Revisionist game publishing

[Obryn]

Why would I be motivated to invent surface-dwelling kobolds, if 4e didn't ask me to? How do I reconcile the idea of a surface-dwelling creature with this thing whose main connection to real world mythology is that it lives underground?

I have no idea why you would want to. I wouldn't. If it bothers you that a given PC kobold didn't have darkvision, there are ways to address it. Some of which may even be fruitful and interesting enough for development into a campaign.

So was I right, were the 4e designers wrong? Are you saying PC kobolds should have darkvision?

They were very conservative right after 4e came out. They are less so now, and darkvision is a clear area of increased PC availability. If you want to classify that as they were wrong and you were right, you can go with your bad self.

If you follow 4e, there's a pretty clear and obvious refinement that's come with later products that wasn't there in the first PHB. A-shaped classes rather than V-shaped, experiments with the power structure like the Monk and Psion, better-siloed feats, greater availabilty of power-swapping outside the multiclassing system, skill-based powers... It's more or less everywhere. The newer materials - like PHB2 and the previews for PHB3 - are tighter, more experimental, and developed with a better eye towards the system as it's played rather than the system as it was originally envisioned.

So yeah, their original conception of darkvision probably doesn't match what we're seeing in newer releases. You learn a lot with a few years of experience.

-O

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, yeah!

But seriously, maybe this is my perspective from having played GURPS, Hero System, Rolemaster, WFRP, D6, and dozens of other games but, why is it that so many other games find satisfying resolutions to situations like these, but D&D 4e falters? How is that Mutants & Masterminds can deal with characters who could literally be anything from a two-fisted detective to an angel to a superfast robot, and yet 4e rests on the assumption that this level of homogenity is problematic?

They might deal with that well. But do they deal with everything else equally well?

Does GURPS point buy system really give you a way to measure relative character power, for exampe? Or power compared to NPCs? How quickly can you build an NPC with the desired traits within a given budget?

Like in most design challenges, there are always trade-offs to be considered, conflicting goals you want to optimize for.

4E didn't see it as an important goal to have a unified "creation" mechanic for creatures. PCs and NPCs are different. But while they have different rules behind them, they still share a common "interface" that allows them to interact with each other. Defenses, Attacks, Hit Points, Ability Scores, Skill Modifiers, Initiative, Speed and Movement Modes, Languages, Alignment, Conditions.

 

[pawsplay]

They might deal with that well. But do they deal with everything else equally well?

Dealing with everything else equally well is not a realistic goal. They deal with most things well enough. Unlike, IMO, D&D 4e.

Does GURPS point buy system really give you a way to measure relative character power, for exampe? Or power compared to NPCs?

Yes. In fact, comparing attack-defense and damage-defenses is very easy in GURPS. It woudl not be difficult to calculate the outcome of most GURPS battles in a hypothetical situation where each character used mostly standard attacks.

How quickly can you build an NPC with the desired traits within a given budget?

About the same as 4e. If you can re-skin an existing template, seconds. If you're working from scratch, longer. And of course there is no reason to keep a point budget for most NPCs, although you can if it's useful.

Like in most design challenges, there are always trade-offs to be considered, conflicting goals you want to optimize for.

4E didn't see it as an important goal to have a unified "creation" mechanic for creatures. PCs and NPCs are different. But while they have different rules behind them, they still share a common "interface" that allows them to interact with each other. Defenses, Attacks, Hit Points, Ability Scores, Skill Modifiers, Initiative, Speed and Movement Modes, Languages, Alignment, Conditions.

Of course. You are absolutely right about that. But that is not at all a defense of things 4e does badly. Your argument makes sense in comparing 4e with other games, but it doesn't have a lot of merit when comparing 4e to a 4e-that-might-have-been with basically the same design goals. Somehow, many other games, including D&D, have been able to handle kobolds with darkvision for years now, but D&D 4e falters in this area.

Anyone who's spent time with an AD&D 2e knows this "minotaur-lite" approach to monstrous PCs has been tried before. It was dissastisfying and clumsy then, it is the same now. This isn't a play style difference; this is D&D 4e being notably inferior at certain kinds of PCs than previous editions of the game have been. It is not simply a matter of system trade-offs, but of the designers being unwilling or unable to grapple with some basic issues of game world logic.

 

[keterys]

But seriously, maybe this is my perspective from having played GURPS, Hero System, Rolemaster, WFRP, D6, and dozens of other games but, why is it that so many other games find satisfying resolutions to situations like these, but D&D 4e falters? How is that Mutants & Masterminds can deal with characters who could literally be anything from a two-fisted detective to an angel to a superfast robot, and yet 4e rests on the assumption that this level of homogenity is problematic?

I think 4e has done a better job here than GURPS, Hero, Rolemaster, WFRP, and many other games.

Can't speak for D6 though.

It's _trivial_ to break HERO games, and they even thoughtfully provide examples for how to do so as a helpful way to make sure you don't accidentally do so (ie, Landlord who owns the earth and has 6 billion servants, the guy who explodes destroying the universe whenever desired, etc). So, yeah, you can have whatever you want, but it's a totally different problem, and I'm content not having to _every game_ go 'Okay, I'm about X for my attacks, defenses, and misc... where you guys. Okay, let's get ourselves a little closer together to not break the game'. I mean, as experienced RPGers, we managed, but I'm quite fine _not_ doing so. Life as a 4E DM is much easier for me that way.

 

[Scribble]

Anyone who's spent time with an AD&D 2e knows this "minotaur-lite" approach to monstrous PCs has been tried before. It was dissastisfying and clumsy then, it is the same now. This isn't a play style difference; this is D&D 4e being notably inferior at certain kinds of PCs than previous editions of the game have been. It is not simply a matter of system trade-offs, but of the designers being unwilling or unable to grapple with some basic issues of game world logic.

Monsters as PCs being slightly different then monsters as monsters didn't bother me before, and it doesn't bother me now. The whole LA thing just never worked for me. It never felt like it appropriately handled the situation at all. The Monstrous PCs were either way too powerful or way to inferior.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Well, yeah!

But seriously, maybe this is my perspective from having played GURPS, Hero System, Rolemaster, WFRP, D6, and dozens of other games but, why is it that so many other games find satisfying resolutions to situations like these, but D&D 4e falters? How is that Mutants & Masterminds can deal with characters who could literally be anything from a two-fisted detective to an angel to a superfast robot, and yet 4e rests on the assumption that this level of homogenity is problematic?

Overly coarse-grained and narrow options for character differentiation, I'd suggest. The level system is part of the problem, with so many variables being anchored to a single yardstick, as well as the 'one size fits all' requirements for costing feats and skills. And with 4E, you've got the 'siloing' going on--the game won't let you give up an encounter power for anything but another encounter power, for example.

It has the benefits of uniformity and simplicity, but it doesn't seem to cope well with anything outside its frameworks. Of the other systems you mention, HERO, GURPS and M&M use one currency for everything, and while Rolemaster had some siloing, it also used varying cost structures to encourage balance. (I'm far out of date on D6, and my knowledge of WFRP is practically nonexistent.)

 

[pawsplay]

I think 4e has done a better job here than GURPS, Hero, Rolemaster, WFRP, and many other games.

Can't speak for D6 though.

It's _trivial_ to break HERO games, and they even thoughtfully provide examples for how to do so as a helpful way to make sure you don't accidentally do so (ie, Landlord who owns the earth and has 6 billion servants, the guy who explodes destroying the universe whenever desired, etc). So, yeah, you can have whatever you want, but it's a totally different problem, and I'm content not having to _every game_ go 'Okay, I'm about X for my attacks, defenses, and misc... where you guys. Okay, let's get ourselves a little closer together to not break the game'. I mean, as experienced RPGers, we managed, but I'm quite fine _not_ doing so. Life as a 4E DM is much easier for me that way.

So the fact that a PC option is possible makes it problematic? I'm not following. As trivial as it is to break some subsystems, it's equally trivial to identify the problem. Also, 4e's design doesn't make it any less vulnerable to exploits. So far, the designers have mostly avoided pitfalls, and mainly by not offering options.

"4e doesn't have broken combos" to whatever extent it is true is equivalent to "4e does not offer lots of options." Any day now, the wrong power could be published, and result in some infininitely damaging combination unforseen at this point. There is nothing about siloing that prevents this phenomenon.

Also, Landlord with 6 billion servants is an example of what is possible to do with unlimited Disadvantages points. He serves as an example of why this should be not allowed, not as an example of standard play. There are broken things that can be done on normal budgets, but nothing to that scale, and virtually of them involve "Stop Sign" elements. I have never had problems of that sort in any Hero games, even playing with some pretty hardcore powergamers.

 

[Phaezen]

"4e doesn't have broken combos" to whatever extent it is true is equivalent to "4e does not offer lots of options." Any day now, the wrong power could be published, and result in some infininitely damaging combination unforseen at this point. There is nothing about siloing that prevents this phenomenon.

FOrtunately they seem to be keeping an eye out for this at the moment, publishing regular errata and updates to the rules.

With any luck SOlar Enemy will get looked at with the next update.

 

[keterys]

So the fact that a PC option is possible makes it problematic?

Depending on the campaign. YES.

As trivial as it is to break some subsystems, it's equally trivial to identify the problem.

The egregious ones, of course. But, HERO is riddled with warnings with good reason, and even if you don't use any of those you can still sit down and have one person in a group with a 16d attack standard and another with a 2d standard, or have someone who needs to be hit by 21 body to notice an attack at all and another who potentially dies from 12. Depending on the game you're looking for those are strengths or weaknesses, but if I'm choosing to play a level-based game (which I am, when I play D&D), I don't want to deal with point buy's problems.

So, yes, I'm quite happy that folks can't play Balors in 4e, cause frankly I didn't like most of 3e's attempts at handling monster races. And I've done enough GURPs and HERO (especially GURPs) that I don't think they do them all that well either. So, an argument that 4E is missing something that all these games have done well, I'm not buying it. They've had possible solutions, sure. And if you really like any particular solution, more power to you. I don't think that, for instance, saying that a character should be able to use weapons that do more damage than anyone else because they're overconfident, have a fear of sea monkeys or enjoy killing people is particularly warranted. Similarly, I'm okay with things not doing more damage because you're using a particular unique indestructible weapon, or can only use it at full power, or require a steady diet of chocolate.

I'm very happy to go 'Bugbear isn't a PC race so I don't have to care how it works' and 'Hey, Githzerai PCs get a bunch of minor bonuses to make them more interesting than the MM version' and rest easy knowing that _someone_ inspected them for validity as PC races and figured they wouldn't harm things, either too strong or too weak.

And if I want to play a Minotaur, I can just ask a DM if it's okay for their campaign and go ahead, without worrying if it's balanced.

There is nothing about siloing that prevents this phenomenon.

Siloing isn't supposed to prevent this phenomenon. What siloing lets you do is make RP choices without impacting your combat choices. Like Phantom Steed or Tongues instead of Fireball. Or choosing to be a master brewer without impacting your guns and acrobatics skills. And I so wish there was even more than there already is in 4e, splitting utility powers into combat vs non and feats into combat vs non.

 

[Garthanos]

They've had possible solutions, sure. And if you really like any particular solution, more power to you. I don't think that, for instance, saying that a character should be able to use weapons that do more damage than anyone else because they're overconfident, have a fear of sea monkeys or enjoy killing people is particularly warranted.

Games like fate and a few others said that a disadvantage when you are limited or restricted by it in some fashion becomes a source for fate points... or most likely action points (or establish a milestone?) in 4e or a similar limited use one off benefits... in other words there are solutions that to my mind work well. GURPS and Hero are still very old school in that regards.