Give me choices!

[Imaro]

As far as I can tell, the idea is that everyone can do SOMETHING during the game. They might not be the best at it, but they will have a way to contribute.

Previously there were long periods of time when one class would not be able to contribute to a situation causing the player to sit there and stare off into space while waiting for the time when they could do something. Often said player got bored and started talking to other people at the table and distracting everyone from the game at hand.

So, when a trap goes off, now all members of the party can help defeat it, in their own way. Rogues will be distinctive in that they are the only ones who can DISARM the trap. However, you won't have automatically lost because you didn't bring a rogue.

Everyone can defeat enemies but they all do so in their own ways. Being a wizard means being the guy who kills with spells rather than a sword, being a rogue means using sneaky tactics to kill, while being a fighter means using straightforward tactics. You play the class that has the abilities you want without "I will die if I ever get into combat" as one of the choices.

Everyone can get through social encounters...in their own way(or at least that's my theory).

Everyone can get through non-combat challenges in their own way as well.

It might not be the same amount of ease for all classes, but they do have a way. While a trap attacks everyone in the room every round, the rogue may disable their own square first with one disarm roll and stop all the damage to themselves. Meanwhile the fighter might take 2 or 3 rounds of pounding on the trap in their own square, while being attacked every round.

Emphasis mine...

Isn't this true of combat as well? Different opponents, circumstances, etc. allow different classes to use different tactics to get through it.

I also find the comment about "long periods of time" where characters can do nothing interesting. I've never really experienced a long span of time where a character has no options but to stand still. Could you give an example?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Sorry RC, but my 1e and 2e (and BECMI, for that matter) experiences were almost all about combat (95%) and largely indistinguishable from each other. The 'exploration' angle was just the way to find more combat. 3e was slightly less about combat (about 85% rather than 95%). Mind you, I don't expect that to change very much. D&D *is* tactical combat with a light coating of other systems and a DYI (if you care) RP experience.

This matches my experience as well. Except I think they numbers were reversed, I think.

Our DMs used to throw more puzzles up against us during 1e and 2e. Still, there were just as many dungeons that were basically an excuse to get us to fight a bunch of different creatures, with a plot to tie it together.

I think it's also because people started thinking that puzzles were kind of...well, lame after a while. We just got bored of them so we filled the void with more combat. But the game being 80+% combat has been the same in all editions of the game. Even amongst the 3 different groups I played with. Plus, I used to go to the local gaming store and talk to other people about their games and their experience seemed to match mine.

 

[howandwhy99]

Sorry RC, but my 1e and 2e (and BECMI, for that matter) experiences were almost all about combat (95%) and largely indistinguishable from each other. The 'exploration' angle was just the way to find more combat. 3e was slightly less about combat (about 85% rather than 95%). Mind you, I don't expect that to change very much. D&D *is* tactical combat with a light coating of other systems and a DYI (if you care) RP experience.

I disagree. Play that way all you want, but the rules don't have to limit all play to this style. Just because you played this way doesn't mean everyone should who plays D&D. D&D is an RPG, not DDM. Nor is it an MMORPG. It sounds like 4e is attempting to make rules that will work well under each one of these forms. That's inherently limiting when all I really need is an RPG.

As they say on Fear the Boot, "Think of a Venn diagram..."

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Isn't this true of combat as well? Different opponents, circumstances, etc. allow different classes to use different tactics to get through it.

Yes. But in 3e the variation is too great. A rogue might have to basically sit out an entire battle because he only has a shortsword against an undead creature with DR 10/bludgeoning or 10/silver or something. Meanwhile a creature with a really high AC can paralyze a fighter, only allowing the wizard to possibly defeat the enemy.

What I envision 4e is going for is that instead in one encounter the rogue's damage might go down from 30 to 20 and the creature is immune to his stunning while the fighters increases from 20 to 30 and can trip the creature more easily, but where no one's damage decreases to 1d6-10.

I also find the comment about "long periods of time" where characters can do nothing interesting. I've never really experienced a long span of time where a character has no options but to stand still. Could you give an example?

Although I admit that my players are extremely impatient and restless so the effect is more pronounced, it's times like:
-The PCs are walking down corridors filled with empty rooms on both sides. The rogue searches every 5 feet for traps, just in case and especially searches every door. In each room where there is anything valuable, the one person in the party whose job it is to keep track of the treasure writes it all down. The wizard makes spellcraft checks to identify every potion and scroll. Then he casts detect magic over the items and makes a spellcraft check to determine the school of every magic item.

-The PCs are in town trying to figure out who killed the mayor's daughter. The bard made some gather information checks, then some diplomacy checks. A farmer said he thought he saw the blacksmith sneaking around outside the building but the blacksmith is missing. The bartender saw it too though. So the PCs head to the tavern and ask him for informations, only he won't tell the party anything unless they entertain him and his patrons. The bard volunteers and starts making perform checks. Then after the performance he makes a diplomacy check to convince the bartender that it was good enough.

During these times some or nearly all of the group is sitting around waiting for someone else to move the game along. I've found that the average person in our group doesn't even have the patience to wait for 5 other players and the DM to take their turns in combat before it comes to them again. They certainly don't have the patience to wait for everyone else to finish a whole battle while their action is to delay or ready every round. Which they will do if they feel useless in that combat.

Not all of this can be corrected with rules alone, but some can. Things like being able to take 10 and 20 helped speed up the endless searching and disarming, but it could probably be made easier and quicker still. Involving all the players in more of the activities which used to involve only one of the players helps to get them all paying attention. Things like watching for things to happen so they can activate immediate action has begun to involve people in other's turns. It's a start and I think they can continue along this path in the future.

 

[Wolfspider]

Yes. But in 3e the variation is too great. A rogue might have to basically sit out an entire battle because he only has a shortsword against an undead creature with DR 10/bludgeoning or 10/silver or something.

No character should "sit out an entire battle" because of these circumstances. There is more to combat than hitting something with your sword. I'm sure a creative rogue could have come up with a lot more options than just sitting there even when faced with a seemingly invincable foe.

Although I admit that my players are extremely impatient and restless so the effect is more pronounced, it's times like:
EXAMPLES SNIPPED

Goodness. Yes, they do sound extremely impatient and restless. I would defninitely say that the problem with your group does not rest with the rules at all, but with these impatient members. Everyone deserves a chance to shine, after all, and everyone can't hog the spotlight at once.

Also, it's the players' fault if they're just "sitting around waiting for someone else to move the game along." During the bard's performance, for example, the other characters could be reacting to what's going on (also known as "roleplaying"), aiding with the performance, trying to influence the audience, watching the crowd for reactions and suspicious characters, flirting with barmaids, etc.

It sounds to me that there is way too much emphasis placed on dice rolls and mechanics.

 

[Voss]

I disagree. Play that way all you want, but the rules don't have to limit all play to this style. Just because you played this way doesn't mean everyone should who plays D&D. D&D is an RPG, not DDM. Nor is it an MMORPG. It sounds like 4e is attempting to make rules that will work well under each one of these forms. That's inherently limiting when all I really need is an RPG.

As they say on Fear the Boot, "Think of a Venn diagram..."

Like I said, the RP stuff is pretty much independent of the rules of the game. It isn't really a matter of how I want to play, necessarily either. More my experience of how the game works with dozens of different groups in different locations. The longest a single group lasted was two years (fun effect of growing up as a military brat).

This was true long before DDM (that is the mini thing they've been doing the last couple years, right?)- we didn't use any props for combat back in the day- the DMs handled the situation 'you're X feet away, party/monsters closing in and now you're in melee with the monsters' abstractly. Same with MMOs- those came later.

When you get down to it, if you just want an RPG, you don't need D&D at all. Fantasy Co-operative Story Time is just as valid, and you don't have to worry about those pesky combat rules that make up most of the D&D system, regardless of edition. And I'm actually being serious here. I've done that at times too, and it can be a lot of fun. But look, the internet involves lots of people, and you can easily get 'not typical' or 'my experience' discussions, which are fine. But the typical experience is what we're usually talking about. And the typical experience for D&D is combat.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I disagree. Play that way all you want, but the rules don't have to limit all play to this style. Just because you played this way doesn't mean everyone should who plays D&D. D&D is an RPG, not DDM. Nor is it an MMORPG. It sounds like 4e is attempting to make rules that will work well under each one of these forms. That's inherently limiting when all I really need is an RPG.

How is it limiting?

1e had essentially no rules for non-combat situations other than the reaction tables (wacky) and the secondary skills table (useless). Nonweapon proficiencies in late 1e and 2e really didn't measure up, being essentially tacked-on rules that were highly unlikely to come up in gameplay. So instead, 1e went for challenging the players rather than the characters when it came to non-combat encounters. In 3e, you can actually craft a *character* who can excel at diplomacy, answering difficult lore questions, and so on, which expands options for role-playing, since the player can run a *character* who can do these things rather than the DM and player hashing it out directly between themselves with no regard for the character's implied personality and abilities.

It seems to me that the elephant in the room is that challenging players rather than characters is game system neutral. I can use 1e's riddles, puzzles, whatever just fine in 3e (and I do!). The issue is that social interaction, wilderness survival, interactive trap scenarios, and so on are much harder to run in 1e because the DM has to make up the rules as he goes, meaning that the players have no real idea what outcomes are going to look like... which, if you are risk averse, means you'll avoid those sorts of scenarios in favor of combat, where you *know* what your character is capable of. Having rules for non-combat scenarios gives groups tools to *facilitate* such scenarios. It's not a limitation, it's an expansion of possibilities.

 

[Imaro]

Like I said, the RP stuff is pretty much independent of the rules of the game. It isn't really a matter of how I want to play, necessarily either. More my experience of how the game works with dozens of different groups in different locations. The longest a single group lasted was two years (fun effect of growing up as a military brat).

This was true long before DDM (that is the mini thing they've been doing the last couple years, right?)- we didn't use any props for combat back in the day- the DMs handled the situation 'you're X feet away, party/monsters closing in and now you're in melee with the monsters' abstractly. Same with MMOs- those came later.

When you get down to it, if you just want an RPG, you don't need D&D at all. Fantasy Co-operative Story Time is just as valid, and you don't have to worry about those pesky combat rules that make up most of the D&D system, regardless of edition. And I'm actually being serious here. I've done that at times too, and it can be a lot of fun. But look, the internet involves lots of people, and you can easily get 'not typical' or 'my experience' discussions, which are fine. But the typical experience is what we're usually talking about. And the typical experience for D&D is combat.

Totally disagree here. Combat certainly gets the lionshare of the rules, and maybe even gametime devoted to it...but if combat is the "typical" experience for D&D ( which is a gross generalization IMHO) we wouldn't have anything but combat feats, no diplomacy, bluff, gather information, knowledge skills, profession or craft skills, no spells that can't be used in combat, etc.

How you choose to play the game is exactly that...how you choose to play. The typical group IMHO, doesn't exist. D&D can have a focus but that isn't the totality of gameplay...at least I hope not otherwise I would see no reason to play D&D as opposed to Descent produced by Fantasy Flight Games.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No character should "sit out an entire battle" because of these circumstances. There is more to combat than hitting something with your sword. I'm sure a creative rogue could have come up with a lot more options than just sitting there even when faced with a seemingly invincable foe.

Like...what? And I mean from the options listed in the PHB. And I can tell you that the people in my group don't really feel fulfilled from Aiding Another, making a grapple check that has a 5% chance of succeeding, throwing alchemist fires for 1d6 damage, throwing tanglefoot bags that have a 5% chance of doing anything, or pretty much any maneuver where there is over an 80% chance of failure. It feels more like grasping at straws than contributing.

There's always the "resorting to coming up with new, off the walls ideas" that normally read more as "appealing to your DM for help". However, these ideas are HIGHLY dependent on your DM being nice. Plus, when my players try them more often then not they are actually a thinly veiled way of being able to get powers they didn't have for free, so I'm not very accepting of them:

Player: "Do I think I could cause a cave in by shooting an arrow at the roof over his head? I think probably about 10 or so rocks would fall on him from 10 feet up, that would do 10d6 damage, right?"
DM: "So, you want to be able to fireball just the location of your enemy by shooting an arrow? I don't think so."

Goodness. Yes, they do sound extremely impatient and restless. I would defninitely say that the problem with your group does not rest with the rules at all, but with these impatient members. Everyone deserves a chance to shine, after all, and everyone can't hog the spotlight at once.

Yes, and I could see all my players agreeing with that. As long as the spotlight doesn't take more than 5-10 minutes before moving to someone else. And they'd much rather the spotlight be cast for 30 seconds at a time, long enough to roll a dice or say a short sentence before the rest of them get to play again.

Also, it's the players' fault if they're just "sitting around waiting for someone else to move the game along." During the bard's performance, for example, the other characters could be reacting to what's going on (also known as "roleplaying"), aiding with the performance, trying to influence the audience, watching the crowd for reactions and suspicious characters, flirting with barmaids, etc.

Could be, but considering the Bard's performance lasted as long as it took for him to roll his perform check, and the DM to explain that he performed well and describe the reaction of the bartender and crowd there wasn't much time to actually do so.

They'll be more bitter that the Bard made the last 5 or 6 die rolls in a row and that they weren't needed to help with any of them. I'm exaggerating a bit, of course. The players can handle short periods of this. However, there was a large investigative mod where there was almost 3 hours of talking to NPCs, making Gather Information, Perform, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and other social checks. The Barbarian and Fighter in the group were so bad at these skills that they couldn't have made most of them on a natural 20. Also, the players who were playing those characters did so because they wanted to kill things and were bored.

It sounds to me that there is way too much emphasis placed on dice rolls and mechanics.

Well, the thing is the mechanics are when things get done. Everyone in my group realizes that they can talk until they are blue in the face, they can come up with great ideas or solve puzzles, or solve crimes all they want....but in the end it comes down to the person who makes the die roll to determine if you succeed or fail.

 

[howandwhy99]

When you get down to it, if you just want an RPG, you don't need D&D at all. Fantasy Co-operative Story Time is just as valid, and you don't have to worry about those pesky combat rules that make up most of the D&D system, regardless of edition. And I'm actually being serious here. I've done that at times too, and it can be a lot of fun. But look, the internet involves lots of people, and you can easily get 'not typical' or 'my experience' discussions, which are fine. But the typical experience is what we're usually talking about. And the typical experience for D&D is combat.

I'm not okay with sacrificing roleplaying at the altar of combat. Rules effect everything, not just combat. When you say this is the typical way everyone plays or has played, your personal experience, etc., I say, "Why limit the rest of us?".

"Fantasy Co-operative Story Time" is D&D from the beginning. Chainmail('71) were the skirmish-level fantasy wargame rules. They weren't in D&D('74). D&D is a supplement to it. D&D was for roleplaying, not wargaming (though it was an addition). Wargames can be found elsewhere. I'd rather D&D remained an RPG without designer decided combat limits.