Implicit in the Presentation

[Raven Crowking]

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).

That's very cool, if true. I wasn't aware that magic solutions in combat came with big costs. So, a wizard in combat can choose a big effect by paying a cost and taking a risk? That sounds promising!


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

I have given out too much XP in the last 24 hours to do so again, but let me say that I have so seldom seen an admission of error on the InterWeb that it is my intention to do so as soon as I can.

I am deeply impressed by this post.


RC

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

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

A 1st level pc is a nobody 1e and 2e (see chump-to-god model thread), less so in 3e, and not familiar enough with 4e to know, but i understand it's even less so.

Western pseudo-medieval/mythological slant. Rules support pretty much any genre, but the core rules of every edition up through 3e (again not sure about 4e) assumes the default genre is "western" in flavor, as seen in class names, notions of spell casting, monster selection, etc.

 

[Wik]

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

Ha, it's all good. I'm sure most of us have been there. You should see me when someone tries to criticize Bladerunner or Dark Sun.

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).

I'm inclined to think otherwise, but it's probably just because of terminology. I like the exploration part of D&D quite a bit - to me, exploring hallways and interacting with weird elements outside of rules elements are a big part of the fun (probably one of the biggest parts, actually). And I don't really want to turn that haunted hallway into an "encounter" - it's more just some weird flavour that the PCs can observe and question, and then move along their way.

As for skill challenges... I never really understood them in the DMG presentation, and I ignore that incarnation. However, I use Stalker0's Obsidian Challenge System now, and find it works a lot better with how I prefer to run D&D.

That being said, I've never had a problem with running non-combat encounters, so that particular part of 4e wasn't built for me - it actively got in the way of my fun, so it was dropped. No biggie.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Combat is the purpose of play, and the rules reflect and support this.

How so? Or rather, how is this any more so than in other editions of D&D?

Because, well, what I get from my reading of 4e (I haven't played it, but we're talking impressions here: that which is 'implicit in the presentation', no less) is that the purpose of play hasn't changed, or if it has, no-one let the creators know this.

The 'purpose' of play appears (from memory) to be - other than that much-maligned word, 'fun' , and again, no change there - adventure, exploration, challenge, cooperation, creativity, excitement, action, interaction, tactics. . . all the usual suspects, anyway.

 

[Wik]

Moldvay BECMI and 1e have the rule that 1 GP = 1 XP, while also featuring relatively low-XP monsters that could be very dangerous... combining into the fact that exploring the dungeon and bypassing combat were prime goals in play.

I really think that the rules do less and less to encourage exploration as the game progresses - of course, that doesn't mean it isn't a factor in later editions... just that exploration is less supported by mechanics. IMO, of course.

 

[rogueattorney]

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.

Implies?

While the D&D game uses dice and miniatures, the action takes place in your imagination.

Each player needs a miniature to represent his or her character, and the DM needs minis for monsters.

The players arrange their characters’ miniatures on the Dungeon Tiles that Dave has prepared for the encounter. They’re now on the landing just outside the room with the gnolls.

The DM decides where the combatants are positioned on the battle grid. For example, if the PCs have just opened a door into a room, the DM might draw or arrange a depiction of the door and the room on the battle grid and then ask the players to arrange their miniatures near the door. Then the DM places miniatures that represent the monsters in the room.
***
When a combat encounter starts, it’s time to turn your attention to the battle grid. The combat rules assume that you use D&D Dungeon Tiles, a poster map, a gridded white board, or an erasable, gridded mat to show the area where a battle takes place. The rules also assume that you use D&D Miniatures to represent the adventurers and the enemies they face.
***
Characters and monsters are represented on the grid with miniature figures. If you don’t have miniatures available, you can use coins, beads, or cardboard markers.

That's not implicit. That's explicit. What's implicit - mainly in the arguments on pg. 266 as to why minis are a good idea, thus implying that some don't use them - is that you don't actually need miniatures or counters, but I'm not sure how a newbie who'd never been exposed to D&D before would pick up on that without playing the game first.

 

[Mort]

That's very cool, if true. I wasn't aware that magic solutions in combat came with bag costs. So, a wizard in combat can choose a big effect by paying a cost and taking a risk? That sounds promising!


RC

I suppose I should have specified "in the ritual system" big solutions come with big costs (or at least costs), but I thought that was implied in the out of combat nature of the response - since that was what the ritual system deals with. But then if I had decided to parce my language with such care (for an offhand comment for a message board) I guess you wouldn’t have your chance to be (unhelpfully) snide.

 

[Chrono22]

How so? Or rather, how is this any more so than in other editions of D&D?

Because, well, what I get from my reading of 4e (I haven't played it, but we're talking impressions here: that which is 'implicit in the presentation', no less) is that the purpose of play hasn't changed, or if it has, no-one let the creators know this.

The 'purpose' of play appears (from memory) to be - other than that much-maligned word, 'fun' , and again, no change there - adventure, exploration, challenge, cooperation, creativity, excitement, action, interaction, tactics. . . all the usual suspects, anyway.

Well, I was specifically talking about why the rules implicitly support combat to the exclusion of other activity. Another example would be statblocks- a creature has a statblock so that you can fight it. If it does not have a statblock, you aren't fighting it. In other editions, a statblock wasn't only a list of combat statistics- it was a list of what a monster can do, in combat or out of it. It just seems to me, that the designers created two boxes when they designed the game. Combat, and not-combat. Anything combat related got shuffled into powers and race & class abilities. Everything else got shuffled into the skill challenge and ritual junk drawers.

Another interesting example- the PHB and DMG use edition-specific language. "Adventure" in 4e is specifically defined, whereas in earlier editions "adventure" was loosely defined. In 4e, it is a string or series of encounters. Encounters being defined as a combat.

And then there is the way any type of challenge is framed- it's always in the context of combat. Locked doors and downtime are treated the same way- they are pauses between fights. The same goes for the planes themselves. They are places you go to have combats.

*4e is about the combat.

*That's not a bad thing to some people.

But then if I had decided to parce my language with such care (for an offhand comment for a message board) I guess you wouldn’t have your chance to be (unhelpfully) snide.

Sometimes even when you're wrong, you're right. Right?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Statblocks. . . hm. Maybe. I'll have to look up some older edition statblocks to make sure there. I have a feeling there is not an extreme difference, if indeed there is any at all, in that way. Assumptions being what they were, and still are. . .

Anything combat related got shuffled into powers and race & class abilities. Everything else got shuffled into the skill challenge and ritual junk drawers.

How is this different from the skill system in 3e, for example? Except for it being more than one roll of a d20 at times, that is. And otherwise, that 'ritual junk drawer' you mention was only open to spellcasters (edit: and those with certain magic items, depending. . .), so how it that fundamentally different, other than being alternatively organised, as it were?

Another interesting example- the PHB and DMG use edition-specific language. "Adventure" in 4e is specifically defined, whereas in earlier editions "adventure" was loosely defined. In 4e, it is a string or series of encounters. Encounters being defined as a combat.

The first part that I bolded, I'd really need to see some evidence for. D&D, to me, seems to have always been much the same with its base assumptions and suchlike.

The second part that I bolded. . . just no. There's even a chapter in the DMG specifically devoted to non-combat encounters (and titled appropriately, I believe,) so sorry, you're simply flat out wrong there.

Basically, I'll need something a little more solid, before believing you.