Are Rituals Vaporware?

[Vigilance]

Having poked this question at someone constrained by a NDA, I've managed to get confirmation that rituals are in the PH. Dunno how they work yet, but I suspect that your major concern may not be justified.

Wait, they've held something cool back, not told US about it, yet it exists?

They aren't just trying to scam us with all this ritual talk?

Who knew?

 

[marune]

My thoughts in better words...

Don't give up, maybe someday more people will understand these basic RPG notions

... and If you want an harder challenge, try the "Simulationist by habit" crowd on Candlekeep boards

 

[pemerton]

Don't give up, maybe someday more people will understand these basic RPG notions

Thanks.

I'll add: I've got nothing against those (eg Reynard, Celebrim, Lanefan) who prefer a playstyle that 4e probably will not support. But I find it frustating when comments are made about 4e which imply that it simply does not support any coherent approach to the game - as if the games that seem pretty clearly to have influenced it did not even exist, and had never been played.

 

[marune]

Thanks.

I'll add: I've got nothing against those (eg Reynard, Celebrim, Lanefan) who prefer a playstyle that 4e probably will not support. But I find it frustating when comments are made about 4e which imply that it simply does not support any coherent approach to the game - as if the games that seem pretty clearly to have influenced it did not even exist, and had never been played.

And I'll add : comments that imply/state that in opposition, past editions of D&D clearly supported these playstyles are also pretty irritating.

All editions of D&D are somewhat "schizophrenic" on the supported playstyle issue, it seems to me that 4E will be a lot more sane/focused.

[forgespeak]
pemerton, do you agree with me if I say that D&D 4E can maximize a high-Exploration Gamist agenda ? [/forgespeak]

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't.

<snip>

Not sure I get it. If 4E isn't really different from previous editions in these areas, what's the problem? If you liked these in 3E (or another edition), wouldn't you also like them in 4E?

 

[Lizard]

I don't understand why "non-combat skills" such as Craft, Profession and Perform are seen as enhancing roleplaying but combat skills are not. (I'll put Knowledge (Nobility) to one side, as it seems likely that 4e incorporates it either via the History skill or the Diplomacy skill).

Fundementally, by excluding them, it is a means of saying "This aspect of your character is unimportant; it does not need any system of resolution." It puts them in the same category as rules for, say, how long you can go without urinating.

3e was the first iteration of D&D to actually include non-combat or partial-combat skills (or, really, any coherent skill system). It made it possible to not only give PCs appropriate background or side skills, but to actually stat out NPCs in a way which made them mechanically distinct. You could actually build a barkeep or a blacksmith or a town guard and have their statistics and game abilities reflect, to a reasonable extent, their personalities.

"enhancing roleplaying" is perhaps the wrong term; one can just say "I roll diplomacy" and move on, after all. A better term would be "acknowledges the importance of non-combat activity". My D&D games are about 50% combat, at most; it would be a dull or pointless experience if the other 50% were entirely DM fiat and amateur theatre, with no mechanics to back things up or make a character reflect the player's desires as opposed to the player's abilities.

Likewise, to turn to rituals, spells and powers, I am no more "playing the role" of my character when I resolve a situation by forging spearheads out of a wall of iron than when I use a Wall of Iron power to advantage in a combat situation.

This is true. My concern is this:

Does the "Wall of Iron" ritual create an actual, iron, wall, one which "Exists" in the game world and can be melted down, used as a bridge, dropped on an orc, and so on, or does it create one (or one of a set) of specific game effects, with no utility outside of them? The former encourages roleplaying and interaction with the world in unexpected and interesting ways; the last is fluff text for a "prevent movement across X squares" combat power. I think the former is more interesting, even if there are possible balance (and computerization...) issues; others consider the simplicity and lack of need for DM judgment to make the latter a superior implementation.

In terms of rituals, I can see that they could be very cool, or they could just a smattering of the once-vast array of spells available to casters, slapped with a fairly inelegant mechanic so that player creativity cannot in any way interfere with DM railroading. (The "one use ritual scroll" -- the players will only have access to those rituals the DM wants them to have, and only when he wants them to have it.)

On the subject of combat/non-combat spells in 3x, well, I'm playing a primary caster for the first time in ages, and I find one of the most interesting parts of my "job" is the tactical challenge of picking spells to a)learn and b)prepare. There are far more spells I *want* than I can know, and I can cast far fewer spells than I know, and this kind of hard decision making is what makes the class fun and interesting. (That and the phrase "Sudden Maximized Firebrand") From what I've seen of 4e, the game is designed so as to make most decisions meaninglessly simple -- powers have very explicit synergies, you pick one "build" of two when you make you character, and grab the powers which fit that build. The choices I've seen are either self-evident ("Hmmm...this power gives me +3 if I have this other power, and that one doesn't...hmmm...."), or basically fluff ("Do I want to do 1d6 fire or 1d6 ice or 1d6 acid or...."). If it's not possible (without being stupid) to make a "wrong" choice, there's no real choice at all, and that's sad.

If rituals were limited in some way -- you could only know Int bonus, for example -- then I'd be a lot more excited by them, since they'd add in that missing element of choice. Without hard decisions -- decisions which will impact your character for most of his "life" -- the game loses a lot of fun.

As to your other points -- certainly, other games often have better rules for non-combat activity than D&D. 4e could have cranked up that portion of the game, based on all the things learned from 3e; instead, they decided that what happens outside the combat round basically doesn't matter.

There are a lot of good ideas in 4e; they're just floating in a framework I have trouble wrapping my mind around. I think it will be interesting to see how popular it is once the "shiny" has worn off. I plan to get Shadowfell and try to run it for my group, since I believe in giving things a fair shake; I've noticed that few people who have PLAYED 4e have negative opinions of it. It might play far better than it reads. OTOH, those eager enough to jump on the bandwagon now might have gaming styles quite different from mine.

 

[Lizard]

Not sure I get it. If 4E isn't really different from previous editions in these areas, what's the problem? If you liked these in 3E (or another edition), wouldn't you also like them in 4E?

I don't consider them a Revolutionary Enhancement Such As We Have Never Seen Before, and I get irked when people present it as such. (It all started with that article on AICN, where the "reviewer" basically gushed over "features" of 4e which are present in 3e and pretty much every RPG outside of weird Forge games, and the memes spread...Look, to all DMs out there...if you can't come up with a quick mechanic to handle something a player pulls out of his ass in <30 seconds, or even just smile, nod, tell the player to roll a D20 and then just decide what happens...hang up your screen. DM fiat is a crappy excuse for not putting in rules, but as a matter of actual play, you're going to have to be God every now and then. A well-written rules set reduces the number of times you have to do this, but no rules set can eliminate it. (A very well written rules set gives you lots of guidelines and data points so your decisions have some internal consistency.) Absolute worst case, you announce a quick bathroom break and figure it out on the trip there and back. Two minutes away from the table is all any competent DM should need to deal with anything his players pull.)

 

[marune]

This is true. My concern is this:

Does the "Wall of Iron" ritual create an actual, iron, wall, one which "Exists" in the game world and can be melted down, used as a bridge, dropped on an orc, and so on, or does it create one (or one of a set) of specific game effects, with no utility outside of them? The former encourages roleplaying and interaction with the world in unexpected and interesting ways; the last is fluff text for a "prevent movement across X squares" combat power. I think the former is more interesting, even if there are possible balance (and computerization...) issues; others consider the simplicity and lack of need for DM judgment to make the latter a superior implementation.

Coming up with a coherent (that doesn't imply balanced) game where "linear, in-game" mechanisms can tackle things such as a permanently conjured/created wall of iron is IMO simply impossible.

It could be done easily in non-vanilla Narrativist RPG, but that's probably not what you are looking for (and D&D never looked that way).

 

[marune]

I don't consider them a Revolutionary Enhancement Such As We Have Never Seen Before, and I get irked when people present it as such. (It all started with that article on AICN, where the "reviewer" basically gushed over "features" of 4e which are present in 3e and pretty much every RPG outside of weird Forge games, and the memes spread...Look, to all DMs out there...if you can't come up with a quick mechanic to handle something a player pulls out of his ass in <30 seconds, or even just smile, nod, tell the player to roll a D20 and then just decide what happens...hang up your screen. DM fiat is a crappy excuse for not putting in rules, but as a matter of actual play, you're going to have to be God every now and then. A well-written rules set reduces the number of times you have to do this, but no rules set can eliminate it. (A very well written rules set gives you lots of guidelines and data points so your decisions have some internal consistency.) Absolute worst case, you announce a quick bathroom break and figure it out on the trip there and back. Two minutes away from the table is all any competent DM should need to deal with anything his players pull.)

Indie RPG relying on DM fiat instead of rules ?

Look at Burning Wheel where the GM is a lot more constrained/guided by the rules than in all editions of D&D.

 

[Lizard]

Coming up with a coherent (that doesn't imply balanced) game where "linear, in-game" mechanisms that can tackle things such as a permanently conjured/created wall of iron is IMO simply impossible.

How so?

Rules for damage done to walls based on material and thickness are trivial.

Outside of that, if people REALLY want to get all technical, given the dimensions of the wall, it's easy to figure out the weight and volume, how much iron there is and how it can be used. Most games have rules for what happens when you drop something on someone. In the case of D&D, if a wizard materialized an iron wall on someone, I'd do the following:

Anyone in a 'border' square can make a Reflex save (DC 10+spell level+caster's astat mod) to leap out of the way. Anyone who fails or anyone "deeper" in the AOE takes 10d6 damage and, if they survive, are considered under the wall and suffocating unless the wall is removed.

Heh. I just checked the SRD, and here's the official rules:
Creatures with room to flee the falling wall may do so by making successful Reflex saves. Any Large or smaller creature that fails takes 10d6 points of damage.

So my improvised ruling was pretty close. In actual play, I'd check the SRD first.

As for any other use....it's X pounds of iron. It can be used any way iron can. Start making them blacksmith checks, boys!

I'm having trouble thinking of uses for an iron wall which can't be handled to typical game accuracy under the 3x rules. (By 'typical game acuracy', I mean 'as accurate as average game rules are' -- most rules are rough approximations and simplifications, from movement to encumbrance to combat.)