-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
My take.
- Thread starter Celebrim
- Start date
Ulthwithian
First Post
Well, for those using the DDXP information to infer a lack of role-playing options in 4E...
Since we know that we're not seeing everything in 4E, why are you assuming that the characters we have seen are the sum total of what's available? I mean, if the dungeon delves are pure combat encounters, then giving all kinds of information on non-combat options in this sort of environment is counterproductive.
Also, consider what happens if you create non-combat Powers. (IOW, you use the Power system in non-combat situations the same as for combat situations.) No matter how you implement this, you violate one of the core mechanical issues of 4E. If you mandate that you get one pool of powers, and these must be split between combat and non-combat powers, then you achieve a number of options:
1) Pro: People can choose to specialize between combat and non-combat.
2) Con: Should someone wish to specialize in one of the two, they are left doing very little in the other. (Violates 'everyone doing something every round')
3) Con: Even if you don't specialize, you will have so fewer options on a round-by-round basis that you 'do the same thing every round' (Violates 'choices matter')
Now, on the other hand, you could create a side-by-side system. The drawbacks are lower here, but you still have some:
1) Everyone has equal access to combat and non-combat powers, per class. (IOW, no specialization)
2) More options can lead to more confusion.
There is always the 'works in both' power option. Cause Fear, out of combat, allows for a substantial bonus to Intimidation checks, etc. However, you then still need some sort of 'round-by-round' framework for social encounters that many people find stultifying in the extreme.
And then there is the option that apparently WotC took, which is that different systems in game handle combat and noncombat situations.
Since we know that we're not seeing everything in 4E, why are you assuming that the characters we have seen are the sum total of what's available? I mean, if the dungeon delves are pure combat encounters, then giving all kinds of information on non-combat options in this sort of environment is counterproductive.
Also, consider what happens if you create non-combat Powers. (IOW, you use the Power system in non-combat situations the same as for combat situations.) No matter how you implement this, you violate one of the core mechanical issues of 4E. If you mandate that you get one pool of powers, and these must be split between combat and non-combat powers, then you achieve a number of options:
1) Pro: People can choose to specialize between combat and non-combat.
2) Con: Should someone wish to specialize in one of the two, they are left doing very little in the other. (Violates 'everyone doing something every round')
3) Con: Even if you don't specialize, you will have so fewer options on a round-by-round basis that you 'do the same thing every round' (Violates 'choices matter')
Now, on the other hand, you could create a side-by-side system. The drawbacks are lower here, but you still have some:
1) Everyone has equal access to combat and non-combat powers, per class. (IOW, no specialization)
2) More options can lead to more confusion.
There is always the 'works in both' power option. Cause Fear, out of combat, allows for a substantial bonus to Intimidation checks, etc. However, you then still need some sort of 'round-by-round' framework for social encounters that many people find stultifying in the extreme.
And then there is the option that apparently WotC took, which is that different systems in game handle combat and noncombat situations.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Rules don't do simulationism. Rules are for gamism.
The best simulationist system possible is - 'DM decides' - because that will never break verisimilitude. Or, slightly more complicatedly - 'Players and/or DM raise an objection whenever they feel something implausible might occur. DM has final say on what is plausible'. Any rules set (of reasonable size) will, from time to time, produce implausible results.
It would take a very, very complicated set of rules to simulate a world. Much more complicated than could possibly fit in an rpg. In fact only a computer simulation could come anywhere near doing the job.
Small rules sets, such as are found in rpgs, are only appropriate for games, not sims.
Now the way D&D works is there's a game and a sim. The game is the boardgame/wargame of combat and dungeon bashing, which is covered in detail by the rules. The sim is the rest of the world, which has always had light to non-existent rules in every edition. What happens in this sphere is decided by objection raising and DM ruling, as described above.
What was so great about 3e, and it seems to be even more true of 4e, is that the boardgame part covered by the rules actually works as a game. It's the only rpg I've ever encountered which is tactically interesting. Which actually contains a fun and functioning game.
This is the purpose of game designers, to write the best wargame they can. It has taken them a long time to realise this and many still don't.
The freewheeling, just people talkin', sim part of the 'game' has always worked and always will. It doesn't require rules to make it work. If there were really complicated rules describing this part people would hate it. They'd complain the rules weren't letting them roleplay.
The best simulationist system possible is - 'DM decides' - because that will never break verisimilitude. Or, slightly more complicatedly - 'Players and/or DM raise an objection whenever they feel something implausible might occur. DM has final say on what is plausible'. Any rules set (of reasonable size) will, from time to time, produce implausible results.
It would take a very, very complicated set of rules to simulate a world. Much more complicated than could possibly fit in an rpg. In fact only a computer simulation could come anywhere near doing the job.
Small rules sets, such as are found in rpgs, are only appropriate for games, not sims.
Now the way D&D works is there's a game and a sim. The game is the boardgame/wargame of combat and dungeon bashing, which is covered in detail by the rules. The sim is the rest of the world, which has always had light to non-existent rules in every edition. What happens in this sphere is decided by objection raising and DM ruling, as described above.
What was so great about 3e, and it seems to be even more true of 4e, is that the boardgame part covered by the rules actually works as a game. It's the only rpg I've ever encountered which is tactically interesting. Which actually contains a fun and functioning game.
This is the purpose of game designers, to write the best wargame they can. It has taken them a long time to realise this and many still don't.
The freewheeling, just people talkin', sim part of the 'game' has always worked and always will. It doesn't require rules to make it work. If there were really complicated rules describing this part people would hate it. They'd complain the rules weren't letting them roleplay.
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Celebrim, while I largely feel you're onto something, I also feel that you might be being a bit narrow in your application.
My guess is that rather than not think about these things, we'll just have to think about them in 'different ways.'
For me, what breaks it in a lot of ways is monster/pc divisions. I just can't grok using special rules only for the characters you're controlling that no other entity in the world gets. It breaks my world wide open if my villains don't get healing surges, for instance.
This isn't NECESSARILY a 4e dealbreaker, but it's going to take some persuasive words to get me to embrace it as-is instead of heavily retconning it into my own 3.75e. They'll have to convince me that thinking about it in a different way is worth it, and that I gain more than I loose.
Which is kind of too bad, because there's a LOT of 4e that's REALLY quite good.
I just think you can fix a lot of the problems with 3e without embracing a lot of the design philosophies that I kind of baseline disagree with. :\
My guess is that rather than not think about these things, we'll just have to think about them in 'different ways.'
For me, what breaks it in a lot of ways is monster/pc divisions. I just can't grok using special rules only for the characters you're controlling that no other entity in the world gets. It breaks my world wide open if my villains don't get healing surges, for instance.
This isn't NECESSARILY a 4e dealbreaker, but it's going to take some persuasive words to get me to embrace it as-is instead of heavily retconning it into my own 3.75e. They'll have to convince me that thinking about it in a different way is worth it, and that I gain more than I loose.
Which is kind of too bad, because there's a LOT of 4e that's REALLY quite good.
I just think you can fix a lot of the problems with 3e without embracing a lot of the design philosophies that I kind of baseline disagree with. :\
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Remember, try to avoid comparing bad stuff in 4E to bad stuff that already existed in 3E (or any other RPG). It's quite possible that the OP or anyone else annoyed by this stuff didn't like it any better previously, and the fact that it against isn't changed in 4E isn't exactly an argument for it.
That said, I think there is "bad stuff" you just can't avoid.
For the "role-playing" part of the game, how much rules do you want? How much rules can a game have for the role-playing stuff until the actual interaction on a personal level is replaced with rolling dice and adding modifiers?
You could come up with a very complex social combat system, where people could use powers like "Intimidating Glare" or "sudden topic change" or "create straw man"-powers, but I think most people would agree that this that is no longer role-playing, but only a game.
The same could be made for any other kind of non-combat stuff, like general problem-solving. "I roll my Jump to Conclusions skill to beat the Level 12 Evidence challenge and figure out who killed our suspect before we got to him."
Or even worse. "I roll a Happyness check to see if my character is happy now after he has defeated his arch nemesis. Defeating him grants me a +10 accomplishment bonus" *roll* "Damn, a natural 1. Failed again. Let's roll on the Life Goal table to see what my character wants to do next."
The role-playing stuff cannot be replaced by mechanics. It is something "between" the rules. A fighter focusing on battle axes can be described by game-mechanics. But the reason why he likes battle axes, and the screams he yells while hacking goblin hordes together are the role-playing part.
A character good at social skills might seem like a good role-playing character, but he's only if the player actually uses the skills in character. "Frank could try to appease to the Black Guard so he let's him through. A diplomacy check should be enough. But he hates people aligning themselves with evil, no way he tried that. I'll try to bluff him instead."
There are aspects of role-playing that are defined in the rules. Your stats and the skills you choose say something about your character. What he is good at it, what he's bad at. But how to really role-play this stuff is not part of the rules. What you want to role-play determines your decision on how to create your character (25 point buy), or the way your character was created (roll 3d6 in order) informs how you role-play him, but the actual role-playing is not implemented in the rules.
But there is still another matter.
How much time do you devote to the role-playing part, how much do you devote to the game?
Games with little rules usually mean you devote a lot of your time to things outside the rules. That might lead to people role-playing more. But don't count on that.
Games with a lot of rules invite people to use them. So you might get less role-playing. But don't count on that.
In the end, people actually do the stuff that is the most fun to them. Some people enjoy he game part more then the role-playing part. Some people enjoy he role-playing part more the the game part.
D&D 4 can't stop a "role-player" from role-playing. His group can, though. If enough people love to concentrate on the rules, and interject little role-playing in between, the role-player will feel hindered. But then, the group can also make the "gamer" stop playing the game. If most people love to play out the interactions of the characters with each other and the NPCs, rarely using rules to solve anything, well, the gamer will feel hindered.
That said, I think there is "bad stuff" you just can't avoid.
For the "role-playing" part of the game, how much rules do you want? How much rules can a game have for the role-playing stuff until the actual interaction on a personal level is replaced with rolling dice and adding modifiers?
You could come up with a very complex social combat system, where people could use powers like "Intimidating Glare" or "sudden topic change" or "create straw man"-powers, but I think most people would agree that this that is no longer role-playing, but only a game.
The same could be made for any other kind of non-combat stuff, like general problem-solving. "I roll my Jump to Conclusions skill to beat the Level 12 Evidence challenge and figure out who killed our suspect before we got to him."
Or even worse. "I roll a Happyness check to see if my character is happy now after he has defeated his arch nemesis. Defeating him grants me a +10 accomplishment bonus" *roll* "Damn, a natural 1. Failed again. Let's roll on the Life Goal table to see what my character wants to do next."
The role-playing stuff cannot be replaced by mechanics. It is something "between" the rules. A fighter focusing on battle axes can be described by game-mechanics. But the reason why he likes battle axes, and the screams he yells while hacking goblin hordes together are the role-playing part.
A character good at social skills might seem like a good role-playing character, but he's only if the player actually uses the skills in character. "Frank could try to appease to the Black Guard so he let's him through. A diplomacy check should be enough. But he hates people aligning themselves with evil, no way he tried that. I'll try to bluff him instead."
There are aspects of role-playing that are defined in the rules. Your stats and the skills you choose say something about your character. What he is good at it, what he's bad at. But how to really role-play this stuff is not part of the rules. What you want to role-play determines your decision on how to create your character (25 point buy), or the way your character was created (roll 3d6 in order) informs how you role-play him, but the actual role-playing is not implemented in the rules.
But there is still another matter.
How much time do you devote to the role-playing part, how much do you devote to the game?
Games with little rules usually mean you devote a lot of your time to things outside the rules. That might lead to people role-playing more. But don't count on that.
Games with a lot of rules invite people to use them. So you might get less role-playing. But don't count on that.
In the end, people actually do the stuff that is the most fun to them. Some people enjoy he game part more then the role-playing part. Some people enjoy he role-playing part more the the game part.
D&D 4 can't stop a "role-player" from role-playing. His group can, though. If enough people love to concentrate on the rules, and interject little role-playing in between, the role-player will feel hindered. But then, the group can also make the "gamer" stop playing the game. If most people love to play out the interactions of the characters with each other and the NPCs, rarely using rules to solve anything, well, the gamer will feel hindered.
Ruin Explorer said:
Your correct in that a lot of passive abilities like Cleave are being reimaged into active powers. I think that is a good thing as it involves the player more than merely remembering to use his passive abilities.
I would say that using the Intimidate skill could satisfy your "Intimidating Glare" ability (if you ignore the language requirement). Assuming 4e skills are similar to 3e skills it has both in combat and out of combat uses, ones that are rather different.
I fully expect to see feats that will boost out of combat things like the Skill feat the wizards took to be trained in stealth. That could have been taken in Diplomacy and then you would have all the noncombat abilities involved with the Diplomacy skill. Now if 4e fails to provide an actual noncombat system other than the nearly nonexistant 3e one of make a single diplomacy roll, then you may have a point.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
3e did a very bad job as a simulism RPG, if you want that play rolemaster.
Really, at higher levels... 5 shots with a (cross)bow in 6 seconds (with rapid reload)?
no facing...
i rather have an ultimate combat advantage i can easily use to apply for attacks from the back than deciding which rule i use (flanking, flatfooted, or my prefered invisible attacker bonus)
IMHO the strength of ADnD 2nd edition was very fast and simple, combat from which you could recover quickly. 3e did aways with that.
Really, at higher levels... 5 shots with a (cross)bow in 6 seconds (with rapid reload)?
no facing...
i rather have an ultimate combat advantage i can easily use to apply for attacks from the back than deciding which rule i use (flanking, flatfooted, or my prefered invisible attacker bonus)
IMHO the strength of ADnD 2nd edition was very fast and simple, combat from which you could recover quickly. 3e did aways with that.
Doug McCrae
Legend
The purpose of the rules is not to design a world and never ever has been.Celebrim said:
Look at the core concepts of D&D - class, level, alignment, hit points. Does that look like an attempt to simulate reality or to produce a fun, functioning game?
ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
So you haven't actually played the game, but based on secondhand reports from a convention DUNGEON CRAWL you've decided that it's too "gamist"?
Okay.
Okay.
