General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Outside of really Skullport and the Promenade where do the Lovecraftian Old Ones really present themselves in D&D?
In AD&D, you have the Elder Elemental God - see the deserted chapel in G3, and again in D3. Tharizdun also has a bit of that Old One mystique about him.
Quote:
I mean we have Eldritch Blast now, so why not try to reclaim some influence by the other long lost god area for D&D?
You might want to take a look at this Dragon article by Bruce Cordell... Wish Upon a Star (should be still free).
Initial negotiations? Handled with the reaction roll. (Note that this requires a number of opening exchanges - it's not rolled before you say anything).
Further negotiations would be roleplayed; but to a large extent so should they be in 4e.
Cheers!
Actually the initial reaction was determined before any communication from either side. The DM's notes on the creature(s) came first, if there was no specified reaction within, then an initial reaction roll determined if further communication was possible. This could be modified by friendly/ hostile gestures. Any result other than " immediate attack" allowed communication to continue.
I think you're overstating the DMG's approach to things. There's a world of difference between game balance, and running a dangerous campaign.
Balance makes options equivalent in power for a player. All things being equal, you can build a rogue or a wizard without worrying about playing a lame class.
One important part of old school play was that balance was achieved by a good DM throughout the campaign as a whole. A character who was not
the pinnacle of effectiveness in combat did not have to be lame.
I see the round by round balance of 4E as a response to the " all me, all now" mindset that comes from instant gratification entertainment such as a videogame. Mature players are not in a competition with each other to see who can dish out the most pwnage in every combat.
Equal does not have to mean the same. In a GURPS game, players can all start out with the same number of points to spend and yet create characters that are vastly different with regard to both combat and noncombat effectiveness.
If balance for the game as a whole is to be determined solely by what takes place on the tactical grid then we have lost precious elements that separate roleplaying games from skirmish games.
One important part of old school play was that balance was achieved by a good DM throughout the campaign as a whole. A character who was not the pinnacle of effectiveness in combat did not have to be lame.
I see the round by round balance of 4E as a response to the " all me, all now" mindset that comes from instant gratification entertainment such as a videogame. Mature players are not in a competition with each other to see who can dish out the most pwnage in every combat.
Videogames, or having less/little time to play?
I really don't want to drive to the game and sit through the session being mostly passive for several hours.
I suppose if I played D&d multiple times a week over several hours each day, I might found the 3E or 4E participation/instant gratification focus too stressful, because I have to contribute all the time and don't have any rest. But that's not the kind of time I have for playing.
Quote:
Equal does not have to mean the same. In a GURPS game, players can all start out with the same number of points to spend and yet create characters that are vastly different with regard to both combat and noncombat effectiveness.
And this alone is already a problem. You don't really know how to challenge the players without taking a deep look at their actual statistics. You don't know beforehand if your campaign will be more combat focused or non-combat focused. You don't know if you'll use a lot of wilderness travel or if it will be more space combat. You can't look at the point buy value and say "oh, sure, this is the kind of opposition and challenges the party can face". You don't even have classes that can tell you what the character might be reasonably able to do. If you want an entertaining campaign that fits the characters (providing them "fair" challenges - from easy to hard ones), you need to look at the details. And that is a problem for preparing your campaign or adventures.
It is probably not unsurmountable, but it's still not a trivial task.
Quote:
If balance for the game as a whole is to be determined solely by what takes place on the tactical grid then we have lost precious elements that separate roleplaying games from skirmish games.
If this tactical grid is where most of the time is spent, balancing this element is crucial. if it's not where most of the time is spent, it's balance or imbalance doesn't hurt.
You can't balance combat vs non-combat, unless you can predict how much of each you will have in a typical campaign.
How do you balance non-combat aspects? Do you know how much people will spend on social encounters, wilderness travel, dungeon exploration or mystery solving?
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Videogames, or having less/little time to play?
I really don't want to drive to the game and sit through the session being mostly passive for several hours.
I suppose if I played D&d multiple times a week over several hours each day, I might found the 3E or 4E participation/instant gratification focus too stressful, because I have to contribute all the time and don't have any rest. But that's not the kind of time I have for playing.
I currently get to play 1 regular (4-6 hour) session every 2 weeks and I still don't consider not being in combat the entire session to be a waste of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
And this alone is already a problem. You don't really know how to challenge the players without taking a deep look at their actual statistics. You don't know beforehand if your campaign will be more combat focused or non-combat focused. You don't know if you'll use a lot of wilderness travel or if it will be more space combat. You can't look at the point buy value and say "oh, sure, this is the kind of opposition and challenges the party can face". You don't even have classes that can tell you what the character might be reasonably able to do. If you want an entertaining campaign that fits the characters (providing them "fair" challenges - from easy to hard ones), you need to look at the details. And that is a problem for preparing your campaign or adventures.
It is probably not unsurmountable, but it's still not a trivial task.
Its actually not that hard. Once you know the Ads/ Disads and skills of the PC's, challenges are easy. Success is not determined as much by what they can beat, instead it is determined by how well the player role-plays the character as it is defined. A character who was successful in an adventure by being super heroic when he is defined by the player as being a coward will be lucky to get any reward. If that same character had faced danger and hid, or let others deal with it and there was a failure because of that, then the player would be rewarded for staying true to the character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
If this tactical grid is where most of the time is spent, balancing this element is crucial. if it's not where most of the time is spent, it's balance or imbalance doesn't hurt.
You can't balance combat vs non-combat, unless you can predict how much of each you will have in a typical campaign.
How do you balance non-combat aspects? Do you know how much people will spend on social encounters, wilderness travel, dungeon exploration or mystery solving?
Its all about knowing what your players want. The system should provide robust options for both combat and non-combat and leave the balance to the DM. If you balance only for combat then you have made a combat game. If thats what everyone wants its the Holy Grail. If you have a mixed group including people that want to be just as good at doing things out of combat as others are in combat then a system that allows for that helps a lot. Sure you have skills but the combat character has the same stuff. In order to be balanced you have to take a heaping serving of combat powers and are still no better at other things than Mr. combat.
In effect, the DM is taken out of the loop for providing overall campaign balance, leaving the same flavor for every game.
I currently get to play 1 regular (4-6 hour) session every 2 weeks and I still don't consider not being in combat the entire session to be a waste of time.
I wasn't talking about combat specifically.
Look at a skill challenge - it provides me a way to think about how my character can contribute to any situation. Of course, real old school gaming would probably not want the skill part of this and just have my thinking about the situation and how to solve it.
Quote:
Its all about knowing what your players want. The system should provide robust options for both combat and non-combat and leave the balance to the DM. If you balance only for combat then you have made a combat game. If thats what everyone wants its the Holy Grail. If you have a mixed group including people that want to be just as good at doing things out of combat as others are in combat then a system that allows for that helps a lot. Sure you have skills but the combat character has the same stuff. In order to be balanced you have to take a heaping serving of combat powers and are still no better at other things than Mr. combat.
In effect, the DM is taken out of the loop for providing overall campaign balance, leaving the same flavor for every game.
Why are you assuming that just because classes are balanced by combat that you can only play combat? Every class in 4E has non-combat abilities (skills), and I suppose every player is able of coming up with ideas to solve problems or make decision on their course of action. If you generally trust the DM to handle balance, why do you lose this trust if the game provides the combat balance? Is it just because you want to use your combat powers whenever it's your turn to make a decision?
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Last edited by Mustrum_Ridcully; 5th November 2008 at 04:38 PM..
Why are you assuming that just because classes are balanced by combat that you can only play combat? Every class in 4E has non-combat abilities (skills), and I suppose every player is able of coming up with ideas to solve problems or make decision on their course of action. If you generally trust the DM to handle balance, why do you lose this trust if the game provides the combat balance? Is it just because you want to use your combat powers whenever it's your turn to make a decision?
Not at all. You can play plenty of non-combat. The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.
I think that "old school" is a completely subjective label. Everyone has different experiences in playing D&D, and it's foolish to claim that there is anything resembling a monolithic expression of the game.
This is true or not true, depending on whether you're talking about your definition of old school (which is based on how the world interacts with the players) or whether you're looking at the way the rules operate. More on this to follow.
Quote:
I think that, for me, "old school" means:
1. Player choice drives the game.
1a. Really bad player choices lead to TPKs.
1b. Really clever player choices lead to rewards and advantages beyond the norm.
2. There are strains of an almost Lovecraftian incomprehensibility to many gods and demons, a la the chaos temple in Keep on the Borderlands.
3. The forces of evil gather on all sides of the Realms of Man.
That's pretty much it, to me. Rule 1 and its sub-rules are the critical parts of it. Quick, creative thinking is key. Mindlessly attacking is a fool's gambit.
I'd agree with this, and also agree that this part of "old school" is actually quite subjective. These items "emerged" from the rules as they existed in the early days, from the literature that happened to be on shelves in the early days, and from gaming advice in The Dragon Magazine. In other words, a historical phenomenon that might be more or less true depending on the group. This was a zeitgeist, but not a universal mode of play.
ON THE OTHER HAND, and this points out where the term "old school" is not a great term because it's too broad, there's also an objective fact, which is the condition of the rules. Sparse and vague. This actually implies a mode of play, commonly called DM fiat - a pretty decent descriptive term which is unfortunately loaded with negative connotations. But it's nevertheless accurate as long as one remembers that the players and DM are playing a game and the players won't let a terrible DM get away with consistent unreasonability.
Vague rules effectively give the players only a few "rights." The DM makes rulings on the fly, and isn't "tied" to using a consistent method time after time. It's for this reason that "old school" is a distinct gaming style supported by old (or old-style) systems ... just as later games are a distinct gaming style in which the DM operates in a framework that lets him game a bit more head-to-head with the players. Both are fine depending on what the group likes - but OD&D is absolutely not just 3e or 4e "lite." It's a different animal entirely. Here you can make a fairly definitive statement about what old school means, because everyone was using those vague rules and was forced to use the free-form old school gaming style. The fact that everyone was forced to play that way doesn't mean it sucked - it just means there was another approach waiting to be born. In fact, I think there was a third style waiting to be born as well - the "explore your character's mind and simulate it" school that dominated 2e to a certain degree. All three styles work for different groups, but they are definitely distinct "games" operating on different principles and to a certain degree each style is complemented by its particular set of rules (3e/4e and 0e tend to support their play-styles rather better than 2e, I believe).
If anyone's interested in seeing 0e distributed as a toolkit for adding new features from the ground up, take a look at Swords & Wizardry, which is a 0e retro-clone I wrote, but which is part of a larger project to take gamers back to the hobbyist attitude of tweaking and screwing around with every facet of the game. Example: in the S&W rules themselves, there's a dual stat built in for ascending/descending AC. It can be used, and is compatible, both ways.
EDIT: S&W is distributed in .doc format as well as pdf specifically to allow cutting and pasting for house rules, and it's all OGL.
Not at all. You can play plenty of non-combat. The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.
This is a feature, not a bug.
(And there are always feats. Load up on SKill Focus, Skill Training, JoT, etc.)
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Not at all. You can play plenty of non-combat. The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.
Why is this important? Was this really a possibility in "Old School Gaming"? Could you make a Fighter that was worse at fighting but better at non-combat scenarios? The only class with a choice seemed to be the wizard...
(And actually, there is - there are lots of skill oriented feats that will not help you much in combat. The trade off is not the same as trading of your daily attack power against a non-combat utility power, but it's still a trade-off)
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Also, if you want your PC to be bad at combat, when you're turn comes up, have him or her do something stupid/less effective. This negates any combat competence that you find to be unwanted baggage.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Also, if you want your PC to be bad at combat, when you're turn comes up, have him or her do something stupid/less effective. This negates any combat competence that you find to be unwanted baggage.
And this makes the character significantly better at non-combat/ utility functions how?
And this makes the character significantly better at non-combat/ utility functions how?
It doesn't. But those kinds of trade-offs were never part of D&D.
For example, it's not like 1e Thieves traded combat abilities in for non-combat ones. They were simply bad --in most situations-- at fighting but possessed thief skills.
Conversely, it's not like 4e Rogues traded thief skills for combat abilities. They are just as capable as their 1e counterparts in the robbin'-and-stealin' department. The only difference is that they now posses more general combat ability. And if that combat ability bothers you, you're free to downplay that with your choice of tactics.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
And this makes the character significantly better at non-combat/ utility functions how?
Sacrificing combat ability for noncombat ability was bad for the game as a whole, and as such this option was largely removed from the game. Good riddance.
Outside of really Skullport and the Promenade where do the Lovecraftian Old Ones really present themselves in D&D?
Read his post again: "There are strains of an almost Lovecraftian incomprehensibility to many gods and demons".
You're taking a statement that essentially says "many D&D gods and demons have an incomprehensibility to them, almost in a Lovecraftian way" (note the use of "strains of" and "almost" in the post), and reading it as "Mike Mearls thinks Old Ones should be everywhere in D&D."
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
It doesn't. But those kinds of trade-offs were never part of D&D.
It's not like 1e Thieves traded combat abilities in for non-combat ones. They were simply bad --in most situations-- at fighting but possessed thief skills.
Since originally D&D RAW didn't include skills that could be shifted around thats a fair assessment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallus
Conversely, it's not like 4e Rogues traded thief skills for combat abilities. They are just as capable as their 1e counterparts in the robbin'-and-stealin' department. The only difference is that they now posses more general combat ability. And if that combat ability bothers you, you're free to downplay that with your choice of tactics.
4E rogues (and 3E too really) are videogame ninjas. I don't know how else to explain how a lockpicking, trap finding, stealthy robber suddenly became a master of melee DPS. I don't have books handy right now so I shall ask. Is there anything in 4E that makes the rogue actually better at thievery than another character assuming the same race and stats?
Read his post again: "There are strains of an almost Lovecraftian incomprehensibility to many gods and demons".
You're taking a statement that essentially says "many D&D gods and demons have an incomprehensibility to them, almost in a Lovecraftian way" (note the use of "strains of" and "almost" in the post), and reading it as "Mike Mearls thinks Old Ones should be everywhere in D&D."
What I am saying is why can't they?
Deities and Demigods may have used two carefully written and copyright works, but it doesn't mean that they were not inspired from real world mythology, that can be placed into D&D.
I think it would add a bit more flavor to the gods than what exists, and that is something 4th edition sorely lacks is some flavor. Something to inspire you. Something "old school" gaming did. Be it going to look up these things for yourself to read about, or to create your own original ideas.
I was interested in what little viking information I had access to, but getting my hands on D&D made me want to look more into it, as well as Aztec and other mythology.
I think that added inspirational material would go a long way to getting back some of the old school feel and style of play. That kind where you want to know more about the world you are in, rather than trying to create the latest fantasy movie within your game, but create your own story with bits and pieces from many different things.
Lovecraft was a good one for taking old ideas and giving them new life, so what is wrong with D&D doing it? D&D cannot contain pagan or druidic old work references anymore from a mythological aspect, but can still have breasted dragons cutting the heads off of humans?
Has D&D become Lion Witch and Wardrobe fantasy like Charlie Brown with strong Christian overtones, and cannot deviate from that idea into real world mythology, but must create its own fake mythology?
4E rogues (and 3E too really) are videogame ninjas.
I wouldn't use the word videogame... but sure, recent edition rogues are pretty ninja-ish (ninja-esque??).
Quote:
I don't know how else to explain how a lockpicking, trap finding, stealthy robber suddenly became a master of melee DPS.
The explanation is pretty simple. The designers who worked on the recent editions decided that a) D&D characters get into a lot of fights and 2) it would be nice if all the character classes could make substantial contributions in them. The rest is history.
Quote:
Is there anything in 4E that makes the rogue actually better at thievery than another character assuming the same race and stats?
Nope. A character of any class trained in the Thievery skill is as good as any other, assuming like race, stats and level. But why should a rogue be better at Thievery? Any character trained in Thievery is a thief, regardless of their class.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
