Pros and Cons of going mainstream

Luce said:

The usual declaimers:
This is NOT an edition war!

Click to expand...

Really? Because I just read a long rant about how 4e sucks (by someone who doesn't get 4e - @pmerton has gone into some of this) and how much better things were in The Olden Days.

Personally I feel that the earlier editions (OD&D, 1st and 2nd) were more focused on individual creativity where each DM makes an unique world of his own creation.

Click to expand...

This would be the 2e that is not well remembered for the quality of its rules, but for the quality of its monster manuals and settings like Planescape, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and Birthright? And the 2e for which TSR were putting out an average of five books per month?

It would also be the 4e which intentionally has only a dimly detailed default setting (the Nentir Vale) and in which there were, for the most part, precisely two worldbooks per setting encouraging you to make things up?

Finally it would be the 1e for which the best known and best selling adventure was the railroad-adventure-path known as the Dragonlance Saga, in which all Paladins would fall, in which all Assassins were Evil, and in which alignments had their own languages and were otherwise hardcoded into the rules.

Right.

That increased the ease of play but also introduced predictability and for some a drive for optimization.

Click to expand...

On my bookshelf there are three books within the space of about half a dozen. Unearthed Arcana, Skills and Powers, and the Complete Book of Elves. Do you want to talk about optimisation and editions? And at least you don't have stat requirements for classes these days.

Rules layering is nothing new, but I feel it rouse to new levels as well as get more organized in last two editions.

Click to expand...

And yet 4e has fewer systems and subsystems than 2e - and 1e had the rules layering of things like the Wilderness Survival Guide and Unearthed Arcana. Do you want to talk about how the 2e Thief Skill system was entirely distinct from the Non Weapon Proficiencies (and there was a mess), the combat rules including AC modifier by weapon type (did anyone ever use that thing?) Now that's rules layering.

I do not fight the expected wealth by level to be wrong, just not everyone's cup of tea.

Click to expand...

Paradoxically most ignorable in 4e when 4e has the clearest guidelines. In early editions the wealth by level was "You must be this tall to play" - without the right sort of weapon you couldn't hurt your target at all. 4e first codified the WBL, then because it was codified managed to remove most of it and replace it with inherent bonusses.

Just my two coppers.


Please discuss.

Click to expand...

I think that you're looking at a range of factors that were undoubtedly present in 3.X (although I'd argue 3.X wasn't any worse than 2e at most of these examples) and then assuming that 4e must be like 3.X when one of the things 4e is is a reaction against the very things you are criticising.

pemerton said:

Unless I've misunderstood, you're talking about creating your own fiction, not adhering to someone else's.

Click to expand...

It can go either way. In my 3.5e game, I ran based on the core 3.5 books, including the Greyhawk deities, planes listed in the 3.5 DMG, etc. So, I was using the basis of the setting there, but I made it understood that it was a springboard, as I wasn't familiar with D&D canon at all when I started to GM. The setting was basically made up by me (nations, technology, etc.), but I did use deities, planes, devil lords, some celestial rulers, monsters, etc.

However, if I hadn't made it clear I was using it as a springboard, I can see someone getting a little upset if they found out that something they assumed -based on my description of the setting (Greyhawk setting)- was different from how it normally was. Like, say, Vecna and Pelor are actually Neutral, or that orcs get a penalty to Strength. I'm changing the "canon" of the accepted setting.

This gets more compounded when it comes to official D&D setting stuff (thus the complaints about the Eladrin, etc.). People (not my group) have played in official settings, using strict details, and even transitioned characters through the editions in those settings. When someone who has great influence on D&D canon publicly alters that canon, even for private use, I understand the wariness that is voiced. Again, it doesn't affect me, but I get it.

pemerton said:

I mean, how does anyone get hurt by Chris Perkins presenting Dispater in a different way? In what sense is Perkins making a mistake, or doing something wrong?

Click to expand...

I know this was to Hussar, but I'll give my input, if that's okay. I don't think Chris Perkins did anything wrong. It's his world, and he can run it any way he likes.

Again, I get that people might feel he's misrepresenting canon. I mean, if Dispater is amazingly paranoid, but isn't acting that way, then he is indeed breaking from canon. So, valid complaint for the guy that values canon. In Mr. Perkin's world, though, he can alter stuff however he likes, and I respect that.

pemerton said:

It doesn't really make sense to me. Why should someone be put on edge by someone else running the game with different fiction?

Click to expand...

Again, I think it's because of his influence on D&D canon. Some people get very invested D&D settings, and dislike the changes made. I think there was something with 4e and Forgotten Realms, but I'm not sure, since I don't read the books / know the setting. Or, like I said, the Eladrin change.

These are canon changes that make people dislike where the game is going, because the game, to these people, includes heavy investment in the canon, rather than just mechanics. Up to this point, these people have loved the settings; it's why they're invested in them. They don't like the idea of seeing the canon "messed up" by the people with control over it.

It's kind of like George Lucas tampering with the original Star Wars trilogy. A lot of people like the movies the way they were, and don't want Greedo shooting first, as it changes events in a meaningful way to them (by showing Han to be more defensive and reactive, rather than cunning and ruthless). They don't like Darth Vader yelling "nooooooooo" before killing the Emperor, because his silence with the music and sound of lighting was gripping already.

People don't want things they like getting tampered with. So, theoretically, they wouldn't want the director of the new Star Wars movie talking about "and then I had Luke murder a guy in cold blood", even if it was just in his own fanfiction. Why? Because they don't want the fiction that they love "messed up" from how they like it, and they're afraid that the guy with authority might do it, as "he doesn't get it." Because they value "canon" and have invested in it.

It's just how it is. I'm not invested in the settings; Chris Perkins can do what he likes, even if I were invested. But do I think it's weird, or do I have problems understanding why someone might get put on edge by it? No, not at all. As always, play what you like

JamesonCourage: Thank you for undertsanding what I meant to say in much more coherent words.


pemerton: In my view Wizards had been pushing for unified experience, with 3th and 4th. Things like by that level you have to be that level of resources, have so powerful treasure. I believe for some people that have extended to the cannon. On one hand such approach does makes easy to more easily change groups as possibly every participant will have a shared body of lore that is consistent. On another as you pointed some DMs feel contained creatively by the canon. Personally canon for me is in a similar category as DM fudging - use it or not depending what will make the game better. The difference is , to repeat myself, what the players already know. Changing things they did not know (such as if their guess about the plot is cooler then mine), does not invoke sense of derealization.

Neonchameleon: I want to discuss the changes in a multiple prospective. When I say the changes in the Game, I do not limit the definition to the rules but also include the culture as well as the environment factors.
Take lawyering for example. There always have been rule loopholes and people willing to use them. There was not always a drive for campaign consistency between different groups. What may be overpower in one group can the norm in another in the 90s at least amongst the group I observed. I also saw more DM fiat at those times.
We also did not have the level of Net presence in the past. The ability to easily share ideas also means sharing exploits. In the past if say I notice a combo, such that using a dust of maximization (from Dragon) goes well with rod of empowerment from book X together with a feat that allows changing the elemental property of the spell on the fly allowing me to very effective against anything with an energy weakness form another source. Well I might have shared it with few friends but it would not have been out there for the world to see. Other undoubtedly would have noticed the same combo, but probably not as many as the number of people who read char op boards.
Again that is just my experience, but I think the culture of the game in regards to what is permissible on the table have changed as well. Despite what the 3e DMG and multiple subsequent handbooks state that PrC and the rule contained therein are optional and subject to the individual DM approval many more people I met in the later 2000s think if published it is core. Once again that is my experience, if others have seen otherwise please share.

JamesonCourage said:

For example, say the PCs are talking to a noble about something. I understand that it is common for there to be rules covering social situations; however, how does one determine that the PCs are talking to a noble initially, or even where they are?

Click to expand...

It all depends upon the rules you use for your games. There are all kinds of rules you could design to cover this. I'd suggest the first step is determining what nobility will be in the game. For example, while it could be faked, it is only actual when backed by social authority in a monster group or faction. How many nobility there are for a given faction depends on the design generated, which takes into account all kinds of other elements besides monster/racial type. Area layout matters, especially when determining wandering encounters and when and why nobles wander (or don't wander). For me, a lot of this falls under the movement rules, marching order, NPC behavioral rules, Intelligence, and how wandering monster tables are determined for any given area.

Traditionally, this is covered by GM fiat, not rules. Was there some way with rules to determine that they were talking to a noble in his mansion, or did the GM determine this?

Click to expand...

Players are generally in control of how and where their PCs move, but of course sometimes they are forcibly moved, like an earthquake ...or the city guard. The key is the NPCs are already there before the players characters arrive. And why and when those NPCs are in their where is predetermined by rules.

And, of course, this extends to all situations from here on out. When the PCs decide to go somewhere, there can be rules covering that journey; I get that. However, if they wait (if they're healing, crafting, working, training, or just generally time skipping), what rules did you determine what happened everywhere else during that time?

Click to expand...

That's the easy answer. Before each session you generate a scenario. You run the simulation outward far enough - along both time and space - to cover just enough of what the players may get into the next session. And that scenario is the timeline and place map of what is where and what is going on throughout until influenced during session by the PCs. During session determining PC action results should be as easy as possible, but it takes practice for any DM. Later, all of the actions during the session are incorporated for generating the next session's scenario.

Now tracking actions in a session may sound difficult, even impossible, but it's just like keeping track of game time. KISS, keep it simple. The vast majority of what will happen during any given session is already covered by the rules. That means it's on the scenario maps in front of you when you DM. You will want to heavily familiarize yourself with these just before running a session. Then tracking actions is quite often literally dragging a pencil line across one or more of these maps as the PCs progress down one or more areas of exploration (spatial or otherwise).

If, later, they meet someone, how do you know who or what that someone is? Was literally everything a type of random encounter chart, but on a bell curve so as to provide more reasonable results?

Click to expand...

First, bell curves are more for population distributions, like with Ability Scores. Wandering Monster tables can be generated by frequency (common, uncommon, rare, very rare), but that isn't necessarily curvilinear. If you remember the tables in the AD&D DMG, those results were by activity cycle, climate, terrain, as well as frequency (based on population amounts, growth rates, procreation and gestation rates, and so on). Frequency was expressed by the number of percentile slots each had on the table. These results weren't curvilinear, but varied and then listed alphabetically, which makes might oddly make them more confusing. Not to mention that while their theory was sound, the implementation was often lacking in my experience.

To answer your question, NPCs and everything about NPCs are generated just like treasures and dungeons and outdoor terrain and everything else. The first time this stuff is constructed this way (or converted from player created content) it receives a place in the game world. Where the PCs go, who they choose to stop, if they talk to them, what is talked about, what is learned/passed on, what creatures actively stop and/or seek out the PCs, and so on, is either a result of the players actions or an expression of monster behavioral rules (e.g., these monster, sometimes with these classes, know these tactics which fall under this INT rating and then implemented in these manners which fall under WIS, and so on). In the end it isn't a chart or a roll, but a mental construct of high detail backed up by notes and maps. This method provides for both a level of detail and a degree of coherency for which there is no substitute. Nothing quite compares to actually having an imagining in one's mind.

Luce said:

Neonchameleon: I want to discuss the changes in a multiple prospective. When I say the changes in the Game, I do not limit the definition to the rules but also include the culture as well as the environment factors.

Click to expand...

And you seem to be trying to discuss "the Game" by assuming that 3.X and 4e are the same. They aren't and any discussion that assumes they are will fail to get out of the starting blocks.

Take lawyering for example. There always have been rule loopholes and people willing to use them.

Click to expand...

Really? "There have always been rule loopholes"? Name three of them in 4e. I'll wait (or at least find something else to do).

The 4e design team has been superb at putting out errata so that whenever some bright spark finds a rules loophole it gets closed. Also the core rules for 4e are clear, consistent, simpler than anything since the White Box, and after a round of errata (4e on release wasn't properly playtested) work well. Rules lawyers in 4e find it a pretty barren wasteland when looking for loopholes - and this bears out in play to the point that across multiple groups and playing weekly for three years I've seen half a dozen attempts to rules lawyer, none of which lasted longer than the time it took the DM to decide - and I literally can not remember looking a rule up in a book in the last year. You don't even need to look up spells to play a mage or cleric as they are printed right there on the character sheet for you - this is a sea change from the days of 2e and 3e and "character sheets" that required you have several rulebooks to hand to play a wizard.

I speak as someone with the temprament and ability of a rules lawyer - and one of the reasons 4e is far and away my favourite version of D&D is that it doesn't encourage me to rules lawyer by including huge power differentials, unclear rules, and multiple levels of contradictory rules.

Again that is just my experience, but I think the culture of the game in regards to what is permissible on the table have changed as well. Despite what the 3e DMG and multiple subsequent handbooks state that PrC and the rule contained therein are optional and subject to the individual DM approval many more people I met in the later 2000s think if published it is core. Once again that is my experience, if others have seen otherwise please share.

Click to expand...

This matches my experience - but what this means differs a lot. A lot of the rules, monsters, and just about everything else in 3e were half-baked. Shivering touch, anyone? Venomfire? The Sarrukh? The diplomacy rules? Sculpt Spell + Antimagic Field? 4e source books (other than the Dungeon Explorer's Handbook) were almost all brought out with the idea that all the books should be as high design quality as the PHB (higher in almost all cases), that simply adding options shouldn't add power creep, and if they get something wrong they fix it with errata. Adding e.g. the Spell Compendium to 3e makes all prepared casters more powerful by its very existence - more spells means more versatility and more power. Adding e.g. Martial Power 2 adds such things as the Brawler Fighter who uses sword and fist almost as effectively as most fighters use sword and shield, and makes a whole range of other archetypes viable and effective but doesn't actually contain any top flight builds I can think of other than arguably the final pieces of the Lazy Warlord.

So the approach may be simmilar in certain ways - but the consequences are very, very different and because as far as I can tell you only know 3.X you are trying to treat them as if they were the same.

Neonchameleon said:

Really? "There have always been rule loopholes"? Name three of them in 4e. I'll wait (or at least find something else to do).

Click to expand...

Just going to leave this here:

http://community.wizards.com/charop/wiki/Broken/Broken

Where there's a(n at) will....

Slainte,

-Loonook.

Loonook said:

Just going to leave this here:

http://community.wizards.com/charop/wiki/Broken/Broken

Where there's a(n at) will....

Slainte,

-Loonook.

Click to expand...

That thing's way out of date - they put in a 1 free action attack restriction that deals with a lot of it. And I'm sure you'll forgive me for not worrying about:
Epic in general I'll accept and Epic Destiny level 30 powers. In fact my biggest problem with 4e epic is it isn't gonzo-broken enough. To do epic well you need to go gonzo.

So outside epic destinies, epic powers and doing something that fails the giggle test (attacking yourself to miss) about all that's left is obvious abuse of the War Wizard's Staff and Storm Pillar, and a pair of Evermeet Warlocks.

Neonchameleon said:

Really? "There have always been rule loopholes"? Name three of them in 4e. I'll wait (or at least find something else to do).

Click to expand...

Well I don't know if this is a "loophole" but my hybrid swordmage/wizard has an Arcana of +17 at 4th level and with the cantrips Chameleon Mask, Spook, and Suggestion... I am now better than the Rogue at hiding and sneaking... and better than our Bard at Intimidating and Diplomacy...

Imaro said:

Well I don't know if this is a "loophole" but my hybrid swordmage/wizard has an Arcana of +17 at 4th level and with the cantrips Chameleon Mask, Spook, and Suggestion... I am now better than the Rogue at hiding and sneaking... and better than our Bard at Intimidating and Diplomacy...

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's obnoxious and shouldn't have happened. And you've gone all out on Arcana I see (20 Int, Trained, Skill Focus, Racial?) Remember they each only work 1/encounter (which can cause trouble with stealth if you use it to get in and then can't get out - you can hide yourself but you can't really do stealthy operations in the way the rogue can as "Get in undetected, do something, get out undetected" is two stealth rolls) and the Bard should be at about the same Diplomacy as you with Words of Friendship and can keep going after shooting his bolt (although this isn't as important as for stealth).

The only place you clearly win therefore is intimidate

But definitely a good point and a reason I prefer the PHB cantrips to the Essentials ones.

Neonchameleon said:

Yeah, that's obnoxious and shouldn't have happened. And you've gone all out on Arcana I see (20 Int, Trained, Skill Focus, Racial?) Remember they each only work 1/encounter (which can cause trouble with stealth if you use it to get in and then can't get out - you can hide yourself but you can't really do stealthy operations in the way the rogue can as "Get in undetected, do something, get out undetected" is two stealth rolls) and the Bard should be at about the same Diplomacy as you with Words of Friendship and can keep going after shooting his bolt (although this isn't as important as for stealth).

The only place you clearly win therefore is intimidate

But definitely a good point and a reason I prefer the PHB cantrips to the Essentials ones.

Click to expand...

The funny thing is that I don't have skill focus and didn't start with a 20 in Int... but if I had started with 20 (I'd have 22 as a Genasi) and I do take skill focus( which I probably will go for later) that's another +3, and well yeah it gets even worse for the Rogue and Bard at that point.


As to the 1/encounter... well outside of combat that's once every five minutes, which really isn't that long a time except when you go into combat mode. Honestly I wouldn't place the blame 100% on the cantrips... it got much easier to do this type of stuff concerning skills in 4e with the addition of Themes and Backgrounds (I have the Magic Scholar background and Moteborn theme.) along with feats (I also have a Book Imp Familiar)

EDIT: And Intimidate is pretty powerful when you finally get that main solo or elite bloodied...