Edition Fatigue

[fumetti]

Because you mentioned the gazetters: Shouldn´t most of the non-combat stuff you´re talking about be moved from core to setting? Seriously, when you´ve got a more or less generic core and offer different settings for the flavour, shoudn´t the setting books include the parts of the rules that work with that flavour? I really can´t imagine Wilderlands of High Fantasy without brutally dangerous overland travel, wandering prostitutes and random encounters, they just don´t really fit in with my Eberron.

If WotC is to blame for something here, it´s the fact that the setting books are bland and missing the non-combat stuff, not the Core.

...... please, Judges Guild, make a 4E Wilderlands Box ...

Yes and no.

You're right that a lot of non-combat activity is well suited in other tomes. (And I *am* looking at this situation after seeing 20+ 4E hardbacks released without it.) But....

1) Non-combat adventuring needs to be covered somewhat in the core books if WOTC intends for non-combat to be a "core" part of the game. Otherwise, the "core" of the game is combat and traditional roleplaying is just optional.

2) Even if travel data, etc., is left for campaign guides, the powers themselves need non-combat language. Every power is written in combat terms. I see none that even give a hint that that power can be used in a non-combat situation. (Not even a passage elsewhere that suggests these powers have non-combat application.) This leaves much of roleplaying to be house-ruled. (And I don't like paying $$$ for rulebooks that effectively tell me to make the rules up myself.)

Given the emphasis on appealing to new players, 4E is effectively teaching the next generation of players that DnD is more a tabletop strategy game with miniatures than a classic roleplaying game. Since I teach teenagers everyday, I can predict their statement: "Wandering around adventuring isn't a part of DnD! DnD is all about the combat! It doesn't even mention any of that inbetween stuff."

I have looked without success for a wandering monster table of any kind. It doesn't sound like much, but it shows a huge chunk of the game--adventuring--is now missing.

How long does it take for a party to travel from town to the dungeon? No mention of this activity at all. All movement is described in combat situations, not basic traveling.

There are many disconcerting examples of roleplaying being removed from 4E. And it bothers me. I don't want DnD to be turned into a lesser, one-dimensional game.

 

[fumetti]

Those are rules for accounting, not for role-playing. D&D never had any rules to support role playing except alignments.

I think you are mixing up role-playing with non-combat activity. Moreover, you focus on non-combat activities that usually happen between adventures and thus are of minor importance in most games. For the things you mention, my handwaving is as good as the handwaving of the guy that wrote the rulebook (Or do you think and edition of D&D ever had realistic prices for goods and services?).

Rules for non-combat activity are much more important for actions that happens during the adventure, when the life of the PCs is on the line. Here the rules support has steadily increased with the editions. D&D and AD&D 1 (core) had next to no support for non-thieves, during the move to 2nd ed non-weapon proficiencies were added, 3.x added a full skill system and 4.0 provided a general resolution mechanic based on the skill system. Evolution in action.

Non-combat activity is where the characters make the choices that create their own story (not just following the DMs script). The story is where the roleplaying exists.

You are right that non-combat activity such as overland travel is not in itself the essence of roleplaying. But it is a major part. It allows the characters to choose what they do, and provides game mechanics for ANY choice.

If Lord of the Rings was a 4E game, much of "Fellowship" would not have happened. Much of that first book reads as accidental encounters, based on which path the party took and/or which camping mistake they made. In 4E terms, Frodo (not Bilbo--oops) would have left the shire and appeared at Bree, then just appeared in Rivendell, then just appeared in the Mines of Moria. Not the same story at all, because 4E reduces the game from an adventure to just a series of encounters.

And the difference, I am saying, lies in the presence or absence of non-combat elements.

And if the game doesn't include non-combat activity as part of its core, then new players are going to respond accordingly.

 

[Nagol]

Non-combat activity is where the characters make the choices that create their own story (not just following the DMs script). The story is where the roleplaying exists.

You are right that non-combat activity such as overland travel is not in itself the essence of roleplaying. But it is a major part. It allows the characters to choose what they do, and provides game mechanics for ANY choice.

If Lord of the Rings was a 4E game, much of "Fellowship" would not have happened. Much of that first book reads as accidental encounters, based on which path the party took and/or which camping mistake they made. In 4E terms, Bilbo would have left the shire and appeared at Bree, then just appeared in Rivendell, then just appeared in the Mines of Moria. Not the same story at all, because 4E reduces the game from an adventure to just a series of encounters.

And the difference, I am saying, lies in the presence or absence of non-combat elements.

And if the game doesn't include non-combat activity as part of its core, then new players are going to respond accordingly.

I think you mean Frodo.

 

[Nagol]

Non-combat activity is where the characters make the choices that create their own story (not just following the DMs script). The story is where the roleplaying exists.

You are right that non-combat activity such as overland travel is not in itself the essence of roleplaying. But it is a major part. It allows the characters to choose what they do, and provides game mechanics for ANY choice.

If Lord of the Rings was a 4E game, much of "Fellowship" would not have happened. Much of that first book reads as accidental encounters, based on which path the party took and/or which camping mistake they made. In 4E terms, Bilbo would have left the shire and appeared at Bree, then just appeared in Rivendell, then just appeared in the Mines of Moria. Not the same story at all, because 4E reduces the game from an adventure to just a series of encounters.

And the difference, I am saying, lies in the presence or absence of non-combat elements.

And if the game doesn't include non-combat activity as part of its core, then new players are going to respond accordingly.

I agree with you in general. Having rules to cover living in the world as opposed to existing within a combat environment is very helpful especially to drive a consistent understanding of how the game works between tables.

That said, how many people put money on Free Parking when they play Monopoly? How many of them know it's a house rule?

The game's traditions will continue expecially since a lot of new players are brought into the through established groups.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I have looked without success for a wandering monster table of any kind. It doesn't sound like much, but it shows a huge chunk of the game--adventuring--is now missing.

I would point out that this was missing since 3e was released as well. 3e did not include any random encounter tables in the core rules.

How long does it take for a party to travel from town to the dungeon? No mention of this activity at all. All movement is described in combat situations, not basic traveling.

Now this is a mistake

Page 260 and 261 of the 4e PHB lists travel speeds by terrain and also lists a number of possible methods for overland travel. I don't have my DMG handy, but the PHB mentions that the DMG has additional rules for overland travel, including fatigue rules.

There are many disconcerting examples of roleplaying being removed from 4E. And it bothers me. I don't want DnD to be turned into a lesser, one-dimensional game.

Well, so far, nothing has actually been removed since 3e although, to be fair, the random encounters did appear in earlier editions. So, what else has been removed that turns D&D into a one dimensional game?

 

[Coldwyn]

Non-combat activity is where the characters make the choices that create their own story (not just following the DMs script). The story is where the roleplaying exists.

You are right that non-combat activity such as overland travel is not in itself the essence of roleplaying. But it is a major part. It allows the characters to choose what they do, and provides game mechanics for ANY choice.

If Lord of the Rings was a 4E game, much of "Fellowship" would not have happened. Much of that first book reads as accidental encounters, based on which path the party took and/or which camping mistake they made. In 4E terms, Bilbo would have left the shire and appeared at Bree, then just appeared in Rivendell, then just appeared in the Mines of Moria. Not the same story at all, because 4E reduces the game from an adventure to just a series of encounters.

And the difference, I am saying, lies in the presence or absence of non-combat elements.

And if the game doesn't include non-combat activity as part of its core, then new players are going to respond accordingly.

To tell the truth, I´m absolutelly unconvinced and I think you´re stuck on the mechanics.

In 4E, most of the Fellowship would be an extended Skill Challenge with a huge amount of sub-challenges.

 

[shadzar]

Here's what struck me. The equipment section is small. If you think back in older editions you payed more attention to your equipment. Chalk, fish hooks, rope, hammers and pitons.

D&D's MacGuyver stuff.

You would find creative uses for this when you might need to save vs. death in the next few minutes.

There wasn't much in the way of noncombat skills. It was ingenuity and creativity.

You are saying there wasn't noncombat skills back when you worried about your chalk and pitons?

D&D is a lot of things but not western Europe pseudo-medieval and never has been.

It was always designed around western Europe medieval.

Blackmoor diverted into strange fantastic, but Greyhawk that the core of D&D was built around, until 3rd edition, was pretty much based on an alternate medieval earth (Oerth) where magical creatures existed.

Not sure what type of westerns you have watched, but it hasnt been anything like that "with some medieval". Boot Hill was the wild west game.

 

[Nagol]

It was designed around medieval western Europe in the same way Conan's Hyborian Age or the Gray Mouser's Newhon was -- that is to say it adopted a few notable trappings -- more in the beginning and then drifted.

 

[billd91]

I would point out that this was missing since 3e was released as well. 3e did not include any random encounter tables in the core rules.

Pages 122-126 of the 3.0 DMG and 78-81 of the 3.5 DMG tell me that your memory needs refreshing.

 

[Coldwyn]

Pages 122-126 of the 3.0 DMG and 78-81 of the 3.5 DMG tell me that your memory needs refreshing.

Wasn´t he talking about non-combat stuff for players? I don´t think the DMG should enter the argument then. Else, I think 4E DMG 1&2 hold up pretty well when it comes to non-combat ideas and such.

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]:
That´s like calling a pizza a gyros. Well, they put "medieval" on the cover but besides some trappings, there isn´t anything medieval inside (and with this, I also mean fantasy medieval).