4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[mmadsen]

But then, why do we grant a dice roll this kind of power over an NPC?

Presumably because (a) such mental domination is not a sure thing, and (b) stronger-willed individuals are harder to dominate than weaker-willed individuals.

In literature, I often have the impression that there are no "saves" against mental domination.

Really? I'd consider it a staple of fantasy/SF fiction that most people immediately succumb to mind control, but a few strong-willed heroes -- and villains -- shrug it off. "Your jedi mind tricks won't work on me."

If you don't think there's any uncertainty to it, you might take the d20 roll out of the equation and have everyone Take 10.

Only if your friends try to speak you out of it you get your chance to resist it. And how often does that fail?

I would agree that help from friends should give the victim multiple saves to break the spell, but I don't think it should be necessary. I'm pretty sure Conan broke an enchantment or two just by being an uncivilized barbarian, free by nature, and I'm pretty sure friends have failed to save the weak-willed against, say, Dracula's charms.

 

[phloog]

Pro-4E people getting silly is provoked from having to deal with willfully obtuse madmen. In addition, to a lot of people who don't lose sleep over fiddling details, 4E is the best RPG they've come across, and are enthusiastic as a result.

Can I at least assume that you accept the possibility that there are people who don't lose sleep over 'fiddling details', and still find that 4E is not at all the best RPG system they've come across?

 

[phloog]

Wow after fianlly reading this whole thread I have just one thing to ask...

When did imagination died for you guys?

Wow...after finally reading this whole thread all you can contribute is an incorrectly-typed insult?

 

[Maggan]

If it's unintelligent undead, maybe you make yourself appear a bit more appetizing for their "tastes".

Easy, just crack your skull open with a mace ... they can't resist the lure of fresh brain!

/M

 

[cangrejoide]

Wow...after finally reading this whole thread all you can contribute is an incorrectly-typed insult?

So is it dead for you too?

 

[Umbran]

So is it dead for you too?

How about you stop suggesting that those who disagree with you lack imagination.

Everyone - in general we could do without the insults.

 

[Andor]

Everyone - in general we could do without the insults.[/color]

Well sure, we could. But where would the fun be in that?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Can I at least assume that you accept the possibility that there are people who don't lose sleep over 'fiddling details', and still find that 4E is not at all the best RPG system they've come across?

I can accept the possibility. I am just pointing out that the existance and posting habits of willfully obtuse madmen(and we have some) are generally the reason you see some of the pro-4E responses that you see.

Its called an edition war for a reason. Regardless of a person's individual intent, there are competing agendas, pro and anti 4E, that have taken on a life of their own. It takes such a herculean effort to distance yourself from these agendas that most people don't bother to do so. Some people try to say that they aren't part of it, while their words aren't significantly different than the Edition War attacks. Reasonable dialogue and rhetorical violence in this case are very close and difficult to distinguish.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that if you post in the edition war, you are a part of it, whether you want to be or not. There are no innocents aside from people who do not post.

 

[phloog]

I don't disagree that anyone who posts in these deals is swept up in this 'war', which is a rather grand term for a bunch of folks arguing about Dungeons and Dragons...it's as noble a war as a battle between Deep Space Nine and Enterprise fans...or maybe as ultra-hip-and-cool as a 700+ page dissertation on why Kari Wuhrer ruined Sliders.

In one respect I'm out of the war - - I play in a 3e campaign and run a True20 campaign....but I would like it if enough of this war gets through to WOTC to get them to produce a different game next time. And I definitely think it's ridiculous that they call 4e an 'evolution', not a 'revolution'. And as I've said a bazillion times before, just because the rules and the flavor they provide doesn't work for my campaign, doesn't mean I personally think it's a poor game system - it's just not compatible with the fiction of my campaign. I hold out hope that D&D will take on yet another incarnation in 5e that gets rid of a lot of this stuff that doesn't work for me, but 4th was such a huge shift that I'm not holding my breath.

 

[LostSoul]

It appears to be so. But then, why do we grant a dice roll this kind of power over an NPC? Is there something inherent to it that makes it more believable to us? Or is it just our years or decades of trainings that this is what saves do and how such powers work?

It's resolution; there is a conflict, so we roll to see what happens. It's similar to pretty much any other resolution roll.

There is no roll in Come and Get It; the player of the Fighter uses a resource to dictate NPC action. The player is using a resource to ensure there is no conflict over whether or not the NPCs jump him.

Big difference.

It's not Some bad guys move in close to the fighter and he strikes at them. Bad guys can close in on the fighter and get attacked just fine without come and get in getting invoked. It's All bad guys are compelled to move in close to the fighter, whether or not they could, of their own volition, make that move, and regardless of their nature and disposition.

Just what exactly is the fighter doing? If it's fundamentally different each time -- and it seems like it would have to be -- then what does it mean for a character to have come and get it on his character sheet? Is there any in-game explanation? Or is it just a board-game power?

The NPCs are only compelled if it is described that way. There's no roll to be made; the player takes control of the NPCs for a moment (that control is strictly limited). The player says the NPCs are going to move in to attack him (for whatever reason - it's up to the player to make sense of it) and they do.

What is the fighter actually doing? That's up for the group to decide. (The player decides on an description the group can accept.) The fighter may or may not be compelling them to attack.