Implicit in the Presentation

[blargney the second]

In pre-4e editions, save-or-die effects imply that anti-climactic deaths should be an inherent part of the game. Presumably to keep both DMs and players on their toes, rather than hiding safely behind bags and bags of hit points.
-blarg

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@ Chrono:

Exploration has a consequence for failure: It cost healing surges if you fail endurance checks: thus its an encounter (skill challenge). The rules are explicit about that.

Rituals are costly, because noone should point his finger at the door before someone even tried to open it with his picklock.

Statblocks are combat focussed, because that is what you need to run a combat smoothely. Yes, a bit more fluff like in 2nd edition Monster manual would be helpful. Maybe a society statblock with DC´s for lore etc would be helpful for out of combat encounters. But if you look into older adventures of 2nd edition ADnD, monsters were always presented with only #At: 3, DMG:1d6,1d4,1d4 Thaco 18. thats it. And you can´t deny that 2nd edition ADnD was all about its adventures and the world.

So why do you present things as fact which are explicitely wrong?

However: the rules as they are presented look to players as if they are only combat orientated. Skill challenges are in DMG, Rituals are placed at the end, no real chapter about adventuring like there has been in older editions. So thinking that reading a rulebook which comprises only the mechanicals parts is enough to understand the system better than the designers sounds arrogant.

So i would also say: Rules implicitely disencourage players to play the game as intended. A little introduction for the players before character creation would have helped to make sure everyone knows what the game is about.

 

[Chrono22]

No, but haters might continue to sprout from the corpse of the previous edition.

And I don't come here to listen to haters whine.

Really, listen to yourself. You are labeling anyone or anything that has any kind of criticism as a hater. That's absurd. That's a stupid way of thinking. Stop thinking that way.

Admin here. This, and your next post, are full of problems. Please see Xath's warning below; we aren't going to put up with edition war baiting. ~ Piratecat

And the internet is full of amateur economists trying to justify why they think that is anything other than a good business decision.

Because it's not a good one? Because it didn't work? If PDFs were still available I'd still be forking cash to WotC. Now I'm not. Oh, and yeah, people are still pirating whatever they want. It doesn't take an amateur to recognize WotC's approach to digital media and the internet is hamfisted and has an 80's mentality. Piracy is inevitable- why turn it into a liability when it can become a tool for advertising?

WotC is in business to make money. It's hard enough that players have all we need to play for the rest of our lives in just the three core books, why should they have to compete with previous editions on top of that?

Well, other editions had to- and they got along just fine. Is there some reason why 4e can't produce as many new players? Or is there a problem with it keeping old ones? Maybe these problems should have been dealt with during the design process, instead of by marketing.

I don't like the fact that they're pimp minis and Dungeon Tiles so hard either, but they're about the only thing that can't be scanned and uploaded to the internet. That and DDI.

Heh. Interesting analogy. Pimp minis.
Once again, though, I'm going to point out that perceiving the internet as a threat instead of a resource is basically the opposite of having a competent digital initiative. It's more like having a digital retreat.

And I think the DDI is a great way to make sure that at least some D&D fans pay for the product they're using. It's also nice that WotC can keep paying the bills.

I'd say it's win-win. Obviously your mileage varies.

I'd say DDI has nothing to do with 4e rules discussion.

So why don't you stop trying to vilify me for thinking (rightfully so) that 4e is combat focused? It's not a crime, it's not even a complaint. 4e is about combat. Combat is 4e's bread and butter.

 

[Chrono22]

@ Chrono:

Exploration has a consequence for failure: It cost healing surges if you fail endurance checks: thus its an encounter (skill challenge). The rules are explicit about that.

*Yawn*

Rituals are costly, because noone should point his finger at the door before someone even tried to open it with his picklock.

Then why does it exist? If no one should take it? The presentation of it is a false choice.

Statblocks are combat focussed, because that is what you need to run a combat smoothely. Yes, a bit more fluff like in 2nd edition Monster manual would be helpful. Maybe a society statblock with DC´s for lore etc would be helpful for out of combat encounters. But if you look into older adventures of 2nd edition ADnD, monsters were always presented with only #At: 3, DMG:1d6,1d4,1d4 Thaco 18. thats it. And you can´t deny that 2nd edition ADnD was all about its adventures and the world.

Of course they are- in adventures. They couldn't just repeat the monster descriptions fully in each adventure. That would have doubled or trippled the pagecounts. The MM descriptions, however, were very detailed and full of description.

So why do you present things as fact which are explicitely wrong?

Some things about 4e are explicitly false, but implicitly true.
This thread is about implicit differences between 4e and previous editions. Why I'm talking about it- it's the topic.

However: the rules as they are presented look to players as if they are only combat orientated. Skill challenges are in DMG, Rituals are placed at the end, no real chapter about adventuring like there has been in older editions. So thinking that reading a rulebook which comprises only the mechanicals parts is enough to understand the system better than the designers sounds arrogant.

Well, ignoring the part where you assume I've only read it (I've played it alot), how exactly would it be arrogant? Many DMs and players are far more capable at adventure design, encounter design, optimization, and role playing than the designers were. Ever thumb through a printed product to an NPC, just to see a laundry list of bad feat choices, suboptimal progressions and conflicting fluff and crunch? No, I guess you wouldn't if all you get is DDI. But it was a constant reminder to previous editions players that the designers of D&D are flawed and imperfect people. 4e players as a whole should be reminded of that- the person who know what's best for your own game is you. Not the game designers.

So i would also say: Rules implicitely disencourage players to play the game as intended. A little introduction for the players before character creation would have helped to make sure everyone knows what the game is about.

I would say that your assumption is unsupported speculation. Rules that implicitly disencourage people to use them sound like badly written rules to me. But that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Ciao!

 

[Obryn]

In 4e, it is a string or series of encounters. Encounters being defined as a combat.

I want to note, a bit late, that the second sentence is strictly false. If you're using the 4e DMG definition of "adventure," you should also use the 4e DMG definition of "encounter" which encompasses both combat and non-combat encounters.

Page 104, fwiw.

-O

 

[Aus_Snow]

I want to note, a bit late, that the second sentence is strictly false. If you're using the 4e DMG definition of "adventure," you should also use the 4e DMG definition of "encounter" which encompasses both combat and non-combat encounters.

Page 104, fwiw.

-O

I did already point that one out, fwiw. Not having a go at you, btw - more like, letting you know just how futile it's likely to be, showing any kind of evidence to 'Chrono22'. It simply gets ignored. Well, at best. . .

Even the PHB tells players (or anyone else reading it) that there are combat and noncombat encounters. Literally, in those terms even.

Anyone trying to claim otherwise is either unaware of what is contained in the books in question, or is being dishonest. Take your pick.

So far, the statements re: statblocks have proved (selectively) factual. That's one thing. . . otherwise, he or she is looking very shaky. Again, at best.

 

[Mistwell]

This is not directed at any particular post...

It seems to me that very often when someone makes a broad unqualified generalization about any version of the game, an edition war breaks out.

It sure would be nice to stop with the broad, unqualified generalizations about versions of D&D.

 

[Xath]

This is not directed at any particular post...

It seems to me that very often when someone makes a broad unqualified generalization about any version of the game, an edition war breaks out.

It sure would be nice to stop with the broad, unqualified generalizations about versions of D&D.

I agree. Keep the conversation on topic. Keep it civil. Further edition baiting will not be tolerated.

- Xath
Moderator

 

[ExploderWizard]

One thing I note from taking a look at the various editions is that as editions were released, more implicit assumptions about general style of play came with them. The more hardcoded rules are included in a ruleset, the more they will influence assumed playstyle.

OD&D provided the bare framework from which participants were to supply the meat of the game. Playstyle was so varied simply because so much had to be provided by players and that content was as possibly different as any two playing groups can be.

Implicit in presentation: Here are some suggestions, have fun making your game.

4E is a large comprehensive system out of the box. What was once left to the players has become RAW included in the system. There are simply more rules that support the type of play the rules were designed for. More provided definitive rules = more implicit assumptions.

Implicit in presentation: Here is our game, have fun playing it.

Players may house rule and throw off any assumptions from either system or any in between. I have found degree of work involved in doing so increases as the edition gets later.

 

[Snoweel]

Really, listen to yourself. You are labeling anyone or anything that has any kind of criticism as a hater.

No, just emotionally charged criticism.

There are plenty of valid criticisms of 4e (as there have been for every edition) but most people can't articulate them without wrapping them up in their own ill-considered emotional spin.

As soon as you step from rational criticism to nerdrage you're a hater. And your arguments lose credibility.