing D&D.  If you want to play D&D, then Guitar Hero is not going to do it for you.  If you want to play a role playing game in which the mechanics follow the narrative rather than leading it, then the 4E structure isn't going to do it for you.



> And also, the mechanics first then narrative 'thing' can be applied to any edition of D&D.



The difference in prevelance of this structure in 4E as comapred to other editions is quite overwhelming.  I don't think a valid claim of anything remotely equitable could be made.



> I do think it's a fair criticism of D&D in general, but it also structures the game in such a way to promote smooth gameplay to those of us who aren't impromptu actors and/or creative writers and story tellers.



Again, I'm fine with you prefering it, just as some people would prefer to play GH.  I'm just saying it is a difference that makes it a lesser option for many people, just as it makes it better for others.


----------



## Ourph (Nov 2, 2009)

BryonD said:


> If you want to play a role playing game in which the mechanics follow the narrative rather than leading it, then the 4E structure isn't going to do it for you.



It seems to me that if the player doesn't want the narrative to go in the direction that certain mechanical choices suggest, he can simply not choose those choices. If CaGI doesn't fit with the narrative of the moment, the player can simply choose a different power to use.

I just don't see how 4e is constraining in the sense you're talking about.


----------



## keterys (Nov 2, 2009)

I stopped DMing 3e because I found the system created far more work for me than it created fun. Especially if I wanted to present a genuine challenge and have contingencies for the full gamut of options for higher level characters. That said, I bet I could still run it as E6, and I _was_ and could run plenty of d20 OGL type stuff just fine.

I stopped playing 3e because no one's running it in any of the four gaming groups I play with... but even before that, I had grown tired of rocket tag syndrome, crazy items and spells, and the general strategy of build optimization. But I'd still be playing if any of the other DMs hadn't dropped 3e, cause I value playing with my friends over little details of a system. 

And I'm often surprised by people who do attach more signifigance to the system that they'll drop a group over it. I do get it to a certain extent, though. I mean, I'd never stick around to play FATAL, but I'd hope that it's more because of core group dynamics - like you want to roleplay more, or powergame more, or slay more, or whatever more instead of them. Such things often trend a group towards one game system over another, and friction between such feelings often create conflicts between players and/or GMs. Eh.

Anyhow, I asked about Pathfinder, to see if anyone else was interested. From what I'd read, it hadn't changed enough that I'd want to DM it, but nobody seemed interested. 

I suspect it's just one of those things that varies from gaming group and location.

So, here's to playing lots of game systems, and everyone enjoying themselves. Frankly, the more systems you get exposure to, the more you can see the strengths and flaws and just house rule your way to freedom.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 2, 2009)

keterys said:


> So, here's to playing lots of game systems, and everyone enjoying themselves. Frankly, the more systems you get exposure to, the more you can see the strengths and flaws and just house rule your way to freedom.



Yep!  

Every new game I play expands my horizons.  Frankly, some games are better at doing some things than others.  What game your group plays depends on what you value in your gaming - not in what's objectively good or bad about that game.

So, out of this philosophy, I've decided I like to play games to their strengths and play them away from their weaknesses.

If I want a gritty, low-powered fantasy game, I'm far more likely to pull out WFRP2e and run it than I am to try and modify 3e or 4e to give them more "grit."  Frankly, WFRP2e is a much better system for arm-chopping mayhem than D&D of any flavor.  If I want to run Temple of Elemental Evil, I don't see much I'd gain from converting it to another system...  I'll just run it in 1e, which is still an awesome RPG.  If I want to play a horror game, Call of Cthulhu (usually d20) is my system of choice.  For Star Wars, I have a variety of choices - but for me and my group, Saga Edition works the best.

I respect the folks who can find one game and play it for 20 years, but I honestly don't understand it.  I don't think I can be one of those folks.  I have a lot of gaming itches I like scratched, and while I've played many wonderful games, I doubt I'll ever find a game which scratches all of them.

-O


----------



## MrGrenadine (Nov 2, 2009)

Ourph said:


> It seems to me that if the player doesn't want the narrative to go in the direction that certain mechanical choices suggest, he can simply not choose those choices. If CaGI doesn't fit with the narrative of the moment, the player can simply choose a different power to use.
> 
> I just don't see how 4e is constraining in the sense you're talking about.




Well, if the flavor of a power doesn't sit well with a player, then the player should absolutely avoid it--regardless if its the optimal choice for the type of character or campaign--because since a character gets a small number of Encounter and Daily powers, there better be a darn good reason not to fire off an available Enc or Daily when the opportunity arises.

In other words, a power that deals 2W, or an attack that can hit or control many foes, is too good to be sidelined just because the narrative rubs the wrong way.

In the case of Come and Get It, if the character is supposed to be purely martial fighter type, with no powers that can be construed as arcane or divine, and he's fighting something that can't hear and/or understand him, then that power just doesn't make much sense.  If the player can't or won't rewrite the flavor text so its more logical to him or her, better to pick another power altogether.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 2, 2009)

BryonD said:


> You are talking about character creation.  I am talking about game play.  As has been described above, the narrative in actual play MUST be adaptable to the circumstance.  Which is fine.  But you can't claim that the narrative idea is established when the power is selected and at the same time insist that it is only reasonable to expect to vary the justification as needed.  Which is the point I was responding to.



I'm not sure I'm following you here. For the Fighter example, when I make a fighter I want someone who is cocky and arrogant and is an annoying target that enemies want to take down both to shut up and shut down physically. So I choose come and get it. I notice that it pulls enemies and allows me to attack them. That fits with my concept well, so I go with it. Narrative first, then Mechanics. Also, no need to vary justification at all. Why should I have to?



> If you want to play a role playing game in which the mechanics follow the narrative rather than leading it, then the 4E structure isn't going to do it for you.



I want a play a roleplaying game in which the mechanics come after the narrative. I play 4E. Either I'm in denial, and have been for the past year and a half, or something is wrong with your stereotype.

I think there's a notion you're bringing up that characters following the same mathematical frameworks means that mechanics come first, but I just don't see how this is the case. Does the fact that 3E has different math and subsystems for each class, which are abstractions as well, mean that narrative comes first?

On the other hand, mechanics will always be a big part of D&D. Is it especially heinous in 4E? I don't think so. If you wanted to play a Plate-wearing Wizard in 3E, you basically can't because the mechanics won't allow you (in the same way 4E won't allow you, by imposing penalties.) My narrative has been crushed by mechanics in the same way in either edition. A more free-form system would allow me this concept, but D&D is limiting by design.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, as I'm playing a little devil's advocate here anyway. My true stand is that Narrative doesn't play with Mechanics, and mechanics doesn't play with narrative. Maybe only on sundays, after church, but with strict supervision. Basically, my players do not compromise on narrative, they play whatever concept that want, then they do not compromise on mechanics, building the best character they can. One of my players is a warforged fighter wielding a mordenkrad clad in plate armor. But, he is actually a human Samurai of the Thousand Flashing Blades, wielding a katana and clad only in noble's clothing. Another is a paladin, I forget the race, but he is actually a human monk.

Maybe my methods are atypical, and that's why I don't fit into your generalization, but at the end of the day, I end up with narrative coming before mechanics even while playing 4E.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 2, 2009)

I like role playing games!


----------



## Phaezen (Nov 2, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I like role playing games!




Over-the-top heated rant accusing you of saying that 4e is not a roleplaying game.



Personally I am willing to give any system a go for a good game, I will even play a system I have tried and didn't personally enjoy if the premise of the adventure/campaign is interesting enough.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 2, 2009)

MrGrenadine said:


> I mean, by your argument, anything goes because we're role-playing in a fantasy setting.



That isn't my argument at all. My argument goes something like this...

1) Describing how certain 4e power effects look (and  function) in-game can be an interesting, creative challenge for the DM. 

2) Most, if not all, 4e powers can be described in such a way that they make sense in-game (that is, 4e powers only appear nonsensical if you deliberately choose to narrate them that way). 



> So in your fantasy, molds can become angry due to taunting, and attack the creature taunting them.



I have to admit I find the idea of 'angry mold' to be pretty funny. 

But it _is_ also kinda stupid. If one of my player's CaGI'd a mold/ooze I'd simply describe it as having chosen to attack that PC out of it's own, free, fungal will. 



> In other words, a power that deals 2W, or an attack that can hit or control many foes, is too good to be sidelined just because the narrative rubs the wrong way.



Let he who is without gamist optimizer tendencies cast the first CaGI. 



> In the case of Come and Get It, if the character is supposed to be purely martial fighter type, with no powers that can be construed as arcane or divine, and he's fighting something that can't hear and/or understand him, then that power just doesn't make much sense.



Of course it does. When a player uses it the target _decides_ to attack his or her PC. No magic or Jedi mind-trickery is involved (it's all done with metafiction). 



Scribble said:


> I like role playing games!



I like arguing about CaGI!

(the amount of truth in that joke pains me, it honestly does...).


----------



## Scribble (Nov 2, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> Over-the-top heated rant accusing you of saying that 4e is not a roleplaying game.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I am willing to give any system a go for a good game, I will even play a system I have tried and didn't personally enjoy if the premise of the adventure/campaign is interesting enough.




Yeah I'm pretty much the same- I can also almost always find SOMETHING to do that's fun in a game. Even RIFTS! 

I think because I tend to let my imagination come before any rules. The rules are just there to make the game a game, and provide some challenge to your plans... but I prefer them to get out of the way as quickly as possible. Even if that means the rules (if mapped directly to imagined event) seem strange.  

I prefer scenarios like "Make a DEX check-" to "Ok on page 43 is the jump table, hang on let me make my physical leg bend check, and cross reference that with the gravity score, and um..."  Yuck... 

I've never been one to feel my "narrative" has to be inspired by the rules. I find the other way somewhat limiting actually..


----------



## Nightson (Nov 2, 2009)

I get what BryonD is trying to say.  It's not a matter of the mechanics, it's a matter of user interface.

In some games, your options are things the character could decide to do.

In some games, your options are things the player decides to do.

In one game you might have your typical D&D level of skills, and you might use, Use Rope or Acrobatics and cut a line and make a jump check and land right next to the enemy pirate captain.

In the other game, you might have a power called 'Right Behind Them' which allows you to show up right next to an enemy.  The player uses it, and the DM describes cutting the line and swinging over to the other pirate ship and landing behind the captain.

Now in both cases the same thing happened in game, but you used a different determination of things.

In 4e, those narrative player choices aren't all the powers, and most of them aren't big, but they are there, but there's touches of them in things like martial encounter and daily powers.  And for someone who dislikes that I can see why it could be a problem, I could conceive of someone who had trouble staying in character when such things came up.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 2, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> I'm not sure I'm following you here. For the Fighter example, when I make a fighter I want someone who is cocky and arrogant and is an annoying target that enemies want to take down both to shut up and shut down physically. So I choose come and get it. I notice that it pulls enemies and allows me to attack them. That fits with my concept well, so I go with it. Narrative first, then Mechanics. Also, no need to vary justification at all. Why should I have to?



You need to go back and read the quote I responded to.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 2, 2009)

Nightson said:


> I could conceive of someone who had trouble staying in character when such things came up.





"trouble staying in character"????  I don't see that fitting the issue at all.
You can role play ANY system.  Staying in character is really never constrained by what the rules say.  It is just a question of how good a job do the mechanics do of creating the scenario.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 2, 2009)

BryonD said:


> You need to go back and read the quote I responded to.



I read the post, and that's a different mindset, but I am curious what you say to someone, namely me, who makes no changes on the fly/justifications and makes no compromises with narrative and plays 4E. And enjoys it greatly. And still has his narrative coming before mechanics.

I guess my point is that 4E does not require mechanics coming before narrative, and I see no where in the books that encourages or implies this mindset. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here, but I am still curious if you have more support for the argument that someone looking for a narrative before mechanics game will not be served by 4E. Or rather, how that someone will be served _significantly better_ by previous editions. (I say significantly better just to say that a .000001 difference isn't significant, just something, you know, reasonable. A reasonable difference.)

My standpoint is that the framework homogeneity brought about by 4E has actually made it easier for narrative to become the focus, because mechanics take a backseat. You seem the think that the opposite has happened, but I think by making everyone's mechanics the same, it let the Class Designers focus on making flavorful and interesting classes. Whether that was successful or not is a different thread, but I still think it paved the way for narrative focus.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 2, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> I read the post, and that's a different mindset, but I am curious what you say to someone, namely me, who makes no changes on the fly/justifications and makes no compromises with narrative and plays 4E. And enjoys it greatly. And still has his narrative coming before mechanics
> 
> I guess my point is that 4E does not require mechanics coming before narrative, and I see no where in the books that encourages or implies this mindset.



Yeah, we have to disagree here.  And as the consistent theme from the pro-4E side is that there is nothing wrong with this, I'll consider you an odd outlier.  (Again, not that I'm calling it "wrong" myself.  Not my preference certainly, but not wrong.  I'm just saying that 4E fans don't generally deny it, they embrace it.)

If you say that your fighter is so annoying that mindless undead and iron golems and plants "want to take down both to shut up and shut down physically" then you have most 100% certainly overcome the issue of narrative following mechanics.  I accept that you have proven it does not need to be the case.  However, you have done so by replacing what a I personally consider to be a fairly bad problem with something that I consider to be a really bad problem.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 2, 2009)

Actually, I lost sight of the forest for the tree. (not even trees)

I agree that you have solved the CaGi mechanics first issue.  But the encounter based design issue remains.  Can you tell me how you have put narrative first with your incredibly annoying character who is incredibly annoying once per encounter because the mechanics say so?  I expect you have an answer, as you had me covered last time.  I'd just like to hear it.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Nov 3, 2009)

BryonD said:


> If you say that your fighter is so annoying that mindless undead and iron golems and plants "want to take down both to shut up and shut down physically" then you have most 100% certainly overcome the issue of narrative following mechanics.  I accept that you have proven it does not need to be the case.  However, you have done so by replacing what a I personally consider to be a fairly bad problem with something that I consider to be a really bad problem.



4e is my edition of choice, but it does tend to create more [arguably corner cases] in which all I can say is '"Ugh, well, moving on..."


----------



## StarFyre (Nov 3, 2009)

I see some ofthe frustrations with 4E and i think, this current planescape campaign I'm doing will determine if we scrap 4E (granted, a heavily  modified 4E full of house rules), and go back to 3.5E and just add the few mechanics of 4E that we like into 3.5E.  

So if anyone wants book, I may have some books for sale in the next couple months  hehe

I'm not sure i understand the poster's thoughts though.

The issues we have, is my style of game (I'm the DM) is a very heavy RP/exploration type game...not much combat unless teh combat really makes sense.  There are times, when enemies won'tchase the players (logically) so then, they can run, no fights.I won'tmake them chase just to have a fight.  also, we've gone easily 40 or so hours of game time (3-4 sessions for us) without a fight; all roleplay/exploration/research (in game)...

My players are more simulationist players (well, out of 7, all but 2).  What happens is, we have a thoradorian minotaur (and we allow stat bonuses higher than +2, since it makes sense forthat race, and players prefer it to be how it should be...regardlessof if it's their race or not, and no one cares).  Anyways, that minotaur is strong enough to easily kneel down and swing a long polearm around his head, hitting groups of enemies around him (if they are tall enough).  

However, if he does that, 4E purists would argue that's not fare; it detracts from them using a power that may allow forsome damage to allthose around him, etc.  However, it makes perfect sense for the Thoradorian.  

My players complain if I don't allow "realistic" things like that;stuff that makes sense.  Also in fights, players will doingenious things via spells (we have a custom magic system if the player requests to use it), or items or environment, and they have beaten fights without ever swinging a sword or using a 'power'.  

Again; possible in 4E but much of it wouldn't be stuff that 4E players like.

There are other issues we have with the system; much ofwhich we house ruled over time....but now it'sreaching a critical pt...

The adventure we are doing..players went sevral hours in a hardcore roleplay sesisn with no dice rolling(screw skill challenge rolls garbage...players can act well, so i let them go for it and see how it turns out).  It was brilliant and they got tons of bonus exp forit.  I'm finding, as i go through all the planescape material (2E)and some 3 and 4E planar stuff for it, i have to ignore much of the rules, or house rule it to make it work how i want it.  3.5E had issues similar, but it wasn't as bad.  I find 4E we have to house rule th emost to make the players happy...

But in the end, it's a game and if something isn't for you; it's not for you. No such thing as the best game system for everyone;all there can be, is what's best for YOU and your friends.  If you can't house rule it; it's better to use a different system and face maybe whatever conversion you did was an error.

Sanjay


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 3, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Actually, I lost sight of the forest for the tree. (not even trees)
> 
> I agree that you have solved the CaGi mechanics first issue.  But the encounter based design issue remains.  Can you tell me how you have put narrative first with your incredibly annoying character who is incredibly annoying once per encounter because the mechanics say so?  I expect you have an answer, as you had me covered last time.  I'd just like to hear it.



Out of curiosity, what is "CaGi?"

To answer your question, I would probably decide around character creation no matter what character I was why certain things I could only do at-will, certain things encounter, and certain things daily. For Wizards it could be a simple enough port from 3E. Daily is writing a scroll in your head, then using that scroll from memory (thus losing 'the scroll.') I forgot what edition had Vancian casting worded in this way, but I'm pretty sure that's from something. Encounter would be simpler spells, commitable to memory in only 5 minutes, but must be spent like scrolls the same way.  At-will is actually recalling, memorizing, and spending magic on the fly. Explains why it is generally less powerful.

Unfortunately, like Tequila Sunrise says, the Come and Get It is a corner case thing as far as narrative goes. I would say that even automatons have some amount of intelligence in order to fight, and would detect the annoying fighters annoyingness as threat. By the way, this isn't a character of mine, just a spur of the moment thing here. 

I feel like the line between narrative and realism is blurring a bit here, though. I'm not sure if this is the kind of answer you want. Realistically, I can't imagine why a guy with a sword _would not_ constantly be using his best tactic if it was effective. Narratively, he _is_ using best tactic constantly. He's constantly taunting and constantly being an ass, or whatever, I wish I would said a more interesting example to begin with. Only once during every encounter does the straw break the camels back and the enemies just want to shut him up. That is when Come and Get It is used.

I use a similar idea for making any kind of attack. Basically, two melee enemies locked in combat aren't trading blows with 6 seconds in between each blow, because that doesn't fit my narrative. But 1 attack every 6 seconds, assuming they spend their turn to attack, has the potential to cause the receiver of the attack to become closer to the point where they can no longer fight. This could be wounds, resolve, morale, you know, whatever. Insert whatever you want from HP=abstraction threads. The same applies to encounter powers. Only once every 5 minutes, even trying every round, will the attack have the potential to work.

Maybe you've misunderstood me from my first post: any 4E concept must still enter the 4E framework and inevitably be changed (more than likely,) just like any 3E character will go through the same process. For instance, if I want a Arcane caster who wears plate and casts effectively and has a weapon, I wouldn't be able to go straight wizard in either edition. So, what I do, like I described before, is reskin in order to not compromise on narrative. I play a swordmage, say his warding feature is plate mail and move on. If it's 3E I'm actually not sure, maybe a duskblade, it's been awhile. If you want a fighter that can behead someone every turn, and you have an interesting sleepy hollow esque story written out, no version of D&D (or DM) is going to allow you to do that. So, the point here is that mechanics can trump narrative in any edition of D&D no matter how narrative focused you are.

If the point you want to make is that 3E requires less compromise, whatever, I don't see the point of arguing it. My final stand is that all versions require compromise, and it is significant, but all versions of D&D allow you to place narrative at the forefront.


----------



## awesomeocalypse (Nov 3, 2009)

Encounter powers aren't narrative-driven??

In my opinion, encounter powers are one of the most narrative-driven aspect of the game, because they correspond so well to so much of the sort of fiction and pop culture that I use to inspire my stories (not necessarily directly in terms of setting elements or plot points, but often thematically), like fantasy and scifi novels, shows and movies, anime and comic books.

Those types of fiction overflow with terrific heroes who can do tons of amazing stuff....but who often tend to only do their cooler stuff pretty rarely, and otherwise default to a few basic moves.  

Superman is the prime example of this. He has a huge assortment of powers which he can theoretically use at will and which when used to full capacity should render 95% of his enemies non-threats. For example, his upper level speed showings alone in the comics put him at much, much higher than the speed of light, which when combined with planet busting strength means he could easily throw nearly any enemy into space before it could think.

But that isn't how Superman actually fights as the story unfolds. If he's going to do something really high-end, he'll do it once a story. If he's going to use heat vision or freeze breath or x-ray vision or any of his other more esoteric powers, he'll probably do so just once or at most twice per a 22 page. comic. The rest of the time, he's mostly a fast and really strong guy who can fly and punches damn hard.

To me, that sounds a lot like how an encounter will function--the "throw them into space" move is his daily, the heat vision and freeze breath are encounters, and the superstrength is at will.

Other serialized formats are often similar. Take an ongoing, combat-heavy story like Berserk or Rurouni Kenshin. Gatts has his arm cannon, his crazy-ass armor, and a load of crazy techniques. But he never just spams any one of them, except for his basic deadly swordsmanship--his attacks get used roughly in inverse proportion to how powerfully they are. Kenshin knows a million crazy techniques, but never uses any but the most basic few more than once per fight, and has a few he only ever uses a few times in the entire series--again, the more rarely used the power, the better it is.

Sometimes there is a good simulationist reason for why the characters don't just spam the techniques--they require a direct and explicit investment of power or some other resource that renders them difficult to repeat at will. But often that justification is flimsy to non-existent--logically, Superman really would throw a lot more giant monsters into space than he does.

But regardless of whether there is a good simulationist reason (and honestly, for some characters like the Flash or Martian Manhunter, there is virtually _never_ a good simulationist reason because their powers are just that uber), there is always a good narrative reason, and that is that Superman constantly flinging everyone into space at the speed of light doesn't make for a good story. And sure, sometimes he just fights enemy that can fly and breathe in space and its a non issue--but maybe that flying-space-breather makes no sense for a certain story, and you don't want to waste a ton of page space on fanwanking reasons for Superman not to instawin every time, so he conveniently "forgets" to operate below full capacity, or you say he held back out of some wierd moral principle, even though it mostly resulted in him having to struggle way more with the fight than he "realistically" should have--but in a way that was probably more fun to read about then the "realistic" fight would have been.

And by the same token, moves get less cool the more you see of them--so if you want a move to seem special, the hero shouldn't use it all the time. Gatts busting out the arm cannon once a fight is badass--Gatts camping out in a tree and cannonballing dudes all fight every fight, not so much. 

_Balance is a narrativist concern as well as a gamist one_, and fiction abounds with stories that prioritize balance over simulationism for the sake of the story. That doesn't mean they always have to be at odds, but its a fallacy to pretend that simulationism=narrativism

In my opinion, encounter powers and daily powers are 100% narrativist. The heroes use their coolest powers more rarely because that makes for a cooler story--the powers remain cool, and the fights are as challenging as the story needs them to be.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 3, 2009)

Nightson said:


> In 4e, those narrative player choices aren't all the powers, and most of them aren't big, but they are there, but there's touches of them in things like martial encounter and daily powers.




Players can do lots of narrative things with most of the powers .. the powers are not even a limit to the effects that you can narrate either in spite of what some folks seem to think. Your best results are if you can combine narrating something the DM included in the environment right in to the use of your powers. A rangers twin strike can blind two enemies in 4e terms by knocking the curtains the dm just described on top of two enemies heads... Very robinhood style. Even though twin strike doesnt include blinding enemies with it. Do it situation-ally and when your players realize yes they can do cool stuff based on what is being jointly visualized they will. This isnt house ruling its liberal use of page 42 effects.

The Players handbook is where they included the recommendation to visualize there powers... but I think inadequate help or examples was provided (other games which feature this give examples with every example character they present).


----------



## StarFyre (Nov 3, 2009)

hehe

i see a major difference here...people speak of how their adventures are inspired by comics, etc...

My adventures are inspired by The Divine Comedy, Se7en, Natural Born Killers, Mirrors, the SAW series, Dark City, and Paradise Lost.....

hehe



Sanjay


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 3, 2009)

StarFyre said:


> hehe
> 
> i see a major difference here...people speak of how their adventures are inspired by comics, etc...
> 
> ...




The SAW series and Paradise Lost??? you just gave me the heebee jeebies.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 3, 2009)

Mallus said:


> That isn't my argument at all. My argument goes something like this...
> 
> 1) Describing how certain 4e power effects look (and  function) in-game can be an interesting, creative challenge for the DM.
> 
> ...




Love this post... I find describing how any attribute could be the basis of attack  or defense (for folks who have issues with melee training or warlocks / paladins using charisma or con) incredibly good fun...  but it has gotten to be a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. That fish is pretty well skinned and fried to boot.
 CaGI could have more challenge. You ought to compile your results.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 3, 2009)

awesomeocalypse said:


> In my opinion, encounter powers are one of the most narrative-driven aspect of the game, because they correspond so well to so much of the sort of fiction and pop culture that I use to inspire my stories (not necessarily directly in terms of setting elements or plot points, but often thematically), like fantasy and scifi novels, shows and movies, anime and comic books.



Good post. There's something funny about encounter powers indeed. If you imagine elements of an RPG going on a slider that goes between "GAMIST" and "NARRATIVIST" where exactly does an encounter power fall? Thinking about it, these seem like poor descriptors of what the real dichotomy is, but I can't put my finger on what better terms would be. Something like "Narrative Story" versus "Gritty Physics." One corner is that the mechanics are around to help tell a story, and the other corner is that the mechanics model some of kind of physical framework. 4E I would say fits into Narrative Story, as it gives every character class the ability to effect the narrative near equally, though in different ways, but at nearly all times. 3E I would say fits into Gritty Physics. Not every player is going to be useful at every second, and that's how it should be in Gritty Physics. Instead of everyone all being useful at once, it's like everyone takes turns, in a well planned adventure.

Even that's probably a pretty bad dichotomy.

For the record, I enjoyed 3E a lot, and would certainly still be playing it as well if it had similar computer support!


----------



## Phaezen (Nov 3, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Pop quiz role playing.  The mechanics tell you what happens and you invent a justification.
> 
> My preference is that you decide what you want to do and the mechanics simulate the outcome.
> 
> It has nothing to do with trouble.  It is just a question of whether it is more fun for the mechanics to control the narrative, or the narrative to control the mechanics.




Fortunately in 4e you can have your cake and eat it.  A characters powers are mechanics controlling the narrative, but there is also the page 42 stunting system which gives the rules for narrative controlling the mechanics.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Nov 3, 2009)

CleverNickname
folk HAVE cut through steel with just thread...they add grit, salt or whatever, and that acts as an abrasive, and they cut through steel bars over a long time!
hence modern jails use bars which contain several bars inside the main bar, so they can rotate and are made with various other tricks to stop such stuff 

Anywya on OP:
you either grokk 4th ed or you don't.
Each to his own, but most folk who seem to hate 4th ed I believe would not do so if they came at 4th ed as fresh, _new to D&D_ players.
Nostalgia can be a bliding poison!


----------



## billd91 (Nov 3, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Anywya on OP:
> you either grokk 4th ed or you don't.
> Each to his own, but most folk who seem to hate 4th ed I believe would not do so if they came at 4th ed as fresh, _new to D&D_ players.
> Nostalgia can be a bliding poison!




Whether it's true or not knowledge of a previous edition could decrease your chances of liking a later one, that's not really nostalgia. It may be a simple preference.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Nov 3, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Each to his own, but most folk who seem to hate 4th ed I believe would not do so if they came at 4th ed as fresh, _new to D&D_ players.
> Nostalgia can be a bliding poison!




I agree with "each his own", but what you said after that is crap.

Can we put the "people who don't like 4e are nostalgic for older editions" observation in the dustbin with "4e is WoW", please?


----------



## StarFyre (Nov 3, 2009)

I think it has to do with DM/player style and preference.

With the style of my games, players prefer 3.XE. 

If i did pure hack 'n slash combat fests (as my friends experiences with the Living FR sessions are), like Diablo, i think they would prefer 4E...

No such thing as a wrong choice and whether others understand or agree with your reasoning, is meaningless...  They aren't in your games, so doesn't matter what they think.

That said; not sure why posting here on reasons why quitting though, would help. it just causes more arguments 

Sanjay


----------



## FireLance (Nov 3, 2009)

Actually, I wonder if the real problem is martial encounter and daily powers, because encounter and daily powers of any other power source shouldn't be difficult to justify even from a simulationist perspective. 

If the problem is _specific_ martial encounter and daily powers, then the solution becomes even simpler: just don't use them. It would be like complaining that 3e is a bad system because I didn't like the _divine power_ spell.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 3, 2009)

awesomeocalypse said:


> Encounter powers aren't narrative-driven??



No, they are not.  In the superman stories he uses the powers when they fit the need.  In 4E the characters use them when the rules permit.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 3, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> Fortunately in 4e you can have your cake and eat it.  A characters powers are mechanics controlling the narrative, but there is also the page 42 stunting system which gives the rules for narrative controlling the mechanics.



Oh yes, and a good DM should certainly toss the rules out on their ear and use this kind of system to correctly respond to the narrative flow of the game any and every time it is appropriate.   But if the main rules of the game must be thrown out on their ear as a regular part of quality play, then maybe a different system should be considered

This doesn't change the fact that the design concept of the game is based on "the encounter". IMO if you threw out the rest of the game and just ran things by the "Actions the Rules Don't Cover" section, you would improve the game.  

But the game presumes you will use the rules that cover things when the players try to do those things, and will use this system when "the rules don't cover" something.  

Do you let players consistently use this system to bypass the encounter and daily limitations on their powers?


----------



## BryonD (Nov 3, 2009)

FireLance said:


> If the problem is _specific_ martial encounter and daily powers, then the solution becomes even simpler: just don't use them. It would be like complaining that 3e is a bad system because I didn't like the _divine power_ spell.



Heh, actually, I don't think it is fair to discuss Come and Get It.  I think it is a particularly poorly designed power.  I'd find the thought of trying to defend 3E on the basis of the worst feat WotC ever pushed out to be quite horrifying.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 3, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> I find describing how any attribute could be the basis of attack  or defense ... incredibly good fun...



I am not in any way trying to claim that pop quiz roleplaying is anything other than fun.

I'm just saying that it is a different fun.  Some people enjoy one, some people enjoy another, lots of people enjoy both.  But they are different.


----------



## Phaezen (Nov 3, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Oh yes, and a good DM should certainly toss the rules out on their ear and use this kind of system to correctly respond to the narrative flow of the game any and every time it is appropriate.   But if the main rules of the game must be thrown out on their ear as a regular part of quality play, then maybe a different system should be considered
> 
> This doesn't change the fact that the design concept of the game is based on "the encounter". IMO if you threw out the rest of the game and just ran things by the "Actions the Rules Don't Cover" section, you would improve the game.
> 
> ...





Thing is, I don't really see it as needing to "toss the rules out on their ear"  The stunting rules enhance the basic rules of the game, rather than replace them.  The thing to remember is is 4e is a exceptions based ruleset where specific overrides general.

I generaly allow players to stunt for an effect/damage somewhere between an atwill and an encounter power, and if it is a onceoff stunt for the encounter then I will bump the effect/damage to closer to a daily.  I also run a bit of a risk/reward buyoff, so the higher the risk the greater the payoff.

THe upshot of this is incombats where I have had dwarves leaping off cliffs and into groups of orcs, players pushing down pillars, knocking down ruined walls and other such actions which leads to a more enjoyable experience for everyone.  SUre, they still use their encounter and daily powers where needed, but is there is no feeling of artificial limitation of you can only do x cool things per encounter.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 3, 2009)

BryonD said:


> No, they are not.  In the superman stories he uses the powers when they fit the need.  In 4E the characters use them when the rules permit.




Encounter powers tend to match fiction much better than at-will powers frankly.

For example, you don't see in fiction OR real life for that matter, people spamming the same attack. It just doesn't work that way even though technically they CAN but it would never be successful. You don't see Jacky Chan constantly trying the same attack every time which is what 3.5 IMPROVED Trip was like.

Encounter powers IMO much better match the scenes from fiction and real life where the protoganist pulls off a special move and then gets an advantage. 

Ironically, if anything, at-will spamming is a VIDEOGAME trait that doesn't really exist.


----------



## awesomeocalypse (Nov 3, 2009)

> No, they are not.  In the superman stories he uses the powers when they fit the need.  In 4E the characters use them when the rules permit.



He uses his powers when the story need him to in order to make for a good story, not when he needs to in order to be as effective as he logically could/should be. Superman almost never operates at anywhere near full capacity--and the fanwanked justifications like "he holds back a lot most of the time" completely fall apart when that "holding back" results in innocent people dying. The justification is blatantly plot-driven: there need to be some sort of stakes, and villains who can actually go toe to toe with Superman going all out in a realistic way are hard to come by, so Superman simply obeys limits the story demands but that he logically shouldn't. And an entire comic of him doing nothing but flying into the atmosphere and using supersight, x-ray vision and heat vision to systematically take down all of his enemies from orbit would be boring--even though he can clearly do that, if you simply look at the really high level stuff he's shown himself to be capable of when the plot demands. This happens with a huge number of other heroes in serialized action fiction containing supernatural elements (i.e. the sort of fiction which most clostly resembles D&D story structure), and not even the massively overpowered ones. Cool super moves simply get used less often, whether a justification that holds water in a simulationist sense is offered or not. 

Encounter powers exist for a story-driven reason: characters seem more badass, and fights are more interesting, when they have cool moves, but cool moves are only cool when you can't spam them all the time. So characters will get a few cool moves to use a fight, but they won't be usable completely at-will--and the really powerful ones will only be usable fairly rarely, not even once a fight.

Its that simple. Now, you may not want to tell stories that follow the conventions of that sort of fiction--if you want to play an odd medley of Milton and torture porn horror movies like others in this thread, or indeed any other type of game, it is doable with enough effort and creativity, and I hope you have fun doing it.

But I think it is pretty clear that that sort of fiction is where 4e got the inspiration for its power structure. It might not resemble the kind of narrative you like, but its still narrative-driven.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 3, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Anywya on OP:
> you either grokk 4th ed or you don't.
> Each to his own, but most folk who seem to hate 4th ed I believe would not do so if they came at 4th ed as fresh, _new to D&D_ players.
> Nostalgia can be a bliding poison!




 It isn't very flattering to a game system to say that players would enjoy it only if they hadn't tried anything else. I would hardly call that an encouraging endorsement.


----------



## StarFyre (Nov 3, 2009)

Phaezen...

If I understand the argument, I think my previous example covers it best:

-------------
...we have a thoradorian minotaur (and we allow stat bonuses higher than +2, since it makes sense for that race, and players prefer it to be how it should be...regardlessof if it's their race or not). Anyways, that minotaur is strong enough to easily kneel down and swing a long polearm around his head, hitting groups of enemies around him (if they are tall enough). 

However, if he does that, 4E purists would argue that's not fair; it detracts from them using a power that may allow forsome damage to allthose around him, etc. However, it makes perfect sense for the Thoradorian. 

My players complain if I don't allow "realistic" things like that;stuff that makes sense. 

That same character, charges forward, gore ssomeone and tramples them, picks up another person, and tosses them behind him, leaving him ripe for the rest of the party to use their "powers" on it.  Thing is, against regular huamnoids, the thoradorian does more damage sometimes without using powers based on what he tries to do.  But in all cases, he is alot more interesting...more savage, etc..like he should be.

My players love it..and want him to do stuff like that. 
--------------------------

So from stuff like that; i basically said screw the 4E system..do whatever you guys want; whatever youcan do and i will deal with it accordingly. They still have their powers and use them; but really, they can do anything.  even stuff that most parties won't allow since it's not standard 4E....

I think this is the issue that his group is having above...

Sanjay


----------



## keterys (Nov 3, 2009)

The minotaur example sounds like pretty normal 4e stuff to me - hitting people all around you, hurling an enemy around, etc.

That said, I have no idea how kneeling down and swinging a polearm around to hit people's heads (at least, if they're tall) - successfully - has anything to do with realism. And whether a system allows or disallows that has anything to do with its realism.

I'll echo agreement on the superman not overusing his powers because it's narratively more interesting that way. 4E's power structure lends itself far more to that particular narrativist element than the simulationist element of having specific resources you can quantify exactly that you use up in whatever manner you see fit. 3E is absolutely and undoubtably better at simulation than 4e, although worse than some other non-D&D systems. How important 'stuff making real sense' is to a person varies. For some, it makes them unable to play 4e. Others just care about having fun or getting a good group story, at which point the issue is muddled from there.

And, seriously, if Come and Get It offends, then remove it, or move it to the Swordmage.


----------



## Engilbrand (Nov 3, 2009)

Why doesn't the thoradorian just choose a class that would allow him to do that sort of thing anyway? The Barbarian would be a good example.
You can do a lot of stuff, you just need to be willing to choose the powers that allow you to do what you want. Personally, I think that it would definitely be broken to allow someone to just hit everyone around him every round without mechanical justification. I, as a player, would be annoyed that someone else had options that I didn't. (That's beyond the obvious differences in classes and races.)


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 3, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Encounter powers tend to match fiction much better than at-will powers frankly.
> 
> For example, you don't see in fiction OR real life for that matter, people spamming the same attack. It just doesn't work that way even though technically they CAN but it would never be successful. You don't see Jacky Chan constantly trying the same attack every time which is what 3.5 IMPROVED Trip was like.
> 
> ...




My players rarely describe the same at-will identically every use...(they would miss out on situational benefits if they did) and the narrative is different. The powers are incredibly generic / abstract the specific use can be very distinct. And article on reskinning the fighter and one on using the wizards powers this way to demonstrate the point.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19742838/Of_Course_its_Not_a_Magic_Missle_pfah

http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/reskinningthefighter.html

But here is an example you like  jacky chan? His characters usually have an at-will move that could be called "using there attacks against themselves".. but exactly how he pulls off that move is incredibly variable... the exhaustion he induces in his attacker is hit point loss... just like a sword stroke.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 3, 2009)

StarFyre said:


> Anyways, that minotaur is strong enough to easily kneel down and swing a long polearm around his head, hitting groups of enemies around him (if they are tall enough).



While I can't say it would satisfy the player in question, that's easy enough to model using 4e. Replace one of the PC's at-wills with a STR vs. AC [1W] Close Burst 1 attack. You could even season to taste w/a minor rider effect. Done!  



> That same character, charges forward, gore ssomeone and tramples them, picks up another person, and tosses them behind him, leaving him ripe for the rest of the party to use their "powers" on it.  Thing is, against regular huamnoids, the thoradorian does more damage sometimes without using powers based on what he tries to do.  But in all cases, he is alot more interesting...more savage, etc..like he should be.



Every edition of D&D I'm familiar with would require a significant amount of on-the-spot DM rulings to make the above work (ie no edition does this right out of the box). Therefore, you could do it just as well in 4e, should you chose to do so . 



> My players love it.



It's cool stuff.


----------



## tyrlaan (Nov 3, 2009)

BryonD said:


> No, they are not.  In the superman stories he uses the powers when they fit the need.  In 4E the characters use them when the rules permit.




Disagree. Superman definitely uses the powers when they "fit the need," but when they fit the need is when the story says they do. So both Superman and 4e use powers when the "rules permit." However, in a Superman story the rules are the rules of storytelling. In 4e, the rules are encounter/daily/at-will. Different means but for the same end result. Producing a good story.

If players could use their dailies and encounters until they're blue in the face, they would do just that. Encounters and dailies would lose their specialness and at-wills would likely never get used. Actually maybe not even encounters would be used. But if you want a good story, you can't use these powers all the time or it's just uninteresting. 

It makes no more sense that a rogue can't tumble through an entire fight than it does that Superman doesn't just heat vision the crap out of all his foes before getting close to them.  But neither case is about simulating the "real world." These things are done sparingly so when they occur they are meaningful. 

If the Superman example doesn't do it for you, think Karate Kid and the Crane Kick. That's a daily power at work. 



StarFyre said:


> <minotaur stat stuff>
> 
> However, if he does that, 4E purists would argue that's not fair; it detracts from them using a power that may allow forsome damage to allthose around him, etc. However, it makes perfect sense for the Thoradorian.
> 
> My players complain if I don't allow "realistic" things like that;stuff that makes sense.



To be honest, I don't think this is a system specific concern at all. Being able to whip around a polearm and hit all adjacent enemies would be akin to the whirlwind feat in 3.x. If you're doling that out for free in a 3.x game, you could do the same in 4e by inventing a power to replicate the effect. 

Anyway you slice it, the minotaur is unbalanced. If you and your players are cool with it, there's no issue. But it's unfair to presume its somehow more balanced in one edition of D&D vs. another. I'd argue that 3e "purists" would argue that the minotaur and his abilities aren't fair as well.



fuzzlewump said:


> Good post. There's something funny about encounter powers indeed. If you imagine elements of an RPG going on a slider that goes between "GAMIST" and "NARRATIVIST" where exactly does an encounter power fall? Thinking about it, these seem like poor descriptors of what the real dichotomy is, but I can't put my finger on what better terms would be. Something like "Narrative Story" versus "Gritty Physics." One corner is that the mechanics are around to help tell a story, and the other corner is that the mechanics model some of kind of physical framework. 4E I would say fits into Narrative Story, as it gives every character class the ability to effect the narrative near equally, though in different ways, but at nearly all times. 3E I would say fits into Gritty Physics. Not every player is going to be useful at every second, and that's how it should be in Gritty Physics. Instead of everyone all being useful at once, it's like everyone takes turns, in a well planned adventure.



I think what you're trying to pinpoint it the third part of the triangle. It's not a slider actually. Folks refer to it as GNS theory - Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist. 

To take a quick stab at it (and likely produce a bevy of angry people ), I'd say 4e does Gamist and Narrativist and mostly ignores Simulationist. 3e would probably be pegged as Gamist and Simulationist with nods to Narrativist. 

I think that the missing part of the "triangle" can vary in difficulty regarding how easy it is to bring into the game based upon what part is missing. For example, I don't really see 4e supporting aspects of Simulation. By it's fundamental design it just doesn't support it. 

On the flip side, putting Narrative into a 3e game is clearly simple to do. I would argue that 4e can produce some interesting Narrative scenarios that 3e can't unless everyone at the game table is sold on the concept of playing their characters at a meta-level to build a great story. Great narrative moments, in my experience, in 3e games come from doing the unexpected or scoring a timely crit, etc. Whereas the encounter/daily power structure provides some built in tools to engender great narrative moments.

A lot of the above falls into the "to each his own" category of course. And I'm certainly not trying to sell one edition over the other. I'm just trying to tell it like I see it and hopefully adjust misconceptions. Both editions get panned for countless reasons, many of which are likely valid. But I'd argue that a lot of other complaints out there should be debunked.


----------



## StarFyre (Nov 3, 2009)

THe realism I meant is that, have you ever swung a hockey stick, etc over your head?  You physcially can do it. If i thus walked up to you, i could get hit in the face or neck with that stick, etc.

Physically you CAN do it.  In our group, the Thoradorian IS a barbarian...but again, there are stuff that as the other poster said, don't really have mechanical equivalents...the charge thing i mentioned. (the barbarian is level 1 btw..so my party is starting out new campaign)

It is house ruling or making your own simplified way to do it.  

For us, the swinging around the head thing, was done via a hit with a small penalty against one target, then we thought for a few seconds, would his strength allow the weaponto keep going? we figure yes since his str is so high, so human's won't stand a chance.  Then it's partial damage (half) on all other targets around him and then add str bonus and any magical weapon bonuses (none in this case).  

But the way we do it...i'm too busy to make up powers for stuff officially..instead, i have a 2 or 3 max roll limit. if you want to do something, i'll make it work for you in 2 d20 rolls max (rarely 3)...it's  "yes, you can" gaming, as people have described before.

The grab is a grapple, then the throw is obvious (with such a strength, its obvious he could throw a human), and a warhammer scatter dice to see where the body lands.  Done. 

The thing is, do you allow stuff that the powers, etc don't account for? 

it's correct that no D&D system really supports stuff like this really well...so which system supports it the best?  Ie. there are rules for similar stuff so it's not all adhoced..(may be slower, but it's 'official'). 

But then again, who cares? friends have tons of fun with it, and since they are more hardcore roleplayers, simulation style players...details like this they want, and make sense and it doesn't bother them....

Just imagine, our dark sun encounters are even more brutal....  (spines being ripped out of alive foes, climbing up creatures backs via blades into the creature's, players and enemies being cut in half, etc)...

Sanjay


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 3, 2009)

StarFyre said:


> it's correct that no D&D system really supports stuff like this really well...so which system supports it the best?  Ie. there are rules for similar stuff so it's not all adhoced..(may be slower, but it's 'official').




Obviously a matter of opinion. But 4e does give a damage table for use in situations like this and making up powers that model complex actions is a breeze. 

Having them balanced against existing powers isn't going to happen unless you are a savant with an encyclopaedic knowledge of all the 4e powers, but I'd ague that it isn't necessary, if it works for your group more power to ya.


----------



## StarFyre (Nov 3, 2009)

Tyrlaan--

My group would disagree....

By what standard is the minotaur unbalanced?  The standard gamer who's experience in D&D is run to this room, kill this, do the next room, roll a dice to see if i can negotiate with him, then go kill the next monster?

yes, sure...if all you do is fight and alltheplayers want is kill count, then sure..the minotaur will kill most close combat humanoids faster.

We've been using custom races/classes since 2E planescape and never had an issue with it.

Really, it comes down to the players and party dynamics.  

We play a very RP heavy/low combat game...and the world is very dark, gritty, and brutal. When there are fights, they are harsh.  Due to that, even stuff like the minotaur has drawbacks that can get exploited.  He has hooves, which make it harder for him to move on some surfaces, for one.  Wizards have to use magic to shrink him to make him reach some areas etc (we've done entire dungeons with a centaur and minotaur..that was interesting..trying to get them thru hatches, etc..hehe)

In 3.5E, it wasn't as big a deal i think cause of the racial levels, etc. It was built into the simulationist system.... (granted, we modified that as well)
in 4E, again, we haven't had complaints or issues.  Everyone does get to participate (some of that is due to how i do encounters....what i call the 'logical method'!) and that really makes everyone important.  

Granted, I don't do encounters how the DMG, etc suggest/plan them out and maybe that is why we don't see these issues...

That said, anyone can do funky stuff like that.  Others can jump and swing on stuff that heavier characters wouldn't be able to.  They can sneak under things, etc.  Climb in rafters, and snipe.  There are tons of stuff my players do/have done, mainly cause they think of what CAN be done in real life...and apply it to their character and then expand it with their superhuman abilities or magic in terms of the casters.  And all of it works well as each person can do different things based on their strengths/weaknesses..

In the end, as long as everyone has fun 

Sanjay


----------



## rjdafoe (Nov 3, 2009)

StarFyre said:


> THe realism I meant is that, have you ever swung a hockey stick, etc over your head? You physcially can do it. If i thus walked up to you, i could get hit in the face or neck with that stick, etc.
> 
> Physically you CAN do it. In our group, the Thoradorian IS a barbarian...but again, there are stuff that as the other poster said, don't really have mechanical equivalents...the charge thing i mentioned. (the barbarian is level 1 btw..so my party is starting out new campaign)
> 
> ...




No houserulling really required.

4e has a section in the DMs guide to help you do stunts.  If your group likes to do stuff like above, instead of powers, why not?  

After a few times of using that section, I am sure you will be able to not reference the book too much.  

I know some people seem to have a problem with that page, but really, this is the section that was made for your goup.  Examples, and guidelines on how to accomplish things that are not in the rules.

We have used it, and we encourage it's use.


----------



## resistor (Nov 3, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> Good post. There's something funny about encounter powers indeed. If you imagine elements of an RPG going on a slider that goes between "GAMIST" and "NARRATIVIST" where exactly does an encounter power fall?




You forgot the part where it's a triangle, not a line, the three corners being gamism, narrativism, and simulationism.  What you call "gritty physics" is precisely that third corner: simulationism.  We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether encounter powers are more gamist or more narrativist, but I think we can all agree that the one thing they definitely are NOT is simulationist.

As in, if you ask "why do encounter powers work this way?", valid answers include "because it's makes a better story" and "because it's more balanced," but generally not "because it's a approximation of how the world works."


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2009)

I know that at 15 pages it's a bit late to bring this up, but since this thread has been necro'd, I think it may be appropriate: what's the point of the whole thing?

Every time I see a thread like this I'm tempted to start one titled "3X is totally dead to me, and no, before you ask, Pathfinder didn't help." If I did that, I expect that a lot of the other posters (and likely the mods as well) would channel the late Chris Farley and say, "well la-de-fricken-da!" 

Seriously: 4E is out there, and you can play it or not as you like. 3X and Pathfinder are still there, as are 2E, 1E, OE and a host of compatible games Like C&C, OSRIC and so on.

Telling me why you don't like 4E, especially if your reasons for hating it are precisely some of the things I think improved it over 3X is meaningless as we approach three years of the game being out.

I play in a 4E game, and run two others, and each week the system lets me bring the awesome in those games in ways that 3X simply didn't for me, and for my groups as well. Why is that hard to understand?

I have no problem with anyone who hasn't jumped onto the 4E bandwagon (as I said before, when 2E came out I jumped ship and discovered this game called Champions, so I know what you're going through). The only thing I simply won't tolerate, and neither should you in reverse, is the notion that somehow your editions way of pretending to be an elf is better than mine in an objective fashion. It may be for you (I'm sure it is!), but trust me, I've looked at all the details, played the game for thousands of hours, and it isn't for me.

--Steve


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 3, 2009)

SteveC said:


> Telling me why you don't like 4E, especially if your reasons for hating it are precisely some of the things I think improved it over 3X is meaningless as we approach three years of the game being out.




You have a strange fascination with this meaningless thread.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 3, 2009)

resistor said:


> As in, if you ask "why do encounter powers work this way?", valid answers include "because it's makes a better story" and "because it's more balanced," but generally not "because it's a approximation of how the world works."



Good point. Thanks for the correction.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Oh yes, and a good DM should certainly toss the rules out on their ear and use this kind of system to correctly respond to the narrative flow of the game any and every time it is appropriate. But if the main rules of the game must be thrown out on their ear as a regular part of quality play, then maybe a different system should be considered



Definitely agree here, but if the next line is 'go to 3E'-- then- what? Since when is 3E rules light and narrative focused? Like I've been saying, fair criticism against D&D in general, but to criticize the choice of 4E alone makes it seem like you're either your ignoring what I thought was your system of choice, 3E, or you actually are arguing from the stand point of White Wolf Games. (I'm actually ignorant here, White Wolf Games are generally more narrative focused right? If not, insert better example here.)


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> You have a strange fascination with this meaningless thread.



As it's my first post to it, I'd say perhaps not. When stuff like this gets necro'd,  after a well deserved trip to the back pages of the forum, and we get to do the timewarp all over again, it sometimes makes sense to me to question why. What are we going to accomplish by doing this all over again for the n+1 time?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 3, 2009)

SteveC said:


> What are we going to accomplish by doing this all over again for the n+1 time?




You seem to be under the impression that the conversation must necessarily lead to some outcome, as opposed to merely being a conversation for its own sake.

Which makes your own late-breaking and meaningless commentary unusual.

Unless the goal you are attempting to accomplish is to shut down the conversation for the n+1th time, the best way for to avoid such meaninglessness is to avoid the thread.

Am I wrong? I mean, we're 3 years into the new edition, as you astutely pointed out. What are you trying to accomplish by asking folks what they are trying to accomplish?


----------



## Obryn (Nov 3, 2009)

SteveC said:


> What are we going to accomplish by doing this all over again for the n+1 time?



The destruction and complete humiliation of our enemies.  Duh.

EDIT:


Wulf Ratbane said:


> What are you trying to accomplish by asking folks what they are trying to accomplish?



The destruction and complete humiliation of his enemies.  Duh.

-O


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Nov 3, 2009)

I have a serious simulationist streak, so things like encounter/daily martial powers bug me. The common explanation is that they're 'activated crits,' but then why does my character strategize around supposedly random events? I mean, if they were really random within the game world why do 75% of the same line-up of 2-8 crit effects happen during the first few rounds of every fight, and only against strategically advantageous foes?

This is one of the reasons I like using the Exalted setting to run 4e. It has a built-in explanation for all of D&D's wackiness: all PCs and serious foes are made of magical awesomeness. Which is why they can all do wacky stuff a certain number of times per 5 minutes/day: it's magic!

Anyway, even without Exalted, 4e's elegant balance far outweighs its marginally lesser focus on simulation than other editions. As always, YMMV.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 3, 2009)

I'm just saying, it's a little unusual to barge into a conversation that doesn't interest you, merely to tell the participants that the topic of their conversation is meaningless and doesn't interest you, and they therefore (I suppose) need to talk about something else...?

I'm guessing that is an internet-only kind of etiquette-- but I'd pay good money to see how that goes over in real life.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I'm just saying, it's a little unusual to barge into a conversation that doesn't interest you, merely to tell the participants that the topic of their conversation is meaningless and doesn't interest you, and they therefore (I suppose) need to talk about something else...?
> 
> I'm guessing that is an internet-only kind of etiquette-- but I'd pay good money to see how that goes over in real life.



Since you asked, I'll tell you: I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't talk about. I do notice, however, that when threads like this crop up, the signal to noise ratio on this site goes positively into the tank for several days, and also a couple of posters commonly end up getting banned for a week or decide to leave the site entirely in disgust. That's the problem. More talk about the awesome, less about how encounter powers stretch believability would be my preference. I find that some of the posters in this thread who I agree with on 98% of other topics and love to discuss things with simply won't let this go and will be real jerks to people who under other circumstances they get along with.

In real life, when I'm with a group of friends who start talking about politics or religion or any number of things that we aren't allowed to talk about here, sometimes a topic comes up that is just going to get people ticked off, and can't ever be resolved. Maybe it's healthcare or the election or, well, you name it. When I'm there for that, I very much do try and steer the discussion away from that topic, especially if I know that "John" and "Dave," who are normally very nice people, are going to come to blows and we're going to have to call the cops to separate them. 

If that doesn't work, I end up getting out of there before trouble starts, which is entirely what I intend to do in this thread. ENWorld is a community of great people, but discussions like this bring out the worst in some of us, me included. So you got a real life explanation without even having to pay for it.

--Steve


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 3, 2009)

SteveC said:


> Telling me why you don't like 4E, especially if your reasons for hating it are precisely some of the things I think improved it over 3X is meaningless as we approach three years of the game being out.




Didn't 4e launch in June 2008?  That would mean we're less than one-and-a-half years out.  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just clarifying the game's only been out half the time you said.

For my group, we didn't even try running our first 4E game until 6 months after publication, so we've only been playing for a year.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 3, 2009)

Fair point, Steve.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I'm guessing that is an internet-only kind of etiquette-- but I'd pay good money to see how that goes over in real life.




Nah that kind of stuff happens in RL all the time.  

I have a friend who constantly bitches about stuff he either can't change, or just doesn't bother to change. A lot of us at this point stop him before he gets started but sometimes he finds someone new to start up with... Usually someone who is aware of his bitchfest history will break in and just say "Dude, seriously give it a rest."

I see the same type of things at work, when people are bitching about their workload, or management decisions or something. Eventually some people just start saying "ENOUGH ALREADY! Move on, or quit, or do whatever you plan to do about it, but stop annoying me with your constant complaining!"

People angry about a situation sometimes think that complaining about it all the time to random other people who don't have the power to change the situation will in some way shape or form help I guess.

What's worse is it tends to be ALL they focus on. Every time someone  brings up any topic no matter how unrelated they find a way to bring things back to whatever it is they're angry about. 

In reality it just really annoys the people who:

A. Don't agree with the complainers standpoint, 

B. Don't really care that much, or

C. Might have cared, but don't feel EVERYTHING has to be related to the anger.

Maybe they feel that if they complain enough, it will get everyone upset enough to cause a change in some way? I don't know. 

To each his own I guess, but I do tend to be in the "quit your bitchin and DO something about it if it really bothers you that much" camp. 

(If all I wanted to do was talk about last nights episode of LOST, and you somehow found a way to work in your complaints about the new account that was added to your BoB, it's going to annoy the hell out of me...)


----------



## Ourph (Nov 3, 2009)

WizarDru said:


> For my group, we didn't even try running our first 4E game until 6 months after publication, so we've only been playing for a year.



Yeah, but some people got a head-start on hating it. In some circles, the lead time was almost a year pre-launch.


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 3, 2009)

Interesting thread, although I confess to not having read the entire thing. However, I'm prompted to make a comment on the "narrativism" of 4e that I know probably won't satisfy some folks, but I feel it needs to be said anyway. Forgive me if it's completely redundant...

Fourth Edition separates, rather drastically, _player choice_ from _character choice_, especially when the martial power source is involved. What do I mean by that? Let me give some examples.

Martial Daily & Encounter powers: Almost by definition, there is nothing stopping martial powers from being used repeatedly. Hence, most characters would do nothing but use their "best moves" constantly. However, this doesn't fit with what we see in fiction _or even reality_ when it comes to swordsmen and martial artists.

Most trained fighters have a few relatively straight-forward moves that they can pull off all the time. In addition, each usually has some signature "special moves" that are highly _situation dependent._ This is objectively true. Once you acknowledge this, the question becomes: how do you model such a thing in a GAME?

Option 1) Leave it entirely up to the discretion of the referee what is "allowed" at any given time.

Option 2) Go strictly simulationist, and allow the player to use the power whenever the situation is correct. That means the DM describes the situation ahead of time, works out the physics, and fusses over the exact mental state of the player's opponent from round to round.

Option 3) Give the player a power that he can build up to by having his character take certain actions to set it up. This puts the enabling move into the player's hands, but feels like the character is doing something.

Option 4) Give the player a power that he can choose to use at any time, but only infrequently. In the game world, the character is only aware that he's gotten lucky or fortunate. In other words, things have "worked out" for him.

Mostly, this is a matter of Agency (or "Narrative Control"). Who should get to decide when the character's cool powers come into play? The DM? Or the Player? Without going into a long, exhaustive discussion, let's just say that old school D&D (OD&D thru 2e) opts for Option 1, 3e leans to Option 2 (or 3 kinda), and Fourth Edition fully embraces Option 4.

In addition, Fourth Edition offers guidelines to DMs (the aforementioned p.42 of the DMG) for how to handle situations the rules don't cover _with the DM's permission_. Older editions of D&D could have benefited from guidelines like this, but they weren't there - because Gygax and co. pretty much thought that any experienced player would want to play a magic-user - so cool stunt mechanics were unnecessary.

D&D (up until 3e) has always been more "narrativist" than "simulationist." Especially on some things - if you want to be bludgeoned over the head, read Gary's 1e discussion of "what hit points represent." Now, to be fair, it's also quite "gamist." Unlike many "narrativist" games, players don't have a lot of control over the game world (although this can vary from group to group). And 4e still remains simulationist enough that the setting of an encounter is still largely determined by the DM. In a truly narrativist game, there'd be no issue with a martial controller, because the player could just decide that there happened to be difficult terrain in a particular section of the battlefield. It just wasn't hindering anyone until the player brought it up.

However, that's just a little too _much_ "flexible reality" for most D&D groups.

There's not really a "better" or "worse" here. There are just different styles. Personally, as a player I like having more control over what I can do, and as a DM, I like giving my players some predefined options they can use.

When they come into play, "Stunts" like those presented on p.42 should be viable options for a PC to use - meaning they should be comparable to using his powers - the "Rule of Cool" certainly applies here.

However, I freely admit that I'm glad that, absent player stunts, Fourth Edition doesn't default to "Ok, I whack him" or "Okay, I shoot him." Which IS what, IMO, what tends to happen in early editions.

And if I have to jump through some corner case hoops or come up with a few "narrativist" explanations to make that happen, I'll live.

Obviously, opinions differ, YMMV, and all that...


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 3, 2009)

fuzzlewump said:


> (I'm actually ignorant here, White Wolf Games are generally more narrative focused right? If not, insert better example here.)




Investigate the Game called Fate or Spirit of the Century... lots of free material on line. It has a more narrative cast to it.. much more. WoD is probably not what you are thinking.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2009)

Personally I don't think Narrativism should be on the list. I think that the simulationist, and gamist ways are the only actual design methods, with degree of Narrativism being more of an "in play" thing.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 3, 2009)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> D&D (up until 3e) has always been more "narrativist" than "simulationist." Especially on some things - if you want to be bludgeoned over the head, read Gary's 1e discussion of "what hit points represent."




Actually, I would consider that quite simulationist. Level of abstraction has almost nothing to do with the goal of the mechanic. Hit points simulate powerful heroes being hard to kill by repeated attacks. It would be narrativist if player hit points waxed and waned according to dramatic events within the scene. In any case, GNS is mostly considered yesterday's paradigm. From an immersive standpoint, it doesn't matter what hit points represent, provided the course of the battle and the outcome aren't jarring. 

As to, "Why this thread?", I think threads about leaving editions are at least as potentially interesting as threads as to why people adopt them. There would be far less negativity if people were less inclined to jump and defend their game from someone who doesn't like it, rather than joining the discussion as an interested and engaged party.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 3, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> As to, "Why this thread?", I think threads about leaving editions are at least as potentially interesting as threads as to why people adopt them.There would be far less negativity if people were less inclined to jump and defend their game from someone who doesn't like it, rather than joining the discussion as an interested and engaged party.




I kind of agree with what you're saying but would rather say:

There would be far less negativity if people were less inclined to jump and defend their subjective point as objective, rather than joining the discussion as an interested and engaged party speaking subjectively.

I don't think it's one sided at all. People always seem to default to my experience with a game is the "true" experience.


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 4, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, I would consider that quite simulationist. Level of abstraction has almost nothing to do with the goal of the mechanic. Hit points simulate powerful heroes being hard to kill by repeated attacks. It would be narrativist if player hit points waxed and waned according to dramatic events within the scene. In any case, GNS is mostly considered yesterday's paradigm. From an immersive standpoint, it doesn't matter what hit points represent, provided the course of the battle and the outcome aren't jarring.




Well, perhaps. But the whole result of mechanics like healing surges and, more to the point, Second Wind, is to give the players narrative control over the scene. While they don't strictly get to recover just "because it's dramatically appropriate," they get to have a "dramatically appropriate recovery." The abstract nature of hit points - and until 3e, they were always abstract - makes that feasible.

Similarly, the abstract nature of said hit points is similarly what enables "martial healing." The exact nature of the combat's events isn't known until it's completely over. By the way, Second Wind lets a player dictate a dramatic comeback for his character. But more important is the death save - which allows for a surge to be spent if a natural 20 is rolled. This preserves the possibility of a dramatic recovery that surprises even the players - as opposed to just their characters. 

Fourth Edition has recognized that D&D's primary strength is an action-adventure role playing game and thus it aims for a cinematic feel to combat - something that wouldn't be entirely inappropriate in a Conan, Indiana Jones, _Pirates of the Caribbean_, or _Three Musketeers_ movie. Clearly, that's what the designers are going for. It may not be to everyone's taste.

However, it still tries to remain a tactical game - something some people seem to have a problem with. Which is a might odd considering D&D started as a supplement to tabletop wargaming.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 4, 2009)

JohnSnow said:


> The abstract nature of hit points - and until 3e, they were always abstract - makes that feasible.



Huh, I didnt play 3e though I did buy WOT from the d20 era. I am pretty sure hit points were considered abstractions of skill and luck and energy (with just a few nicks and scratches) the same as it always was?


----------



## Harlekin (Nov 4, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, I would consider that quite simulationist. Level of abstraction has almost nothing to do with the goal of the mechanic. Hit points simulate powerful heroes being hard to kill by repeated attacks. It would be narrativist if player hit points waxed and waned according to dramatic events within the scene. In any case, GNS is mostly considered yesterday's paradigm. From an immersive standpoint, it doesn't matter what hit points represent, provided the course of the battle and the outcome aren't jarring.




Large numbers of HP don't simulate anything. Notice that every RPG out there that tried to be simulationist  went away from exploding hitpoints. Whenever AD&D/D&D was criticized for not being  realistic, Gobs of HP was usually the first thing on the list (Armor making you harder to hit was usually the second). HP and AC of course survived and thrived because they work, they make games exciting. They are pretty much the ultimate gamist rule and one of the reasons every edition of (A)D&D was firmly in the G corner of the GNS triangle.

The only reason, hit points are not jarring to most D&D players, is that we have played with then for 25+ years and are used to this gamist construct. Abstractions become less jarring with use. I'm sure in 10 years, most D&D players will wonder what the issue with martial encounter power was (and gripe about the new abstraction introduced in D&D 6.37).


----------



## resistor (Nov 4, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Personally I don't think Narrativism should be on the list. I think that the simulationist, and gamist ways are the only actual design methods, with degree of Narrativism being more of an "in play" thing.




I suggest you try playing a FATE3-based game like Spirit of the Century or Diaspora, or Amber Diceless, or any number of other indie games where narrativism is an explicit element of the game design.


----------



## resistor (Nov 4, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> Large numbers of HP don't simulate anything. Notice that every RPG out there that tried to be simulationist  went away from exploding hitpoints. Whenever AD&D/D&D was criticized for not being  realistic, Gobs of HP was usually the first thing on the list (Armor making you harder to hit was usually the second). HP and AC of course survived and thrived because they work, they make games exciting. They are pretty much the ultimate gamist rule and one of the reasons every edition of (A)D&D was firmly in the G corner of the GNS triangle.




The problem with trying to get too detail-oriented about a GNS discussion is that there's no such thing as absolutes.  I'd say that what's more relevant is what relative weights the three elements receive in a design.  Traditional (pre-4e) D&D had a mixture of rules, some of which were justified as "it simulates the world" (simulationism) and some of which were justified as "it makes it more fun as a game" (gamism).  In general, there were very few mechanics whose justification was "it makes a better story" (narrativism).

I think what bothers a lot of people about 4e is that the relative weights of the GNS points is significantly different.  Gamism still receives a lot of weight, and narrativism has probably received a boost, but simulationism is a much lower priority than it was previously.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 4, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Yeah, but some people got a head-start on hating it. In some circles, the lead time was almost a year pre-launch.





Yes, and apparently some other circles won't let old stuff drop into the past, where it belongs.  

How about nobody here be part of those circles any more?


----------



## BryonD (Nov 4, 2009)

JohnSnow said:


> D&D (up until 3e) has always been more "narrativist" than "simulationist."



I agree.
Of course, that is why I left D&D for better games and only "came back" when D&D caught up.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 4, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Yeah, but some people got a head-start on hating it. In some circles, the lead time was almost a year pre-launch.



For the record (and being "all about me"    ) I was one of the 4e cheerleaders when it was announced, amongst a pretty solid "too soon for a new edition" reaction that immediately followed the announcement.  

My enthusiasm ran into harsh reality pretty shortly thereafter.  But my issues were anything other than preconceived notions.  I still chuckle about all the claims that my later concerns were repeatedly poo-pooed as commenting without having all the context.  Once the game was out, the context was completely unchanged.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 4, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> Large numbers of HP don't simulate anything. Notice that every RPG out there that tried to be simulationist  went away from exploding hitpoints. Whenever AD&D/D&D was criticized for not being  realistic, Gobs of HP was usually the first thing on the list (Armor making you harder to hit was usually the second). HP and AC of course survived and thrived because they work, they make games exciting. They are pretty much the ultimate gamist rule and one of the reasons every edition of (A)D&D was firmly in the G corner of the GNS triangle.




Hit points simulate staying power. "Realism" is something different than simulation. A game can be quite narrative and also realistic. D&D characters have lots of hit points because they are heroic. While some of the rationale may involve story-making, at bottom, hit points are for letting 6th level fighters wade through a squad of goblins because that's what 6th level fighters do. Dragons don't get more hit points because they are more significant in story terms or because they are meant to win, but because they are tougher. D&D simulates swords-and-sorcery, and Conan, like most action heroes, can withstand a lot of combat. High hit points simulate Conan getting hacked at by brigands and walking away with only flesh wounds and bruises.


Healing surges, in their general use, are more narratavist, because the player decides when they think it's important to win, basically.

Things can get very muddy... Torg characters live in a reality where dramatic action is reality, and hence their Possibility Points are both meta-game and in-game. From a meta standpoint, they allow dramatic action and are spent at the player's behest. From an in-game standpoint, they represent the manipulation of reality by a determined protagonist.

That's pretty muddy. Hit points, though, are simple. They represent, abstractly, your ability to not die, and they are whittled down by attacks and hazards until one gets you. Very simulationist.


----------



## Ariosto (Nov 4, 2009)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Older editions of D&D could have benefited from guidelines like this, but they weren't there - *because Gygax and co. pretty much thought that any experienced player would want to play a magic-user* - so cool stunt mechanics were unnecessary.



Is this claim based on ESP, or what?

"Cool stunt mechanics were unnecessary" the same way a bicycle is unnecessary to a fish. As Dangerous Journeys illustrates, Gary was quite capable of producing a rules-heavy game when he wanted to. A reasonable conclusion -- supported by his actual statements -- is that it is by design that AD&D "fails" to get bogged down in hour-long fights.

The actually expressed assumption was that experienced players who wanted to weigh down the game would do so on their own or with help from the many articles in The Dragon. Plenty did just that, but I don't recall any indication of D&Ders widely warming to the 4e notion of "cool".


----------



## Obryn (Nov 4, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Hit points simulate staying power. "Realism" is something different than simulation. A game can be quite narrative and also realistic. D&D characters have lots of hit points because they are heroic. While some of the rationale may involve story-making, at bottom, hit points are for letting 6th level fighters wade through a squad of goblins because that's what 6th level fighters do. Dragons don't get more hit points because they are more significant in story terms or because they are meant to win, but because they are tougher. D&D simulates swords-and-sorcery, and Conan, like most action heroes, can withstand a lot of combat. High hit points simulate Conan getting hacked at by brigands and walking away with only flesh wounds and bruises.



This definition of "simulation" is the same in which 4e's encounter powers simulate cinematic combat.  That is, they simulate a genre - not physics.

As long as you're able to ask "What am I simulating?" anything can be simulationist.  IME, when gamers are talking about simulation, they're generally talking about world-simulation, not cinematic simulation or pulp simulation.

-O


----------



## Ssadral (Nov 4, 2009)

resistor said:


> I suggest you try playing a FATE3-based game like Spirit of the Century or Diaspora, or Amber Diceless, or any number of other indie games where narrativism is an explicit element of the game design.



Pretty much this.

Plus if your a Dresden fan, the RPG is tentatively scheduled for summer of 2010.


----------



## Failed Saving Throw (Nov 4, 2009)

Anand said:


> All my players are WoW players, as myself as a DM. We play WoW together often, but we still enjoy getting together on occasional Saturdays to play D&D (4e, nowadays). It is a very different experience.




It is a different experience, however; I have a level 80 in WoW and one of my players has several, since he's been playing WoW ever since it was released. To us the WoW influence on 4e is clear as day. It amuses me when people stridently try to dismiss this.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 4, 2009)

Failed Saving Throw said:


> It is a different experience, however; I have a level 80 in WoW and one of my players has several, since he's been playing WoW ever since it was released. To us the WoW influence on 4e is clear as day. It amuses me when people stridently try to dismiss this.



Examples? What you consider a WoW influence on D&D may have actually started out as a D&D influence on WoW!


----------



## fuzzlewump (Nov 4, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Examples? What you consider a WoW influence on D&D may have actually started out as a D&D influence on WoW!



I think the notion that every class, including classes with no spells, in the game should have interesting options in combat (in the form of at-will, encounter, daily) was an influence from WoW and Diablo.

Which is great, in my opinion.


----------



## tyrlaan (Nov 4, 2009)

Eh, 4e is like WoW. 4e is not like WoW. Whatever.

For those not taking it into consideration, WoW is somewhat of a success. Extending this notion leads to the logic that mayhaps Blizzard has done a handful of things right to find such success. The root of WoW is RPG. The root of D&D is RPG. Why _wouldn't_ WotC look to WoW for inspiration? 

Now, if there are specific aspects of WoW that someone feels were used as inspiration for specific aspects of 4e that are a detriment to the game, that's a topic worthy of discussion (I think). But throwing out the general statement that 4e "steals" from WoW isn't a sensical reason to have issue with 4e. Unless of course you think D&D's been "crap" since it made the "egregious error" of "lifting" ideas from Tolkein.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Nov 4, 2009)

resistor said:


> I think what bothers a lot of people about 4e is that the relative weights of the GNS points is significantly different.  Gamism still receives a lot of weight, and narrativism has probably received a boost, but simulationism is a much lower priority than it was previously.



Eh, not much lower, because D&D never paid much attention to simulation/whateveryouwanttocallit in the first place. 3e kinda tried to add simulation to the game, but it most often breaks down in the presence of even idle thoughts. So 3e maybe had a 4-out-of-10 simulation rating, then 4e said 'screw this pretense,' and dropped it down to maybe 2-out-of-10.*

I wish 4e were more simulationist/whatever, but it would have to become much more sim than any edition has ever been, or likely ever will be, to make a difference for me.

*These statistics are based entirely on TS's opinion, and should not be construed as facts.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 5, 2009)

Obryn said:


> This definition of "simulation" is the same in which 4e's encounter powers simulate cinematic combat.  That is, they simulate a genre - not physics.
> 
> As long as you're able to ask "What am I simulating?" anything can be simulationist.  IME, when gamers are talking about simulation, they're generally talking about world-simulation, not cinematic simulation or pulp simulation.
> 
> -O




You're equivocating. I am not talking about genre simulation, I am talking about simulating physics within a genre. You said "world-simulation" but you didn't say what world. Simulation does not have to be realistical at all; if it were, anything with dragons and magic would already be on its way out the door.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 5, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> You're equivocating. I am not talking about genre simulation, I am talking about simulating physics within a genre. You said "world-simulation" but you didn't say what world. Simulation does not have to be realistical at all; if it were, anything with dragons and magic would already be on its way out the door.



I agree that you can simulate things that aren't reality.  But if you make "simulationism" conditional, and allow its use for simulation of a genre, almost any game mechanic suddenly becomes simulationist.

Let's take your discussion of Hit Points...



> Conan, like most action heroes, can withstand a lot of combat. High hit points simulate Conan getting hacked at by brigands and walking away with only flesh wounds and bruises.



OK - for what it's worth, I agree.  That's exactly what hit points mean.

Now, let's talk Minions, everyone's favorite, using your same argument.

"The orc rabble, like most mooks in action movies, can't last long in combat.  1 HP simulates the orc getting put out of a fight as soon as a hero does anything to them."

All of a sudden, minions are simulationist.  I love minions, but I don't know that I'm comfortable with that categorization.

Now, we can move on to solos - the 4e creatures with 4x HPs.

"A Red Dragon, like most big, epic fantasy monsters, has a lot more staying power than your average hero, being able to take on whole armies.  High HPs simulate the dragon's staying power, and ability to face down hordes of enemies and perhaps surviving."

Or, my example of encounter powers...

"Action heroes usually have a few signature moves that they can do in a fight, but which they don't use over and over again - even if it's clearly the most effective thing they could do.  Encounter (and Daily) powers simulate the genre by giving characters these signature moves, without allowing them to do them repeatedly."


Once you broaden the term "simulationist" enough, everything is potentially simulationist.  I think that the common usage among gamers, though, carries an implication that game rules should be expressions of in-world physics - and not expressions of genre conventions.  Which is why, IMO, hit points should never be considered simulationist at all.

-O


----------



## tyrlaan (Nov 5, 2009)

I agree with O on this. If I were to categorize the 1hp minion, hit points, and encounter/daily powers according to GNS, I'd go with Narrativist. 

Now I'm not convinced that was WotC's conscious intent when building those mechanics, so they probably (almost certainly) have gamist roots, but they "make sense" in a game world (to me) by seeing them under a Narrativist-colored lens.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 5, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> I agree with O on this. If I were to categorize the 1hp minion, hit points, and encounter/daily powers according to GNS, I'd go with Narrativist.




[Narrativism] requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.​


----------



## Obryn (Nov 5, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> [Narrativism] requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.​



We're D&D players.  It's enough that we're spelling the terms correctly. 

-O


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 5, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> [Narrativism] requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.​




Narrativist game features would be any feature which aides that process. Minions demonstrate the fragility of the everyman. I consider that a problematic feature of human existence. (I use minions as allies)


----------



## Ourph (Nov 5, 2009)

I don't think that minions (just like most other game elements) can necssarily be filed in a single GNS category. As Garthanos points out, they can be used as tools in a Narrative episode. They could also be considered Simulationist tools (i.e. we're simulating the S&S or wire-fu genre, where heroes cleave through roomsful of enemies). But minions also have plenty of gamist elements. A 20th level minion with huge attack and damage numbers but only a single hit point is definitely a Gamist construct. The rules are prioritizing the creation of an opponent who represents a certain type of challenge. The rule that minions take no damage on a miss is also (IMO) a Gamist consideration.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 5, 2009)

Ourph said:


> The rule that minions take no damage on a miss is also (IMO) a Gamist consideration.



I and probably a couple others have house ruled that to allow minions to be bloodied (at least sometimes) when damaged but not targeted ... but that is neither here nor there just me adjusting the system so its parts all work a little more consistantly.  Which shores up their simulation value for me. Yeah everyday joes get demoralized and frazzled or feel like there luck has run out too.

Game features can definitely serve more than one master ...err role.


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 5, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> [Narrativism] requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.​




Are rules intended to model cinematic reality (that is, the way reality unfolds in most heroic narratives) narrativist or simulationist?

I think that's a largely semantic debate. The minion rules exist so that you can duplicate the climactic fight scenes in heroic action adventure movies within the framework where there is still both:

a) a real risk of failure, and:
b) a real chance for victory.

Similarly, per-encounter and per-day powers are intended to model the "occasional" use of those powers (cinematic/narrativist desire) without bogging down in excessive bookkeeping (a gamist ideal). Moreover, the rules are there to "simulate" the reality of a particular kind of world, so they are also, in that sense, simulationist.

Perhaps this distinction is, after all, antiquated.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 5, 2009)

JohnSnow said:


> Are rules intended to model cinematic reality (that is, the way reality unfolds in most heroic narratives) narrativist or simulationist?
> 
> I think that's a largely semantic debate. The minion rules exist so that you can duplicate the climactic fight scenes in heroic action adventure movies within the framework where there is still both:
> 
> ...



I agree.  In the end the terms are so thrown around they lose their meaning, if they ever had one in the first place.  That doesn't mean you will never catch me using some of them again.  Sometimes a weak word is still the best word there is.

But inability to perfectly define distinctions does not mean the distinctions do not exist.  

I don't like 1-1-1 diagonals.    
Chip off that tiny piece of the tip of the iceberg and all that happens is the iceberg floats a tiny bit higher, exposing that much more tip.  You never get rid of the tip as long as there is an iceberg.


----------



## keterys (Nov 5, 2009)

I love 1-1-1 diagonals. Then again, I loved them in 3e before they changed the game to make them 1-2-1 too  Less so since cones were a bit crazy back then, but eh.

At this point, I'm not sure there's hardly any gameplay concession I will make in the name of realism, though. I'm just crazy like that.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Nov 6, 2009)

keterys said:


> I love 1-1-1 diagonals. Then again, I loved them in 3e before they changed the game to make them 1-2-1 too



Huh?


----------



## Ourph (Nov 6, 2009)

JohnSnow said:


> Are rules intended to model cinematic reality (that is, the way reality unfolds in most heroic narratives) narrativist or simulationist?



Simulationist (but that doesn't mean they can't be used toward Narrativist ends if that's what the group wants to do with them).


----------



## keterys (Nov 6, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Huh?




During the early months of 3e they had some stumbling about, where diagonals weren't defined as extra distance. Then in Dragon Skip was all confused and went 'No, wait, it's 1.5 per diagonal!'... so then polearms briefly lost the ability to hit 2 squares out on diagonals... or 1 square out, for that matter... because the rules simply didn't know what to do with diagonals being more than 1.

Cones, as I recall, were misshapen crazy constructs where you added a square of width for each square of length you did, creating cones that were longer on the diagonal than wide or just looked more than a little crazy.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 6, 2009)

keterys said:


> At this point, I'm not sure there's hardly any gameplay concession I will make in the name of realism, though. I'm just crazy like that.



No one should ever ask you to make any game play concession you don't want to, in the name of anything.  (Obviously you need to get along with you group, but that is a different conversation)


----------



## BryonD (Nov 6, 2009)

keterys said:


> During the early months of 3e they had some stumbling about, where diagonals weren't defined as extra distance.



There may have been some confusion regarding grids.  I have no idea.
My 3E PH says "1 inch on the tabletop equates to 5 feet".  It makes no reference to grids so there is no "diagonal" to discuss.  1 inch equals 5 feet in all 360 degrees.

If there was some brief confusion about how to best apply the rule to a square grid, that would not change that a mini on the board should not go farther just because he is moving 45 degrees off.  Two identical characters start moving on a gridless board in any two directions.  They both move 30 feet.  At the end of their move they both move 6 inches by 3.0 raw.  If you then go back and overlay a 1 inch grid on them, such that at least one of them turned out to have moved diagonally, you will find that mini moved across the diagonals of four 1 inch squares.  

What there absolutely was NOT in 3.0 was anything to suggest that one of these characters would move further along the table than another.


----------



## keterys (Nov 6, 2009)

Yes, this was only something that mattered for play on a grid. Which is, of course, something that should be defined for a game intended to be played on a grid 

I'm not sure where my 3.0 PH is anymore, but the DMG p67 (rules for using miniatures and grids) notes that 1-inch squares are 5 feet and listed reaches in squares (1, 2, 3, etc).

Area effects conformed (roughly, with some cones being a bit odd) to the inch layout, but creature reaches did not. Which is why in grid play there was a period of time in which polearms' reach went from

```
xxxxx
x...x
x.@.x
x...x
xxxxx

to
.xxx.
x...x
x.@.x
x...x
.xxx.
```
Which was kinda amusing at the time (with monsters and PCs casually ignoring reach weapons by coming in on diagonals and such). It mattered a bit more for those of us who played and DMed Living Greyhawk where rules were expected to be followed and an equal play experience given to all. (whee...)


----------



## Grimstaff (Nov 6, 2009)




----------



## Garthanos (Nov 6, 2009)

This is one of those I do it as distances which happen to be in 5 feet increments. Worrying about it seems ummm "overdone" and its significance "exaggerated". The grid work helps give ball park and we dont play that retentive I also liked hex grids visually.... but still used distances.


----------



## resistor (Nov 17, 2009)

EDIT: Oops, wrong thread.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 17, 2009)

resistor said:


> I hate to necromance this thread, but I _finally_ pinned down what bothered me about this whole discussion: the quote's not originally from The Incredibles!
> 
> The earliest I'm aware of it is from Gilbert and Sullivan's The Gondoliers (1889): "If every one is somebody, then no-one's anybody."




wow best reason to necro a thread ever...


----------



## resistor (Nov 17, 2009)

It helps if I actually click reply in the proper tab.


----------

