Shadowfell Box set coming in 2011! (an other GenCon announcements)

[I'm A Banana]

What is it with posts like this?

A book of new stuff and new options is neither failure nor a change in direction. It's listening to fans, and adding more options. Trying to interpret it that way just ... boggles.

Well, Nyronus's post was basically "they're making this for all the idiots out there!"

I read Imaro's post as saying "...or for the perfectly normal gamers who wanted it all along."

 

[giant.robot]

I wouldn't say it is them flipping it on its head as simply expanding it to include more of the gaming styles and tastes out there. 4e as written gives rules for the combat/encounter side of things, and left everything else up to roleplay (Very 1e-esque). Some would like to see some rules support to codify other aspects of the game. I know my group did, which is why I crafted (pun intended) some rules for trade skills and put them in my rpgnow store. I'm very excited that these will be getting support from within the 4e WotC tent! (Just like the NWP of yore...)

However they implement them I would bet that they too will keep it in the 4e design aesthetic. Only broader...

Kannik

I don't understand the players that require every last bit of the game codified with some rule like they're playing Monopoly with dragons. Rules for tense in-game situations where your character can cease to exist are well placed. You don't want players to simply exclaim "I hit it with my axe and now it's dead" and that's the end of that dragon that crawled out of its cave. Players wouldn't want the DM to simply say "the dragon killed everyone, end of game". Neither of those situations are fun or involving so having codified behavior for both sides is important.

When it comes to much fluffier actions like the character learning to smith or trying to trade some items for magical reagents, let the DM tell the players what they need to do and they do it. At worst turn things into skill challenges to throw some rolls in the mix. Even then players ought to have to interact with the NPCs to try to get what they want. Fluff segments are all about story telling and should involve as few rules as possible except D&D Rule #1: The DM is always right.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't understand the players that require every last bit of the game codified with some rule like they're playing Monopoly with dragons. Rules for tense in-game situations where your character can cease to exist are well placed. You don't want players to simply exclaim "I hit it with my axe and now it's dead" and that's the end of that dragon that crawled out of its cave. Players wouldn't want the DM to simply say "the dragon killed everyone, end of game". Neither of those situations are fun or involving so having codified behavior for both sides is important.

When it comes to much fluffier actions like the character learning to smith or trying to trade some items for magical reagents, let the DM tell the players what they need to do and they do it. At worst turn things into skill challenges to throw some rolls in the mix. Even then players ought to have to interact with the NPCs to try to get what they want. Fluff segments are all about story telling and should involve as few rules as possible except D&D Rule #1: The DM is always right.

I pretty much agree with the sentiment, but then we probably both started playing LONG before the people asking for a long list of non-combat rules. Obviously WotC has decided that assuaging disaffected 3.x players is a priority. There are times though when certain types of rules can be handy, like a lot of the stuff that WAS in the 1e DMG (costs to hire services and hirelings and how to calculate their morale for instance were pretty handy, they didn't replace any kind of RP but they did facilitate various things).

I don't have too much problem either with a few fairly specific types of things like say blacksmithing. It will not come up OFTEN, but it is a story element that tends to come up in a fair number of games. The downside is always now its 'codified' and that tends to make a lot of DMs feel obligated to use that rule, even when it doesn't fit. Ironically IMHO it actually makes it LESS likely that the added element will be used, as it will fit the actual requirements of the situation less often. You can say DMs can ignore it, but equally players could live with its absence. Neither situation may be ideal, but it did SEEM like the original theory with 4e was not to drop that stuff in at all, a perfectly valid position to take.

Frankly I think they're just running out of ideas for stuff to fill more books with at this point.

 

[Nyronus]

Well, Nyronus's post was basically "they're making this for all the idiots out there!"

I read Imaro's post as saying "...or for the perfectly normal gamers who wanted it all along."

Actually, I never said that. At best I said "Roleplay rewards systems are not really helping roleplay, or at least not as much as their more rabid proponents say they do." Which is, after I inspected it some, not the case here. Now, I feel that there is a good chance that the crafting/profession subsystem will probably be more or less ignored by a good chunk of people, but that's a separate issue.

I never felt 4e needed much else. The game was a framework from which you hang your narrative, not one used to encage it or supplant it. After looking things over and getting some sleep, I can see that the stuff here isn't going to do either of those things. Its just an extra bit of framework which I can ignore or integrate at my leisure. It sets up narrative bits which aren't particularly relative to my games, but its not like their going to take my atheist paladins powers away or force some convoluted morality system onto the game.

My only real concern at this point is the new magic item framework. I dislike random tables and have never really bothered with them. Their use usually just ends up giving everyone a bunch of sub-standard gear. With the manic tweaked balanced of 4e, there is no real reason to deny players gear. The wish-list idea is great. Then again, WotC hasn't failed me much at all, so I'll wait and see what's what.

Of course, that one probably won't effect me at all since I'm more or less planning on deconstructing the magic item system into boons and inherent bonuses. It just always seemed weird to me that my players keep stumbling on lightning Executioner Axes, and each new one was slightly stronger than the last. I've avoided that narrative clunk with a bit of creative story-telling, making the player's gear evolve as time went on, but that takes a little more effort to do right.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Of course, that one probably won't effect me at all since I'm more or less planning on deconstructing the magic item system into boons and inherent bonuses. It just always seemed weird to me that my players keep stumbling on lightning Executioner Axes, and each new one was slightly stronger than the last. I've avoided that narrative clunk with a bit of creative story-telling, making the player's gear evolve as time went on, but that takes a little more effort to do right.

There is good stuff on that in DMG2 and the Char Builder inherent bonuses works fine.

 

[ggroy]

Recording of Gencon WotC upcoming products seminar from yesterday.

The Tome Show » Blog Archive » Tome GenCon Special - The Big Announcement Part 1

The Tome Show » Blog Archive » Tome GenCon Special - The Big Announcement Part 2

 

[Imaro]

I don't understand the players that require every last bit of the game codified with some rule like they're playing Monopoly with dragons. Rules for tense in-game situations where your character can cease to exist are well placed. You don't want players to simply exclaim "I hit it with my axe and now it's dead" and that's the end of that dragon that crawled out of its cave. Players wouldn't want the DM to simply say "the dragon killed everyone, end of game". Neither of those situations are fun or involving so having codified behavior for both sides is important.

When it comes to much fluffier actions like the character learning to smith or trying to trade some items for magical reagents, let the DM tell the players what they need to do and they do it. At worst turn things into skill challenges to throw some rolls in the mix. Even then players ought to have to interact with the NPCs to try to get what they want. Fluff segments are all about story telling and should involve as few rules as possible except D&D Rule #1: The DM is always right.

I love when this argument is thrown out by some fans of 4e, who play a game with a million and 1 powers that, at least partially, codify combat and provide a discrete power for a vast number of combat actions, which they enjoy... yet for some reason cannot fathom why someone would want similar mechanical robustness in other areas of the game... this is what boggles my mind.

I mean technically you don't need those powers, but players have fun implementing their mechanical effect in the game during combat... why is it so hard to understand some people would like to have the same type of fun using the mechanics in other areas besides combat?

 

[Jack99]

I love when this argument is thrown out by some fans of 4e, who play a game with a million and 1 powers that, at least partially, codifies combat and provides a discrete power for a vast number of combat actions, which they enjoy... yet for some reason cannot fathom why someone would want similar mechanical robustness in other areas of the game... this is what boggles my mind.

Is there anything about 4e that you like?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I love when this argument is thrown out by some fans of 4e, who play a game with a million and 1 powers that, at least partially, codify combat and provide a discrete power for a vast number of combat actions, which they enjoy... yet for some reason cannot fathom why someone would want similar mechanical robustness in other areas of the game... this is what boggles my mind.

I mean technically you don't need those powers, but players have fun implementing their mechanical effect in the game during combat... why is it so hard to understand some people would like to have the same type of fun using the mechanics in other areas besides combat?

Actually I think giant.robot explained the logic quite succinctly. You NEED rules for conflict because something has to quantify how conflicting actions resolve in a reasonably objective way. Otherwise you're just playing an elaborate version of Cops and Robbers ("bang, bang! You're dead!"). There's no NEED to have such a set of rules for whether or not you can build a boat or bake a cake. In any case those kinds of actions are at most only indirectly contributing to conflict resolution, unless you subscribe to the theory that cake baking contests are a significant aspect of the game that warrants a whole subsystem like that.

No, you don't NEED powers, but that really isn't the point. You need some way to decide what cool combat maneuvers the players can do and how to resolve them because otherwise you just have no rules at all worth the name. You could simply use page 42 for everything, but given that it is already there as a fallback for whenever you want something outside the more specific rules you see that combat powers are simply a convenient way to arrange the game so that the typical types of things people will try have already been worked out.

Beyond that you have character background, skills, etc that can be used to define in general what sorts of things outside of combat which characters are good at. The thing is it need not be more precise than say background because "out of combat" covers a VAST array of possible situations which may or may not involve conflicts. The game could easily have subsystems for baking contests, wooing women, running a business, committing graft, building a temple, etc etc etc but for the vast majority of games 99% of those won't be used. Beyond that it is a lot less likely that a DM will want to use them as-is. Combat mechanics tend to be appropriate to all campaigns and settings. Other types of mechanics not so much.

And then there's the issue of the oft-cited down side, that once you codify something into a skill, feat, practice, whatever then you've essentially created a converse rule that says everyone who lacks that element on their character can't do said thing. This applies to combat as well, but in combat everyone has a lot of things they CAN do and they all generally lead to the same ends, so it really isn't a big deal. Out of combat that isn't true at all and thus you have roadblocks tossed in the way of the story like "Oh, Joe Dwarf doesn't have 'swim', so I can't really force the party to try to swim the rapids."

Personally I think there's a zone in there where some things that probably will come up pretty often, don't generally block progress if they can't be done, and are unlikely to need huge variation between settings CAN be given mechanics. I'm not sure what the amazing value of doing so is, but whatever.

 

[Imaro]

Is there anything about 4e that you like?

What is the relevance of your question? If I didn't like the new direction they were going in I wouldn't be defending it against some fans who are against it. So really... what is your point? Or was this just an attempt at snarkiness that really isn't contributing anything to the discussion?