4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Ratskinner]

Though I have to say that I'm not completely sold on the idea that 4E avoids de-protagonism. I think it's because I believe that you need to face desperate thematic choices in order to really be a compelling protagonist. If choice X is as good as choice Y, is it really a choice? I guess so, if the difference is a big moral choice... but I think the choice has a lot more weight if you're forced to think, "Well, I could do X, but I'm probably not going to get what I want; I could do Y, and most likely get what I want, but Y is horrible; so is what I want worth doing something horrible for?" I don't think 4E forces you to ask those questions.

I think this is a very important, if not vital, point for me. I don't find any edition of D&D very compelling for this kind of play because of this. I think you can stretch some of the early edition stuff into it, but only for the conflict between Paladins and ...well half the rest of the party. Since I've seen that play out several times already....

 

[pemerton]

Additionally, some of those editions, if played RAW, had fairly extensive subsystems covering all the "exploration" aspects of dungeon-crawling. (Sometimes even more than one, depending on if you were a Halfling, Thief, Elf, etc.) In this way, thieves could feel a little more important, sometimes vital, without having to engage constantly in fighting toe-to-toe.

To an extent, I agree - but they have such low hit points, and (especially in B/X, with no DEX or race bonuses to skills) such low success chances even at quite reasonable levels - that I tended to find the promise a bit greater than the delivery.

Mummies and other magical foes are- surprise- usually best dealt with by magic. In D&D and in the genre fiction that inspired it, fighting such foes is usually done either with magic or knowing/figuring out their precise weakness, breaking a curse, or reversing a series of actions.

That depends on which fiction you're reading, doesn't it? Conan kills Thugra-Khotan with an ordinary weapon.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not completely sold on the idea that 4E avoids de-protagonism. I think it's because I believe that you need to face desperate thematic choices in order to really be a compelling protagonist. If choice X is as good as choice Y, is it really a choice? I guess so, if the difference is a big moral choice... but I think the choice has a lot more weight if you're forced to think, "Well, I could do X, but I'm probably not going to get what I want; I could do Y, and most likely get what I want, but Y is horrible; so is what I want worth doing something horrible for?" I don't think 4E forces you to ask those questions.

I agree with your last sentence. At least as written, with the default story elements and tropes, the sort of narrativism that 4e supports is very light - I see it as gonzo romantic fantasy.

That said, I'm also discovering - as the PCs approach epic tier - that the intraparty conflicts are becoming greater. When everyone is at low Heroic, differences don't matter on a grand scale. But once one PC is becoming an epic scion of law, and another an epic scion of chaos, how are they going to work together? Unfortunately, 4e doesn't have easy tools to handle this either. It relies very heavily on party play.

 

[Sunseeker]

Unfortunately, 4e doesn't have easy tools to handle this either. It relies very heavily on party play.

Isn't that a good thing? It's the opposite of the alignment issue that damaged the ability to RP in earlier editions. When the paladin loses everything because he makes a sarcastic sexual joke, it is difficult for him to be a real character. When the paladin gains nothing when he never ever ever steps out of line it presents the opposite problem, he's got too much space to be a character. It's the 101 ice-cream choices problem. Okay, maybe it's not a good thing.

But still, it's an RP issue, and I don't think there's a level of rules that can tell a player how to deal with inter-arty conflict.

 

[pemerton]

I see your characterization of these powers as putting the cart before the horse. The reason a paladin is valiant is because that's the life path the character chose to follow. The powers he picks for his fighting style match his forthrightedness and valor.

But what fighting style makes you more likely to hurt your target the more surrounded you are? I find this very hard to envisage - maybe I just don't know enough about fighting styles!

On the objection to using a tanglefoot bag (or other stuff that isn't explicitly rogue): It doesn't have to be roguey to be worthwhile to do. Just like I don't see anything wrong with a wizard low on spells using a crossbow, I don't see the problem with the fact that everyone can do it somehow cheapens it for any particular class or archetype. Sometimes, I think people are looking for way too much niche protection.

It's not about niche protection, at least for me. [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s post upthread on protagonism is closer to the mark - it's about ensuring that my PC, in play, roughly matches my PC as conceived of by me.

On UMD - I think it's an interesting balancing factor between wizards (and other primary spellcasters) and rogues/bards, particularly useful for parties short on a character type. From a design perspective, one of the reasons wizards have utility spells that hedge into rogue territory (there's that spectre of niche protection again) is so that they can double for those features, or team up with a cleric loaded with find traps, when the party doesn't have a rogue. Well, UMD allows the rogues and bards an easier time in returning the favor. I've run 3e/PF games in which that skill has been quite useful in giving non-magic heavy characters magic. Is it any worse than allowing non-caster PCs to pick up ritual casting in 4e?

For me, the difference from ritual casting would be that rituals, in 4e, occupy the same resolution space as skills, the Linguist feat and (some) utility powers. Because 4e PCs are pretty flexible as far as the non-combat resolution space is concerned, it's very much a matter of player choice exactly how they want to build their PC to fit into that space. And access to rituals is one way, but only one. It's not a way of plugging what would otherwise be a gap in non-combat action resolution capability.

Whereas in these discussions about rogues and sneak attack, I see Use Magic Device being put forward as a solution to a gap, and one that (for me at least) sits uncomfortably with the archetype. For instance, it puzzles me that it's a rogue ability but not a wizard or sorcerer ability.

 

[pemerton]

Isn't that a good thing?

<snip>

I don't think there's a level of rules that can tell a player how to deal with inter-arty conflict.

The way 4e's action resolution mechanics - especially but not only incombat - leverage the traditional party dynamic of D&D is, in my view, a huge strength.

But I don't think it's a strength of the game that it seems fairly easy to permit intraparty conflicts to open up, but can't easily accomodate them within its basic framework of play. (This is more true of combat than non-combat, I should add. DMG2 has a nice example of how to structure a certain type of skill challenge to accomodate at least a low level of intraparty conflict.)

And there definitely are rules systems that can handle intra-party conflict better. I know Sorcerer by reputation rather than first-hand, but I believe it can handle it well. And Burning Wheel has the Duel of Wits mechanic for handling some intra-party conflict.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That depends on which fiction you're reading, doesn't it? Conan kills Thugra-Khotan with an ordinary weapon.

As I recall, he's essentially a sorcerer, and like most sorcerers, he has no special immunities to being stabbed.

 

[Sunseeker]

The way 4e's action resolution mechanics - especially but not only incombat - leverage the traditional party dynamic of D&D is, in my view, a huge strength.

But I don't think it's a strength of the game that it seems fairly easy to permit intraparty conflicts to open up, but can't easily accomodate them within its basic framework of play. (This is more true of combat than non-combat, I should add. DMG2 has a nice example of how to structure a certain type of skill challenge to accomodate at least a low level of intraparty conflict.)

And there definitely are rules systems that can handle intra-party conflict better. I know Sorcerer by reputation rather than first-hand, but I believe it can handle it well. And Burning Wheel has the Duel of Wits mechanic for handling some intra-party conflict.

If we look at 4e from the often accused perspective of it being a "supers game", inter-party conflict is quite common, especially out of combat. In combat Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, they all work like a finely tuned machine. Out of party Batman is practicing ways to kill everyone, Wonder Woman is an international ambassador for the Man Haters Island, Superman is an alien who spends half his time lying to the world. Lets not even get started on the Green Space Cop with a penchant for breaking the inter-galactic rules or the dozen or so murderous mercenaries who suddenly decided to be heroes and think that somehow magically exempts them from the law.

In combat, these often contrary views, desires and attitudes of the heroes are ignored because there is a focus on a larger goal, ya know, like Darksied is attacking or some sort of alien-space virus is turning normal joes into murderous zombies.

Out of combat these little issues become magnified because the heroes have nothing else to focus on. Why is Batman thinking up ways to kill everyone? Why is Wonder Woman so supportive of such an anti-men organization? Who does the Green Lantern really hold allegiance to, if the Corps told him Earth was a threat would he attack it or defend it? Should Arsenal be taken to court for all the horribly illegal things he does? Hell the League has gone to blows with each other over these things when they suddenly come out of the closet.

I don't really know if we need mechanics for that sort of stuff because honestly I think it can all be handled with good RP and thorough character development. We should endeavor to make sure our players aren't afraid of inter-party confrontation, it's good, it's healthy, even if, like the comic book heroes, there's really never any resolution.

 

[pemerton]

As I recall, he's essentially a sorcerer, and like most sorcerers, he has no special immunities to being stabbed.

I would say that in D&D terms he's a lich or a mummy. He has lain in his sepulchre for thousands of years until awoken by a tomb robber.

I haven't got my books ready to hand, but the Conan wiki tells me that

As Natohk the Veiled One, he is described as “inhumanly tall and lean, clad in shimmering green silk”, with a voice like “the hiss of a giant serpent” and a “skull-like countenance”.​

How literally are we meant to take the "skull-like countenance"? He's obviously not a skeleton, but between voice and appearance I don't think he's a regular person either!

 

[pemerton]

If we look at 4e from the often accused perspective of it being a "supers game", inter-party conflict is quite common, especially out of combat.

<snip>

In combat, these often contrary views, desires and attitudes of the heroes are ignored because there is a focus on a larger goal, ya know, like Darksied is attacking or some sort of alien-space virus is turning normal joes into murderous zombies.

Sure, but what if there is no single "big bad". If one of the PCs is a servant of law and the other of chaos (and my game is heading somewhat in that direction) what common foe do they necessarily have?

I don't really know if we need mechanics for that sort of stuff because honestly I think it can all be handled with good RP and thorough character development.

I'm talking mostly about action resolution mechanics that can handle differences in effort by the PCs, aimed at different goals. The "War by Other Means" skill challenge template in DMG 2 (p 96) is a good, if limited, example of what I have in mind. But there is no equivalent model for combat, for instance. The combat mechanics just tend to suck if all the PCs aren't fighting together on the same side.