Removing homogenity from 4e

[ferratus]

Nope, not even a teeny change in position.


I'm sure you are correct.

But you are still telling a story, ever bit as varied as mine... [snip]

hom
Oh I'm not trying to convince you that you should play 4e. As long as people stop saying "4e uses combat as a hammer and all problems are nails" and such, I'll be happy enough. It is the insult to my creativity that is implied by statements such as that which really get under my collar. I want people to say what you just said, that 4e is a system that can tell a complex story.

I think it has advantages over prior editions in telling stories in fact, since it places such a strong emphasis on narrative. I do not believe however that it is necessarily better for other DM's to tell stories with. For example, "Come and Get It" bothers some DM's but doesn't bother me in the slightest. I like the fact that powers describe what happens, rather than what the characters are capable of doing. Another DM would be driven to distraction, because he can't tell the story without describing it in terms of what the characters do.

This is the same with the skill system. I think it gives me more tools to tell a story than 3.5's skill system because it is more broadly encompassing and describes what happens. Other DM's hate it because it doesn't describe what a character can do. They might hate the fact that use rope isn't a skill and assume that everyone has it, or that everyone can do it. I don't view it that way at all. In my games, the character has a skill if he uses it, not if the rules say he has it marked down as a trained skill on his character sheet. A druid might mechanically have the ability to tie ropes or set snares, but if he never does it then obviously he isn't practiced in the skill because he would have used it to overcome obstacles. What happens as a style of play rather than what the character can do works for my way of thinking and my way of storytelling.

I can say with complete confidence that you will have more fun at my table if you are playing a 4e game, even if you don't like 4e, than you would if I was DMing any other version of D&D.

To get back on topic, If I can convince people that 4e and 3e both have homogeneous and divergent properties in their rules systems, I'll be ecstatic. I genuinely think people notice things that bother them more.

You can role play on top of any rule set. The question for me is, does some other system do a better job of building the character as I want to see it, rather than only as close as "working" math permits.

And I can accept that your way of thinking and play style works better with another rules system. I myself don't play 3e or Pathfinder because rogues (rogues are my favourite) don't act and fight enough like rogues for me. I think 3e does the best job of portraying wizards and polytheistic clerics as I tend to think of them, but thanks to 4e using very modular rules and increasing number of character build options I think it is already a matter of time before 4e catches up. (I have a house rule that makes 4e wizards as diverse in spell ability as 3e, but we're talking RAW here).

I'm left to wonder as well if the "what happens" vs. "what my character can do" mindset also contributes to the feeling of being homogeneous. Having more character options for the latter type of player can definitely increase the feeling that all characters are same.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Please, you're just marginalizing someone else's opinion. Are you sad that they don't agree with you? Good to know that, according to you, liking 4e = "I like to play actual games," whereas disliking it = "Oh, you just like to paint things, you don't care or really understand how the game works."



Can we please make it a bannable offense or something to claim that, in order to dislike a game, that person clearly must have never played it or has no experience about it, because obviously if you understood the game, you have to love it?

You mean the exact same thing that ByronD did to ferratus?

To recap, ferratus (to paraphrase) said "Some people like chocolate while others like strawberry so please stop saying that chocolate sucks" to which Byron responded (also paraphrasing) "chocolate is okay if you like that sort of thing, but there's a ton of better flavors out there". Perhaps I was mistaken (in which case I apologize), but I interpreted Byron's response as a passive-aggressive insult (and hence quite rude).

Could you point out where I said that Byron has no experience with the system, because I can't see where I said anything of the sort?

To recap, Byron said that he doesn't feel that "math that works" is worth a loss of character building options. I, in turn, made a metaphor that equated the math with an engine and build options with a paint job. You might not agree with the metaphor but...

As an aside, I don't believe that if you play 4e that you have to love 4e. I've stated my personal hypothesis twice now (albeit once as the unamended version):

Perhaps the major difference between many of those who see homogenization in 4e and those of us who don't is simply those who like the team-oriented fantasy action-adventure genre and those who don't?

Now, unless you're going to insist that you do indeed love the team-oriented fantasy action-adventure genre, I can't see how that would imply that you must love 4e or you're an idiot. If you do insist that you deeply love the aforementioned genre, then the theory seems a bust and it's back to the drawing board. C'est la vie.

 

[Barastrondo]

Perhaps the major difference between many of those who see homogenization in 4e and those of us who don't is simply those who like the team-oriented fantasy action-adventure genre and those who don't?

I don't think it can be boiled down to just that dividing point. There's also:

- whether or not you want spellcaster classes to be able to do things out of combat that nobody else can do

- whether or not you want "fewer options" as a class feature, such as the old-school fighter

and

- whether or not character-building is one of the sub-hobbies you find within gaming.

Probably more than those four as well. But I think it's pretty well-established that 4e does not give spellcaster classes much more to do outside of combat than other classes get (though there's still no fighter equivalent to Beguiling Tongue or similar powers), there is no 4e class where you don't have to select powers, and 4e doesn't provide as robustly fiddly a character-building experience with its streamlined skill system and much-pared-down approach to multiclassing. These are all true things.

Of course, they're deal-breakers for some and vast improvements for others. And regrettably it leads to a lot of loaded language. (My least favorite at the moment: the "some people just can't see it" as a descriptor for a problem. There is a difference between "do not see it as a problem" and "cannot see a problem that factually exists," and a decided insult, however subtle, in using "can't see" instead of "don't agree".)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The conflict comes from people getting upset that their game is getting crapped on.

People who prefer 4E get cranky when people crap on their game.

People who prefer previous editions get cranky because they feel that the release of 4E crapped on their game.

 

[Derren]

And so we are back to "Everyone who wants something to do things out of combat just wants his caster character to shine and steal the spotlight from everyone else"....

 

[ferratus]

The issue is, the roleplaying never really went anywhere mechanically. You can roleplay in Monopoly, but in the end you're just kinda faffing about - it doesn't have any effect on the actual game.

I do not understand. Roleplaying has plenty of mechanical effects on the game. You describe an action, and you roll either an attack (if it an attack action), you choose a ritual (if it is an out of combat spell) or you choose a skill, or you choose an ability check. You either target a defense, or you target a DC decided by your DM.

It works almost exactly the same as it did in 3e. More rules would be nice, but 4e does the job just as well as all previous editions of D&D did.

That's where the out of combat mechanics come in. It removes the "fighting as a minigame" or the jRPG CHSSST CHSSSST problems.

When the only mechanics you have are for combat, that's literally the only part of the game that is the game.

I assure you that there is just as much in the way of mechanics in 4e for out of combat encounters as 3e. Describe an action and I'll tell you how to mechanically resolve it in 4e.

Oh, and the jRPG crack is an example of your rudeness that makes me dislike you. It is not witty to imply things about my play style. Something witty is a humorous observation that gets me to see things in a different way. Saying things like that just shows a lack of respect for me personally.
Perhaps you should consider for example, that I might like the Illiad, so I'm using that as an influence to how I describe epic feats of superheroism.

Look, I'm happy your houserules give you a lot more out of combat stuff, but house rules do not defend a game.

What I explained to you was not houserules. It is how you are supposed to use the spells to light things on fire, and how you are supposed to use the skill system.

I'm sorry that you never took advantage of those rules and assumed that they weren't proper applications, but the rules do exist. The skill system is designed to be interpreted broadly, which is why so many 3e skills are under the umbrella of one descriptor.

What 4e needs to do is the exact goddamn opposite of what they are doing with their skill tricks. Instead of saying "Hey, let's make skills more combat-related," they should be saying "Hey, let's make skills and powers more out-of-combat related!" Let illusionists make illusions. Let wizards light things on fire.

Again, it is quite easy to make illusions through prestidigitation and ghost sound. That is what those powers are for, the skillful application of illusion magic. Want to deceive someone with an illusion? prestidigitation and/or ghost sound + bluff. Want to make a terrifying illusion that intimidates your enemy? Prestidigitation and/or ghost sound + intimidate. It is part of the reason why high charisma gnomes make such sneaky, lying bastards.

As well, there are rules for how to damage objects on page 65 of the DMG. Do you think your fire spell can summon enough heat to melt an iron door into slag? Well go nuts, it has 60 hp, a reflex defense of 5.

These are not houserules, they are there in in the PHB and DMG in black & white. I just know about them because I've had more practice and 4e suits my way of thinking.

Once again, in before more houserules or "My good DM makes this otherwise!"

Nope, not yet.

 

[Barastrondo]

And so we are back to "Everyone who wants something to do things out of combat just wants his caster character to shine and steal the spotlight from everyone else"....

Not my belief at all, but I honestly see caster classes cited far and away more often than the others. The "wizard cannot [use out-of-combat spell he previously had access to]" example shows up more often, at least in the places I browse, than "the fighter cannot [use out-of-combat ability he previously had access to]."

Would I like more out-of-combat utilities to select from? Sure! They're my favorite. I'd like to see more of them for martial characters in particular. Of course, what I'd really like to see for encouraging more non-combat stuff would require the monetary system to be completely decoupled from the magical item advancement system. That's a hard thing to introduce at this stage, as nobody wants to go back to the "DM fiat" method of creating magical items. But I don't see a better way to get PCs spending money again to buy taverns and sailing ships and strongholds. It kind of requires making money irrelevant to the process of keeping current on "magic items by level."

 

[ferratus]

And so we are back to "Everyone who wants something to do things out of combat just wants his caster character to shine and steal the spotlight from everyone else"....

I don't think entirely. I think it is quite reasonable to want your characters do things mechanically differently if that is your cup of tea, and if you want to have a particular class solve particular problems.

I don't particularly care about that, I care about the narrative of the story. I get enough difference between characters simply by the descriptive nature of the powers. For example, a fighter can break down a door with brute strength, while a wizard can burn it down. It accomplishes the same thing mechanically, but the wizard still has an ability that the fighter doesn't have. He burns doors to slag with magic.

Take a wizard using magic to try and befriend someone. A rogue or a bard might use his quick tongue, a cleric might give off an aura of good, and a warlord might give off a reassuring presence of leadership. The wizard however, might use a prestidigitation to improve his looks, or speak with greater alacrity than he normally would.

Narratively, they still accomplish the same goal, but they are all doing things that other players can't do. A rogue can't snatch a secret of the villain's greatest fear out of his head, but the psion doesn't know how to press a knife to the villains throat in just the right place to make him uneasy. Both however, make the same intimidate check, using the same charisma score. (No house ruling!)

But I'm beginning to think that I'm one of the few that understood this from the reading of the rules. If so, I understand the feelings of anger over the lack of out of combat options in 4e. If you think that diplomacy skill is about "speaking well" rather than what happens which is that you influence someone positively, then there are scores of character archetypes that will never exist in your games. If you assume that intimidate is only the threat of violence, bluff is only lying, perception is only having keen senses and so forth, it becomes tens of thousands of character archetypes never explored. Thousands of minor spells that can be done with a standard action will never be used.

I track with a find the path spell (skill check: nature). I seduce the noblewoman by magically changing my appearance to look like a more handsome version of myself (skill check: diplomacy). I try to use a minor spell to slow the descent of my fall (skill check: acrobatics).

You still need to be a worshipper of primal spirits to cast a find the path spell, or know how to present your magically enhanced appearance, or be nimble enough to use the spell to slow your fall, but it is the result that matters. Again, it isn't what your character can do, it is what happens. Narrative is king in 4e.

If you have a feat or a utility power that allows you to substitute one skill check for another, it also works in the favour of narrative. Take Raistlin Majere and the utility power "arcane mutterings." Raistlin isn't the most intimidating character around, being a scrawny and sickly minor mage. Raistlin though has an ace up his sleeve, he knows how to make a curse sound like a curse, and knows how to come up with a terrifying name for a fictional creature. So when he lays a phony curse on his belongings to terrify a bunch of goblins, they believe him.

I thought all of this was obvious as skills (and skill challenges) were described in the PHB and DMG. If nobody else got this, I should immediately write up an article for dungeon.

 

[Gimby]

What 4e needs to do is the exact goddamn opposite of what they are doing with their skill tricks. Instead of saying "Hey, let's make skills more combat-related," they should be saying "Hey, let's make skills and powers more out-of-combat related!" Let illusionists make illusions. Let wizards light things on fire.

Once again, in before more houserules or "My good DM makes this otherwise!"

I'm really not getting why you think wizards can't light things on fire. They can summon flames at will (Scorching Burst) and Prestidigation specifically calls out starting fires as one of its abilities. Dry papers are given as an example of something that that would be vulnerable to fire. If you are claiming that this is house ruling then Fire Shroud causes ongoing fire damage. Why is it you think that they can't set things on fire?

As for illusions, one of the other abilities of Prestidigiation is

"Produce out of nothingness a small item or image that exists until the end of your next turn"

Thats actually not dissimilar to Silent Image. Or Minor Image if you decide to go for the other option

"Create a harmless sensory effect, such as a shower of sparks, a puff of wind, faint music or a strong odour"

Its somewhat more limited in size, but you certainly can produce illusions. At will even, and all wizards can do it!

 

[fanboy2000]

When the only mechanics you have are for combat, that's literally the only part of the game that is the game.

And again, the non-combat rules we have are skill challenges and...that's it. Yes, you can stand around and chatter, but - wait, no, the DMG tells you not to do that. So hey.

Look, I'm happy your houserules give you a lot more out of combat stuff, but house rules do not defend a game.

Well, here's a few things you can do in 4e that don't require house rules that help, mechanically, out of combat roleplaying.

Rituals
Hallucinatory Item allows you to make illusions of objects.

In fact rituals, like Animal Messenger, are specifically designed so PCs can do cool things out of combat.

Skills
Nature allows you to forage for food, no skill challenge required.

Insight, intimidate, and bluff are quintessential roleplaying skills useful both in and out of skill challenges.

Powers
Speaking of skills, the ranger utility power Crucial Advice allows people near the ranger to re-roll the skill check with the ranger’s wisdom modifier.

Prestidigitation is specifically written to allow wizard’s to do magical effects out of combat. (Just like 3.x, it’s one of my favorite spells and, from an out of combat pov, really distinguishes wizards from other arcane classes.)

The rogue utility power Master of Deceit allows rogues to re-roll bluff checks.

Raven’s Glamor, a warlock utility power, allows the warlock to be invisible and leave behind an illusion in the location where the warlock became invisible. The out of combat uses of this should be apparent.

Wizards, as one might expect, have numerous non-combat powers. First, the get bunch up front. Along the way they can get such old standbys as Disguise Self, Invisibility, and (a personal favorite) Mordenkaine’s Mansion.

Druid’s get a nifty little utility power, called Skittering Sneak, that let’s them turn into a tiny (e.g. a house cat or spider) animal and sneak around. It’s awesome.

Items
Wondrous Items are often sources or out-of-combat fun.

Lens of reading allows you to read a language you don’t know for one hour a day.

Wondrous Lair items are rooms and furniture that are specifically designed to spruce-up the PCs home. The feast table, in particular seems stolen from Hogwarts.

I don't see a better way to get PCs spending money again to buy taverns and sailing ships and strongholds. It kind of requires making money irrelevant to the process of keeping current on "magic items by level."

Well Ethan, we don't have prices for tavern or strongholds yet, but we do have ships! That said, I don't think strongholds were priced and detailed at this stage of 3e's development. (IIRC the books governing those things came out just before the 3.5 core books came out.)

Mic
Wanna buy a longship? (I run a Norse campaign.) It’ll cost you 5,000gp. It’s 4 squares by 14 squares and has a “swim” speed of 5. (+/-4 depending on wind).

Of course, there’s the quintessential fantasy transportation: the airship. That’ll set you back 85,000gp. It’s got a fly speed of 12 (hover) and overland speed of 15.

Of course, maybe you prefer a plain old mount. If horses aren’t your thing, you can go Hannibal style and buy an elephant. Or you can buy a camel. Camel’s have some advantages over horses that shouldn’t be overlooked.

These are some of the out-of-combat things a person can do in 4e. Most, if not all, of this stuff was perfectly doable in 3.x. It’s one of the reasons I play 4e, I can do all the cool out of combat stuff I liked doing in 3.x. I wouldn’t say most of it is implemented better, though some of it is. I think nature is better implemented than wilderness lore, survival, and Knowledge (Nature) were. I love the new prestidigitation. And rituals solve a lot of the problems I had conceptually with non-combat spells.

What I like about 4e isn't that I can do many of things I liked about 3.x (though that's a bonus), its the homogeneity of the system. The simple design of the rules is a real bonus for me as someone who loves rpgs, but otherwise isn't really a hobby gamer. (I like board games like go and card games like euchre, generally speaking.) The homogenous rules are just easier on my poor brain.