PHB2 = World of Warcraft D&D?

[mmu1]

Well chosen words, which in D&D can be represented via social skills, and force of personality, which is to say, a decent charisma score...

There already are mechanical representations of those things. Even down to the point where we know what kind of action it takes to use them in combat, etc.

Saying that oh, you should roleplay it and that having a mechanic for such a thing is a step backwards is more than a bit off. Roleplaying and mechanics are not by necessity mutually exclusive, and sure, different groups may well tend to sway more to either end of the spectrum, but that's their option.

I never said they were mutually exclusive.

Just that having that mechanic is a step backwards, if your goal is to approximate the kind of epic challenges you might see in literature. The game already has ways of dealing with it (through a combination of mechanics and role-play) and a specfic mechanism restricted to a single class is needlessly limiting and artificial.

 

[JohnSnow]

I'm willing to bet that most people who dislike the challenges are quite aware of the literary precedents - and that, in fact, is the reason they dislike the PHB2 version. Because there's more to an epic challenge, or putting your honor on the line, than a special ability that you can turn on like a switch, so many times per day.

That might be a necessary way of simulating things in a computer game - where a mindless computer-controlled enemy won't be swayed by well chosen words or your force of personality - but around a gaming table, where you can - and should - role play the damn thing, it can easily be seen as a step backwards.

I'd like to think you were right. And, in one sense, I agree that I wish this challenge didn't work that way. But that gets into the whole problem I have with the "Usable X times per day" mechanic concept. Which doesn't make sense ANYWAY. I far prefer Mike Mearls elegant "token" system from Iron Heroes, which almost completely does away with "X times per day" abilities in favor of abilities that take so long to use, or can only be activated under certain circumstances, and so forth.

So, other than the "per day" part of this ability, I have no problem with it.

And I definitely take issue with the notion of "roleplay it" as a valid balancing agent. What if I, as the player of a character, decide to taunt the big bad villain into single combat, and the DM just doesn't want him to accept? Or what if the villain issues a challenge that my hero would find compelling, but since he's just a playing piece, I make a rational decision that supercedes the character's emotional reaction. Is either of those situations "fair?" Of course not.

In the first case, it's "bad DMing," whereas in the second, it's "bad roleplaying." But the simple fact is that emotional appeals don't always work "right" in an RPG because we aren't the characters we play. Think of a villain who taunts your hero to attack by murdering all the people he loves and waving their decapitated heads in his face. The character would be pissed! Possibly, he'd be enraged "I'm going to rip your head off" pissed. The player...isn't. He MAY play that, but he may not.

Similarly, if the DM has established that the villain is an egotistical SOB, and the player decides to taunt the villain into single combat to distract him, the DM may choose not to allow it. Why? Well, maybe the DM has a plot in mind and having his villain get provoked into combat isn't in his agenda. Like the player in the above example, the DM isn't necessarily going to react as the villain would.

To me, disallowing abilities like this is like disallowing Willpower saves against non-supernatural issues on the basis that the player ought to decide how his character would react through roleplaying. The problem is that players aren't their characters, so there's always going to be a separation between their reactions and those of their characters. With good roleplayers, those situations come up less often, but having mechanics for the situation still helps.

It's like the social interaction skills - a crutch for when roleplay doesn't properly cover the character's abilities. Sure, you still roleplay it, but if Joe the uneloquent gamer is playing Gareth the silver-tongued rogue, that bluff skill check is important. It makes up for an ability the player lacks, but the character has.

And it fairly penalizes Tom the silver tongued player from making Thog, the halfwit barbarian smarter, wiser, or more charismatic than he should be. Otherwise, all personality skills are dump stats because they'll never be used in game.

Okay...off my soap box. I do agree that the "per day" mechanic is wonky, though.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

WoW isnt that original. It just takes what came before it and puts it into a nice accessible and very polished package.

Weeeeell, it's an MMORPG and the players certainly brought the pre-existant MMORPG terminology to the game. WoW's biggest innovation is to move the focus of the game from grinding to XP to completing story objectives (even if said stories involve killing a ton of enemies along the way). That's not a radical shift for D&D players, but it's a major sea change compared to previous MMORPGs, with EverQuest ironically being almost impossible to play in a comparable fashion. (Quests in EQ1 give almost no experience after the first few levels, and are designed in a "guess what I have in my pocket" sort of anti-logic to them.)

I believe Wotc is looking at that and going maybe we need to make D&D more accessible and polished. ???

For every person who wants a more polished D&D, there's one who wants it to be more fiddly and funky in the 1E vein.

In any case, designers should feel free to look wherever they can for inspiration, both for design and for flavor.

 

[Victim]

I'd like to think you were right. And, in one sense, I agree that I wish this challenge didn't work that way. But that gets into the whole problem I have with the "Usable X times per day" mechanic concept. Which doesn't make sense ANYWAY. I far prefer Mike Mearls elegant "token" system from Iron Heroes, which almost completely does away with "X times per day" abilities in favor of abilities that take so long to use, or can only be activated under certain circumstances, and so forth.

The token systems are hardly elegant, since each one works so differently and is rather complex. And, for many classes, the opportunity cost of gathering tokens is so high that using their abilities is impractical.

And I definitely take issue with the notion of "roleplay it" as a valid balancing agent. What if I, as the player of a character, decide to taunt the big bad villain into single combat, and the DM just doesn't want him to accept? Or what if the villain issues a challenge that my hero would find compelling, but since he's just a playing piece, I make a rational decision that supercedes the character's emotional reaction. Is either of those situations "fair?" Of course not.

In the first case, it's "bad DMing," whereas in the second, it's "bad roleplaying." But the simple fact is that emotional appeals don't always work "right" in an RPG because we aren't the characters we play. Think of a villain who taunts your hero to attack by murdering all the people he loves and waving their decapitated heads in his face. The character would be pissed! Possibly, he'd be enraged "I'm going to rip your head off" pissed. The player...isn't. He MAY play that, but he may not.

Similarly, if the DM has established that the villain is an egotistical SOB, and the player decides to taunt the villain into single combat to distract him, the DM may choose not to allow it. Why? Well, maybe the DM has a plot in mind and having his villain get provoked into combat isn't in his agenda. Like the player in the above example, the DM isn't necessarily going to react as the villain would.

Or maybe the villain, despite being egostical, isn't stupid. Possibly, the character would be pissed off enough to attack thoughtlessly. Or maybe he'll take his revenge cold. Effective /= bad roleplaying; ineffective /= good roleplaying.

 

[pawsplay]

A quick history lesson:

The terms "aggro" and "mob" go back to the days of the MUD, long before all this MMORPG stuff. I'm talking text-based dungeon hacks using a telnet client.

The orc slashes at you! He hits! You are BLEEDING from your wounds!!!

So does retraining, or "remorting." A max level character (typically 25 or 50) who had achieved the level of "immortality" would have the opportunity to come back as a new class, sometimes a special class unavailable to beginning characters. Of course, Champions already had the "radiation accident" clause in place, so the idea isn't unique to any one environment. As a matter of fact, humans in AD&D could become "dual class" characters by effectively changing class. Whereas in Cyclopedia D&D, one path to immortality was to become a polymath, advancing to high level in three new lives as a different character class.

The knight is just the disillation of the "meat shield" archetypal fighter, and mixes in a little Cavalier and a taunt (which kender have had for decades).

 

[JohnSnow]

The token systems are hardly elegant, since each one works so differently and is rather complex. And, for many classes, the opportunity cost of gathering tokens is so high that using their abilities is impractical.

Have you ever actually played an Iron Heroes game? You're right in one sense. Tokens only get used when they provide a tangible benefit. The character can rack up tokens and go for a big move, or they can just use their regular attacks. That means most of the token abilities are more likely to be used in a big set piece fight, not just when dispatching mooks. So, in one sense, it's more like barbarian rage or any of the other "per day" abilities in D&D. They'll get used when common, everyday tactics WON'T work.

There are only 15 kinds of tokens. Yes, each works slightly differently. However, they represent the sum total of special abilities of the Iron Heroes classes. It's unlikely any character will have more than 2 or 3 pools, if that many.

By contrast, D&D characters all have class features, magical items, etc., etc. How many different mechanics are there for all those things? Hundreds? Thousands? Quite honestly, I don't think 15 is that many to keep track of.

You are, of course, free to disagree. But I think most Iron Heroes players would agree with me.

Or maybe the villain, despite being egostical, isn't stupid. Possibly, the character would be pissed off enough to attack thoughtlessly. Or maybe he'll take his revenge cold. Effective /= bad roleplaying; ineffective /= good roleplaying.

Good roleplaying also doesn't just mean finding an excuse for doing whatever you, the player, want the character to do. And that's the point. Without the mechanic, you're talking about something that's a fuzzy handwave, with valid arguments on both sides. It's like two kids playing cops and robbers:

Kid A: "You're dead, I shot you!"
Kid B: "Am not! You missed!"
Kid A: "Did Not! I could totally see you."
Kid B: "Well, I dodged."

And they go back and forth, ad infinitum. Differences of opinion such as this is one of the things RPGs were invented to resolve. The mechanics EXIST to take out the "perfectly valid argument" on either side.

Compare the following:

Player: "I taunt the villain to come out and fight me."
<insert player's attempt at roleplaying taunting speech here>
DM: "The villain isn't stupid. He stays in his castle."
Player: "But you didn't even roll!"
DM: "Well, the villain's no more foolish than me, and I wouldn't come out. So he stays inside."
Player: "But you said he was egotistical! I played to his vanity and call him a coward."
DM: "Sorry, you weren't convincing enough."
Player: "But Sir Egemore would be more convincing than me. He's got a 19 charisma. He can do this a LOT better than I can."
DM: "Sorry, I just don't buy it. You didn't roleplay it well enough."
Player: *GRUMBLE*

vs.

Player: "I taunt the villain to come out and fight me."
<insert player's attempt at roleplaying taunting speech here>
Player: "I got a 25 on my taunt. He's got to beat that as a Sense Motive check."
DM: *rolls dice* "Nope. Even factoring in a mild circumstance bonus for good roleplaying, the villain is unmoved by your speech. While it nettled his ego a great deal, his good sense gets the better of him and he stays inside."
Player: "Okay, fine, he's too clever for that. I guess we need to try something else."

The first situation is entirely the DM's judgement call. The second gives him some guidance and settles the situation with RULES. The player is satisfied because his idea was given a CHANCE to work. No, it doesn't have to be a class ability. But some form of skill use (Intimidate, perhaps?) might be appropriate.

 

[pawsplay]

The last thing I want to do is give the players a chance to have some NPC do something asinine. Fear the law of Two Natural Twenties:

Any time a DM declares that he will allow a PC to attempt some ridiculously implausible action if he can roll two natural 20s in a row, the player will roll two natural 20s.

 

[Hussar]

And I definitely take issue with the notion of "roleplay it" as a valid balancing agent. What if I, as the player of a character, decide to taunt the big bad villain into single combat, and the DM just doesn't want him to accept? Or what if the villain issues a challenge that my hero would find compelling, but since he's just a playing piece, I make a rational decision that supercedes the character's emotional reaction. Is either of those situations "fair?" Of course not.

Having been on the receiving end of exactly this style of DMing, I can say that there is definitely room for a "challenge" mechanic. JohnSnow has hit it on the head quite well.

I think most of the screaming is coming from DM's who can't bear to see their well crafted scenarios get trashed by players.

 

[Taraxia]

Having been on the receiving end of exactly this style of DMing, I can say that there is definitely room for a "challenge" mechanic. JohnSnow has hit it on the head quite well.

I think most of the screaming is coming from DM's who can't bear to see their well crafted scenarios get trashed by players.

I do think it's hypocritical to get all upset about Knights' Challenges while still allowing Bards to inspire everyone to great fervor and excitement by... adding +1 to a bunch of checks rather than actually making an inspiring speech.

 

[pawsplay]

I do think it's hypocritical to get all upset about Knights' Challenges while still allowing Bards to inspire everyone to great fervor and excitement by... adding +1 to a bunch of checks rather than actually making an inspiring speech.

How is that hypocritical? That presupposes that granting someone a +1 is something anyone could do with a rousing speech. Bardic music is subject to ASF. Those are magical abilities.