I’m Thinking of Giving 4e Another Shot

[Samuel Leming]

I proposed the idea of an interim game of modified 4e at our game this weekend. The players unanimously shot it down. Once we finish my campaign everyone would rather play Call of Cthulhu until the new Pathfinder rules come out. Problem is though everyone wants to play it nobody wants to run CoC... Oh well.

Anyway, I still see value in the idea of modifying 4e to fit older D&D play styles. I’ll continue with the thread as I can.

 

[Ariosto]

I don't want to run or play in a narrativist version of D&D where a player can spend a 'plot point' to just arbitrarily add a door and treasure room to a dungeon.

For those who do, there's CRN Games: Donjon.

 

[Rechan]

These are role playing games taking place in completely imaginary worlds. Why would these worlds be limited to just the things listed in the rules books? Why would this thought even cross your mind?

I don't understand your point of view at all.

If the stuff in the rule books isn't relevant, then why have the books?

Simply put, the system has nothing to spend gold on except items. If you take out spending gold on items, you have to create a whole other system whole cloth for the use of gold.

Of course one isn't limited to only what's in the books. But that puts the responsibility on every DM to come up with "how much does a castle cost? How much does upkeep on a castle cost? How much does food beyond rations cost? How much does raising a family cost? How much does x y and z cost?" It requires one to make their own system for economics. And if creating a system of economics isn't exciting to you, then it's a pain in the ass.

If your criticism of 4e is that it lacks roleplaying abilities/skills, you would not be helped if I said "So what? The game is not limitd by what's in the rule books; come up wiht your own", that really doesn't address your criticism or help you in any way, does it? Because you know you could create your own rules; you don't buy books so you can create your own system, you buy books so it does the system making for you.

 

[jbear]

I proposed the idea of an interim game of modified 4e at our game this weekend. The players unanimously shot it down. Once we finish my campaign everyone would rather play Call of Cthulhu until the new Pathfinder rules come out. Problem is though everyone wants to play it nobody wants to run CoC... Oh well.

Anyway, I still see value in the idea of modifying 4e to fit older D&D play styles. I’ll continue with the thread as I can.

well... that's the end of that discussion then isn't it.

 

[Mallus]

There's no in character action here.

Consider 1e, where a whole raft in in-character combat actions; parries, thrusts, feints, trips, etc. get abstracted away during minute-long combat rounds. There's not a lot of character action stated during them, either.

When I played 1e it was usually, 'I roll to hit', after which the DM, if they were in feeling generous and expository, gave a little color commentary about what occurred during the round. Not so different from what 4e encourages you to do (except that 4e gives a player more control over what effects attacks produce).

I don't want to run or play in a narrativist version of D&D where a player can spend a 'plot point' to just arbitrarily add a door and treasure room to a dungeon.

My group does play 4e in narrativist mode, part of the time, at least, and we'd never do something like add a door or a treasure room to a dungeon. There's an enormous difference between that and simple, post-hoc narration of a mechanical combat effect.

may be OK with this one since there's obvious IC action here, but it sounds more like a Cha vs Will stunt instead of a shield bash.

If you prefer CHA vs. WILL, go for it. Works just as well.

 

[Piratecat]

I proposed the idea of an interim game of modified 4e at our game this weekend. The players unanimously shot it down. Once we finish my campaign everyone would rather play Call of Cthulhu until the new Pathfinder rules come out. Problem is though everyone wants to play it nobody wants to run CoC... Oh well.

It's all good; play what you love. No reason not to.

 

[Pbartender]

Depending upon the description of this 'Shield Bash' I may be OK with it. Why is it called Shield Bash if you don't need a shield and you don't bash anyone with it?

Right. Technically, the power does require a shield, but my point is...

In a larger sense "Shield Bash" (or "Passing Attack" or "Brute Strike" or "Cleave" or whatever...) is just a name. So long as the rules mechanics of the power don't change, what's wrong with changing the name of the power and its fluffy description to whatever I like?

And once you've gone that far, what's wrong with coming up with a different (and reasonable to the circumstances at hand) description of that same power every time I use it?

I don't want to run or play in a narrativist version of D&D where a player can spend a 'plot point' to just arbitrarily add a door and treasure room to a dungeon.

Oh, that's not what I'm suggesting, by any means. You've got to draw a line somewhere.

But, to a certain degree, that's how I've come to view Daily martial powers... A once per day "plot point" of a sorts that, no matter how you describe it, allows you take a certain (rules-based) action, because the plot and circumstances have conspired to let you.