D&D 4E 4e -- Is The World Made Of Cheese?

[silentounce]

I think the way 4e is written, knocking down an adamantium door would be a skill challenge

Well, I guess that door's not getting knocked down then.

 

[Thasmodious]

What did we lose?

Absolutely nothing.

What did we gain?

A chance for lizard to troll the 4e forum creating imaginary problems and making the designers regret the design conceit that the average gamer had enough intelligence to deal with tweaking a game system to fit their own needs and priorities?

That would be my guess, anyway.

And, for the record, hardness wasn't removed. 4e is a new system. 4 alignment weren't removed. When 3.5 came out, it was a modification of an existing system, some things were added, some things were removed or altered. Hardness was no more removed than the horned chameleon was removed. 4e has new systems in place to handle the things that need to be handled. This is a nitpick, sure, but all the whining about things being removed are annoying.

I understand to some of you, hardness was some kind of sacred cow, the defining characteristic of a successful fantasy RPG...for some reason. But come on. Claiming that if it isn't in 4e, then 4e has a design problem is just ridiculous. Especially as there are a hundred other threads on here with people whining that some other unnecessary rules subsystem was "left out" or "removed". Yet, no one seems willing to admit that everything can't be included, or that one man's necessary subsystem is another man's useless fluff, or that there is nothing wrong with houserules. People like lizard are actually claiming that if you have to houserule a game to fit your own opinions of what is or is not important, what does or does not break verisimilitude, then the system itself is actually at fault for not anticipating each gamer's unique set of priorities and conceits about fantasy gaming and including them.

As if, if hardness were a part of the object damage system of 4e, there wouldn't be a thread about how ridiculous left in that silly, unnecessary, and unrealistic system of item hardness. Undoubtedly, such a thread would have also been started by lizard.

 

[DM_Blake]

Blaming the rules for the existence of rules lawyers is like blaming children for the existence of pedophiles.

Wow, best quote I've seen in a very long time. A good analogy that makes sense and drives home a very poignant point.

Bravo!

 

[Agamon]

The real question is...if the world was made of cheese, would you eat it up?

BTW, I've known some cheeses that could have had a hardness....

 

[Obryn]

Claiming that if it isn't in 4e, then 4e has a design problem is just ridiculous. Especially as there are a hundred other threads on here with people whining that some other unnecessary rules subsystem was "left out" or "removed"....

Um, I don't think that's what anyone's saying. I know I'm not. The changes in the object-damaging rules don't mean "4E SCUKS!"

Do you really think it's impossible to be unhappy with one aspect of the system, but overall happy with the rest of it? Or do you just think that folks who are disappointed with one aspect of the system should suck it up & eat what's put in front of them?

Look, I'm a 4e fan. And yeah, this easy to houserule, but "You can houserule this!" isn't relevant when what we're doing is discussing the rules, as they are.

I can respect that this was likely an intentional design decision. I can also state that I think it was a poor one - that 3e's object rules bring more to the table than 4e's do, without a corresponding significant increase in complexity.

-O

 

[Thasmodious]

Um, I don't think that's what anyone's saying. I know I'm not. The changes in the object-damaging rules don't mean "4E SCUKS!"

Several have claimed exactly what I said, that the "need" (their perceived need, that is) to houserule something out of the box shows a flaw in game design.

Do you really think it's impossible to be unhappy with one aspect of the system, but overall happy with the rest of it? Or do you just think that folks who are disappointed with one aspect of the system should suck it up & eat what's put in front of them?

Of course, there are things I'm disappointed with, out of the box (racial feats for one, even moreso after seeing the awesome write up warforged got).

What I object to is people complaining that the system is broke since it didn't include their favorite subsystem (like hardness) and when told that they can just houserule it to their heart's content, with the complete blessing of the DMG (and even guidelines from it), they cry "we shouldn't HAVE to!! How can you have a fantasy game without hardness?!" That annoys me.

Look, I'm a 4e fan. And yeah, this easy to houserule, but "You can houserule this!" isn't relevant when what we're doing is discussing the rules, as they are.

It is relevant if the "discussion" is centered around whining that said subsystem is not part of the rules, because that's not really a productive discussion, its a whine. Responding with "meh, I don't see hardness as important," or "if it matters so much to you, houserule it" isn't out of bounds to a whine about it not being there, especially when houseruling and respect for the intelligence of gamers are design conceits.

I can respect that this was likely an intentional design decision. I can also state that I think it was a poor one - that 3e's object rules bring more to the table than 4e's do, without a corresponding significant increase in complexity.

Of course you can. But you can't then claim that someone else saying that hardness is an unnecessary system, that the current system is fine, that there is no reason to apply some inadequate simulation to some sense of real world object resistance isn't relevant to the discussion.

When the design conceit is - we will make a straightforward, solid core system of rules dealing with conflict resolution and let the legions of experienced gamers tweak the rules to suit their own play needs and beliefs; it is entirely relevant to point this out when people are whining about some supposed "sacred cow" being "removed". And really, was hardness some wonderful revolution of object damage that forever changed the way we all envision fantasy RPGs?

The genre is "take the stuff" not "kill the stuff".

 

[Hussar]

Right. And I'm saying I disagree with that decision and don't care for it. HP multipliers aren't a convincing replacement for hardness/resistance numbers.


/snip
-O

Why not?

If you have a Hardness 10 100 hp wall, in 3e, that means that the fighter is likely going to be able to bash his way through in about 10 rounds. Or shorter if the party works together.

If you have a Hardness 0 100 hpwall, that means that the 4e character may take a shorter time to get through the wall, but, he's still going to take time.

At the end of the day though, he's still gotten through the wall.

Except at very far edges (adamantine walls forex) the hardness rating didn't actually do anything. You could carve your way through pretty much any substance, given enough time.

So, again, what is lost by losing hardness?

Oh, and ProfessorCirno - I refute your reality and replace it with my own. Lots and lots and lots of people are sick to death of quasi-simulationist crap cluttering up our game.

 

[hong]

For my part, I regret their choice because it limits future expansion on a rule base into other avenues.

This sort of thing actually comes up a LOT in modern-era games, which are my predominant area of interest, and the hardness rules served pretty well there, where hardness didn't become meaningless quickly. It translated out.

... why do the 4E rules not work in a modern game?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Oh, and ProfessorCirno - I refute your reality and replace it with my own. Lots and lots and lots of people are sick to death of quasi-simulationist crap cluttering up our game.

It's easier to take something out then it is to add it. It's also easier to simplify something then it is to complicate it.

Adding hardness would take up, what, one tenth of a page? Not difficult stuff.

Adding something pleases some people.

Taking something out pleases some people but also irritates others.

Which is better?

 

[IanB]

It's easier to take something out then it is to add it. It's also easier to simplify something then it is to complicate it.

Adding hardness would take up, what, one tenth of a page? Not difficult stuff.

Adding something pleases some people.

Taking something out pleases some people but also irritates others.

Which is better?

Pleasing me.