Also, the fact - and, iirc, confirmed by WotC - that skill challenges are mathematically broken throws a strange light on playtesting, or rather, how much playtesting was done on the out of combat mechanics. If the central core of the skill system for non-combat scenes is bugged, why was this not detected, unless out of combat material was neglected?
D&D 4E Just played my first 4E game
- Thread starter STARP_Social_Officer
- Start date
You'd say it's not bogus and you'd be wrong.
Example: What video game? You never bothered saying - just like I said in my post. Thanks for making this so easy
Nonsense. Why does it have to be like one specific video game?
Sorry, but you don't get to define the criteria for winning the argument as whatever suits you, then claim victory. Well, at least not if you want to be taken seriously...
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Is "no crafting" really video-gamey? I mean, it might be for Tetris or Pac-Man, but Neverwinter Nights, World of Warcraft, Everquest all seem to have some kind of Craft Mechanics.
4E also has a crafting system that is relevant to the game - Enchant Magical Item and Disenchant Magical Item are relating to crafting.
What it doesn't have is "mundane" crafting - no skills to create a simple sword or something.
Reminds me a little of Shadowrun (not the computer game) - only the Arsenal introduced rules to create your own firearms, and the Rigger's Handbook introduced rules to create your own cars, instead of just "modding" them. Of course "modding" was done with skills in Shadowrun, but the game model of these items actually supported such kinds of modifications. D&D usually modifies equipment only by magic, hence it's a ritual instead of a skill.
Why is saying it plays like a videogame 'insulting to pnp fans' - - it feels to me like a situation where people are choosing to be insulted. Many people feel that it plays this way to varying degrees, including people who love this new edition.
As far as turning it into "edition wars", I guess I'm not sure how the line is drawn. I do realize that as I write this there is a huge banner announcing that the 'wait is over' and 4e is available, so I can understand some issues the moderators might have with threads that might turn people off to 4e, but this seems to be quite a civil thread, and again I think that very often people choose to make something a war. By focusing on the 'positive aspects' of GAMING, did you in fact mean exactly what you said, or that we should only focus on positive aspects of 4E?
I guess if people are really tired of addressing the same points with the same retorts, they could just ignore these threads and let them die. I'm not sure why someone not liking 4e and saying why is supposed to be taken as an insult to anyone.
I think there are some very specific points listed - ignoring those and using the term 'rote' is a lot more insulting, as it speaks to the intent and intelligence of the poster, unlike 'videogamey' which speaks to the rules of the game. 'Rote' implies that it is based on memorization and not true understanding. I would ask how many play sessions, or how many years or campaigns, must one undertake before they become 'qualified' to state that the game plays a bit more like a videogame than earlier editions?
I would also suggest that if there are instances where it begins to sound like people have memorized a complaint, it may be a sign that the complaint is in fact VALID. I can't tell you how many times people have warned me not to eat raw chicken, and I'm frankly tired of their rote complaints about the issues with doing so.
It's kind of sad when limited computer games have a more robust and more flexible crafting system than D&D. And reducing everything relevant to magic is even sadder.
Shadowrun doesn't really need much of a crafting system, as opposed to a modding system, since in a modern world, individuals and especially shadowrunners rarely build anything that comes even close to manufactured quality (programming is an exception).
Nightchilde-2
First Post
Interesting thread. Thanks for the heads' up.
On roles:
I will admit that the statement that roles have been a part of D&D from the beginning has some truth to it. I think though that my issue is in terms of degree, and in terms of causality.
In my previous games, people took on roles, generally speaking as a result of:
1) Class - - a wizard has a different role than a fighter
2) Other choices - - an illusionist has a different role than a wizard, a fighter specialized in the mancatcher has a different role than a fighter who uses an axe, and a rogue with ten ranks in Disguise and Bluff has a different role than one with ten ranks in Move Silently and a set of feats that key off of sneak attack damage.
3) Play style - - The player's style will change the impacts of 1 and 2, above, and of course there's a bit of a cycle, where #3 here will influence to some degree their choices in the first two.
The three of these together indirectly create the role.
I'm not saying that these aren't present in 4E, but I think that the concept of roles as defined in 4E to some extent REVERSES the causes. I think about my role first, and it has a huge impact on other choices.
Also to a large extent the team emphasis is also changing the game. If I play a Paladin, the team depends on me being a defender. Not only does this dictate the powers available, which reinforce that role, but it dictates to a large extent how I must play.
And again, I'm not saying which is better here, but to me it seems obvious that things are a bit reversed and therefore different.
From a team effectiveness standpoint this might actually make MORE sense - I don't think it's easy in 4E to recreate my cleric with Weapon Focus: Hvy Lance, and from a team standpoint maybe that's good, as it's hard to figure out where he fits.
Even moreso for my rogue who through DM permission lost all Sneak Attack in return for more focus on Disguise and Bluff. That character is likely impossible in 4E, because of the new levels of homogeneity in skills, and because everyone is good at something in combat even if you don't want to be.
D&D has always, even well before 4E, had some kind of roles and shorthand for character description - 'Brawler Half-Orc', 'Gnome Illusionist', 'Lockpick', but the mechanism and flow of the system is radically different, and I firmly believe that in prior editions it was far easier to create a character which, while perhaps not optimal for a team, did not easily fit into an established role. You could always choose to make a head-bashing half orc, or a noble defending paladin, but you could also create a wizard who specialized in summoning cats -- the character might not be particularly useful, but it was an option.
I will admit that the statement that roles have been a part of D&D from the beginning has some truth to it. I think though that my issue is in terms of degree, and in terms of causality.
In my previous games, people took on roles, generally speaking as a result of:
1) Class - - a wizard has a different role than a fighter
2) Other choices - - an illusionist has a different role than a wizard, a fighter specialized in the mancatcher has a different role than a fighter who uses an axe, and a rogue with ten ranks in Disguise and Bluff has a different role than one with ten ranks in Move Silently and a set of feats that key off of sneak attack damage.
3) Play style - - The player's style will change the impacts of 1 and 2, above, and of course there's a bit of a cycle, where #3 here will influence to some degree their choices in the first two.
The three of these together indirectly create the role.
I'm not saying that these aren't present in 4E, but I think that the concept of roles as defined in 4E to some extent REVERSES the causes. I think about my role first, and it has a huge impact on other choices.
Also to a large extent the team emphasis is also changing the game. If I play a Paladin, the team depends on me being a defender. Not only does this dictate the powers available, which reinforce that role, but it dictates to a large extent how I must play.
And again, I'm not saying which is better here, but to me it seems obvious that things are a bit reversed and therefore different.
From a team effectiveness standpoint this might actually make MORE sense - I don't think it's easy in 4E to recreate my cleric with Weapon Focus: Hvy Lance, and from a team standpoint maybe that's good, as it's hard to figure out where he fits.
Even moreso for my rogue who through DM permission lost all Sneak Attack in return for more focus on Disguise and Bluff. That character is likely impossible in 4E, because of the new levels of homogeneity in skills, and because everyone is good at something in combat even if you don't want to be.
D&D has always, even well before 4E, had some kind of roles and shorthand for character description - 'Brawler Half-Orc', 'Gnome Illusionist', 'Lockpick', but the mechanism and flow of the system is radically different, and I firmly believe that in prior editions it was far easier to create a character which, while perhaps not optimal for a team, did not easily fit into an established role. You could always choose to make a head-bashing half orc, or a noble defending paladin, but you could also create a wizard who specialized in summoning cats -- the character might not be particularly useful, but it was an option.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Maybe. But maybe this more points out the fact that the analogy to "video-games" just fails.
And ultimately, crafting never helped my role-playing.
The last time I used a Craft skill in a role-playing game, it was in a Black-Eye (Das Schwarze Auge) game, and I used it to have at least some stuff where I could use my skills for. (And I didn't have the impression that the rules really explained what I had to roll or how often to create the wooden shield I was working on. Strangely enough, the math of DSA still makes me feel a computer might be better suited to calculate it then a player, but that wouldn't help me enjoy the game more, either.
[/tangent])I think games are fine omitting rules for things not relevant to most game scenarios. There are no rules for pregnancy, either, though we would need them to "simualate" pseudo-medieval life (and it might also help us understand the entire Dragonboob issue
).Well, most characters just buy the items they need, too. Setting up a smithy shop just to create your own sword sounds a bit to involved if you could just buy one from an established smith or trader. The "modding" rules are again far more important, since magical items will always be required.
(Programming isn't really an exception. It's not really "realistic" to assume that a busy shadowrunner has the ability to recreate or even exceed over what a full team of software developers could create.
But that's just a part of the trope of Shadowrun or Cyberpunk - like fighting Dragons and Giants is in D&D
If I was to create a Cyberpunk-type game, I might adapt this idea and incorporate the thought of open source - real hackers use open source software for their hacking, and all you do as a hacker is to create some small modifications to better suite the situation at hand...)
I love these threads: "My friends and I gave 4E a chance, here's our list of complaints".
Internet critcs for the win!
He listed the things he liked also.
