Why I'm done with 4e

[Imaro]

Success vs failure and how to adjudicate it is what the entire left side of the page is about. The right side of the page is what deals with damage. Guidelines for success and failure is sometimes the only condition I need. This page gives some good basic information to the DM and also gives some rough damage figures for non-standard damaging moves. The page itself gives guidelines for

"A few combat situations come up rarely enough that the rules for them intentionally aren’t covered in the Player’s Handbook—in particular, mounted combat and combat underwater."

The page also goes on to list when to make things an attack roll and when to make it a skill check, as well as saying context can allow an easy +2/-2 to a situation to help show if it should happen more easily or not. This page is given a lot of credit b/c it can be bent into many different things. It is definitely NOT just about damage.

So what other EFFECTS besides damage does it give guidelines for? Up thread I already said it was a page of DC's and damage...even in the post you quoted I specifically referenced effects, so I'm not sure what point you are making here? Except maybe avoidance of what I am specifically talking about.

Edit: I have personally seen people post something along the lines of... One of my PC's wants to do a disarm in combat. Followed by... hey just use pg. 42 it covers all kinds of improvised stunts. No, it really doesn't... it covers stunts that do damage but not those that would inflict a condition or other effect.

 

[Nathal]

The suspension of disbelief is in many ways kiboshed, and the sense of the world existing independent of the game has been reduced to an irrelevancy.

I agree with the above, but oddly, it has positive side-effects. The ironic thing is that the way class powers are handled allow new players to sit down and become effective in group play---assuming a tiny bit of tactical and strategic savvy---even if they can't "role-play" worth a damn. It used to be (at least for me) that D&D worked best when the individual players were very descriptive and imaginative...but now even a boring player can have an entertaining and effective character. But because actions are now so codified, with video-game like names of powers to choose from, it does reduce the "verisimuilitue" that was important in the Old Skool, if you will. I see it as a double-edged sword, excuse the pun.

 

[coyote6]

I see it as a double-edged sword, excuse the pun.

Arming sword or longsword?

Whoops, wrong thread!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Part of the reason stunting also isn't a panacea for lack of combat creativity is that it can't violate 4e's role protection. 4e can't allow you, through stunting, to do damage comparable to the striker, or impose effects comparable to the controller or the defender, or grant an advantage comparable to the advantage the leader grants. I think it's totally possible to ignore and be fine with, but 4e values the role balance more than it values going "off-book" in combat. I think this may be part of why we haven't seen rules for imposing conditions -- limiting enemy actions and abilities is essentially the Controller's bag, and allowing just anyone to stun, blind, knock prone, etc., just by being a creative enough player, makes the Controller feel less special.

Now, I think that there's a middle ground where the Controller still feels special without the dominance of stunts, but I think that is part of what went into the thinking when designing them in the first place. They don't want stunts to replace your normal combat actions because stunts can't be balanced like powers can.

I agree with the above, but oddly, it has positive side-effects. The ironic thing is that the way class powers are handled allow new players to sit down and become effective in group play---assuming a tiny bit of tactical and strategic savvy---even if they can't "role-play" worth a damn. It used to be (at least for me) that D&D worked best when the individual players were very descriptive and imaginative...but now even a boring player can have an entertaining and effective character. But because actions are now so codified, with video-game like names of powers to choose from, it does reduce the "verisimuilitue" that was important in the Old Skool, if you will. I see it as a double-edged sword, excuse the pun.

Yeah, this is probably true for 90% of 4e's changes: they have a good effect, and a bad effect. The 4e designers are good designers, they just sometimes don't have their priorities in line with mine as to what makes a game enjoyable. I'm sure part of the design was oriented to helping players who might not be tactical geniuses still tactically contribute to a combat. The hallmark of a lot of 4e's changes is just that they throw the baby out with the bathwater: to make sure everyone can contribute tactically, they made tactical combat basically the only game in town, because that's where the design efforts for 4e were focused.

I'd love for the team to invest as much effort into role-playing a character as they did in running a leader in combat. The current popular fallacy over at WotC seems to be that "less rules = more role-playing," which doesn't hold much water with me, at least, though it is very...old school...itself. It's the same basic philosophy that 1e and 2e took, and why those games lack decent RP rules and why, coincidentally, Vampire became ascendant. Vampire, though it could run combat, was mostly about playing the role, about political intrigue, about style and the allure of the unknown, and White Wolf fit it nice.

 

[Gimby]

Now, I think that there's a middle ground where the Controller still feels special without the dominance of stunts, but I think that is part of what went into the thinking when designing them in the first place. They don't want stunts to replace your normal combat actions because stunts can't be balanced like powers can.

I agree, its a difficult ground to find. One balancing area could be that powers generally do damage *and* effect while you could rule that stunts just to damage *or* effect. Or that they require limited terrain resources to pull off (tapestrys and so forth). Theres problems with these approaches though and they would have to essentially be a complete power creation system to be fully balanced. Some guidlines, at least, for condition imposition would be helpful.

I'd love for the team to invest as much effort into role-playing a character as they did in running a leader in combat. The current popular fallacy over at WotC seems to be that "less rules = more role-playing," which doesn't hold much water with me, at least, though it is very...old school...itself. It's the same basic philosophy that 1e and 2e took, and why those games lack decent RP rules and why, coincidentally, Vampire became ascendant. Vampire, though it could run combat, was mostly about playing the role, about political intrigue, about style and the allure of the unknown, and White Wolf fit it nice.

I'd disagree with your characterisation of Vampire - the first edition rules were little more than a combat engine with the social aspects scarecly more detailed than the 3e/4e diplomacy/bluff/intimidate rules. The White Wolf rules system family, AFAIK, got its first real "social combat" system with 2nd edition Exalted a couple of years ago. Vampire certainly talked up the roleplaying and social aspect and the personal horror aspect, but the rules themselves didn't do much to support or encourage that.

For "real" roleplaying rules you'd have to go to something like Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel or My Life with Master.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I agree, its a difficult ground to find. One balancing area could be that powers generally do damage *and* effect while you could rule that stunts just to damage *or* effect. Or that they require limited terrain resources to pull off (tapestrys and so forth). Theres problems with these approaches though and they would have to essentially be a complete power creation system to be fully balanced. Some guidlines, at least, for condition imposition would be helpful.

Personally, I would not mind seeing a stunt system that could effectively replace the powers system.

I mean, it's halfway there right now, what with the DC's and damage.

But that's just me, and I would probably be content with a more reasonable middle ground than what we have right now.

'd disagree with your characterisation of Vampire - the first edition rules were little more than a combat engine with the social aspects scarecly more detailed than the 3e/4e diplomacy/bluff/intimidate rules. The White Wolf rules system family, AFAIK, got its first real "social combat" system with 2nd edition Exalted a couple of years ago. Vampire certainly talked up the roleplaying and social aspect and the personal horror aspect, but the rules themselves didn't do much to support or encourage that.

For "real" roleplaying rules you'd have to go to something like Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel or My Life with Master.

Ah, I might've been unclear. My reason for mentioning Vampire was simply to note that role-playing (that is, playing the role of a Vampire) was what was generally appealing about the game. Mechanically, you're right, it wasn't much, but it let you feel like a Vampire, which was the basic appeal of the game: I get to play the role of a vampire. That doesn't necessarily mean it needed social mechanics per se, but it certainly didn't take a "we won't tell you how to role-play" stance, whereas earlier-edition D&D (and 4e) generally do take that kind of stance.

Though, in retrospect, even that's not quite accurate, since 4e and 2e (and 1e) certainly gave you advice on how to be a big fat hero. Guess vampires are just sexier.

 

[Celebrim]

The 4e designers are good designers, they just sometimes don't have their priorities in line with mine as to what makes a game enjoyable.

I believe we could boil a thousand threads and a few million words down to that.

 

[Gimby]

But that's just me, and I would probably be content with a more reasonable middle ground than what we have right now.

Yeah, something like that would make a fine Unearthed Arcana or Iron Heros style book.

Though, in retrospect, even that's not quite accurate, since 4e and 2e (and 1e) certainly gave you advice on how to be a big fat hero. Guess vampires are just sexier.

Comparing my Exalted 2e core and 4e PHB here, the "how to roleplay" and "how to design and characterise your character" advice in 4e is remarkably more substantial than that in the Exalted book, which is something I found suprising (I was sure I recalled a larger section in the Exalted core)

 

[Banshee16]

Pathfinder is successful and IMO its success proves that OGL / 3.5e could and will be the open standard system for D&D - type worlds.

Obviously 4e didn't improve the game. It was another game. It may be very nice game. I know a lot of very good games.

If you prefer the 4e game than the OGL / 3.5e game, it's ok. But don't change your game to 4e because THIS was the decision of THE D&D company and THIS is going to be the new D&D and it is safer to be a follower and go with the crowd. As you have noticed, 4e became just another system. OGL / 3.5e is alive, updated and well supported.

Technically, 4e reminds me an non-interesting wargame based on cards instead of rules and mechanics.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that 4E didn't improve the game. I'm in the camp that doesn't like it. But there are a tonne of people who do. For me, it's just too different, and Remalthis and others have argued through this thread more effectively than I would, so I've really just been a reader.

But our desire to use systems like Pathfinder is a preference. The edition war reminds me of the whole PS3 vs. XBox 360 debacle. What's the point behind spending so much time arguing about which game is better? Play what you like.

At the end of the day, those of us who don't like 4E don't need to justify those feelings to anyone. The game's not for us. Some of us tried it, and just found it didn't scratch the itch, others couldn't bring themselves to try it.

There isn't really a right or wrong answer. I think the whole idea that one has to play a particular edition, and that only the current edition is "valid" is completely flawed. 4E isn't the only D&D. It's just the current, supported version. But in another 6 years or so, it'll be replaced by 5E, and 4E will no longer be "current". But it doesn't mean it's not valid. It will be just as "valid" a version of D&D as 3.0, 2.0, or 1.0 are now. As in, they're completely valid....they're just no longer supported.

4E has good points, as did 3rd, 2nd, and 1st. They all also have their weaknesses.

On that topic, I just got my Pathfinder core book today, and I'm a happy camper

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

Yeah, something like that would make a fine Unearthed Arcana or Iron Heros style book.



Comparing my Exalted 2e core and 4e PHB here, the "how to roleplay" and "how to design and characterise your character" advice in 4e is remarkably more substantial than that in the Exalted book, which is something I found suprising (I was sure I recalled a larger section in the Exalted core)

I seem to recall that the 7th Sea Players Guide and Gamemaster's Guide had lots of good information on roleplaying...not only roleplaying, but stuff like how to develop good plots, the core ideas of most stories, etc. etc. I would assume that the Legend of the Five Rings RPG has similar levels of information as well (but I don't have it, so I'm not sure).

D&D has always been kinda weak on actual discussions of what roleplaying is, how to come up with good plots etc....at least in the books that I've had.

Banshee