I’m Thinking of Giving 4e Another Shot

[Pbartender]

Fair enough, Ariosto... I wasn't entirely certain of what you were getting at.

Allow me then, to at least clarify that original sentence, because I think order of words in it may have uneccessarily confused the issue...

"It also has the added benefit of using descriptions in combat to encourage role play." Would perhaps have been a better way to put it, in the sense that any creative description helps make the players more comfortable with role playing in general.

The descriptions, while not technically roleplaying, can still help to portray the personality of the character through the description of that character's actions. Is the character brave, stoic, reckless, dashing or cowardly? Those sorts of characteristics can be displayed through these post hoc "narrativist" descriptions combat actions, and pave the way for more traditional role playing later.

Perhaps what I'm saying is that you may want to reconsider your complete rejection of narrativism, SL... You don't have to use it all the time -- I don't, certainly -- but it does have its uses.

 

[Pbartender]

Just as ignorance of the starting point isn't helpful, it's also not helpful to assume everyone went from the Old RPG.

To be fair, I did come from the Old RPG, but I still didn't understand where he was going with "the old concept of an RPG"... My Red Book says:

"In the D&D rules, individuals play the role of character in a fantasy world where magic is real and heroes venture out on dangerous quests in search of fame and fortune. Characters gain experience by overcoming perils and recovering treasures. As characters gain experience, they grow in power and ability."

And that's about as far as the book goes about any concept of an RPG.

 

[Ariosto]

Pbartender, I think you hit that particular mark (if I understand it correctly) dead on. Making description of actions the actual method of play is in the 4E context probably a dead letter. I would call the approach you describe so well a hedge against the discouragement of characterization that could easily result from a game system that does not require it. Even accountants may sometimes succumb to the "rule of cool" -- at least in D&D!

 

[malraux]

I'll tell you something about wishlists.

I'm a DM and I use them. Why?

I hate doing treasure. I hate trying to divine "What will my players use? What will they like?" Because I've had them find treasure and the items get a whole lot of "Meh" in response.

And I loathe selling/buying magical items. So "WIsh lists" is just a whole lot more reasonable, for me, than "Yeah let's take these items the DM thought we could use, and take them to Magic Pawnshop #82 so I can get what I want anyways."

And before I get "Quest for it!" The system assumes that each PC has 3 items: Neck, armor, weapon. I have 5-6 PCs. If every PC is questing for 2-3 items... that means that all they are doing is questing for their equipment, because they want that equipment. Not to mention in my experience, getting players to decide on a goal themselves and pursue it is like getting a cat to take a pill.

Beyond which, questing for a magic item will likely result in my character leveling up, thus requiring ... better magic items. If magic items appearing every so often is so troubling, just add in a "grit" bonus to attack, damage, AC, Defenses (doesn't stack with item enhancement bonuses) that goes up +1 every five levels. Then the fewer magic items found will not hurt the players.

Really, there is a role for weird magic items with unknown powers. Its called artifacts, and 4e lets you safely (or more reasonably safely than before) hand them out to PCs even at early levels. The wealth system is better understood as an XP system for your equipment.

 

[Samuel Leming]

I think one of the core thnigs in 4E is that monsters usually don't need any magical items. Even humanoid NPCs don't need to have magical weapons to achieve their attack bonuses and values.

That's beside the point. If the critter can benefit from the magic & is intelligent enough to use it why wouldn't he use it?

You can equip some monsters or NPCs with items from the treasure list. (There are also rules how this would affect their abilities in the DMG).

Yeah. I prefer the method where you raise the monster's level to account for increased capabilities from the magic items. Seems fair to me.

 

[Ariosto]

And that's about as far as the book goes about any concept of an RPG.

That's in keeping with earlier (1970s) D&D rules sets. RuneQuest (1978) combined the psychological with the dramatic analogy found in some other games (Champions comes to mind) in

A role-playing game is a game of character development, simulating the process of personal development commonly called "life." The player acts a role in a fantasy environment, just as we might act a role as a character in a play. In fact, when played with paper and pencil on the game board of the player's imagination, it has been called "improvisational radio theatre." If played with metal and plastic figurines, it becomes improvisational puppet theatre.

None of which does much to prepare one for the dice rolls and number crunching that follow! Those (in RQ) were pretty tightly focused on exploring process, rather than skipping over it to arrive at outcome. Although the original D&D set provided an "alternative" combat system (that quickly became the standard) with a high default order of abstraction, it assumed familiarity with Chainmail. Offhand, I can't think of one elaboration in the supplements that was introduced with the object of making matters even more abstract. AD&D ended up with a simpler initiative system than that in Supplement III, and without the hit locations (or specific real-world diseases) of Supplement II.

 

[Samuel Leming]

For example, Jackie Chan obviously has the "Shield Bash" power, allowing him push an opponent back and then knock them prone. He almost never uses more than once per scene (ie encounter), but every time he does it, the ability uses a different method... Somtimes he just punches or kicks the guy, sometimes he shoves with a ladder or chair, sometimes the baddies slips in some conveniently placed liquid, or trips on a bucket.

The point being if you describe them a little bit differently each time, the reason a martial Daily is a Daily takes care of itself... Last time, I knocked him prone just by shoving hard. This time, it's because I pulled the rug out from under him. Next time, it's because I forced him to trip over a stool.

I couldn't find the Shield Bash power in the PHB, but I'd find it odd if you could use that power without actually wielding a shield. Honestly, what you describe sounds more like a job for the stunt rules.

 

[Samuel Leming]

I have a question about Magic Items for the OP.

Is it the magic items in the PHB and AV you don't like, or just the distrubution guidelines?

I'm not bothered by the magic items in general and I don't have access to AV. I don't like that the magic items are IN the PHB rather then the DMG, but that's just a quibble that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I have the feeling maybe the methodic way it is presented is limiting your imagination as to the ways PC's can aquire treasure.

There’s nothing limiting my imagination. There are things hindering my play style. My goal here is to remove those hindrances or to build ways around them.

 

[Samuel Leming]

One of the biggest problems I've had with 4E is that, while there are some good tools, like stunts, for allowing players to think outside the box, my players seem to have gotten into a persistent bad habit of not looking past the rules or the powers on their sheet. There seems to be an underlying mentality of "if the rules don't say I can do it, then I can't". So despite the availability and opportunity to use stunts, for example, it simply never occurs to them to try it, because their character sheet doesn't say, "Skill Stunt: At-will, etc, etc..." My players never seem to look past their powers and feats.

I don't think it's a new development. I know I've seen similar behavior previously in 3rd Edition.

I’ve not seen this kind of behavior previous to 3.0. At least not in D&D. I’d seen it a bit in Vampire games, I suppose.

 

[Samuel Leming]

So are Sneak attacks and Hunter's Quarry also ki-magic too?

I don’t see anything preventing these abilities from being IC choices. The problem with the martial power set is that they’re explicitly player tactical choices and I want them to be in character role playing choices.

I suppose they can be linked to ki if that improves consistency, but I don’t think its needed.

And critical hits?

This is not a choice at all. It’s just luck.

Because those are gamist notions where extra damage comes in.

To me hit points are more abstract then gamist.