D&D 4E The "We Can't Roleplay" in 4E Argument

[Raven Crowking]

lol, seems to me they're making fun of THEMSELVES.

In that 3.x is a WotC game, sure. But, for some reason, that image only gets trotted out in response to things 3e did well that 4e does not.

EDIT: If they were poking fun at themselves/4e, surely it would be an ad to increase combat times, weld you more strongly to the grid, require more software to create characters/monsters/adventures, etc.?

 

[Raven Crowking]

The Grail Knights I take to be the ones who actually succeeded

Fair enough.

(And why do I always forget Bors?)

Wasn't he killed by a rabbit?

And the statement I was replying to was one stating it was puzzling why I'd model them as fighters - I then presented a defence of why I would do this. If you chose to ignore context that I've actually quoted then no wonder you get a specific impression.

That's cool. This reminds me very much of the discussion about whether or not Blackbeard could be modeled as a 3.x fighter. Clearly, the answer to both is Yes, but that doesn't mean that the fighter is the best class to model the character....depending upon your perspective.

The other thing about modelling is that it's one of these cases where there's no one right way. But there is certainly a wrong way. If you were to model Lancelot as a Wizard you'd get laughed at both for what they can't do and what they can.

Agreed! While I said there was no "right way", I was careful not to say there was no wrong way!

 

[Mallus]

However, there is mention of including a Perform skill in the GM section...

I missed that. But I think it says something about the designer's view of mission non-critical skills like Perform that it wound up as a mention, not in the actual skill list. BTW, I really like the way the SW books include sidebar stuff like that. WotC products would benefit from (more of?) that kind of thing.

1. there are more skills in SW than in 4e;

Not by much. Several SW skills (Shooting, Throwing, Fighting) aren't handled by the skill system in 4e, and Guts isn't handled at all (to name 4 skills).

Besides SW uses the same kind of skills as 4e: extremely broad categories which ignore specifics. A SW character with Piloting can pilot any vehicle that exists in the setting. In both systems, Stealth covers a range of sneaky activities -- in fact, SW's Stealth is even broader than 4e's -- it includes everything except picking a lock.

2. the Knowledge skill is closer to 3e's knowledge skill and the GM can make them broad or narrow as they deem, necessary, for their campaign.

This is true... with the caveat that the SW rules clearly state a player should only pay for skills which they have to roll tests for at least twice per session. Which places the focus squarely on skills which are actively used in the game, and not just present for theoretical PC well-roundedness, or as nod towards some form of "simulation".

The implication is skills that are mainly decorative/tangential to actual game play should be free, or absent from the character sheet entirely.

3. The player has control of making his or her character just as skilled as they choose to be in a particular area. Decide how good you want to be and buy your skill to that level. There is no +1/2 level bonus. getting in the way?

Strictly-speaking this is right... but thanks to differences in the task resolutions systems (mainly via the wild/exploding die), SW character start off with fairly broad competencies, and while skills don't scale a la 4e'a +1/2 level bonus, neither do the DC/target numbers for most tests (usually 4, right?).

So both systems end up in the same place: with broadly-competent PC's which excel in a few, specific areas (and whose non-adventure related skills aren't addressed system).

Also, SW, bless it's designers hearts, seems to have avoided the trap of adding more skills to the game willy-nilly through each new expansion/setting book (though they do add quite a few Feats/Edges). They realized by adding more narrowly-defined skills without a corresponding amount of additional skill points results in over-specialized characters increasingly defined by the things they can't do, not the things they can.

 

[Redbadge]

In that 3.x is a WotC game, sure. But, for some reason, that image only gets trotted out in response to things 3e did well that 4e does not.

EDIT: If they were poking fun at themselves/4e, surely it would be an ad to increase combat times, weld you more strongly to the grid, require more software to create characters/monsters/adventures, etc.?

Some might argue (and I do) that this issue is something 3e addressed poorly and 4e (and hopefully subsequent editions) got right.

I really did not want to insult you with that image, and I do not begrudge your criticism of 4th edition. However, I hope you'll give me just as much leeway to criticize previous editions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Of course! There's lots to criticize....and a lot they did better.

Sometimes I think I should just go back to 1e....but there are things about 1e I have no desire to go back to.

 

[Greg K]

in fact, SW's Stealth is even broader than 4e's -- it includes everything except picking a lock.

True. Stealth is the one skill that I dislike in Savage Worlds (besides Gambling which, in my opinion, is unnecessary-much like use rope in d20). I find the skill too broad for my tastes. I have a similar problem with Covert in Cortex and Crime in Cinematic Unisystem (actually, I pretty much find all of Cine Unisystem's skills to be too broad for my taste)

In my own games, I break Stealth down into Stealth (Hide and Move Silent) and Sleight of Hand (legerdemain).

This is true... with the caveat that the SW rules clearly state a player should only pay for skills which they have to roll tests for at least twice per session.

Which places the focus squarely on skills which are actively used in the game, and not just present for theoretical PC well-roundedness, or as nod towards some form of "simulation"

Actually, the general rule of thumb is every other session not twice a session. The GM is also encouraged to
a) change the skill list based upon the campaign they are running and
b) provide a bonus if the character narrows down a Knowledge Specialty if you are using broad skills (I believe the example was Knowledge: Science and giving the character a +2 bonus if they decide to narrow it to Biology)

The implication is skills that are mainly decorative/tangential to actual game play should be free, or absent from the character sheet entirely.


Strictly-speaking this is right... but thanks to differences in the task resolutions systems (mainly via the wild/exploding die), SW character start off with broad competencies, and while skills don't scale a la 4e'a +1/2 level bonus, neither do the DC/target numbers for most tests (usually 4, right?).

Also, SW, bless it's designers hearts, seems to have avoided the trap of adding more skills to the game willy-nilly through each new expansion/setting book (though they do add quite a few Feats/Edges). They realized by adding more narrowly-defined skills without a corresponding amount of additional skill points results in over-specialized characters increasingly defined but what they can't do.

Yet they do add new skills based on the setting. The GM is encouraged to change the skills based on the setting. The way it is done
A. Rename an existing skill? Example, in the book, in a high tech game , Lockpicking becomes Security Systems with the default stat changed

B. Introduce a knowledge skill:
Want computer hacking? You bring in Knowledge:Computers.
Want a character that is good with Electronics? Knowledge: Electronics

C. when those fail, they simply a brand new skill. Perform is mentioned in the book. They have also added a few for specific settings.

Regarding the skills, a seasoned or Legendary character can still suck in a skill if they don't have a decent skill die or any die in the skill (default d4-2 and that -2 applies to your explodes). You may have bennies and exploding die, but that novice with a d6 or d8 is going to better. So, no, it is not the same as with 4e.

 

[Imaro]

I'm curious what all the people who felt like craft/profession/etc. skills were a waste of resources think about 4e's (post essentials) implementation of rituals? Do you all also feel that many of them are a wasted resource? Iknow in my experience with 4e I hardly ever, if at all, saw them used.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'm curious what all the people who felt like craft/profession/etc. skills were a waste of resources think about 4e's (post essentials) implementation of rituals? Do you all also feel that many of them are a wasted resource? Iknow in my experience with 4e I hardly ever, if at all, saw them used.

My group uses rituals constantly. They're an element that we really enjoy. That said, we've houseruled them extensively so they no longer eat away at your wealth (though most of our DMs don't adhere strictly to the treasure system either, so...)

 

[Imaro]

My group uses rituals constantly. They're an element that we really enjoy. That said, we've houseruled them extensively so they no longer eat away at your wealth (though most of our DMs don't adhere strictly to the treasure system either, so...)

I think this kinda defeats the purpose of my question... I was moreso curious as far as people who use them as is...

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm curious what all the people who felt like craft/profession/etc. skills were a waste of resources think about 4e's (post essentials) implementation of rituals? Do you all also feel that many of them are a wasted resource? Iknow in my experience with 4e I hardly ever, if at all, saw them used.

My problem with craft/profession was two fold. Skill points were a scarce resource so points in them were points missing from spot search and so forth and with craft in particular the kill resolution mechanics were nonsense. If you an bake a cake or tailor a suit then give time and resources a cake or a suit of a particular quality is produced. The quality standard will be pretty uniform over time, expecially if you were already journeyman or master level. If one was apprentice level then some advanse techniques would be unknown and there could be scope for improvement but the D20 plus mod is too variable to model what is going on.

As for the ritual system, yes i have used it and my players have also.
I really like the idea of ritual and alchemical items, I have some issues with the way they are implemented in 4e but so far it has not been an issue.