[WotC's recent insanity] I think I've Figured It Out

[Raven Crowking]

That's possibly poor wording. But is no different from "When you attack, you roll an attack roll." Explaining the meta and mechanical rules. And being taken by some as the be all and end all when they have as much in character meaning as THAC0

You don't find it interesting that the same editions that have expanded on what happens when you attack have reduced other interactions to THAC0?

If you understand some folks' problems with combat in older editions, surely you must understand some other folks' problems with a much wider range of things in newer ones?

 

[MrMyth]

May I speak for myself, please?

Whoa, my apologies if I mispresented your viewpoint. I wasn't tossing out any value judgement one way or the other, just that there seemed to be some conflicting opinions in the thread. In this case, your comment that, "What they actually do is line up one hour-long (or longer) combat game after another, with an occasional random Dice Challenge where other folks might put problem solving and conversations with NPCs."

That seemed to indicate that you felt using Skill Challenges meant removing problem solving and NPC conversations. Which I took to indicate a preference for those lost elements over something like Skill Challenges.

If that wasn't what you were saying, then my apologies for misreading your point.

Nonetheless, I think my point remains: For some people, more elaborate rules for non-combat mechanics are desirable, while for others, they can just get in the way of purer roleplaying. Finding a balance between those two desires is never going to be easy.

As for your other points... for myself, there have certainly been 4E scenarios that are nothing but dungeon crawls, but there have been others that contain both skill challenges, as well as puzzles to solve and plenty of NPC interaction. Given what is actually in the rulebooks, I simply can't agree with the claim that "the authors of the rulebooks, in the rulebooks -- have made it a series of wargame scenarios one after another" - but if that has been your experience with it, my sympathies.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You don't find it interesting that the same editions that have expanded on what happens when you attack have reduced other interactions to THAC0?

If you understand some folks' problems with combat in older editions, surely you must understand some other folks' problems with a much wider range of things in newer ones?

No, I don't find that interesting. I find it a complete misrepresentation of what 4e has actually done. I find athletics or the 3e climb skill far more flexible and usable than a Climb Walls: 85% chance. I can see where the 3.x folks are coming from (I disagree with them - I don't think the detail you can put into skills in 3.x really matters). But the quote I was comparing to THAC0 was taking something out of context when the full context and guidance to me mean the opposite of what it is being claimed to mean. It's certainly the opposite of how I use them.

4e has expanded what happens out of combat. It's added skill challenges rather than 1e's Thief Skills, 2e's NWPs (ack!), and every prior edition's pass/fail single point issues and overwhelming magic. (3e does have a more detailed skill system - but I like the lack of skills either being trained and automatic or not and therefore massively lower in 4e). It is, however, a rules light expansion and not as expanded as the combat system is. But that's very different from the claim that it's reduced.

 

[LostSoul]

That's possibly poor wording. But is no different from "When you attack, you roll an attack roll." Explaining the meta and mechanical rules. And being taken by some as the be all and end all when they have as much in character meaning as THAC0

(I was never a big fan of THAC0 - I prefer Palladium Fantasy's combat system.)

I think it's a matter of resolution ("using a skill") and then coming up with something to fit what just happened versus having your character attempt some kind of action and then resolving that action - which may or may not require using a skill. I think that Skill Challenges will only work well if you do the latter. (Not always, but for the most part.)

I think that 4E should have taken steps to make sure that skill checks followed the latter process. I tried to do that in my 4E Hack. Seems to work.

 

[BryonD]

And every single thread on how 4e is bad for roleplaying has come up with the same arguments - that having social skills is detrimental to roleplaying, that not having detailed skills of the level of 4e is detrimental to roleplaying, and generally arbitrary issues. The only criticisms that make sense that I've ever seen and that don't slam prior editions (normally either 3e or OD&D) harder than 4e come from the Indy Gamers asking for aspects.

That is just radically untrue.

But clearly there is no chance of getting you to say anything otherwise.

It is your head, you have every right to keep it deep in the sand as much as you desire.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That is just radically untrue.

But clearly there is no chance of getting you to say anything otherwise.

It is your head, you have every right to keep it deep in the sand as much as you desire.

You are accusing me of burying my head in the sand and not reading posts. Put up or shut up. Explain in detail how the rules in 4e impede your roleplaying without taking single sentences out of context and claiming them as proof that they mean the reverse of what the paragraph in question is trying to say. Out of combat 4e has a rules light system, somewhere between OD&D and 3e in complexity with an additional light mechanical resolution system added for extended and complex actions and solely under the DM's discretion.

Come to think of it, there is one other argument that holds a little water. Combat is better therefore everything else isn't as strong by comparison.

 

[Umbran]

It is your head, you have every right to keep it deep in the sand as much as you desire.

How about you not make this personal?

Folks, if you find yourself wanting to say something bad about other posters, it is time for you to step away from the discussion until you can behave like a mature individual.

Please, enforce this discipline yourself. I can virtually guarantee that you'll like it even less if we have to do it for you.

Thanks, all.

 

[Argyle King]

You are accusing me of burying my head in the sand and not reading posts. Put up or shut up. Explain in detail how the rules in 4e impede your roleplaying without taking single sentences out of context and claiming them as proof that they mean the reverse of what the paragraph in question is trying to say. Out of combat 4e has a rules light system, somewhere between OD&D and 3e in complexity with an additional light mechanical resolution system added for extended and complex actions and solely under the DM's discretion.

Come to think of it, there is one other argument that holds a little water. Combat is better therefore everything else isn't as strong by comparison.

I can't speak for anyone else. This is just how I see things, and how the game sometimes feels to me...


I 100% agree that D&D 4E cannot stop you from roleplaying. I also agree that a rules light approach combined with GM fiat can produce results which work and are satisfying for many people. I will thirdly say that I agree with the many people who claim rules are not needed for roleplaying.

However, for me, while I do not need rules for roleplaying, it is nice to have rules as some sort of guideline for how to meaningfully quantify non-combat related rewards in a way that can interact with the rest of the game yet not break any assumptions the game has about what resources I should have available at certain levels.

"Ok, so what the heck does that mean?"

If, at a given level, a game assumes I have X amount of resources, it stands to reason that having more resources by virtue of extra income (i.e. taxes from a plot of land, a business on the side; etc,) will allow me to break that assumption. Since -in theory- the game is balanced around those assumptions, having one player who is able to break those assumptions also allows that player to interact differently with the intended balance. This is what I mean when I say not breaking any assumptions the game has.

What I mean when I say rewarding me in a meaningful way deals with the opposite end of the spectrum. Some have suggestion that what a character does outside the dungeon should be seperate from the rest of the game. You can make money, you can gain fame, you can do all manner of other things, but none of it has any significant impact on the adventuring facet of your character. Having success in this way is very satisfying for many people. For me, it often isn't.

D&D 4E has offered suggestions to try make such things more meaningful by granting Boons or offering alternative Utility powers or a +2 to a skill and a variety of other things. All are excellent ideas. All find a way to (more or less) stay without the bounds of the game's assumptions; most don't threaten the balance of the game any more than anything that is already there. To some people -and to me sometimes- these rewards are meaningful too. However, here too, the game can feel a little more shallow than I'd like.

For me personally, what is most satisfying (when I want a game which strays away from Dungeon Fantasy, and the level/loot paradigm) is to have all facets of my character available at all times and place on equally balanced scales. The costs and rewards of building a castle or writing a tell all book about the members of my party should (I feel) be able to be weighed and measured in a way which is consistant with the risks and rewards of dungeon delving. Furthermore, I believe the two should be able to interact and both be equal parts of my character.

This does mean spending resources on one may risk meaning I have less available in the other, but it also means both are on equal footing. I have all aspects of my character available to interact with the game world at all times. The combat focused swordsman, the silver tongued diplomancer bard, and the snooty ivory tower lord have much different strengths and weaknesses, but they can coexist in the same party because there's no one way to solve problems which is given more default system support than others.

 

[JeffB]

After reading the majority of this thread, I believe I have to conclude that the insanity part should not be attributed to WOTC but rather to internet gamers posting on message boards. And of course, as we are insane, we don't actually realize it-thus the claims re: WOTC.

Straightjackets and therapy are to be provided for all ENWORLD subs both existing and going forward.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, I don't find that interesting. I find it a complete misrepresentation of what 4e has actually done. I find athletics or the 3e climb skill far more flexible and usable than a Climb Walls: 85% chance. I can see where the 3.x folks are coming from (I disagree with them - I don't think the detail you can put into skills in 3.x really matters). But the quote I was comparing to THAC0 was taking something out of context when the full context and guidance to me mean the opposite of what it is being claimed to mean. It's certainly the opposite of how I use them.

4e has expanded what happens out of combat. It's added skill challenges rather than 1e's Thief Skills, 2e's NWPs (ack!), and every prior edition's pass/fail single point issues and overwhelming magic. (3e does have a more detailed skill system - but I like the lack of skills either being trained and automatic or not and therefore massively lower in 4e). It is, however, a rules light expansion and not as expanded as the combat system is. But that's very different from the claim that it's reduced.

(Shrug)

I like the basic design of the SRD skill system, and used it as the basis of the one for RCFG. The only thing that I did was reduce the amount of "scaling to level". Well, I reduced "scaling to level" to 0.

The "85% climb chance" had an advantage in that the DM need only determine how much harder than average a given wall was; he didn't have to base his modifiers on what any given character could do. I find this makes it easier to create adventures, as well as a self-consistent persistant world. YMMV.

Also, I note that if you reversed your post, you could use it to explain how 0e's combat rules are not "reduced" in relationship to 4e's! It's all relative!


RC