Forked: GTS - A need for "A robust system that handles things outside of combat"?

[Kid Charlemagne]

How so, if you don't mind me asking.

PS has played a lot more 4E than I have, but I'll take a stab at it - if I wanted to house rule a class or create a new one in pre-4E I could do it in a page of text. Now I also need to invent or appropriate 30 levels worth of powers (how many pages does each class take up in the PHB?).

The 4E system is very flexible - except for the powers part. I really like almost all of it - except for the powers part.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Going back to the Wizard (because this kind of the discussion is almost inevitably really about the spell-jockey being able to warp reality to his whim) you've got a guy who is suddenly explicitly permitted to vaporize small armies, but has no such explicit permission to, say, transform that uppity bartender into a toad for his insolence. This leaves the door open for a DM to pull out the old "you can't do that," hatchet and put the kabosh on the whole thing ... even though any NPC villain the DM has thrown at the characters of comparable power level can obviously place princesses into enchanted slumbers and turn princes into frogs.

- Marty Lund

Following my advice above, the Spellcaster* could use any power they possess that dominates its target and forgo the damage to make the uppity bartender do whatever he wishes until the spell ends. (The power of the spell and when it is available has changed, but that is another discussion. I also question Charm Person having that power - but that is yet another tangent.)

The enchanted slumbers and prince-frogs are the odd focuses of deranged minds that were set out for revenge. The NPC accomplishes this through a very specific ritual. The DM could allow the players to pursue the same types of rituals. And if that's what your group finds enjoyable, I'd say run with it. But in my games the heroic focus means that the players focus their efforts on more immediate glories. I don't know how I would approach a player's desire to pursue the research of a Deep Slumber or Frog-Prince ritual because my players as a group aren't interested in being malicious villains. Or at least they don't want to put that much effort into punishing people when they have much more direct means of doing so.

There has always been the danger in any RPG of having a GM that is not open enough to allow for player creativity and put the kabosh on legitimate ideas. I know that in some cases I didn't live up to the "say yes" attitude and in retrospect I regret those times. I much prefer now to allow a player to tell me what they are trying to accomplish (at any stage of the game, even character creation) and find a way to make it fit into the rules of the system we have chosen to play.



*I say spellcaster because the 4E Wizard is not the same as the all-encompassing spell-jockey of old.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I know what your point here is (as a DM, I've been in that situation a few times), but this "problem" still persists in 4E -- from a purely mechanical PoV, the players could call for a skill challenge to make the king hand them his kingdom. The end result is pretty much the same, except it may actually be easier to achieve in 4E if the players have invested in a wide variety of skills.

The players can't call for a skill challenge. The DM can call for a skill challenge to complete a complex task. The players state that they want to talk the king into into handing over his kingdom. The DM can respond by:

1) Saying No. This is still allowed when players try to do the impossible despite the "Say Yes" attitude.
2) Say Yes if he thinks they have earned that right through their actions.
3) Roleplay the situation and take action appropriately.
4) Call for a single skill check. Set the DC as the DM wishes.
5) Make it a Skill Challenge. Set the DCs as the DM wishes.

It doesn't matter how much you've pumped into your Diplomacy (or whatever skills). The DM still determines what the target difficulty is. I do not consider setting the DCs as any number between 0 and infinity DM fiat, because ONLY the DM knows how difficult it would be to talk this particular ruler into handing over hs kingdom. There is no set DC in the books for "hand over your kingdom."

Spells like Charm Person (arguably) or Dominate Person (much more likely in this scenario) circumvent that DM choice if they succeed. DM fiat would be necessary to block the Dominate Person from functioning. Of course this is an extreme example and there are too many factors and outs to consider in a single thread much less a single post.

 

[mlund]

There has always been the danger in any RPG of having a GM that is not open enough to allow for player creativity and put the kabosh on legitimate ideas.

Yeah. Due to that danger, and frequent negative experienced with the kabosh I think some players are desperate for "robust non-combat systems" so when they want to do something creative and the GM tries to put the kabosh on they can pull out a rule book and say, "But the rules say I can. I thought we agreed to play by the rules."

Depending on the circumstance the explicitly written rules can be the only shield for a creative player at a table with a iron-fist GM or range all the way to a lever of exploits that a rules lawyer uses to get a leg up on a sorely-pressed GM. In the end, though, no amount of explicit rules can truly compensate for a poor Game Master.

*I say spellcaster because the 4E Wizard is not the same as the all-encompassing spell-jockey of old.

Very true. Though the 3rd Ed Wizard -> 4th Ed Wizard disconnect provides a lot of fuel to these specific fires on this board, "the Wizard" in this context is really a Character Archetype rather than a specific class in a specific edition of a specific RPG.

- Marty Lund

 

[Mallus]

...if I wanted to house rule a class or create a new one in pre-4E I could do it in a page of text. Now I also need to invent or appropriate 30 levels worth of powers (how many pages does each class take up in the PHB?).

Heh... I wasn't thinking of 4e's flexibility in terms of doing a full class write-up. That does seem daunting. But even so, I think you could fairly easily create interesting custom classes through power-swaps. Pick a base class, switch some base abilities and same-level powers from other classes, add some fluff. Much less work than a 30 level write-up.

Reading the PHBII last night I realized I could almost recreate some of my favorite custom classes/PrC's from my old 3.5e setting by doing this.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I see this come up quite a bit and, to be frank, I don't get it. How would creating a more "robust system that handles things outside of combat" make 4E less of a "tactical combat centric" game? I don't mean to pick on Imaro, but his view seems to advocate 4E being more tactical in all aspects of the game, not just combat; the problem being that to apply a tactical approach ("a robust system") to non-combat situations just makes D&D even more based upon rolling dice and less on roling characters.

You're making the assumption that mechanics are incompatible with roleplaying -- that somehow roleplaying happens in spite of the mechanics or completely separate from them. While this may be true of certain mechanics (and an argument could certainly be made that this is true of 4th edition's dissociated mechanics), it's not universally true.

In fact, properly designed mechanics -- like a properly designed improv structure -- encourage creativity and enable roleplaying.

 

[Ariosto]

Why could only Thieves/Rogues find traps in previous editions?

That was not the case prior to 3E. Do you seriously think players never searched for traps before the introduction of Thieves in Supplement I?

The imposition by players of house rules to "protect the niche" of the Thief is a cautionary tale from which I fear some designers have taken the wrong lesson. The proliferation of protected niches adds complexity and rigidity. At the end of the day, it is still up to the DM to set reasonable probabilities -- unless he or she has been so weighed down with rules as to be reduced to a mere computer running a program, no longer truly "master" of the game but rather its slave.

 

[Aus_Snow]

In fact, properly designed mechanics -- like a properly designed improv structure -- encourage creativity and enable roleplaying.

Quoted, because it bears repeating.

These kinds of mechanics, done well - and used well - can help to focus, direct, invigorate and refine roleplaying. As long as they are not too heavy-handed, of course.

 

[Cadfan]

Its true that creating an entire class is a lot harder in 4e. Tweaking a single class tends to be pretty easy, though.

And its worth remembering- when you're creating a class that is only intended for use at your own game table, you don't actually need three to five powers per level. You just need the one power that the one guy actually playing the class actually wants.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yeah. Due to that danger, and frequent negative experienced with the kabosh I think some players are desperate for "robust non-combat systems" so when they want to do something creative and the GM tries to put the kabosh on they can pull out a rule book and say, "But the rules say I can. I thought we agreed to play by the rules."

Depending on the circumstance the explicitly written rules can be the only shield for a creative player at a table with a iron-fist GM or range all the way to a lever of exploits that a rules lawyer uses to get a leg up on a sorely-pressed GM. In the end, though, no amount of explicit rules can truly compensate for a poor Game Master.

Agreed. That's why I think it's best to educate DMs on how to be good instead of trying to write rules that cover the infinite imaginations or players.

In fact, properly designed mechanics -- like a properly designed improv structure -- encourage creativity and enable roleplaying.

Has anyone out there tried using D&D (any edition) for combat resolution while using a game like Prime Time Adventures or Hero's Banner for out-of-combat resolution? I read about a group that used PTA for a D&D-esque game, but that was solely using PTA. Has anyone tried to combine two such rulesets to see if they work together?

That was not the case prior to 3E. Do you seriously think players never searched for traps before the introduction of Thieves in Supplement I?

That was the case in Basic D&D, 1E, 2E and 3E. So I don't get what you mean by pre-3E. No other class had the Find Traps class ability (with some exceptions like rogue spin-offs and dwarves). Someone would have to educate me in pre-Supplement I gaming about how characters handled traps or if they even existed in-game during that era of the game.