Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Spatula]

Spatula's Splendid Suppository
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Wiz/Sorc 6
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
Spatula's splendid suppository enables you to channel positive energy into a creature to wipe away injury and afflictions. It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the Target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned. It also cures 10 hit points of damage per level of the caster, to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level.

Spatula's splendid suppository does not remove negative levels, restore permanently drained levels, or restore permanently drained ability score points.

If used against an undead creature, Spatula's splendid suppository instead acts like harm.

Material Component: A small piece of stinky cheese.

I have now shown that there is no difference in flavor between wizards and clerics - a reskinned cleric spell works just as well as a wizard spell! Therefore all spellcasters are exactly the same and 3e spells are flavor-free function-focused game constructs that display no imagination and cause babies to die.

 

[Fenes]

What are you even talking about, at this point? I must have missed the "claws digging into the ground" rules in previous editions.

I meant that the DM couldn't rule that a mob has some claws that make it immune to tide of iron. Any limit is built into the mechanic, not the flavor, of a power in 4E.

...except that it's not. Your previous example of a warlock power as a martial power doesn't work.

Says you. Apart from "Martial powers can't do this" you brought no arguments. WHat exactly prevents a power from being reflavored in 4E? It's not game balance, which is handled by mechanics, not flavor. It's not flavor, since that can be redone.

 

[Scribble]

"In world" logic doesn't have to mean that physics must be identical to our own, but that there must be some "physics" out there from which one can rationally extrapolate corner cases.

Are fighter exploits magic? Um, "not in the traditional sense". But, are they magic? Um, er, maybe yes maybe no.

I think it is safe to say that, when the most common response to "What is this meant to represent?" is "Don't think about it that hard", that the game fails to have a strong "in world" logic.

Is Blade Runner an action film? A sci-fi film? Film Noir? Does the fact that you can make an argument for each category mean that our own in world logic is destroyed?

The real issue in my opinion here isn't that it's breaking any "in world logic" but instead that it can't be easily categorized into a particular knowledge chunk, and this annoys some people.

The problem with categorizing, however, is that it leads to limitations on what you can do. Loosening the categories allows for more options and variations.

That said, martial powers are well, martial, and they function in the way martial powers function. Why does no one ask how arcane powers or divine powers work?

Saying "don't think so hard" is short for saying theres no scientific breakdown of arcane powers, how a dragon flies, or why despite other races being stronger/faster/smarter, then humans- humans are always "the best." It's just accepted as a fact of the world, so accept martial power in the same way.

Every game requires some idea of "this is what we want the game to do", and one's enjoyment of a game is based on (1) whether or not you want a game that does that thing, and (2) how well it does that thing. It is when one examines question (1) that it is clear that 4e was meant to model mechanics; if it was meant to simulate anything other than mechanics, it is a truly dismal failure on (2).

In your opinion I assume, as in my opinion it does a much better job then previous editions.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

On the note of "Where does the ammo for the grenades come from?" question, it's funny, but when I asked that exact same question in the Artificer thread, I was told to stop thinking about it

Actually, that isn't funny at all.

As always, it amuses me that the big defense for 4e is "Well just change it from how Wizards made it." When the defense is to just not play it...

 

[Mallus]

"Well just change it from how Wizards made it."

Dude, this is how people have been playing D&D since 1974 (except back then "Wizards" was called "TSR").

 

[Irda Ranger]

It USED to make sense, when the rogue was the scout, the locksmith, trapfinder, the thief. But not any more, since he's basically a ninja. The entire problem lies in making the rogue a front line combatant, expecting him to be comparable to the fighter in combat. Sure, if your schtick is combat and you take that away, you feel robbed (pun intended), but that shouldn't be the rogue's focal point anyway.

It's not a problem at all. Just realize that all the Martial Classes are really two sub-classes each of the generic Fighting-Man, each focusing on a particular fighting style. The Rogue "class" represents two fighting styles, and so does Ranger, Fighter and Warlord. There is no thief class because a "thief" has no role in combat. The "thief" role (just like all the other traditional non-combat roles - Scout, Healer, etc.) has been booted out of the class entirely into a Skill or two which anyone can take Skill Training in.

IMHO, 4e says, "Here are some mechanics, with a bit of flavour tacked on. Mangle the flavour as you like, but think twice about mangling the mechanics."

Earlier rulesets said, in effect, "Here is the flavour we are trying to achieve. Here are some mechanics that we feel help to achieve that flavour. If you want to change flavour, you should probably change the mechanics to match. If you think a mechanic is inhibiting flavour, ditch it or change it."

I agree with that, but I don't think that makes 4E unplayable as you seem to. At most 4E just needs a one more coat of polish from the flavor-first camp to make it perfect. The martial class powers are mostly thematically correct for someone who uses non-magical bad-assery to overcome his opponents. To correct for the last few bits either (1) make it explicit that they're Shadow or Primal sourced, or (2) re-work the mechanics or flavor just a little to get it "right."

4E is a very well designed game. IME it's much, much easier to corral 4E into the flavor you want than to try to fix everything that's wrong with the rules of previous editions.

 

[billd91]

Dude, this is how people have been playing D&D since 1974 (except back then "Wizards" was called "TSR").

Indeed. But ProfessorCirno's right that it's a lame defense to pull out every time someone complains about the way things are designed in a game. I may have better things to do with my time than redesign a game that isn't designed the way I like it or with the same priorities and flavor.

Little tweaks here and there are one thing and everybody does it to a certain degree. But there comes a time to cut losses and jump to another system (or stay with the previous edition). People have been doing that since the first competitor to D&D came out.

 

[Mallus]

I may have better things to do with my time than redesign a game that isn't designed the way I like it or with the same priorities and flavor.

Sure. But I kinda take it for granted that individual players/groups will apply their own flavor to the game-as-published (whatever game that is). I can't really imagine not wanting to do that. My experience over the years is that most people do this.

To me, not wanting to add your own particular flavor is like not wanting to create your own character (and using nothing but pregens).

Little tweaks here and there are one thing and everybody does it to a certain degree.

And some make big tweaks...

People have been doing that since the first competitor to D&D came out.

In small numbers, yes.

 

[BryonD]

It USED to make sense, when the rogue was the scout, the locksmith, trapfinder, the thief. But not any more, since he's basically a ninja. The entire problem lies in making the rogue a front line combatant, expecting him to be comparable to the fighter in combat. Sure, if your schtick is combat and you take that away, you feel robbed (pun intended), but that shouldn't be the rogue's focal point anyway.

Exactly right. I find nearly every example in the OP to be riddled with claims of truth that don't nearly match to the reality I experience. But I think that comes down to game play.

The paladin thing was argued about all the time. Sure. But relative morality is great grist for the argument wheel anyway. So 20 pages thread wars could go on and on over an issue that was 99% of the time solved in less than 5 seconds by DM stating a clear position for the game at hand.

But rogues.... Sheesh. An armed commoner????!!!??? How many armed commoners can move silently and hide in shadows? Detect and disable traps? Scale walls and evade explosions? The OP seems to see the rogue as either god of war thrashing total devastation or else they are relegated to "sitting on their thumbs". I've played with people who want to be able to apply martial destruction to anything they meet. These people play FIGHTERS.

 

[GlaziusF]

But rogues.... Sheesh. An armed commoner????!!!??? How many armed commoners can move silently and hide in shadows? Detect and disable traps? Scale walls and evade explosions? The OP seems to see the rogue as either god of war thrashing total devastation or else they are relegated to "sitting on their thumbs". I've played with people who want to be able to apply martial destruction to anything they meet. These people play FIGHTERS.

The problem with the rogue is that as designed he's the skill guy. The problem with skills is that they're binary - either you sneak past the patrol or you don't, either you climb the wall or you can't, either you disarm the swinging blade or IT CUTS JOO, et cetera. This means that, after passing a "skill obstacle", the rogue is cut off from the party members who can't pass it. Several obstacles in a row, as might easily be encountered in any infiltration mission, are practically hopeless for anyone except the rogue. So while the rogue is infiltrating the castle, all your other players are sitting around and doing nothing except, perhaps, being an audience. Or you could do a thing where the rest of the party causes a distraction, say by storming the front gate, and then you're just ignoring the rogue and the rest of the party in turn.

For the things the rogue can do with the rest of the party, he may as well be an armed commoner on a greased trolley. For the things the rogue can't do with the rest of the party, why should they care?