The Call of the World Builder

[WhatGravitas]

Because it shoves the game towards a single style of play. The walk-up-to-monster-and-beat-on-monster style. Not that beating on monsters is a bad thing, but I'm worried that other styles my be difficult or impossible to play under the new ruleset.

Disagree. As a world builder myself, I'm pretty happy about 4E. They give me a combat system I can dig. Cool!

They also give us rituals to see what PCs can do out-of-combat. Also good.

But what creatures can do out-of-combat? That's my world building terrain. Keep off my lawn!

To elaborate: I don't care for the established demons and devils (though 4E devils ring true with me), I generally want nether beings. So the flavour-rules mixture of 3E was hurting - some monsters were interesting, but some abilities just didn't fit. And some players memorize the MM. 4E solves that - I get a world description at the level of PC interaction and can do as I wish with the rest.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Rechan]

I'm fairly certain there will be "What monsters do out of combat" existing in the monsters writeup. There is more to the monsters than a stat block - it's called an MM entry.

They're not just giving you a bunch of numbers and then saying "Bye". Each monster's supposed to get what, a page? Considering the size of the statblocks, that's a LOT of area.

 

[ryryguy]

I'll use an example: Let's say you are playing an RPG and one of the characters is Batman. A low-life thug comes around the corner and shoots at Batman.

In a Realism based game, that thug has a real high chance of killing Batman. This is the real world, where dodging bullets just doesn't happen. Or at least, wounding him badly. Because he's got a gun, and those things are lethal.

In a Verisimilitude game, Batman has a good chance of dodging the bullet, because the thug is low level, he's higher, has a better defense, and has some abilities, etc etc.

In an Authentic game, the thug cannot hit Batman becaus Batman is the goddamn Batman; he's just too good for that. This is more the feel of the genre, where mooks are mooks, and because Batman is the "Super Smart Vigilante Badass", he just has plot armor against Joe Triggerhappy.

I think the people who have a problem are the ones looking at things from the Realism view.

Interesting, because on first thought, you'd think that no one who enjoys D&D would really be looking at things from the Realism point of view. I mean, fireballs and dragons are obviously not realistic! And if you assume fireballs and dragon breath, getting hit with one and not dying is not realistic!

Yet on further reflection, I have run across people (mainly on message boards) who do seem to subscribe to this viewpoint. How do they impose a realistic frame on the wildly unrealistic fantasy of D&D?

It's blurry, but I think at least in part they sort of "promote" the Verisimilitude view into a realistic frame. The rules themselves, as they are set up (and often in particular the "RAW") end up standing for reality. That's where you can get something like, "A CR23 Demogorgon is not realistic because and advanced balor would crush him." It's not "realistic" because the advanced balor has better hit points, spell resistance, etc., so according to that measure of "reality", the Demogorgon's rule makes no sense.

This isn't that different than the Versimilitude frame, under which the advanced balor will win just as readily... I guess the difference is that it's when this gets promoted to realism is when a world builder will start to chafe. If the invented reality of the world is that the Demogorgon is the boss, it may not matter so much that in a fight, he might lose. So what? That fight just doesn't happen. But get more strictly realist about it and you start having to beef up Demogorgon, or provide a rules-based excuse for his rule.

Sorry, I don't have a major point here... I just think it's interesting how this plays out with regard to D&D.

 

[malraux]

It gives a (largely) known set of baseline rules to work with, so that if that PC wizard with a zillion ranks in Bluff and Knowledge(planes) or equivalent wants to, for example, take down Demogorgon by turning his balor minions against him through cunning strategy and subtle magical control rather that by simply walking up to ol' two-heads and throwing lightning at him, the world is built robustly enough for that to be possible (extremely difficult certainly, but possible!). And further, a smart player will be able to learn enough of the rules of the setting (through Knowledge skills etc) to see the fault lines and come up with this sort of plan him/herself. Complex and/or sneaky plans are difficult to come up with unless the mechanism/politics of the setting is known in sufficient detail.

In fairness though, did you find that kind of baseline of rules and setting information in the equivalent 3rd edition products? That is, I really don't see how the 3e PH, DMG, and MM really let you do that sort of thing either, beyond just defining how bluff, knowledge, etc skills work.

 

[Hussar]

Or you make use of your idea in the existing framework. Like Eberron does with warforged, dragonmarks, dragonshards, the lightning rail, ships powered by elementals, mile-high towers, and so on. Which is how things will also work in 4e - nothing has changed at all, in fact. If you have an idea that's not covered by the rules, you need to create new rules to handle it.

But, what about elements that run counter to mechanics. Such as the Fiendish Codex entries which show Demon lords that are in the early 20 CR range? This runs exactly counter to mechanics, because mechanically, an advanced Balor or Marilith should mop the floor with Demogorgon.

Never minding the difficulties in moving beyond the established baselines. A low magic D&D has been a holy grail quest for years. But, if you vary from those established baselines, you have all sorts of knock on effects that make the game very difficult to run.

In other words, strongly linked, concrete mechanics shoehorn you into a narrow band of campaign world. You claim that Eberron is not based on the mechanics, but rather on commonplace magic. Yet, it's built right into the mechanics that you will have access to certain levels of magic based on your character level. How is commonplace magic not a direct result of 3e's magic construction rules, wealth guidelines and demographic guidelines?

Earlier editions, it never really made sense for there to be so much magic floating around because it was so hard to craft. But, most DM's simply ignored that and stuffed whatever magic whosit they wanted into an adventure. But, in 3e, crafting is simple and not limited to even mid level NPC's. Low level characters can craft a fair amount of magic.

So, yeah, airships are a direct result of 3e mechanics.

 

[Victim]

But, what about elements that run counter to mechanics. Such as the Fiendish Codex entries which show Demon lords that are in the early 20 CR range? This runs exactly counter to mechanics, because mechanically, an advanced Balor or Marilith should mop the floor with Demogorgon.

So a Balor advanced to 60 HD probably doesn't exist then.

 

[FireLance]

I think the dissonance exists because there are two basic rule philosophies, and 4e is applying them to two different aspects of the D&D game. For the sake of labelling, let's call them the "restrictive" philosophy and the "permissive" philosophy.

The "restrictive" philosophy states that you are not allowed to do anything unless it is specifically allowed by the rules.

The "permissive" philosophy states that you are allowed to do anything unless it is specifically disallowed by the rules.

4e's combat rules seem to follow the "restrictive" philosophy. You can't trip or disarm an opponent because the rules don't say that you can. On the other hand, the rest of 4e - skill challenges, interactions between NPCs - seem to follow the "permissive" philosophy. The rules don't say that you can't use a History check to escape a city, so if you can come up with a plausible explanation why it might work, you can. The rules don't say that succubus can't exert undue influence over the king, so (since the scenario is so eminently plausible) it can.

I think quite a few problems have arisen from trying to apply the "permissive" philosophy to the combat rules, and the "restrictive" philosophy to the other rules.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've used the same world with a total of 5 rules systems now. For me, the world has changed only ever-so-slightly based on the system. The system bends to fit the world or is tossed aside.

So far 4E has a lot of bend.

Fitz

The post above mine says it all.

 

[Hussar]

So a Balor advanced to 60 HD probably doesn't exist then.

Then why bother having mechanics to allow them to do so?

Mechanically, I can have a 60 HD balor. That balor would trash the strongest of the demon lords. So, which is true? That I have useless mechanics or that the demon lords are under CR'd?

Or, could it be neither. That the CR of the demon lords is based on the needs of the GAME and not the world?

 

[humble minion]

In fairness though, did you find that kind of baseline of rules and setting information in the equivalent 3rd edition products? That is, I really don't see how the 3e PH, DMG, and MM really let you do that sort of thing either, beyond just defining how bluff, knowledge, etc skills work.

I'm not even pretending to defend 3e's worldbuilding, particularly once you get to the higher levels! But it could be made to work - I'd point you to Sep's story hour for a prime example of a setting made infinitely richer and deeper by due consideration being paid to the implications of out-of-combat monster abilities (and spells, while we're at it) and their setting effect.

But 4e gives me even less to work with. 3e gave me a list of spell-like abilities for a demon (for example) - clairvoyance, suggestion, dispel magic, etc, etc - that a GM or player could look at and get a general impression of a monster's out-of-combat capabilities. Assuming what we've seen so far is the entirety of the MM writeups for each preview monster (and I see no reason not to - why on earth would WotC give us the fluff/ecology header paragraph and snip out the out-of-combat bit? Especially since all preview pages displayed at that con a while back had NO out-of-combat bit whatsoever!) 4e leaves me utterly whistling in the dark on this front.

Any out-of-combat depth to the 4e monsters is going to have to be provided by individual GMs. And each individual GM is going to have to individually deal with the setting implication of their choices in this department. Not every GM is as good at this sort of thing as Sep, and 4e asks more of its GMs than 3e did of Sep. I've got a unpleasant feeling at this early stage that a lot of 4e campaigns are going to be very linear and predictable (those GMs who adhered to the rules as written) and a lot will be chaotic messes (those who tried to add setting depth of their own but didn't have the time/resources/ability to fully deal with the implications.)