Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[ruleslawyer]

Nope. I make the world for the sake of its own existence. That the players play in it is happy coincidence.

I must say that I find this philosophy bizarre. I create a gaming setting for my gaming group. This isn't my novel in which my players may insert bits of their own characters' stories.

Maybe this isn't quite what you meant, but the point is that if what you're talking about is merely the "sandbox" approach, I don't see how 4e is problematic at handling it. There are NPCs, monsters, and all sorts of other people wandering around the setting just as there are in OD&D/1e/2e/3e/whatever. If what you're talking about is "monster/NPC stat blocks need to be organized just so in order to build the world I want to make," then I'd say that a) you're SOL in any edition of pretty much any game and b) you're giving yourself a bunch of makework that doesn't serve a purpose AND may actually hinder enjoyable gameplay. But suit yourself.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I think you're ascribing obtuseness to the wrong side of this conversation here. Or are we deviating into a discussion of Hamlet?

I didn't read much Shakespeare, and I really don't care to. Just not my style.

Here's the thing. A lot of the stuff about which you're expressing concern may well be handled by the final version ruleset. Crafting rules, social interaction, wealth management, economics, et cetera. What IMO does not need to be "handled" in order to create a compelling gameworld is stuff like "Do NPCs need a method for determining healing surges by level along a similar line to PCs"? Equating NPC build rules = PC build rules with suspension of disbelief or compelling world-building is, as Mouseferatu stated earlier, a canard.

You're right - all those things might be in the final rules document. I'm willing to bet that they're not, because that doesn't seem to jibe with the general feel of the 4e philosophy.

I don't like the idea of the PCs being heroes right out of the gate. You want to be a hero? Prove that you are. Earn it. Heroes are made, not born.

Building NPCs with the same building blocks as PCs is part of the idea that everyone follows the same rules. Cite OotS all you want, but that is an absurdist (albeit rather humorous) view on 3.5 mechanics. Characters in the world don't know that they have stats, but they are aware of facts of the world that correlate to mechanics. If you don't have NPCs follow the same rules as PCs, you enter into an inconsistent setting, and that irks me.

 

[Hussar]

One of the best things in a well run campaign is coming back from A Trip Over Yonder and finding the world has *changed*. That bar wench now has a baby, and it looks a lot like you. Your grampa died of something no cleric can fix. The slimy advisor to the mayor...is now the mayor. Your pesky kid brother has got his first PC level and he's rarin' to go kill some kobolds.

Likewise, if you stop the orcs from invading the lands to the south, that means the overlord of the north can rampage unopposed -- and vice versa. There's forces in motion all around the world, and while you're powerful and skilled and all that, the world is going to keep turning whether you're watching it or not -- and then you have to deal with the consequences of your decisions.

To my mind, the quantum world where only what the PCs are watching exists is a boring one, one I can neither play in nor run. I expect my DMs to run a living world, where my actions *matter to the world*, but do not *define the world*; I try to give my players a place where saving the world matters because the world feels worth saving.

In my long running D20M Shadow Chasers game, part of the story of the PCs was their discovering how vast and expansive the 'hidden world' was. The discovery of organization, cults, agencies, and informal networks, of the fact they were one band of heroes among many -- not the first, not the last -- made the world believable, and their rise in NPC estimation from "Oh, great, another bunch of wannabe scoobys" to "OK, it's getting heavy. Call THEM." was the main arc of the campaign. They didn't matter to the world because they were the PCs; they mattered to the world because of the things they did.

Let me ask you something Lizard, and Gnomeworks, I believe this applies to you too.

Do you ever use the mechanics to determine the outcome of encounters in which no PC is involved? For example, in the slimy guy becoming mayor, did you use the Diplomacy skill to determine how the election was resolved? In fact, if you did, what mechanics would you use to resolve that situation?

For that matter, what D&D mechanics did you use to determine that the bar wench became pregnant and successfully had a baby?

Because, as far as I can tell, you didn't use any mechanics, so edition means bupkis to your argument.

 

[HeinorNY]

I make the world for the sake of its own existence.

That's an interesting hobby. How do you call it?

 

[hbarsquared]

Nope. I make the world for the sake of its own existence. That the players play in it is happy coincidence.

Ah I see, and it all has become clear.

GnomeWorks: you are not playing D&D.

You are a world-builder, and want WotC to create a set of mechanics and guidelines to allow you to build a world to your liking. This is your purpose, this is your goal, and the reason why you are unsatisfied with the direction of 4E.

In the game of D&D a world is built for the players, in either or both the general and specific sense. Otherwise there is no game (which requires an interaction between two or more entities).

You want to build a world because you want a release for your creative energies. And you want WotC to help you do that. Since WotC is not helping you, you are dissatisfied.

 

[VannATLC]

The only possible accurate simulation is the system itself.

IE - You can only carry versimililtude so far. You can only run certain parts of a world. You lack, as do all things, the complexity to accurately simulate anything more complex than yourself.

Versimilitude has always struck me as a strange concept. It is, I generally think, independant of the rules of the game.

The rules of the game do not present or represent the physics or engine of the game world. They present methods of manipulating that world.

As somebody posted above, the most complete simulationist world you can create is one with the smallest toolset for manipulation. Versimilitude is solely within your hands, as DM/Worldcrafter.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I do like a lot of the 4e mechanics.

But there are a lot of other things that both 3.5 and 4e are missing that I feel need to be in a system. I want a sensical economy, I want a detailed crafting system, I don't want level-based spells anymore (because they irk me)... the list goes on and on.

I like the base math, too. I don't like a lot of the other things they're doing to the game, or have failed to do in either edition. So this is where I'm hopping off the edition train.

Fair enough, the economics of my campaign have remained unchanged since 1E to make them realistic, I wouldn't bother doing the work now but when I was 13 or so I had the time to do a lot of research

 

[GnomeWorks]

I must say that I find this philosophy bizarre. I create a gaming setting for my gaming group. This isn't my novel in which my players may insert bits of their own characters' stories.

I never claimed that it was an average or common view, but it is my view.

Maybe this isn't quite what you meant, but the point is that if what you're talking about is merely the "sandbox" approach, I don't see how 4e is problematic at handling it. There are NPCs, monsters, and all sorts of other people wandering around the setting just as there are in OD&D/1e/2e/3e/whatever. If what you're talking about is "monster/NPC stat blocks need to be organized just so in order to build the world I want to make," then I'd say that a) you're SOL in any edition of pretty much any game and b) you're giving yourself a bunch of makework that doesn't serve a purpose AND may actually hinder enjoyable gameplay. But suit yourself.

The mechanics just need to be sensical. Sure, I don't need to know everything mechanical about every NPC ever, but I need to be able to generate that information, and it needs to make sense and produce results consistent with the world and its mechanics.

 

[hbarsquared]

Do you ever use the mechanics to determine the outcome of encounters in which no PC is involved? For example, in the slimy guy becoming mayor, did you use the Diplomacy skill to determine how the election was resolved? In fact, if you did, what mechanics would you use to resolve that situation?

Exactly. And even if you did (Lizard, et al), would you have allowed the mechanics to determine the outcome, regardless.

Oh, nuts. The slimy adviser rolled an 8. Looks like the plot thread I had in mind will never happen...

 

[GnomeWorks]

Do you ever use the mechanics to determine the outcome of encounters in which no PC is involved? For example, in the slimy guy becoming mayor, did you use the Diplomacy skill to determine how the election was resolved? In fact, if you did, what mechanics would you use to resolve that situation?

One time, I used Cry Havoc (or whatever the mass combat d20 ruleset was called) to determine the outcome of a war that the players had almost no hand in, and in which they were not directly involved in.

I spent three hours working on generating an outcome using that ruleset. Because they would've had to deal with it if they were there.

I disagree with your example, because I dislike the Diplomacy skill, but I believe the above example answers your question well enough.