D&D 4E 4E: The day the game ate the roleplayer?

[Derro]

Wow.

1) The differences in the nature of the effects makes the potency of the effects change situationally. We call this "good game design" roun' these parts.

2) Consider the following two parties.

Party A: Fighter, does 10 dps in melee as a 3e style tank. Rogue, does 10 dps by spring attacking. Cleric, heals 10 dps. Wizard, shoots 10 dps at range.

Party B: Fighter, does 10 dps in melee. Fighter, does 11 dps in melee. Fighter, does 12 dps in melee. Fighter, does 13 dps in melee.

You've actually managed to argue that the latter party is more diverse than the former. I applaud you, sir. I applaud.

I think my point is more in the range of

Party A: Fighter, does 10 dps in melee as a 3e style tank. Rogue, does 10 dps by spring attacking. Wizard, shoots 10 dps at range.

5 levels later...

Using the same tactics Party A: Fighter, does 15 dps in melee as a 3e style tank. Rogue, does 15 dps by spring attacking. Wizard, shoots 15 dps at range.

I took out cleric just to maintain the consistency of the effect were talking about. My point is that with the roles as they are the result may change numerically but the delivery remains constant. Consistent, different in potency, still pretty much the same thing.

This will change as power increases with more tactical options I'm sure but with the tiers I'm suspicious that classes will look the same at higher levels as they did at lower levels only with bigger, shinier guns.

Just a gut feeling. Not hating on 4e. Just not to optimistic about class builds being as varied as they're lauded to be.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Thank you for not dismissing my point out-of-hand. It's "potency of effect" that got me in trouble and I see why. I should have said potency of role to clarify.

And you're right about the prematurity. I'll freely admit to that. It's purely an instinct thing for me. I've played enough different games to recognize what I feel are similar design patterns. I think Diablo is what springs mostly to mind. Whether it's the actual CRPG or the 3e game that was released I get that same sort of feeling that further down the road many powers are going to have similar primary effects, lesser similarity in secondary effects and different flavoring representing a different power source. It's like that feeling when replay a game with a different character and start to see the similarities in there effects as opposed to what made them unique.

I'm just exercising my critical eye here. There are some outstanding things that give me a no feeling and I think it's okay to voice that.

Okay, I am not a fan of Diablo, but I am pretty sure the repetitiveness of the gameplay is not due to the class abilities - these are very different. But the repetitiveness is the fact that most monsters are the same, and you can actually play 3 (?) times through the same game with the same character, each time several levels higher.
Another part of the repetitiveness inside a single character is that you get a lot of advances, but most of the time, you don't get any functionally new ability - you're only improving older ones, until you hit the required level for a new ability.

 

[Remathilis]

For all the idiosyncrasies of 1e and 2e, these qualities gave the player the feeling that it was possible to do something novel. Everything wasn't locked down tight -- and it was loose enough that one could regularly stumble into new territory. This player-experience coincided with the character's experience of an unpredictable world. Player-character parity could be achieved more easily and immersion was easier to obtain as a result.

Tell me how 1e and 2e facilitated a fighter trying to listen at a door. Or a wizard trying to sneak quietly, past a guard. Or a cleric to tumble. The answer came back to one of two answers a.) You can't or b.) I'll create some ad-hoc rule to allow it.

To whit: there as a non-weapon proficiency in the Complete Book of Humanoids called Hiding. It was Int with -1 penalty. If you made the check, you were hidden. A first level wizard with a 18 int had to roll under a 17 to succeed it (85% success rate) while a first level thief with an 18 dex has a max of 50% (base 5, +10 for dex, +5 no armor, +30 discretionary points [half of your starting]). Which was a better deal?

Now, Lets say I want to play a cowardly wizard that casts a spell and hides from the baddies. My options are: a.) I can't. There is no real rule for a wizard hiding in combat. Suck it up. b.) I take the NWP, but reduce the thief's worth in the process c.) be a wizard/thief, something completely against my PC concept, in order to gain HiS or d.) let the DM decide some alternative method that works without screwing the thief or breaking the wizard class.

No matter how you cut that cake, the wizard or the thief is going to end up on the short end of the stick.

3e and 4e have created options for my cowardly wizard; Hide/Stealth can be taken as a cross-class/untrained skill, so my wizard can hide without showing up the rogue. To me, that's creating role-playing opportunities, not diminishing them.

We are looking at 4e through a tunnel; The Delve PCs are designed to be combat machines with no personality because thats what the delve IS. They are 30 minute disposable PCs. They don't exist in a larger world. None of them are even high enough level to have utility abilities (those come at 2nd, see rogue/tumble). Trying to paint 4e as non-RP friendly based on a delve is like calling a computer nothing but violence simulator because the first time you saw someone use one, they were playing Doom III.

In the end, I'm sure 4e will support role-playing. If I could RP with legos when I was 10, I can RP with 4e now...

 

[Halivar]

In the end, I'm sure 4e will support role-playing. If I could RP with legos when I was 10, I can RP with 4e now...

The problem with Legos as an RP tool (and, to some extent, 4th Ed.) is that there aren't enough rules for me to show up and tell you you're doing it wrong.

 

[Doug McCrae]

This will change as power increases with more tactical options I'm sure but with the tiers I'm suspicious that classes will look the same at higher levels as they did at lower levels only with bigger, shinier guns.

In 3e that's pretty much how all the melee classes advance. Only the primary casters get to do dramatically new stuff, like fly or turn invisible.

We've seen from the wizard paragon spell list that wizards still get to do those things, albeit at later level. So all we can say with certainty is that 4e has at *least* as much variety as 3e. I suspect it will have more though as we haven't seen the cool mid-high level powers for the martial classes yet.

 

[Thyrwyn]

The problem with Legos as an RP tool (and, to some extent, 4th Ed.) is that there aren't enough rules for me to show up and tell you you're doing it wrong.

WooHoo - what he said. . . please pass the Legos

 

[Seule]

Response to the complaints that 4e doesn't look like it'll have a robust social system:
I played one of the preview mods at DDXP, Escape from Sembia. In it, we had to run away from an overwhelming force of opponents. The DM asked us to decide what we were going to do to help ourselves escape, decided what skill governed each thing, and had us roll skill checks. We could set our own difficulties, with higher difficulties coming with more spectacular successes but lower chance of succeeding. Once we'd accumulated enough successes, we succeeded. I assume if we'd accumulated enough failures first, we would have failed.
This seems like a fabulous mechanic for social encounters as well. The party face can go for the high-DC social checks, but others can still chip in with their own checks, even using other skills if they can justify them. Everyone is involved, and the DM decides how easy or difficult the whole endeavor is.

--Penn

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The problem with Legos as an RP tool (and, to some extent, 4th Ed.) is that there aren't enough rules for me to show up and tell you you're doing it wrong.

Ah.... Lego... Fond memories. The greatest toy ever, in my opinion. Every kid should get these. Before they get their 1st video console or TV set. (Damn, I am getting old with my 27 years... )

 

[Halivar]

(Damn, I am getting old with my 27 years... )

GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

And pull your pants up!

I swear, in all my 28 years, I've never seen such disrespect.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think my point is more in the range of

Party A: Fighter, does 10 dps in melee as a 3e style tank. Rogue, does 10 dps by spring attacking. Wizard, shoots 10 dps at range.

5 levels later...

Using the same tactics Party A: Fighter, does 15 dps in melee as a 3e style tank. Rogue, does 15 dps by spring attacking. Wizard, shoots 15 dps at range.

Okay, but by reducing everything to a single average you cut out the variety. The wizard causes his damage at range, versus large groups of opponents at once. The rogue causes damage in bunches against a single opponent at a time, which he usually has to maneuver to reach. The fighter causes damage in a slow and steady way, against multiple opponents in melee.

Just because the average works out to be the same number does not mean they're the same thing.