When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Cadfan]

It's not an equivalent, but where a minis wargame is one end of a continuum and LARPing is the other, 4e slides you toward the wargame from 3e's ever-so-slightly-more character/world focused stance, because its rules for dealing with things that aren't putting pointy objects into squishy things that scream are more lacking than 3e's were (and 3e's were hardly a bastion of good resolution to begin with, but they were better than a broken Skill Challenge system).

That, ultimately, is the kernel of truth in these "4e feels more like a boardgame"-style observations. They aren't all just gut-reaction 4e-bashing.

The continuum you describe is absurd. Removing rules for noncombat, nonadventuring skills, and replacing them with ad libbing and DM/player consensus, doesn't make a game less like a LARP.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I just noticed this, and I think it's a fun question:

What game has done rules for performing haikus well?

What effect on the game did Perform (Haiku) have in 3E if you were a Fighter?

I'd prefer some abstract, gamist haiku rules, but I haven't seen any.

And one big effect that Perform (Haiku) had in 3e if I was a fighter was that I could roll to see how well I did, and have a "mortal baseline" to compare it against. I could challenge wandering minstrels to Haiku contests in exchange for precious information. I could roll well and deliver a well-crafted Haiku in the presence of the suspicious baron who thinks that all adventurers are trashy vagabonds who make a mess. And if I multiclassed into Bard, I could use it for my Bardic Music. And if it was a big part of my character, maybe my DM and I could synch up on some Haikunomancer PrC that helped me multiclass Bard and Fighter without being too gimped. I could gain (and quest for!) several Perform or Cha-enhancing magic items, many of which I could use with much more skill than any other fighter.

But perhaps the most significant thing I could do with Perform (Haiku) in 3e that I can't do out-of-the-box in 4e is actually have and use a Perform (Haiku) skill.

3e's system might not have been amazing, but, compared to 4e's system, it gets the job done better.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The continuum you describe is absurd. Removing rules for noncombat, nonadventuring skills, and replacing them with ad libbing and DM/player consensus, doesn't make a game less like a LARP.

You're right, but this was the point:

A LARP is all about playing your character's personality, almost to the exclusion of combat.

A minis game is all about playing your characer's combat capabilities, almost the the exclusion of playing the personality.

That's the continuum.

The slide in 4e is perceived as a slide in what the game is about, moving from playing a character toward playing a game.

That perception has a grain of truth in it.

That, ultimately, was what I was getting at.

 

[Cadfan]

It only has a grain of truth if you accept a sort of wacky zero sum view of RPGs, where more complex combat rules automatically shove something else out. I don't accept that point of view, though I have heard it a lot on this forum. I have grouped it, and a few other views motivated by similar attitudes, in my mind. I refer to them mentally as the "this is why we can't have nice things" arguments.

 

[Hussar]

No, just that it doesn't support those things as well as it supports, say, the Striker role.

The level of attention the Striker role is paid in the rules obviously, overwhelmingly, trumps the amount of attention that a character designed to be a Negotiator gets.

A Striker has a way to contribute to every combat, in every session.

A Negotiator might not get to roll a Persuasion check for months at a time, depending on the campaign.

There's a disconnect there that doesn't need to be there.

Wait, which edition are you talking about here? That's entirely up to the DM and his campaign, in any edition. If you spend the ranks in Diplomacy but wind up in a dungeon full of mindless constructs, you aren't going to be using those skills for months at a time.

So, what's the difference?

 

[Cryndo]

I think it's fair to say that Hasbro can't listen to everyone. I'm certain they would love it if you would continue to support 4th edition, however they know they will lose a certain percentage of their 3E customers with the transition to 4E. They also know that many "old time" D&Ders who haven't been playing for years will come back into the fold and they hope to bring in numerous new players as well.

Now, because Hasbro didn't make the new edition in a manner that was consistent with your tastes, do you think that all "completist collectors" feel the same as you? I'm certain a lot of hardcore buyers of 3E products will be hardcore purchasers of 4E products as well. Unfortunately they can't make everyone happy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Wait, which edition are you talking about here?

That was Theoretical 4e, where as much attention was given to non-combat aspects of the game as was given to combat aspects of the game.

That's entirely up to the DM and his campaign, in any edition. If you spend the ranks in Diplomacy but wind up in a dungeon full of mindless constructs, you aren't going to be using those skills for months at a time.

So, what's the difference?

That 4e saw a problem with rogues not being able to sneak attack for months at a time, but didn't see a problem with negotiators not being able to negotiate for months at a time.

To me, in my campaigns, sneak attacks and negotiations are both pretty important.

4e doesn't really think negotiations are that important, or they would've designed the game with it in mind like they designed it with sneak attack in mind.

 

[LostSoul]

You know, if it was in the rules (and well done in the rules), I'm sure there'd be more DM's who cared about it. Or at least, those who were even inclined to care about it would be persuaded to bring it out. Don't put the cart before the horse -- the core rules tell you what the game is about, and if they don't care about the haiku-fighter, why should your DM?

I will post more later, but I think it is in the rules. It's there in the Exploration (dungeon, wilderness, town) - Encounter (combat or non-) - Reward (XP and treasure) - Exploration (deeper in the dungeon, wilderness, or town) cycle.

The key is the bridge going from Encounters to Exploration again - that key being Quests.

 

[Thasmodious]

You know, if it was in the rules (and well done in the rules), I'm sure there'd be more DM's who cared about it. Or at least, those who were even inclined to care about it would be persuaded to bring it out. Don't put the cart before the horse -- the core rules tell you what the game is about, and if they don't care about the haiku-fighter, why should your DM?

Repeating things often doesn't make them true. You continually state this about 4e, yet the PHB opens with a chapter on roleplaying and character building, the DMG has very little actual rules crunch, but a lot on world building, roleplaying, DMing a complete game (including an extensive section on building your game to reflect your players interests and playstyles), handling non combat encounters. They even provide mechanical weight to roleplaying through the skill challenge system. Your claims are spurious at best.

 

[Phaezen]

That 4e saw a problem with rogues not being able to sneak attack for months at a time, but didn't see a problem with negotiators not being able to negotiate for months at a time.

To me, in my campaigns, sneak attacks and negotiations are both pretty important.

4e doesn't really think negotiations are that important, or they would've designed the game with it in mind like they designed it with sneak attack in mind.

Granted, if you ignore the fact that all classes can now be effective negotiators and are not limited due to skill points and cross class skill limits, and that the skill challenge system allows for skills other than diplomacy, intimidate and bluff to be used in said negotiation.

Phaezen