The Impasse

[Scribble]

So are you saying you would only allow someone who can "logically" (whatever this means) do something attempt the ability check? If so you are modding what is actually in 4e (even though this is not what was being addressed by me, as actual claims had been made to what was in the 4e corebooks, not what someone could make up.).

HELL YES! That's exactly the point. The tabletop beats the computer because as a human I don't have to folow the rules as written. I understand that just because something is written down doesn't mean that's the one true answer. Rules Lawyers be damned! (IE because I'm human I understand that just because the rules give me a way to solve actions not covered by the rules doesn't mean I have to allow EVERY action to be attempted.)

Disregarding "RAW" is one of the key stregths of tabletop RPGs vrs computer RPGs. I can and do disregard RAW whenever appropriate. (And in fact I kind of hate the idea of discussing "RAW" because part of those rules as written is essentially make stuff up so following the rules as written means not always following the rules as written.)

Again I ask, what prevents one from modding 3e in the same manner, if we are disregarding RAW and making our own rules up... then 3e isn't anymore or less a straightjacket than 4e (in fact it becomes meaningless to compare)...however if we are comparing the actual systems...4e is a less robust system than 3e in such matters.

I never said you couldn't did I?

For me, it felt like 3e was an attempt to placate rules lawyers by giving the hows and specifics of everything they could think of, rather then leave it to the DM. I thought that was a cool idea at first. I could use the rules to back up descisions I made, and it would calm the rules lawyers down, and I could modify whatever I wanted.

Instead, in my experience it always led to just more rules lawyering. "But the rules on page blah blah blah..." and didn't help at all, while layering on a bnch of extra rules.

In addition most of the rules seemed linked together in ways that if you removed them or changed them would have effects in other unexpected places.

For someone like me, 4e is a more successful update to the rules of D&D because at it's heart it seems to return to the simple set of rules and outcomes the game I grew up with had, while correcting the issues I had with it. It's like the old game to me again, with the corrections I wanted, and some I didn't think of.

I find the rules themselves seem much more designed with the idea of being able to manipulate them easily. IE if I change one part it's not going to have as huge an effect throughout the system.

IE the rules parts make use of eachother, but do not rely on eachother to function.

If 3e works for you? Awesome! I'm not trying to argue that 4e is a more sucessful game update for everyone. It is for me though.

 

[xechnao]

Are you saying that making a sword is not considered an action not covered by the rules?

Or weaving a basket, or any thing else that you might need to know wether you have a success or not?

It says, if there is no skill for it, use an ability check. It says it on page 42 of the DMG.
paraphrased:

If the action is related to a skill use that check. If it is not obvious, use an ability check. Consult the table , and set the DC what you think it should be.​

I really don't know how you cannot see that the page says if you think that a character should be able to do what they are asking, make it up. Here are the guidelines to keep everything (sort of) balanced.

It says, if there is no skill for it, make it up!​

Yeah well this does not solve much really. Depending on the specialization or knowledge needed for a task the DC should change according to the abilities of the PC. But this is just a tip of the iceberg. In fact if you really want to track down your possibilities (and not from a simulationist POV but rather from an effects or results POV) you need a different kind of system. Systems like spirit of the century could do a better job (although I am not an expert of the system this is the impression I have).
Perhaps background options could be a better idea than skills. Blacksmith's apprentice, library custodian etch could seem more functional IMO.

 

[Scribble]

As an added thought:

4e seems to be built with the idea of a smal set of well designed rules, being "core."

The other parts rely on that core, but the core does not rely on the other parts.

IE there is a way that healing in the game is achieved.

The Divine Power source taps into this element. The divine source adds onto the healing element. I don't, however, need the divine power source though for the healing rule to function.

Therefore as the DM I can drop the divine power source pretty easily without effecting the way the game runs.

 

[Imaro]

Again this goes back to the strengths of a tabletop RPG idea.

I don't look at that and think "Oh this guy can do anything equaly well!" I'm not a computer bound to that logic. I look at that and say, if this guy is attempting something he can logically do, here is a system that can help me determine the outcome, that stays in check with the rest of the system.

Writing "backsmith" on a sheet doesn't need to give him some kind of math bonus to seperate him from a non blacksmith. It's just a way for me, as a human DM, to help determine if this character could logically make said check.

Again I don't need the game to tell me how he's able to make the check in the first place. The player and I have already determined he's a blacksmith. It just needs to give me a way to determine what happens when he needs to make some kind of check in relationship to his blacksmithery.

Scribble,

I have no beef with you liking 4e... this whole line of conversation came up because unlike you, some people in this thread (thecasualoblivion, who seems strangely absent now) claimed that simulationism is objectively instead of subjectively a bad thing for a rpg. Now I can understand someone prefering simulationism or not, what I can't get behind is blanket statements like simulationism is objectively bad for rpg's. Granted the conversation has gotten a little detached from the original argument, but that's what it started about. I think alot of people jumped in without knowing exactly what the argument sprang from.

 

[Scribble]

Scribble,

I have no beef with you liking 4e... this whole line of conversation came up because unlike you, some people in this thread (thecasualoblivion, who seems strangely absent now) claimed that simulationism is objectively instead of subjectively a bad thing for a rpg. Now I can understand someone prefering simulationism or not, what I can't get behind is blanket statements like simulationism is objectively bad for rpg's. Granted the conversation has gotten a little detached from the original argument, but that's what it started about. I think alot of people jumped in without knowing exactly what the argument sprang from.

Are you sure you didn't misread what he said?

I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that he wasn't saying simmulationism is objectively bad for RPGS but that it was objectively uneeded in a game for that game to be still considered good. It seemed like an awkward way of kind of agreeing with you...

IE: Since tastes are subjective, the only objective thing is neither side is NEEDED to make a good game.

 

[Imaro]

Are you sure you didn't misread what he said?

I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that he wasn't saying simmulationism is objectively bad for RPGS but that it was objectively uneeded in a game for that game to be still considered good. It seemed like an awkward way of kind of agreeing with you...

IE: Since tastes are subjective, the only objective thing is neither side is NEEDED to make a good game.

Perhaps, but when I go back and read our posts it doesn't seem that way. I do agree with your last sentence though, it's a purely preference thing.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Stepping away from the nara-wahtever and simu-whatsit discussion, I'm going to use a word some people here really hate.

4e lacks verisimilitude.

I'm not going to say previous editions were totally realistic, but they gave the impression that they at least cared about making it seem that way. 4e doesn't. 4e is an action movie. You don't care about the random schmucks on the street as you jog to the building being held hostage by terrorists, and neither does 4e. Action heroes never run out of bullets, and neither do 4e characters. It's not built around the idea of a concrete world and setting, it's built around bare ideas that you put together to make the scenes.

And that's not a bad thing. It's just not what some people want.

In my experience, players are fickle, random creatures. I'm one of them. The DM adage goes, "Give something enough description, it becomes an artifact." The problem with 4e is that it doesn't care about that. If all editions are video games, then 4e is very much a modern one, with new and cutting edge graphics. They can see the light reflecting off the water, and important things LOOK important, and also awesome. In fact, it's cyclical - the important things are awesome, and the awesome things are important. Dialogue is a means of getting to an end, the fighting scenes are fast paced and filled with action (Or they should. I don't think the muddiness that sometimes occurs in combat is meant to be there)

I perfer playing older style games. Maybe I'll go REAL old school and play a simple dungeon crawl, and that's cool. Replacable PCs, big death rate, slow accumilation of power for the casters, but when they DO accumilate the power, they're rather powerful indeed.

Usually, I like my video games from the 90's the msot. Baldur's Gate series, Fallout, Arcanum, or Planescape: Torment. The dialogue was important. Fighting scenes were much slower paced. The graphics weren't much, but lush text descriptions did the job better then any amount of bloom could for us. Sure, it's not awesome. And it's definately not for everyone. But I think it's a huge mistake to just dismiss it entirely. It's a part of your history. And for some of us, it's far, far more enjoyable then the stuff that came later.

I'm not stating that this is how AND ONLY HOW the editions can be played. You can most definately play a 4e campaign where the emphasis is on dialogue and storyline and player choice. I just don't think that's what the edition itself really wants you to do. This list is where I think the developers intended to put the emphasis.

Edit: Or at least, where I see the emphasis being put.

 

[Vegepygmy]

4e lacks verisimilitude...

And that's not a bad thing. It's just not what some people want.

I agree completely.

4E is a very good game. It's just not the kind of very good game I really want to play.

3E is also a very good game. (And it just happens to be much more the kind of very good game I really want to play than 4E is.)

 

[LostSoul]

4e lacks verisimilitude.

Verisimilitude is subjective.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Verisimilitude is subjective.

Lots of things are.

But I've noticed a trend where people who strongly like 4e tend to not care about verisimilitude.