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

[fumetti]

That certainly isn't how I use them. But then I use DMG advice rather than WoTC modules (and have been planning to write my own guidance for them). The published skill challenges as opposed to the skill challenge rules make me feel like I'm visiting a zoo; those animals belong out in the wild. What's written down in them is too nailed down for what is essentially an excellent improvised tool that fits in the gap between skill/ability check and session-consuming (or longer) quest.

Which comes back to one of my points regarding new players without veteran assistance. Which is more likely for a game of rookies, to learn and follow the general guidelines of the DMG or the specific example in the official DnD premade adventure?

My point has never been that veterans of previous editions can't roleplay 4E as normal. It's that the game as written (includes all releases) doesn't read that way. It reads more limited.

Granted, you guys have shown that it's not as bad as it first seems. But finding classic roleplaying in 4E rules is about like finding rules in the 1E DMG... you have to dig to find it. It's not presented as important.

But the structure of Wizard spells, that still screams combat, combat, combat.

Deep in the grey text I found a passage that said that all spells last 5 minutes unless otherwise noted. But they could last part of just one round or days depending on how long it took to end the encounter. That's very weird. Very far from previous editions' spells.

They just don't give a hint at how they could be used in adventuring. And to me that's a major issue, a major shift away from roleplaying an adventure towards just playing combat encounters.

All that said, the conversation is helping my appreciation of 4E. (I was considering abandoning it.)

 

[Korgoth]

Getting back to Colville's bold point, made way back: If killing monsters is a solved problem, then what else is there to do that young players would find fun and engaging in addition to killing monsters and getting treasure?

It seems that WOTC's current theory is: the game is about combat encounters punctuated by D20 Farkle. It isn't about anything else, but you're allowed to sit around and jaw about the game world or your paragon path or whatever, as long as that jawing has no game effect.

If you want extra game effects, you can buy collectible card packs though.

 

[Umbran]

My point has never been that veterans of previous editions can't roleplay 4E as normal. It's that the game as written (includes all releases) doesn't read that way. It reads more limited.

You realize, of course, that historically gamers don't worry all that much about how the game is written? We didn't on the whole, stick exactly to rules-as-written in 1e, 2e, or 3e. You need to do some heavy justifying that somehow 4e is different in that regard for this to stick.

Sometimes we talk like we are somehow special, that we see all these horrible design flaws, and that nobody else who looks at the rules will fail to see them. Even more we figure we are so super-smart and can figure out how to work around them, but "they" cannot.

Humbug, I say! Give the world at large a little credit - if we can see that the system can be used more loosely, so can everyone else!

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I know, I know, I'm being nitpicky here.

I just think it's funny (and may or may not be indicative of the general "attitude" of 4e and it's designers), but this quote jumped out at me:

It’s what usually fills the space between encounters

 

[fumetti]

So, that seems to say that exploration is a big part of the game, and central to the process of players making the decisions on what their characters will do.

Simply saying in passing that adventuring is important is not the same as actually making it important in the game's rules.

The passage you quoted is like saying "yes, honey, talking is very important" and then skipping past it.

Hmm. That doesn't actually say to "simply summarize what happens between the encounters."

Excuse me for using the word summarize to summarize what the text was suggesting.

Note as well that it doesn't say that all rest periods pass without incident. Instead, when they are uneventful, it recommends skipping past them.

Here's where you and 4E just don't get what we're trying to say. By skipping over what seems unimportant, and rushing to the scenario that is important, you give players advanced notice that "hey, this particular clearing is an event." The players don't discover it, they don't have a chance to miss it due to negligence. There's just no adventuring element to the game when you do it that way. It's like watching a football game where you only see the scoring (but the drives leading up to that score is what tells the story of it.)

That kind of structure just robs the thrill of not knowing what's around the next bend...because you do know. Everytime you're not skipping, you're at the encounter.

I would find a game very boring that just teleported me from fight to fight to fight, with no thrill of the unknown, no sense of discovery. What the DMG describes looks to me like an abridged form of DnD.

But whatever. To each their own.

 

[fumetti]

Except... isn't that essentially saying that any prep the DM does, either in the form of mechanical or narrative challenges, is a problem?

Nah. That stuff needs to be there if the scene is critical to the story and the characters have to go through it.

But a lot of adventuring--as I've known it--could be skipped over 4E-style and the players rushed to just the crucial encounters. To me, all the activity that is not crucial to the story is just as important to the overall roleplaying experience.

On the way to the kill the troll, I might stumble onto an evil warrior who I now have to kill to get past. Not part of the story at all. But just out of dumb luck (and some unfortunate wandering monster rolls) my job just got harder. But I might luck out and score some magical items I can use later.

Of course, with 4E rules it's hard as heck to create random encounters to flavor the adventure. It would take a fair bit of work just to throw together an evil NPC.

If you aren't saying that... then why are skill challenges an issue compared to everything else?

I think we may have clarified that the real problem is how skills challenges have been presented as published, not necessarily inherent in the SC system itself. As presented, skills challenges were prefab not so much on the fly.

But I'm not seeing them just on their own. When added to the other (apparent to some) element of 4E being just a string of tunnel-vision encounters, the SCs are thrown in with the rest.

(And of course there still remains the whole encounter structure to wizards where everything is defined in in-combat terms. Really limits the game IMO.)

Can 4E be played as a "combat strategy game with summarized 'filler' inbetween the encounters"? Sure, I suppose so. But I don't think it is the default of the game, I don't think it is the way most people play it, and I don't think it is encouraged by anything in the rules themselves.

I think it's the fault of WOTC for creating core books that over emphasize combat strategy and then create an in-store representation that is precisely nothing more than a combat strategy game with filler in between the encounters!

I keep my focus on how newbies are going to react to the product as published. 4E is supposed to bring in a new generation of roleplayers. Except when they buy the PHB and go to the Encounters game, they're going to find something a bit different from roleplaying as I've known it.

And now that everything is apparently going to Essentials, all the PHB and DMG stuff does exist about roleplaying isn't going to be there. So there will be even less emphasis.

It's not like all this is the end of the world or anything. It's just something I felt like talking about. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the noobs will see it the way we want them to see it and become classic roleplayers not just combat strategists...

 

[fumetti]

Oh, lovely. A pixel-bitch.

If you have nothing better to post than personal attacks, don't post at all.

 

[fumetti]

You realize, of course, that historically gamers don't worry all that much about how the game is written? We didn't on the whole, stick exactly to rules-as-written in 1e, 2e, or 3e. You need to do some heavy justifying that somehow 4e is different in that regard for this to stick.

Home-ruling isn't at issue here. We've been talking about the content of the published books.

Home-ruling is only an issue insofar as that it's a bad product if your players have to home-rule to make it work.

 

[Korgoth]

If you have nothing better to post than personal attacks, don't post at all.

fumetti, report it to the Mods and don't use RED text; RED is for official Mod warnings and stuff. You should pick another color (you seem like a good sort so I don't want you to get hammered).

 

[LostSoul]

On the way to the kill the troll, I might stumble onto an evil warrior who I now have to kill to get past. Not part of the story at all. But just out of dumb luck (and some unfortunate wandering monster rolls) my job just got harder. But I might luck out and score some magical items I can use later.

I think wandering monsters are a good example of rules that help make the area between "encounters" interesting. Adding in wandering monsters means that you have to consider where the PCs are, their environment, their marching order, how much noise they are making, their light source, how much time they are taking, that sort of thing; without them, those sorts of things aren't part of the currency of the game. It just ignores it.

Of course, with 4E rules it's hard as heck to create random encounters to flavor the adventure. It would take a fair bit of work just to throw together an evil NPC.

No, it's really easy. I do it all the time.