The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

When I see critiques of healing surges in 4e, the overwhelmingly common criticism is of the "regenerate overnight" aspect. But this is a completely trivial element of 4e, which could be houseruled away with basically no consequences except for the desired affect upon adventure pacing (ie recovery from hurt would take longer).
My personal list of issues with 4E is pretty long.

And every single item on it could be house ruled away.

Or I can play a game I like better.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ahh, so we're basing opinions entirely on ad copy from two or three years ago and not basing opinions on anything to actually do with the games. Ok.

:erm:

So, because you mentioned lockpicking in 3e, all of your arguments are based on 3e lockpicking, and you have nothing more substantial to offer?

:erm:

Way to miss the forest for a branch! :lol:

To me, you're making mountains out of molehills. To me, D&D has ALWAYS been mechanics first.

So the only question is, are you so stuck in that viewpoint that you are unable to see people outside of it? I can see you standing in there. Hi! Can you see me standing out here?


RC
 

When I see critiques of healing surges in 4e, the overwhelmingly common criticism is of the "regenerate overnight" aspect. But this is a completely trivial element of 4e, which could be houseruled away with basically no consequences except for the desired affect upon adventure pacing (ie recovery from hurt would take longer).
My personal list of issues with 4E is pretty long.

And every single item on it could be house ruled away.

Or I can play a game I like better.
Ya, not to criticize specifically pemerton (whose post was very thoughtful, well-written, balanced and respectful), but the 'could be houseruled away' is a HUGE pet peeve of mine.

If one has a complaint about a certain game rule, chances are that you disagree with the design philosophy behind that troublesome rule. Yet that same troublesome design philosophy will inform countless other game rules in that book and all other books and supplements in that system. In that case, changing one rule is just a band-aid solution.

I also don't like how 'just houserule it' puts the entire onus on the complainee. There was a WoTC series of articles introducing Essentials, and IIRC, the author (Mearls perhaps?) acknowledged the frequent 'in 4E, everything is the same' complaint, and that the new Essentials classes was going to help address that. If that's true (I've been out of the scene for a while, so I'm not sure), then Essentials evolved from feedback (i.e., "whining" or "complaining") from fans. If WoTC had instead countered with 'if you don't like it, houserule it!', then maybe we wouldn't have Essentials (which may be a blessing or a curse, depending on your own POV).

So between the issue of a systemic design philosophy, personal time constraints and game balance, the advice to 'stop complaining, just houserule it, dude!' is not the way to build a road to Rome.
 


Reread your 3.5 PHB. You may not open a lock without a tool. -2 is for an improvised tool, not no tool at all. You must use a tool to use the open lock skill in 3.5.

You said lockpick. Obviously, you need a "simple tool." It's not like you are going to pick a lock with the power of your mind. Fortunately, failing the availability of of some kind of sharp, pointy metal object on your person, you can always fall back on battering down the door.

Ahh, so, I can play a diplomatic fighter, so long as I'm willing to wait four or five levels and burn resources into it. The fact that I can't out of the gate can be safely ignored.

That is not what I said. Distorting someone's viewpoint, then attacking the caricature of that viewpoint, is known as the strawman fallacy.

In fact, Regdar, the 1st level fighter, is not only an example of a 1st level diplomatic fighter, but the example of a 1st level fighter. According to one version of him, he has Cha 13, 2 ranks of Diplomacy, and the Negotiator feat, giving him a bonus of +5. That gives him even odds to turn an Unfriendly NPC to an Indifferent one, and he has a 1 in 4 shot at turning a Hostile NPC into an Unfriendly one. At DC 15, he has even odds of turning a given Indifferent NPC into a Friendly one, which is pretty good diplomacy.

Yup, and look at those published settings. Several hundred PAGES of text on how to change these assumptions.

I think you're going to have to provide examples. I'm pretty sure I can do it in much fewer ("Give out less wealth and let the PCs level slower" being the most obvious).

4e, I can change from standard wealth to low magic in one sentence. In 3e, it requires me to rejigger nearly every aspect of the game. "Not all that complicated" is a bit of an understatement.

The authors of the Pathfinder RPG seem to think they can get away with about one paragraph.

Non-sequitor. In all games, the mechanics place limits on the narrative.

You're claiming all limits are equivalent. That's the non sequitur.
 



After being away from the thread for a few days and just catching up on the last several pages of the thread, I have a few thoughts. First, whether you like or dislike Skill Challenges I am struggling to see how they can keep someone from feeling like 4e is D&D. Every edition has had some rules or guidelines for the GM to create a probability for success so the players can make a roll to determine outcome. It ranges from the loose "make up a success chance" DM fiat of OAD&D to the very crunchy (though differing methods) of 3e and 4e. Everyone who plays has their own preferences on that continuum. Again, I have trouble understanding how antipathy for one of those methods negates the D&D experience.

Secondly, moving back to the thread subject. If a game calls itself D&D by right of ownership and it has character design based on pick a class and race both of which determine the essential abilities of the character; and it uses a very abstracted method of combat resolution involving HP and AC, it is D&D. For me, no more is required to define a recognizable D&D game. I have my preferences among the published editions but would never fall into the trap of characterizing someone else's preference of edition as "not D&D".

Lastly, I think discussions of mechanics vs. narrative (and which should be preeminate) are issues of table style and preference. I personally don't feel that any edition of D&D has been great for narrative first gaming, but then I have used all of them that way at my own table. If I were to pick one that best met my preference for character driven campaigns I would choose 1e because it never tried to give hard rules for a broad range of situations, leaving me free to make a decision on the fly without arguing with some rules player about what the book said. That's just me, though. As always your mileage almost certainly varied.

Good gaming, everyone.
 

I don't see skill challenges as an issue.

This mechanic was largely ignored on my games, 90% of the time. We used it only on long physical tasks.

In fact, skill challenges can be easily used on 3.5 games. I had some "chase in the forest" that would work smoothly on 3.5 with a hidden skill challenge... or an open one, to add some fun :)
 
Last edited:

I am struggling to see how they can keep someone from feeling like 4e is D&D.
I agree with Avin, this is a tangent (and has gone fairly well into derail).

I have used very "skill-challenge-like" devices in multiple systems. But the specifics of 4E skill challenges reflect one aspect of the overall design/approach/"feel" of 4E.

Certainly SCs alone don't remotely change the feel. But, without the existing "feel", SCs may bot be quite what they now are....
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top