Implicit in the Presentation

[the Jester]

I was just thinking about to what degree 4e requires miniatures, and I don't think (with a good dm) you really need a map and minis. However, the way the rules are presented, it certainly implies you do. For example, movement and range are represented in squares, the game ignores the difference between diagonals and straight lines when it comes to movement, etc.

Likewise, implicit in the presentation of 1e was "easy come, easy go"- there are many monsters that destroy gear, lots of save or die effects (including almost any poisonous monster), etc. You didn't have to play easy come, easy go, but the rules implied that you were going to.

What other things are implied by the way the rules are presented in each edition of dnd?

 

[Wik]

2e: You're not going to use these rules very much... instead you'll be having the time of your life haggling with the merchant, purchasing land contracts, and doing everything you possibly can to avoid going into a dungeon or going on an adventure. Those who don't roleplay are doing it wrong.

4e: The encounter is everything. Anything outside an encounter should be glossed over... or turned into an encounter format. D&D should have a cinematic or comic-book style.

 

[Aramax]

2e: You're not going to use these rules very much... instead you'll be having the time of your life haggling with the merchant, purchasing land contracts, and doing everything you possibly can to avoid going into a dungeon or going on an adventure. Those who don't roleplay are doing it wrong.

4e: The encounter is everything. Anything outside an encounter should be glossed over... or turned into an encounter format. D&D should have a cinematic or comic-book style.

Wow,4E hate penitrates everything.You people make me glad I switched and am not part of the new is bad thinking.None the less,I am going to put this thread back on topic.

In my 32 years of playing,I hated the few games I played without mini's.
Princecon doesnt use them and using the blackboard of a class room was always inferior.This is even going back to the days when I only owned about 50 fantasy ones and had to use them for Traveller and for superhero games.
It just makes it easier to get into the spirit of roleplaying to actually see the Dragon you are encountering.
Do you need them?No but I don't want to play without them.

 

[Chrono22]

Wow,4E hate penitrates everything.You people make me glad I switched and am not part of the new is bad thinking.None the less,I am going to put this thread back on topic.

No, you aren't generalizing about a group or misrepresenting another person's opinion because he disagrees with you at all. I applaud you for your sense of fairness and understanding.



Ritual costs- it means that cool spells cost you a limited resource. So, if you want to do cool stuff, you have to do it in combat, or else you are going to be paying a hefty cost. This is a not-so-gentle implication that combat should be at the center of conflict resolution.

 

[Wik]

Wow,4E hate penitrates everything.You people make me glad I switched and am not part of the new is bad thinking.None the less,I am going to put this thread back on topic.

In my 32 years of playing,I hated the few games I played without mini's.
Princecon doesnt use them and using the blackboard of a class room was always inferior.This is even going back to the days when I only owned about 50 fantasy ones and had to use them for Traveller and for superhero games.
It just makes it easier to get into the spirit of roleplaying to actually see the Dragon you are encountering.
Do you need them?No but I don't want to play without them.

Wait, what? Dude, I run a 4th Ed game, and I have few problems with the system. But it is very encounter focused - very little in the game is presented outside of an "encounter" format. How is that hate? Seems to me to be a statement of fact - I think the designers would agree with me. It's sort of a stated goal.

Calm down, and next time, read what the context of the question is before you instantly assume someone is spewing out "hate". Also, being referred to as "you people" is awesome.

P.S. You weren't putting the thread back on topic... because the thread isn't about minis.

 

[Aramax]

No, you aren't generalizing about a group or misrepresenting another person's opinion because he disagrees with you at all. I applaud you for your sense of fairness and understanding.



Ritual costs- it means that cool spells cost you a limited resource. So, if you want to do cool stuff, you have to do it in combat, or else you are going to be paying a hefty cost. This is a not-so-gentle implication that combat should beresolution.[/quote

 

[Mort]

Ritual costs- it means that cool spells cost you a limited resource. So, if you want to do cool stuff, you have to do it in combat, or else you are going to be paying a hefty cost. This is a not-so-gentle implication that combat should be at the center of conflict resolution.

Actually the "not so gentle implication" is:

1) The magic and the mage are not necessarily the best solution to every problem; and

2) that there is a cost to doing cool stuff normally outside the realm of possibility and maybe just maybe you might want to try a non-magic solution first (like have the rogue pick the lock instead of having the mage waggle his fingers at it).

It is a clear shift from prior editions (particularly the easy magic solutions of 3x) but it is not a "pro-combat" shift it is a "magic needs to be toned or at least slowed down" shift and that big effects come with big costs either in the form of time, money or both (and sometimes even with risks - I wish more rituals were like the cure disease ritual and had potentially very bad problems if they failed).

Tying this to the thread topic - implicit in the presentation seems to be that each class plays a role in and out of combat and that each class have a chance to shine at both (at least that seems to be the theory.)

Another "implicit in the presentation" point seems to be that lone wolf behavior is discouraged.

 

[Aramax]

Wow ,my skimming lightly instead of reading fully combind to turn me into an a..but.
very sorry for jumping to a concusion that was ouit of line.I am very sorry.
(This was my knee-jerk reaction to thinking this was turning into a ed bash-which I am totaly sick of-not an excuse but an explanation)again sorry

 

[Mort]

Wait, what? Dude, I run a 4th Ed game, and I have few problems with the system. But it is very encounter focused - very little in the game is presented outside of an "encounter" format. How is that hate? Seems to me to be a statement of fact - I think the designers would agree with me. It's sort of a stated goal.

Calm down, and next time, read what the context of the question is before you instantly assume someone is spewing out "hate". Also, being referred to as "you people" is awesome.

P.S. You weren't putting the thread back on topic... because the thread isn't about minis.

I agree with this. It seems that a 4e goal is to treat every potential interaction - combat or otherwise, as an encounter. Ultimately this may be a very good thing, because quantifying a non-combat encounter is something many DMs have great difficulty with. Right now though, the stated method (skill challenges) still have some severe rough spots and in the hands of anyone other than a fairly good DM can seem very choppy and forced (in my observation anyway).

 

[Chrono22]

But the team (role) aspect of play is explicitly supported. It can't be implicit, it's explicit.

And I'd argue that no, big effects don't come with big costs. See encounter powers. There is no permanent cost or loss of power from using them- just a temporary opportunity cost until you regain them. Rituals have costs because they are noncombat solutions, not because they are magical solutions. Combat is the purpose of play, and the rules reflect and support this.
On a "wizard waggling his fingers"- any character in 4e can gain access to rituals, so that point is moot. It could be the barbarian waggling his fingers, or the rogue, or the fighter.