Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Old School : Tucker's Kobolds and Trained Jellies
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5840597" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>As others have pointed out upthread, this claim has no basis in the actual 4e mechanics or rulebooks.</p><p></p><p>The rules for DCs and damage are fairly clear. I agree that there could be much better rules for inflicing conditions and other status effects.</p><p></p><p>Yes. It is in the Adventurer's Vault, as a 12th level wondrous item (and renamed from a "rod" to a "shaft", in order to avoid confusion with the magical sceptres that warlocks and invoker's wield):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Power (At-Will): Minor Action. Place the <em>immovable shaft </em>into position. It remains in that spot even if such placement defies gravity. You can reposition the immovable shaft using another minor action, but any other creature seeking to move it must succeed on a DC 25 Strength check and spend a standard action to move it 1 square.</p><p></p><p>And I believe that you are mistaken.</p><p></p><p>You may be confusing the PC and the player. There is no expectation in 4e that the fiction will be fair to the PC. For example, there is no objection to creating a scenario in which the PC must choose risk to him-/herself or risk to the prisoner s/he is trying to resuce. (There is such a scenario in H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth. My players had their PCs choose safety over courage. One of the prisoners died as a result.)</p><p></p><p>But yes, the game is designed to be fair to the players. In my experience, this provides a powerful underpinning for creativity, because the players have an assurance that they will not be mechanically hosed for trying stuff that no one anticipated when designing the scenario or the PCs.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This always gets brought up. But interestingly, the fireball description in OD&D and Moldvay Basic is almost identical to that in 4e - including referring only to creatures as targets of the effect. Yet players of those games worked out that fireball was hot. We didn't need the rulebook to expressly tell us that a ball of fire that damages all creatures in its area might also set fire to things and even melt them. Is it really the case that contemporary players are different?</p><p></p><p>The two things you mention here are completely orthogonal. I don't need "exploitable realism" (= wacky/gappy action resolution mechanics) in order to have a system in which PCs bypass or neutralise threats with uncoventional tactics. I just need good action resolution mechanics.</p><p></p><p>I don't agree with this. I want a game where the action resolution mechanics work. I don't want to have to "step outside" of them.</p><p></p><p>And that is irrelevant to any comparison to computer games. The creativity that I want out of an RPG has nothing to do with the rules - it is to do with the fiction - the range of conceivable situations and their resolutions. I want action resolution mechanics that will support and encourage surprising outcomes via their application. Not that I have to ignore if I am to have a fun and creative game.</p><p></p><p>Games with tight resolution mechanics have these things too. It's just that the "remember that" tends to be in respect of some interesting or dramatic story event, rather than some wacky bit of improvised action resolution.</p><p></p><p>I have used "taming animal" challenges three times in my current 4e campaign - twice with bears, once with a behemoth (= dinosaur). None involved Pavlovian conditioning - the first involved befriending a bear, the second half the party taming a bear tha the other half of the party was cowing, and the third taking control, during combat, of a behemoth that enemy hobgoblins had already tamed.</p><p></p><p>Each time they were interesting challenges to run, but the interest didn't consist in coming up with a mad Pavlovian plan. The interest was in the drama of whether or not the animal could be tamed, and what would happen if it was/wasn't.</p><p></p><p>So I think I'm agreeing with you. I want a system in which the mechanics are clear, so that risks can be run and dramatic deeds resolved. Playing out a week of conditioning an ochre jelly strikes me as boring - let's roll a Nature check and be done with it!</p><p></p><p>Yes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Night's Dark Terror, with a bit of tweaking and expansion here and there, has kept my 4e game going for 15 levels now. But I don't see in what way, <em>at all</em>, it is an "old school" module.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5840597, member: 42582"] As others have pointed out upthread, this claim has no basis in the actual 4e mechanics or rulebooks. The rules for DCs and damage are fairly clear. I agree that there could be much better rules for inflicing conditions and other status effects. Yes. It is in the Adventurer's Vault, as a 12th level wondrous item (and renamed from a "rod" to a "shaft", in order to avoid confusion with the magical sceptres that warlocks and invoker's wield): [indent]Power (At-Will): Minor Action. Place the [I]immovable shaft [/I]into position. It remains in that spot even if such placement defies gravity. You can reposition the immovable shaft using another minor action, but any other creature seeking to move it must succeed on a DC 25 Strength check and spend a standard action to move it 1 square.[/indent] And I believe that you are mistaken. You may be confusing the PC and the player. There is no expectation in 4e that the fiction will be fair to the PC. For example, there is no objection to creating a scenario in which the PC must choose risk to him-/herself or risk to the prisoner s/he is trying to resuce. (There is such a scenario in H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth. My players had their PCs choose safety over courage. One of the prisoners died as a result.) But yes, the game is designed to be fair to the players. In my experience, this provides a powerful underpinning for creativity, because the players have an assurance that they will not be mechanically hosed for trying stuff that no one anticipated when designing the scenario or the PCs. This always gets brought up. But interestingly, the fireball description in OD&D and Moldvay Basic is almost identical to that in 4e - including referring only to creatures as targets of the effect. Yet players of those games worked out that fireball was hot. We didn't need the rulebook to expressly tell us that a ball of fire that damages all creatures in its area might also set fire to things and even melt them. Is it really the case that contemporary players are different? The two things you mention here are completely orthogonal. I don't need "exploitable realism" (= wacky/gappy action resolution mechanics) in order to have a system in which PCs bypass or neutralise threats with uncoventional tactics. I just need good action resolution mechanics. I don't agree with this. I want a game where the action resolution mechanics work. I don't want to have to "step outside" of them. And that is irrelevant to any comparison to computer games. The creativity that I want out of an RPG has nothing to do with the rules - it is to do with the fiction - the range of conceivable situations and their resolutions. I want action resolution mechanics that will support and encourage surprising outcomes via their application. Not that I have to ignore if I am to have a fun and creative game. Games with tight resolution mechanics have these things too. It's just that the "remember that" tends to be in respect of some interesting or dramatic story event, rather than some wacky bit of improvised action resolution. I have used "taming animal" challenges three times in my current 4e campaign - twice with bears, once with a behemoth (= dinosaur). None involved Pavlovian conditioning - the first involved befriending a bear, the second half the party taming a bear tha the other half of the party was cowing, and the third taking control, during combat, of a behemoth that enemy hobgoblins had already tamed. Each time they were interesting challenges to run, but the interest didn't consist in coming up with a mad Pavlovian plan. The interest was in the drama of whether or not the animal could be tamed, and what would happen if it was/wasn't. So I think I'm agreeing with you. I want a system in which the mechanics are clear, so that risks can be run and dramatic deeds resolved. Playing out a week of conditioning an ochre jelly strikes me as boring - let's roll a Nature check and be done with it! Yes. Night's Dark Terror, with a bit of tweaking and expansion here and there, has kept my 4e game going for 15 levels now. But I don't see in what way, [I]at all[/I], it is an "old school" module. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Old School : Tucker's Kobolds and Trained Jellies
Top