Monsters are more than their stats

[Lizard]

Yes. This is a perfect analogy. The REAL game of D&D is about skill point allocation for monsters. If that's already done for you, or there's no difficulty or challenge in doing that, you might as well not even play. D&D is about meticulous DM prep work. The game itself, you know, the part with the players? You remember those guys, they're the real people without statblocks? Pointless. Don't know why I bother.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go refine salt from seawater and grind wheat into flour so that I can bake bread, which I will then throw away.

Have you tried diceless roleplaying? Sounds like it's what you're looking for. (And a lot of other people posting on this thread. I mean, if you don't LIKE high-crunch systems, why play D&D? It's hardly the only game out there. )

The player/GM dynamic is pretty much system-independant; it feels the same in every game I've played, and I've played a LOT. It's rote by this point.

I enjoy building things for games. Sue me. I should show you my Traveller notebooks from college.

From what I can tell, though, the "unit of interest" in 4e isn't the monster, it's the encounter. An individual 4e monster doesn't have enough fiddly bits, in and of itself, to interest me. But if you consider that a monster is now 1/5th of an encounter (usually), then the total level of customization for *the entire encounter* is enough to look like it might be fun to play with. I can see a lot of fun in setting up the complex interactions and synergies of an entire encounter 'group', fiddling with swapping in an elite for two normals, or adding in minions, etc. Solo creatures (which I don't think we've seen yet) should be pretty rare beasts.

 

[Steely Dan]

If it comes pre-laminated, that will be a problem for the second group (and people like me, who want both).

Time to pull out the X-Acto knife.

 

[Wormwood]

Have you tried diceless roleplaying?

Have you?

Because removing dice doesn't necessarily remove system complexity.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Have you tried diceless roleplaying? Sounds like it's what you're looking for. (And a lot of other people posting on this thread. I mean, if you don't LIKE high-crunch systems, why play D&D? It's hardly the only game out there. )

Are you trying to counter hyperbole with hyperbole?
There is something between diceless and rules-heavy. I really don't see 4E as a "rules-light" system. Ever considered the interaction between player and monster powers? Synergy effects within each class and the classes with each other? The amount of (meaningful) options you get each level, each encounter and each round?

But it makes the rules lighter where they don't need to be heavy.
Creating monsters and NPCs doesn't need to be hard, as long as in the end, I get the monster I want.
And I usually don't care for Bluff 9 ranks or Bluff 7 ranks. But I care a lot whether a monster can bluff well at all. I don't need to know that a Dragon could cast Magic Missile with his Sorceror spells. When would he ever need that ability?


But if you want to play a rules-heavy game, why do you play D&D? Wouldn't GURPS be a lot better? There are even more options to take and dials to change.

 

[Mallus]

If you'll excuse me, I have to go refine salt from seawater and grind wheat into flour so that I can bake bread, which I will then throw away.

Beautiful! Remember that all work is noble work even when it's pointless work.

You know, I think my problem understanding one side of this debate stems from not finding a certain kind of minutiae inspiring. Different strokes and all...

 

[D'karr]

Beautiful! Remember that all work is noble work even when it's pointless work.

You know, I think my problem understanding one side of this debate stems from not finding a certain kind of minutiae inspiring. Different strokes and all...

You see that is completely fine. I agree wholeheartedly. I think the problem stems from wanting D&D to be the game for everyone and if its not for me it sucks or if its not for you it sucks. Sucks is a matter of opinion.

It is obvious that 4e has a different design philosophy from 3e. Is that good or bad? That is a matter of opinion. But nothing prevents anyone from playing the edition that they prefer, or even another game.

Some people unfortunately want D&D to do things that it does not do well, and then complain, and complain, and complain.

That ship has sailed. The books are at the printers. Whether they suck or not will be apparent come June 6th.

 

[gizmo33]

As I recall, back in the time of the edition wars, grognards bemoaned the loss of "DM power" that resulted from 3E having rules for things that formerly were undescribed in the game. "I can just *decide* whether or not a ranger can climb a tree based on how I'm feeling that day - rather than have the rules *dictate* to me what the chance of success should be." was the general argument.

That wasn't convincing to 3E players back then, but now suddenly when the same idea is packaged as 4E this seems like a good idea? Seems to me like this design philosophy of 4E is going to be very similar to the way I played 1st edition when I was 12. I've spent many years playing some version of DnD that didn't have a complete set of rules for things - such a situation doesn't seem as innovative or exciting to me as it does to some folks apparently. I don't need 4E to dispense with the non-combat rules just so I can make up a succubus with non-standard seduction powers.

 

[Cadfan]

Beautiful! Remember that all work is noble work even when it's pointless work.

Perhaps its more noble because its pointless?

Maybe Lizard is kind of like a poet, who, sitting at the banks of the Danube, writes a beautiful verse to his lover. A piece of poetry for the ages, one which would bring tears to the eyes of the most heartless, and cause them to change their ways. And as the ink dries on the page, he lifts the paper on which it is inscribed, and lets the wind carry it out into the dark waters, lost forever. For she has left him, and this empty world does not deserve such beauty.

 

[Wormwood]

Some people unfortunately want D&D to do things that it does not do well, and then complain.

Rather than complain, I simply stopped running 3.5

4e, however, seems to be a better fit for my gaming style. If I'm right---yay me. If I'm mistaken, then I'll see y'all around.

edit: what won't happen is another quixotic attempt to hammer the unfun out of the game.

 

[D'karr]

As I recall, back in the time of the edition wars, grognards bemoaned the loss of "DM power" that resulted from 3E having rules for things that formerly were undescribed in the game. "I can just *decide* whether or not a ranger can climb a tree based on how I'm feeling that day - rather than have the rules *dictate* to me what the chance of success should be." was the general argument.

That wasn't convincing to 3E players back then, but now suddenly when the same idea is packaged as 4E this seems like a good idea? Seems to me like this design philosophy of 4E is going to be very similar to the way I played 1st edition when I was 12. I've spent many years playing some version of DnD that didn't have a complete set of rules for things - such a situation doesn't seem as innovative or exciting to me as it does to some folks apparently. I don't need 4E to dispense with the non-combat rules just so I can make up a succubus with non-standard seduction powers.

Except that 4e still gives you rules to determine whether you can climb the tree or not. Some people just like to make it look like it does not.