Wire Fu Demonic Magical Superheroes

[Gloombunny]

Generally speaking, "hating mechanics" is one of those things I just don't get. d20, dice pool, percentile, whatever -- it's all just randomizers.

I have two responses to this. First, while "it's all just randomizers" is generally true, Exalted IMO proves it's not always the case. There is a real, tangible, play-affecting difference between rolling 1d20 and adding a bonus, and counting up 15 or so d10s, rolling them, and counting how many are 7 or higher. The latter takes significantly more time! When you're doing that for every roll, things really bog down. (And yeah, not every roll is as many as 15 dice, but then, some are much more.)

Second, I really wasn't talking so much about the random-number generation as about the character-creation and combat rules in general. They're cumbersome and very poorly balanced, and the combat rules make it extremely difficult to visualize a fight corresponding in any way to what's going on at the table. Also, the whole thing where you have to give a detailed, flavorful description of what your character is doing in order to get a crucial bonus, and then roll to see if what you just described actually happens or not... that's just dumb. Let me see the die roll and then come up with a description that matches it, for expletive's sake! Or better yet, let me play a sensible system like D&D3.

What I am suggesting is that while these things can be fun, cool fantasy, they are not, traditionally speaking, part of D&D's core material. I think if you actually go back and look at D&D core material from all ediitons, you'll find that there are elements that have been pervasive. Those are what I am talking about in regards to what makes D&D D&D -- it isn't just subjective opinion.

Are you talking about every addition of material that wasn't in a prior edition of D&D? When the Greyhawk supplement added a thief class that wasn't in the original version of D&D, was that a change to the core material and an attempt to make D&D into a different game? Or is it only some changes that affect the game in the way you're talking about? Answer: the latter, and it's a matter of opinion whether any given change does or doesn't fit with the established spirit of D&D. Hell, there's a guy over at rpg.net who played with Gygax and Arneson way back in the very beginning, and if you ask him, giving evil clerics access to healing magic was a poorly-conceived change to the original material, and people who don't roll 3d6 six times in order to make their characters and nominate a player to be the party caller are missing the point.

 

[Wormwood]

That's why i say, "I hope 4E falls flat." Not because I wish any of the people that work for WotC hard times and unemployment, but because I want a current, supported edition of the game I have loved for 22 years that is recognizable and dynamic.

Honestly, how would the failure of 4e result in increased demand for the kind of game you like?

 

[Reynard]

You're right that there's no point whatsoever in replacing D&D with Exalted 2.0. In the quote I was only saying D&D looks like it will become a bit more like these sorts of games, not go all the way. While high level D&D is already pretty much superheroes, low level isn't. In fact that huge power gulf is a very distinctive feature of D&D, one I enjoy, that looks as if it may be lost in 4e. Otoh what we gain - a game that works from 1-30 - will probably be worth it.

It probably appears that I hate everything about 4E that we've heard. That's really not the case. I like the idea of evening out the bumps in level prgression (though fast progression bugs me, but that's a different issue). I like the idea of hardening the archetypes (even if I am not sure the archetypes they want are the ones I think are D&D's archetypes). I like the idea of making monsters -- their stat block, specifically -- distinct from characters. But there's still a lot of apparent deal breakers: a tone inconsistent with the traditions of D&D, ramping up the power scale yet again, further codification of all things (thereby removing yet more power from the DM), turning dungeons into gauntlet arenas, and injecting the game with MMOisms like "the cleric crits and suddenly all his allies get healed".

 

[Reynard]

Honestly, how would the failure of 4e result in increased demand for the kind of game you like?

It would tell WotC that they were wrong, that they underestimated the value of the inherent asumptions of D&D and 4.5 or 5E or whatever followed would get back to basics the same way 3E did. I don't love everything about 3E, but the fact is the game embraced its core audience and was wildly successful for it.

Leave the core alone and pile all the nuts, cherries and hot fudge on it you want with supplements and expansions, I say.

 

[Reynard]

Its your assertion that the bad parts have been "defining" the game. I prefer the term "infesting."

You know, I was talking to a long time friend of mine last night. She had some sharp words with a white coworker who thought it was funny to joke about my (black) friend not being a "real" black person.

This conversation about D&D not being "real" D&D strikes me as very similar. Except my friend's coworker was offensive and unprofessional, and this is just petty.

Is there a term for Godwinning, except by bringing up race instead of the Nazis?

 

[Reynard]

Hey Reynard, I've got a question. Since you've already got your ideal version of D&D, why do you want to deny something new and interesting to the rest of us?

I don't. i want that stuff where it belongs -- in optional, supllementary materials, not in the Core.

 

[Reynard]

Please do go into it, at least in broad terms. I don't think I'd be able to track down the article easily, and as someone who loves Vance, likes Vancian magic, but also likes most of the things I've been hearing about 4E, I'm very interested in the subject.

The following selections from the text should give you a good overview:

On Vancian style magic over magic points

"If spell points were to be used, it would require that either selection be limited or all other characters or monsters be strengthened. Otherwise, spell users would quickly come to dominate the game, and participants would desire to play only that class of character."

While 4E isn't using spell points per se, its use of at-will abilities has indeed predicated the need to increase the power of other character types so that they can keep pace, as evidenced by playtest reports and blog posts and other hints about 4E. there will be those that say magic-users were already overpowered, especially at high levels. These are likely the same people that complain about the "resting at 10 AM" part of the game. Of course spell casters will be overpowered if they blow all their spells early and the party has to continually rest to keep them powered up. That's the point of the resource management system -- having to manage those resources balances the caster against the characters that use their abilities all the time (fighters and the like). Having to use those resources to support the "weaker" fighters and such is also a balancing factor.

On the benefits of the Vancian system:

"[the system] allows a vast array of spells. Each is assigned a level (mnemonic difficulty) rating, and experience grades are used to expand the capacity of the spell caster. The use of this particular system allows more restrictions upon spellcasting character types, of course, while allowing freedom to assign certain spells to lower difficulty factors to keep the character types viable in its early stages."

The best example of this is sleep -- this spell makes the magic user extremely potent at early levels, since most foes the low level party faces are low HD monsters. But the character is severely limited in how often he or she may use such a powerful ability, and must choose it over other more utilitarian spells. Again, this is the resource management "mini-game" that is part and parcel with playing a Vancian caster and its advantages, IMO, outweigh its disadvantages.

On how Vancian magic impacts play:

"Of real importance, however, is the fact that it requires far more effort from spell casters in gaining, preparing and casting spells. it makes them more vulnerable to attacks which spoil the casting of the spell. All in all it tends to make each and every profession possible for characters in a [D&D] game to be more equal to, but still very different from, all the others."

Niche protection, the hallmark of D&D. Here's a point that it seems 4E is trying to hold on to. I'll be interested to see how they manage it when they are also saying that multiclasing will be "effortless".

 

[Daztur]

As far as combat goes (social stuff, advancement and whatnot are a whole different ball game) I've seen the following kinds of systems in RPGs:

1. Tactical (combat should present players with a lot of interesting choices, none of which are obviously the best) Example: chess
2. Cinematic (combat should allow players to do cool ) Example: Spirit of the Century
3. Gritty (my pancreas!) Example: Rolemaster (I think)
4. Light (let's get it done fast to get on to other stuff) Example: FUDGE (I think)

OD&D is mostly light (with some other thrown in) AD&D 1st and 2nd edition were a wierd mish-mash of all four (with 2ed being a bit less gritty). Vancian magic is fairly tactical, HPs are fairly cinematic, some of the more Gygaxian elements are gritty (high character death rate) and "I roll to hit, I roll for damage, I roll to hit, I roll for damage" is very Light.

3ed turned up the tactical element big time, is a bit more cinematic, is a good bit less gritty and not light at all. My main problem with 3ed D&D is that its tactical element are rather , with high levels being mostly "I win initiative, therefore I win."

4ed seems to be throwing gritty largely out the window by rooting out what Gygaxian influences remain and being mostly a tactical/cinematic hybred (with more tactical than cinematic) with just enough light to avoid 3ed AoO and grapple check insanity.

If 4ed can pull that off it'd be cool. A medium crunch tactical/cinematic game with a D&D spin would be cool. So would a return to OD&D lightness with a more modern perspective (think there's a number of games that do that well out there). What I REALLY don't like is a 1/2ed badly-designed mish-mash or 3ed over-complicated tactical rules that aren't very tactical.

Overall I think I'm going to be very happy with 4ed. I'll do something like this:
Tactical: 4ed D&D
Cinematic: 3ed Fate
Gritty: Burning Wheel
Light: Rules Cyclopedia

And alternate between those four rulesets depending on which sort of combat I want.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Good analysis, Daztur. Spot on regarding RC D&D* as being rules-lite, first and foremost. Though weapon mastery added a surprisingly large amount of complexity to combat for one rule. As a result B/X is a quite a bit lighter.

*My second favourite version of D&D.

 

[jasin]

The following selections from the text should give you a good overview:

On Vancian style magic over magic points

"If spell points were to be used, it would require that either selection be limited or all other characters or monsters be strengthened. Otherwise, spell users would quickly come to dominate the game, and participants would desire to play only that class of character."

And then he proceeds to make the balance between fighters and wizards what it was?

While 4E isn't using spell points per se, its use of at-will abilities has indeed predicated the need to increase the power of other character types so that they can keep pace, as evidenced by playtest reports and blog posts and other hints about 4E.

I'm not sure how you judge the power level from what little we got in the playtest reports.

And powering up everyone else isn't the only way to make at will (or similar) abilities work, as the quote above notes: there's also nerfing the casters. 3E warlocks are completely at will, and I don't think anyone seriously believes they're more powerful than wizards, despite the initial outcry.

"[the system] allows a vast array of spells. Each is assigned a level (mnemonic difficulty) rating, and experience grades are used to expand the capacity of the spell caster. The use of this particular system allows more restrictions upon spellcasting character types, of course, while allowing freedom to assign certain spells to lower difficulty factors to keep the character types viable in its early stages."

To me this sounds more like he's discussing the benefits of spell levels rather than Vancian magic (which, to my mind, means primarily spell memorization/preparation).

With a spell level system, you can bar 4th-level wizards from fireballs even if a 4th-level wizard's total spell mojo sums up to more than one fireball. In a pure spell point "cast anything you can pay for" system, a 4th-level wizard who's supposed to be able to cast 3 magic missiles (1 point each) and two scorching rays (3 points each) could easily cast even enervation (7 points), which is potentially problematic. But note that spell memorization isn't what prevents this, it's spell levels and tying those to character level.

In any case, I appreciate the quotes. Thanks.