D&D 4E Just played my first 4E game

[Mallus]

This makes no sense.

Yes it does.

If D&D has always done this... the why the paradigm change?

Old D&D: a few classes had limited/per-day abilities.

New D&D: all classes have limited/per-day abilities.

Therefore: D&D has always had limited/per-day abilities.

If dailies represent something you can do only once in awhile... then mathematically this can be represented by a lesser/greater chance to accomplish said maneuver...right? Thus it could be modeled by having a lower chance to accomplish it instead of the binary available/non-available math that D&D 4e uses. Is this right or wrong?

It's technically right, but it misses the point.

Per encounter/per day abilities are resources a player can manage. Said resource management is considered fun in some circles. It's not just about 'modeling', it's about putting interesting tactical decisions in the hands of the players.

4e still doesn't subscribe to any literary system of magic.

Yes, I know that. Which is why it's silly to appeal to any literary or filmic sources to justify why D&D's magic system makes sense.

Fine with me, but it is crazy how the 3e spell caster was look at in so many conflicting ways.

There's no conflict if you pay attention to the context in which they're being discussed.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

This is exactly why so many people who don't support 4e are getting so sick and goddamn tired of the "edition wars" BS; because they can't criticize ANYTHING about the game without someone jumping on them and claiming they're trying to start an edition war.

As being a fairly quiet bystander on this issue - what gets me tired of the discussion isn't that people are saying negative things about the edition, it's that they aren't going into descriptions about the issues.

With this thread the OP said he felt like it was a video game. Period. No description about how it felt like a video game or what aspects felt like a video game just that it did. Then it typically follows that someone asks why it feels like a video game and the person asking why gets jumped on for not 'seeing the obvious' or something similar.

[Please note I am not saying that the person asking why is the FIRST to get jumped on over the course of the thread - they likely are not - just that they are just as likely to get jumped on as the person who brings up the video game feeling.]

I have a LOT of experience in customer service - both in mass retail and for training purposes I have manned a phone where I currently work as a computer programmer. When people have come to me for help or to say that something isn't working the most common responce I have is asking them to be more specific. Saying 'The software is broken. Fix it.' isn't very helpful. Saying that you get error message X when you do Y gives us much more to work with.

Saying that 'it feels like a video game - live with it' won't get me on your side of the issue. Saying 'elements X, Y, Z remind me of elements A, B and C from game Q because of H, I and J' will do much more.

My take on this - I can see some video game influences in 4e - or at least how some aspects can be seen as having video game influences. I can see how the Per-Encounter/Per-Day abilities can resemble Cool Down times. I do not have any actual play experience (I hope to soon) to know if that rings true to me or not.

That they have stated Roles for classes doesn't hold any water with me. I'm playing a Crusader in my current game. I am definately the "tank" of the party - I am the one to soak up damage so the spell casters can blow the opposition into little gibblets. As far as I can see these roles are not new; just new names for more clarafication.

I can see how some of the fighter/paladin abilities can remind someone of aggro mechanics. Again, I'm not sure if that will hold for me after actual play but even if it does my reply is "Good!" I want a tank to be able to 'hold the line' better so if the mechanics to do so come from a video game I will welcome our new video game overlords.

There is another issue I have. Video Gamey is usually used as a criticism; but I don't view all of it as bad. So saying 'It's video game' doesn't work for me. Why does it feel like a video game and why is it bad? Some have given reasons (to which there is actual back and forth discussion). Some have not.

 

[Imaro]

Yes it does.


Old D&D: a few classes had limited/per-day abilities.

New D&D: all classes have limited/per-day abilities.

Therefore: D&D has always had limited/per-day abilities.

The only class in 3.5 core who has a limited/per-day class ability that isn't supernatural or spell-like ability is the Barbarian... and his ability has a rational explanation for why it is limited. I will also note, it improves in number of uses as he progresses in level, thus at least simulating his getting better at the ability.

I don't count "magical" abilities at all because D&D world logic has always stated that magic in and of itself is a limited resource... but that it also is variable in how often that resource is available.

It's technically right, but it misses the point.

Per encounter/per day abilities are resources a player can manage. Said resource management is considered fun in some circles. It's not just about 'modeling', it's about putting interesting tactical decisions in the hands of the players.

Uhm...deciding whether to risk a miss for a better pay-off vs. going with a better chance to succeed but less pay-off is resource management. It's the resource of actions available vs. chance of success.

Yes, I know that. Which is why it's silly to appeal to any literary or filmic sources to justify why D&D's magic system makes sense.

And yet now neither the martial or magical abilities ascribe to anything but videogame logic.

There's no conflict if you pay attention to the context in which they're being discussed.

No there's no conflict as long as one accepts that it changes depending upon the point said poster is trying to make.

 

[LostSoul]

Generally, a maneuver that is difficult to pull off will be just that, a good chance of not working when you attempt it.

Right.

Rolling a d20 isn't the only way to model a chance of success.

 

[Fenes]

I am not saying 4E being video gamey is bad, just that it is video gamey.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Trip and disarm come to mind.

Indeed.

Moreover, there is a difference between limited opportunities (i.e., variable chances of success) and the inability to attempt something at all. The attack roll/damage roll/hit point system makes it possible to attempt to stab a guy in the eye and kill him instantly, every round. If, however, you were allowed only one kill per day, though, and had to say, "Well, since I killed that dragon earlier, I guess I have to let this kobold live," you'd be getting a lot closer to the problems I have with 4e and the "reasonable person" standard.

Please note that, in The Princess Bride, Wesley (as the Dread Pirate Roberts) is able to disarm Inago twice in their first fight.

 

[Imaro]

Right.

Rolling a d20 isn't the only way to model a chance of success.

Uhm...you do realize that 0% means no chance of success right? This isn't a model of "chance of successes" to pull off a move. This is a binary on/off switch in which on=100% to try maneuver and off= no chance to try maneuver.

 

[Nightson]

Indeed.

Moreover, there is a difference between limited opportunities (i.e., variable chances of success) and the inability to attempt something at all.

Please note that, in The Princess Bride, Wesley (as the Dread Pirate Roberts) is able to disarm Inago twice in their first fight.

Clearly he had Exorcism of Steel and a Dread Pirate class ability to recharge and encounter power.

 

[LostSoul]

Uhm...you do realize that 0% means no chance of success right? This isn't a model of "chance of successes" to pull off a move. This is a binary on/off switch in which on=100% to try maneuver and off= no chance to try maneuver.

Sure, at the metagame level.

My PC's name is Raldar. I have him do a Brute Strike on an early encounter. Later in the day, we fight some minions, and I smash them to bits.

In the gameworld, Raldar used the same maneuver each and every time.

 

[Mallus]

The only class in 3.5 core who has a limited/per-day class ability that isn't supernatural or spell-like ability is the Barbarian... and his ability has a rational explanation for why it is limited.

First, if you can rationalize the Barbarians limited ability to get mad and produce adrenalin, martial dallies shouldn't be too much of stretch.

Second, I guess, in the end, slapping the label 'magic' on an ability doesn't make much difference to me. An ability is an ability, it has a mechanical definition and effect. If it has limited uses, then there's a resource management component. You can apply whatever rationalization and/or narration of its use you choose, like slathering jam over top of a piece of toast. I realize this outlook is more explicit in effects-based games like M&M or Champions/Hero, but there's really no good reason to look at D&D any differently.

I will also note, it improves in number of uses as he progresses in level, thus at least simulating his getting better at the ability.

I'll note this is a meaningless distinction. That a barbarian can get mad twice a day suddenly propels this mechanic into the land of believability?

I don't count "magical" abilities at all

I do. They're both character-controlled resources. That's ultimately what they are. Anything else is jam slathered on top.

Uhm...deciding whether to risk a miss for a better pay-off vs. going with a better chance to succeed but less pay-off is resource management. It's the resource of actions available vs. chance of success.

You're confusing something that allows for a choice with a resource. Power Attack isn't a fireball. Putting them in a same category makes this discussion more difficult.

And yet now neither the martial or magical abilities ascribe to anything but videogame logic.

Enough with the videogame talk already.