I don't get what you'all are saying

[Mark Chance]

In 3E, to get a combat effective Rogue, you had to invest some feats - either Weapon Finesse, or Armor & Shield Profiency, or Point Blank Shot/Rapid Shot.

Hmm. There's another one of those "In 3E, you had to..." statements that I've never actually had to do. For example, I've run "combat effective" rogues before that had no combat-specific feats. I must totally rule!

 

[Storm Raven]

Hmm. There's another one of those "In 3E, you had to..." statements that I've never actually had to do. For example, I've run "combat effective" rogues before that had no combat-specific feats. I must totally rule!

I think this illustrates one of the things that the pro-3e people have been saying: in 3e, there were often multiple, albeit slightly different in mechanics and tone, paths to get to similar ends. In 4e, it seems like the design team wanted to make sure no one took the "unfun" options that were thus allowed, and pared down the range to a handful of options.

I just don't think I, or the other players in my game group need that kind of hand-holding. Especially when it forecloses a range of options that have proven to be fun and interesting.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmm. There's another one of those "In 3E, you had to..." statements that I've never actually had to do. For example, I've run "combat effective" rogues before that had no combat-specific feats. I must totally rule!

Let me say it this way:
We used 25 point buy for a very long time. And played the Shackled City Adventure Path (with a good DM willing to pull his punches if necessary) with 3-4 players. And it wasn't much better before. Trust me, we had to optimize every little bit of our characters, and couldn't afford to pass up onto something like Weapon Finesse for a Rapier-wielding Rogue or Point Blank Shot/Precise Shot for archery Rogue. And that was just 1-3rd level.

From reading the boards I know that not everyone has had our problems or experiences. But I had them, and I don't see them repeating that easily with 4E. That's perfect.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I think this illustrates one of the things that the pro-3e people have been saying: in 3e, there were often multiple, albeit slightly different in mechanics and tone, paths to get to similar ends. In 4e, it seems like the design team wanted to make sure no one took the "unfun" options that were thus allowed, and pared down the range to a handful of options.

I just don't think I, or the other players in my game group need that kind of hand-holding. Especially when it forecloses a range of options that have proven to be fun and interesting.

The logical response is, if you're getting to the same end then why complicate the game with multiple paths to get there? The 4E assumption is that game mechanics are completely invisible in the game world. If you want your character to be a great archer, then the game only needs to give you one way to be a great archer. If you want your character to be a fast-talking charmer, then the game should provide a direct path to being a fast-talking charmer, not make you try to figure out the best way to get there of multiple methods.

You keep talking about a "range of options", but do those options really look that different when viewed from an in-game perspective? Is a bard/monk really going to look any different in-game from a rogue with powers focused on movement, the appropriate skills, and the ability to cast a little magic?

It's true that you can't make a dedicated non-combat character by sacrificing all combat ability, but look at it the other way around. Players who do want their PC to be able to fight don't have to put up with being completely outshined by the non-combat character in all non-combat situations. 4E is predicated on the idea that everybody has something to contribute in all situations, whether combat or non-combat.

No longer do you get the half-orc barbarian with maxed out ranks in Climb and no other skills. Stat mod + half-level for all rolls and a minimum number of trained skills means that even a player who has concentrated his character on being a combat monster will be able to participate in the non-combat portions of the gaming session. How is that not good for roleplaying and problem-solving?

 

[Mark Chance]

4E is predicated on the idea that everybody has something to contribute in all situations, whether combat or non-combat.

Since it wasn't a problem for a character to do this is OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3E, or 3.5E, I'm not sure what the point of 4E's predicate is. For example:

No longer do you get the half-orc barbarian with maxed out ranks in Climb and no other skills. ...a player who has concentrated his character on being a combat monster will be able to participate in the non-combat portions of the gaming session. How is that not good for roleplaying and problem-solving?

Is it seriously your contention that someone playing the above-described half-orc cannot participate "in the non-combat portions of gaming session"? Is there some actual reason that a player whose character has only ranks in Jump is somehow not allowed to roleplay or problem-solve?

Once again, 4E is touted as fixing a problem that isn't really a problem. After all, I roleplayed problem-solving barbarians in 1E long before anyone had any ranks in any skills.

What you seem to be describing isn't a problem with a game system. It's a player problem. It's the player who looks at his character sheet, doesn't see a skill bonus for "roleplaying" or "problem-solving" and therefore assumes his character can't be used to do those things.

Changing game mechanics to cure player myopia might be a good idea, but it is hardly making the game mechanics "completely invisible in the game world."

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

4E implemented restrictions and that clashes with the liberal culture that most gamers are part of.

In 3E in particular you had a lot of freedom when making your character, and a lot of that freedom was negative freedom - i.e. the freedom to make a really bad character.

E.g. the Half Orc strength build Ranger 3 / Wizard 2 / Sorceror 1.

In order to do away with dud builds 4E implemented tighter controls, and I think that loss of freedom rankles some people a lot.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Is it seriously your contention that someone playing the above-described half-orc cannot participate "in the non-combat portions of gaming session"? Is there some actual reason that a player whose character has only ranks in Jump is somehow not allowed to roleplay or problem-solve?"

Bluntly said, yes, it is. Again, D&D and role-playing games in general are still games. If a longer scenario means I don't get to do "gamey" stuff (like rolling a skill check)*, then this means I am not satisfied with the experience of a role-playing game. I might have done role-playing, but I didn't feel like playing a role-playing game.

And in fact, I usually hate Puzzles (like word puzzles, riddles). They have nothing to do with my character, only with me.


*) or even worse - I could deliberately try to avoid rolling a skill check because I know that I'd fail that anyway. That's not even playing my role, because my role apparently tells me I can't do that.

 

[Mark Chance]

In response to, "Is it seriously your contention that someone playing the above-described half-orc cannot participate 'in the non-combat portions of gaming session'?", you respond:

Bluntly said, yes, it is.

Well, all I can say is that your contention is utterly alien to not only my RPG experience but the RPG experience of everyone I've ever RPGed with since the 1970s.

I'm curious: Let's say I'm running a half-orc barbarian with maxed out ranks in Climb. How am I prevented from role-playing? How I prevented from helping the other players solve a problem? If I run such a character and do something other than attack and climb, does that mean I'm not playing the game correctly?

BTW:

And in fact, I usually hate Puzzles (like word puzzles, riddles).

Who said anything about word puzzles and riddles?

4E implemented restrictions and that clashes with the liberal culture that most gamers are part of.

[BlueBeetle]BWAHAHAHA![/BlueBeetle]

Sorry, but that is just about the very silliest thing I've read in this entire thread.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

(shrug)

Care to explain your reasoning?

 

[Mark Chance]

(shrug)

Care to explain your reasoning?

One need not resort to anything as elaborate as reasoning to recognize an unsupportable generalization about the culture of "most gamers".