Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5630503" data-attributes="member: 2067">I feel like I might be getting a bit misinterpreted, so let me clarify:I think rituals and skill challenges are good rules for what they were designed to do. Namely, resolving the occasional noncombat situation. They are pretty fine at doing that. GP cost is still kind of an issue, and sameness in SC's is still kind of an issue, but they are pretty adequate at doing the job they were meant to do.I think what they were designed to do was the wrong thing to design them to do. I think they should have been designed to give drama, tension, and excitement to things that are not combat. They don't do that very well. This shouldn't be surprising, because they weren't meant to do that. I think that my criticisms of them for not doing something they weren't meant to do is a reaction to the following chain of events: I say "4e lacks effective noncombat rules," and people argue, "What about SC's and Rituals?," and then I have to explain why those aren't good enough for me, so in this instance, I just leapt ahead to why they aren't good enough for me. But they're good enough for what they were meant to do. They just weren't meant to do the thing that I need them to do. The free, nonmagical alternatives to teleportation, raising, and scrying (moving over land, making a Heal check to stabilize the dying, or using Perception) are almost always better than rituals. There's a few corner cases of things you can ONLY do with rituals, but you could also play a game entirely without them and not miss them. Which is kind of a problem. Imagine playing the game without the combat system!I do agree with you here -- I think the idea in 4e of "everyone contributes" is a very good idea, since it makes the system neutral. I think that's definitely worth preserving going forward. I just thing everyone also needs to contribute in dramatic encounters that don't involve stabbing things (and that sometimes stabbing things is not so dramatic as to require an entire hour-long minis battle). Yes, but the rules need to support a DM in doing that. 4e gives you great rules to support your combats -- monsters galore, a quick and fairly simple "monster design" engine, attacks that vary in damage, effects, defenses, ranges, usage times, a roles system that lets everyone contribute, even action points as a cherry on top. Even rituals and SC's support your combats, since they locate everything that's not a combat in an optional shadowland. 4e does not give you great rules to support your courtly intrigue or your trailblazing exploration or your crime scene investigation. SC's and rituals won't do that for you. A good DM might, but a good DM is independent of a system. The system is at its best when it encourages, rewards, and aids good DMing. 4e doesn't do that for an Eberron DM who is into making a fantasy version of L. A. Noire for his next adventure, for instance. Outside of combat? XP.Inside combat? HP.Sanity systems in Call of Cthulu work similarly, and similarly raise the tension gradually.Systems of character development and change like the "keys" XP system do it too.I haven't played, but I've heard Burning Wheel does a great job of providing drama and tension.That's just in tabletop RPGs. The betting system in poker provides drama and tension. The scoring system in golf does likewise. The rules about downs in american football ramp up the tension at almost a hilariously narrative rate. In Grand Theft Auto, the star ratings for alerting law enforcement are VERY effective drama-generators. In chess, each turn is a dramasaurus, because the system is so effective at generation tension. In Jenga, each turn is also very dramatic, since that tower ain't gettin' any MORE stable. It's one of the basic arts of game design as I see it: using a ruleset to inspire a feeling. It doesn't have to be drama or tension, but that's one of the things that games, by their nature as being luck and skill based, are very good at inspiring. There are games that are built to inspire creativity, joy, satisfaction, laughter, and other things, too, though.In D&D, I'm seeking the feeling of being "heroic," which means, in part, that I'm seeking the feeling of overcoming a difficult challenge.A system that is essentially a coin flip (or a series of them) isn't very good at delivering that feeling. It isn't very good at delivering any feeling. It doesn't support a DM's decision to use it in a game where you want people to leave the table having felt something. Y'know, as much as there might be quibbles, I think ultimately we'd hit in the same general area. Giving the players more than just 17 skills and a binary d20 roll to affect the world outside of combat with would be a remarkable first step towards enabling the system to support things that aren't combat.Of course, if these degenerate into "+2 to a skill check," then we're back at the level of YAWN.</blockquote>

Verification