My first 4E game...

[Jhaelen]

IIRC, it also assumes that the players will rotate around the Wizard, Companion and Grog roles - you don't play a companion for the entire campaign, just for a couple of sessions and then you get a turn as the Wizard.

Yup, that's the best way to do it! It's rare for more than one player to play a magus at the same time unless you're roleplaying a tribunal meeting.

Actually, in Ars Magica the most important character is the Covenant, i.e. the 'homebase' of the magi, companions and grogs. As the seasons turn, magi come and go but the Covenant is eternal... or something

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's a good point. But it doesn't address the question; "what do classes that can't meaningful contribute to the game's core activity add to the game"?

The only solution is: Don't do this. Expand the core or expand (or remove) the class. And that's the fundamental issue - D&D never really tried to expand its "core". XP for non-combat situations are undefined till 3E.

4E is trying to expand the non-combat part with skill challenges (that grant XP) and Quests (that grant XP).

My only concern is that it might not be enough (and apparently, so do the designers, because all classes have a combat role they will fulfill well.)

There should be more "non-combat" abilities aside from skills. Rules for covering contacts, influence, exception resources, lore, overland travel that use unique character abilities - a power system for non-combat stuff.
Character abilities that let you shine outside of combat and prove that your character is useful and can't be replicated just with a skill training feat.
And of course, all those non-combat stuff needs a resolution mechanic as interesting or complex as the combat resolution mechanic. (But is that really possible? Or _really_ desirable, from a gameplay point of view - or for teaching or learning the game in the first place?)

 

[Celtavian]

re

To kind of expound upon something I posted earlier, I never wanted my character to do less, but If I was playing a rogue/thief, and I often did, I did not expect to do as well as a fighter. I just did the best I could.

So that is why I am not excited about everyone being equally capable in a fight. I accepted "your best" being good enough long ago.

This idea of everyone being equally capable just smacks of too much political correctness in my gaming. I much prefer the idea of "you do the best you can despite not being as good at it as someone else" rather than "everyone is just as capable/equal as everyone else".

That is not the real world, and it is also something I do not want conveyed in games I play. If people like everyone being equally capable, then this isn't going to bother them. It bothers me, so is an issue that will weigh in my decision.

Treebore,

I'm playing a 4E rogue. I have never had so much fun playing a rogue. I usually play a wizard, a priest, or some kind of multiclass melee.

Right now I'm playing a 4E single class rogue and loving it. The things you can do are a blast.

I'm a little disappointed that getting combat advantage is somewhat difficult. But I figure this will change once the monsters die less quickly. Right now we mow them down pretty quickly, so I don't get to unload with sneak attack.

But being able to do the occasional torturous strike and blinding barrage sure is fun. I pulled out seven shurikens and launched them into a mass of minions and regular monsters. I wiped out two or three minions and blinded two regular hobgoblin soldiers setting up my sneak attack. It was very cool.

 

[BryonD]

True, but it is a game. Aren't we talking about games?

I won't be surprised if someone tries to distort this answer into something vastly more melodramatic than what I'm saying, but so be it.

No.

If "a game" sums it up, then Descent and Monopoly both meet the criteria.
If you play it as a board battle game, then it is not that far away from Descent (still better, but very much in the same ballpark). I'm sure there are people who simply want that, and that's cool. For people playing that way "it is a game". Simple. Done.

However, there is a reason the books say "Roleplaying Game" and not just "Game". "Roleplaying Game" entails a lot more than simply being "a game". If you don't grok that then you don't know what you are missing. As RPGs go, 4E is a good one. Of course I can think of twenty good RPGs. 4E is right there in the mix. I'd rather play one of the very best rather than a good one that just happens to have "the D&D name" on it and be the latest new shiny. Why settle for "good" when I can have GREAT?

Lastly, and for me most important of all, to me it is about creativity. I've dabbled with some writing and people tell me I'm good, but I have exactly zero illusions about quitting my day job. But beyond that, for me to be satisfied with it, it starts to feel like work of its own. Role play world building doesn't do that with me. I just flat out love it. I spend at least as much time creating as I do sitting at a table playing. Maybe twice as much. And I love it. For me that is a great form of recreation. And I wouldn't say "a game" is remotely accurate at describing that. No more than it would be to call painting or writing a story "a game". And this is probably the most important criteria for me. The others are still important, but a bit less. So no. It is not just a game.

Unless you only mean 4E. 4E is "just a game". (Or rather, just a game , of the roleplaying variety)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Right now I'm playing a 4E single class

Not that you have any other option...

 

[Celtavian]

Not that you have any other option...

That's not true. I plan to multi-class fighter at a later time. But so far the single class rogue is far more interesting and useful than a 3E single class rogue. Usually multiclassing as a rogue in 3E was preferable at early levels to get your feats and BAB up. But in 4E you can play the rogue straight and have him be just as effective as any class around him while still being the stealth/trap specialist.

I like that better.

But multiclassing is viable. I plan to do it. I thought it wasn't particularly good at first glance either, but multiclassing is a pretty good option still for rounding a character out.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I won't be surprised if someone tries to distort this answer into something vastly more melodramatic than what I'm saying, but so be it.

No.

If "a game" sums it up, then Descent and Monopoly both meet the criteria.
If you play it as a board battle game, then it is not that far away from Descent (still better, but very much in the same ballpark). I'm sure there are people who simply want that, and that's cool. For people playing that way "it is a game". Simple. Done.

However, there is a reason the books say "Roleplaying Game" and not just "Game". "Roleplaying Game" entails a lot more than simply being "a game". If you don't grok that then you don't know what you are missing. As RPGs go, 4E is a good one. Of course I can think of twenty good RPGs. 4E is right there in the mix. I'd rather play one of the very best rather than a good one that just happens to have "the D&D name" on it and be the latest new shiny. Why settle for "good" when I can have GREAT?

Lastly, and for me most important of all, to me it is about creativity. I've dabbled with some writing and people tell me I'm good, but I have exactly zero illusions about quitting my day job. But beyond that, for me to be satisfied with it, it starts to feel like work of its own. Role play world building doesn't do that with me. I just flat out love it. I spend at least as much time creating as I do sitting at a table playing. Maybe twice as much. And I love it. For me that is a great form of recreation. And I wouldn't say "a game" is remotely accurate at describing that. No more than it would be to call painting or writing a story "a game". And this is probably the most important criteria for me. The others are still important, but a bit less. So no. It is not just a game.

Unless you only mean 4E. 4E is "just a game". (Or rather, just a game , of the roleplaying variety)

Well, I am very much a supporter of the idea to remember that role-playing games are not just "games" and not just "role-playing" and need to have a happy mix.

But the idea that some classes are weaker in the regular overall game then others is a specific flaw of some role-playing games. It focuses more on the story-telling" part of role-playing game then is could for the RPG as a whole. Because at the end, someone still has to play these roles, and playing a "lesser" role in a RPG is just not fun. The game should have the tools to ensure that every class is equally powerful in the overall scheme of the game. (Not necessarily in combat, and almost certainly not in all aspects of combat)
Some games might even work with social-heavy classes paired with combat-heavy classes. I don't think that D&D (neither 3E or 4E) with its complex combat rules and pretty simple non-combat rules work with that.


And whatever you do when you build worlds, I wouldn't call it playing a role-playing game. I would also not call it role-playing. What you are doing is something else. It doesn't even require RPGs.
If you were a screen writer, you would try to make a movie or TV show from your world-building. If you were a novelist, you'd eventually write a novel using your world-building (see Tolkien). If you were a video game programmer, you'd try to make a video game for it.
But RPGs make it easer to "use" your world-building - you DM and let other people role-play in your setting.

 

[Mallus]

And that's the fundamental issue - D&D never really tried to expand its "core". XP for non-combat situations are undefined till 3E.

My opinions on this are a little scattered, so bear with me...

I think the 'core' of D&D has been defined pretty clearly by 30 years worth of players: namely, 'killing things and taking their stuff'. No matter how the designers or individual groups might have added onto that core, it remains the common denominator. I'm all for expanding on that core, but that has to be done in light of 3 decades worth of gamers being fairly explicit about what they enjoy about D&D. And I say this as a die-hard 'corner case' DM known for combat-free sessions and generally going against the grain of whatever edition of D&D I'm running.

Also, XP 'story awards' date back to 2e. Plus, my experiences were that plenty of 1e DM's awarded XP for completing adventures/tasks, decoupling XP from pure killing.

[edit: also, part II] Another funny thing is that the move towards making all classes combat-capable happened in 3e, which greatly increased the combat effectiveness of rogues and made it far easier for casters to stand in the middle of a melee and sling spells. 4e is merely a refinement of what was began in 3e.

4E is trying to expand the non-combat part with skill challenges (that grant XP) and Quests (that grant XP).

All good ideas. Though I'm less interested in the way the rules try and incentivize non-combat activities (ie, with XP) and more concerned with how the system facilitates different characters 'getting in on the action' when they want to. One of my biggest problems with 3e is the way it rewards specialization. While I can see the reason to do this is a class-based game, its runs contrary with what I like to see at the table: namely, players trying anything and everything to overcome the challenge at hand.

... because all classes have a combat role they will fulfill well.

Really, it's about time, it's a terrific design choice. It's liberating as a DM to have all the classes competent in the game's core activity. No more worrying about spotlight time. This, coupled with inclusive bent of the skill challenge rules, and a smaller skill list with more broadly defined skills, really works with my preferred 'organic' DM'ing style. I like to let the 'plot' go wherever the players want. I dislike having to overplan/overdetermine things like encounters. I feel with 4e, whatever the actioniis, the characters stand a reasonable chance of making a meaningful contribtion, or at least, the limiting factor will be the players cleverness, and not their character class choice.

There should be more "non-combat" abilities aside from skills. Rules for covering contacts, influence, exception resources, lore, overland travel that use unique character abilities - a power system for non-combat stuff.

I'd like a book full of suggestions and advice about those things, but I have no interest in a codified rules system for them.

And of course, all those non-combat stuff needs a resolution mechanic as interesting or complex as the combat resolution mechanic. (But is that really possible? Or _really_ desirable, from a gameplay point of view...)

I have no interest in seeing those aspects of play mechanized, so from my perspective, no, it's not desirable at all.

 

[Mallus]

I'm sure there are people who simply want that, and that's cool. For people playing that way "it is a game". Simple. Done.

I said that D&D was a game. I said nothing about playing it as if it were a board game.

However, there is a reason the books say "Roleplaying Game" and not just "Game". "Roleplaying Game" entails a lot more than simply being "a game".

It's still a game.

If you don't grok that then you don't know what you are missing.

You shouldn't assume someone doesn't understand something because you took their words out of context.

I'd rather play one of the very best rather than a good one that just happens to have "the D&D name" on it and be the latest new shiny. Why settle for "good" when I can have GREAT?

Great games are made by the participants, not by corporate entities or cottage industries.

I just flat out love it. I spend at least as much time creating as I do sitting at a table playing. Maybe twice as much. And I love it. For me that is a great form of recreation.

I think so too. My groups latest homebrew --a work in progress-- is posted here (2nd link in my .sig). In all absence of modesty, check it out, it's more or less wonderful (though it's not all mine, it's a true collaborative effort).

And I wouldn't say "a game" is remotely accurate at describing that.

No, "masturbation" is a better term. And I say that as an inveterate masturbator. In a fantasy world-building sense, of course...

No more than it would be to call painting or writing a story "a game".

I've described those acts as both 'games' and 'masturbatory' at various times in the past, but really, this isn't the right venue for a discussion of aesthetic theory or the creative process.

Unless you only mean 4E.

What I meant was applying 'political correctness' to games is ludicrous (are chess and backgammon PC because each side begins with an equal disposition of forces?). That was the original context.

 

[Imaro]

All good ideas. Though I'm less interested in the way the rules try and incentivize non-combat activities (ie, with XP) and more concerned with how the system facilitates different characters 'getting in on the action' when they want to. One of my biggest problems with 3e is the way it rewards specialization. While I can see the reason to do this is a class-based game, its runs contrary with what I like to see at the table: namely, players trying anything and everything to overcome the challenge at hand.

I think this point as some validity but ultimately I would have to disagree. XP is as fundamental to D&D as "kill thins and take there stuff" and ultimately, as the game is setup, it is the only reason to attempt something. The game is designed around risk for reward and thus all actions need to have an incentive.

I'm sorry but as of right now I'm pretty much lost on what the paradigm for sill challenges (as supported by the rules) is for 4e. First it was espoused that they were designed to include every instead of for one character to try with aid aother used by secondary characters. Yet the math didn't support this, and even some of the designers espoused a belief that many characters were supposed to be aiding others...just like in 3e. Then the eratta came out and skill challenges dropped the initiative and requirement for all to participate, now it's even more appealing to let only the highest skilled character(s) complete a task as a mes up with a low skill still constitutes a failure. The funny thing is with higher level skill challenges it makes even more sense as 3 failures always result in loosing the skill challenge.

Really, it's about time, it's a terrific design choice. It's liberating as a DM to have all the classes competent in the game's core activity. No more worrying about spotlight time. This, coupled with inclusive bent of the skill challenge rules, and a smaller skill list with more broadly defined skills, really works with my preferred 'organic' DM'ing style. I like to let the 'plot' go wherever the players want. I dislike having to overplan/overdetermine things like encounters. I feel with 4e, whatever the actioniis, the characters stand a reasonable chance of making a meaningful contribtion, or at least, the limiting factor will be the players cleverness, and not their character class choice.

Again I disagree, with the advent of roles all D&D 4e has done is make it so that character build now equals party build, and with an odd combination the DM still has to adjust encounters to deal with it. This has nothing to do with player cleverness as without a wizard...a party probably can't take on the same amount of minions as they could with one (and a strikers effectiveness; large amounts of damage is totally neutralized). Without a striker they will have a hard time with solos (and a defenders primary effectiveness; keeping a creature from attacking others is pretty much neutralized), and without a defender and leaders...well they will just have a harder time overall (everybody else is just too squishy without them to defend).

I'd like a book full of suggestions and advice about those things, but I have no interest in a codified rules system for them.

I'd actually like a system for this...and there are alot of games on the market that handle it in an elegant and fun manner.

I have no interest in seeing those aspects of play mechanized, so from my perspective, no, it's not desirable at all.

Again disagree, I think non-combat abilities would benefit from an attack vs. hit point type system, and it would open the game up for characters who really want to play a skill monkey or social-based character.