D&D 4E The problem with 4e

[Xorn]

I read all these twisted rules discussions (and have ever since forums existed for it), but I don't let it get to me, or irk me. Seeing someone cut-n-paste the same response about Cloud of Daggers and minions go on for 6 pages is nothing to get irked over.

Just be happy that guy isn't in your game.

I just use the ludicrous rule-twisting as a litmus test at the game shop when someone is talking about their game, to judge if I'm really interested in hearing about it.

 

[DracoSuave]

I read all these twisted rules discussions (and have ever since forums existed for it), but I don't let it get to me, or irk me. Seeing someone cut-n-paste the same response about Cloud of Daggers and minions go on for 6 pages is nothing to get irked over.

Just be happy that guy isn't in your game.

I just use the ludicrous rule-twisting as a litmus test at the game shop when someone is talking about their game, to judge if I'm really interested in hearing about it.

The best part about the forums is the fact that it gives me a heads up on the rules shinanegans my players will try to pull.

And believe me, they -will- try to pull it.

 

[Dragonstriker]

Except of course you wouldn't say that, because being offensive to other people is against ENworld rules.

And well I know it. Don't worry, I don't intend to be offensive. I was trying to be sincere when I said we'd all be better off.

The original point is a good one though (I know of one of the examples you are thinking of). I have little patience for wilful twisting of rules by insisting on an ultra-literalistic parsing of language as against just going with what seems to make the most sense in context.

Regards

And i'm glad I'm not the only one this bothers.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I have little patience for wilful twisting of rules by insisting on an ultra-literalistic parsing of language as against just going with what seems to make the most sense in context.

And the whole "RAI" thing works if the rules framework is actually robust enough to handle it.

If the system has glaring holes and/or contradicts itself, then such a situation calls for intense parsing of the wording of the rules themselves.

"RAI" also fails if the rules in question don't govern something that we're familiar with IRL. How does magic work? If something about a spell seems to bring into question how it functions, we have to determine its meaning from the rules themselves.

My argument doesn't really apply to the clearly absurd - an example would be using telekinesis and napkins to grapple the tarrasque to death in 3e. But in situations like the 4e stealth rules, where there is much less of a clear-cut way to interpret the rules (or at least seems so), that is when intense parsing is called for.

 

[Obryn]

This isn't a problem with fourth edition D&D.

This is a problem with -role playing games- in general.

I'm more inclined to think it's a problem with gamers in general.

But then again, I'm cynical that way.

-O

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm more inclined to think it's a problem with gamers in general.

But then again, I'm cynical that way.

-O

*whistles innocently*

 

[Duvall]

Ever since the release of the first rules snippets there have been discussions about how the rules actually work in play. This is a good thing as it enhances the rules understanding of all the participants.
Unfortunately since the actual release date there has been a trend that worries me, namely a significant number of posts where people have bizzarely twisted the interpretation of the rules and argued their verifiably OBJECTIVELY WRONG interpretation is the only possible one. I would prefer to view this in the best possible light, so can only explain their behaviour as that of rabid trolls. If it is not trolling then it can only be due to an appalling failure to comprehend english.
Please fellow members, read the rules with the view that they are written in clear english and actually mean what they say. We will all be better off for it.

This is hardly unique to 4e, or even RPGs for that matter. Taking a rule out of context, taking an omission in the rules as tacit permission that an action is allowed ("it doesn't say I can't backstab with a ballista"), parsing rules in tortured ways to justify game-breaking behavior and other such dubious actions have long been the domain of certain types of gamers. Occasionally, people do get confused and then it's just a matter of clarification. The question you have to ask yourself is "how should this rule work for all cases?" Not, "how can I interpret this rule for my personal benefit?"

 

[Andor]

And the whole "RAI" thing works if the rules framework is actually robust enough to handle it.

If the system has glaring holes and/or contradicts itself, then such a situation calls for intense parsing of the wording of the rules themselves.

"RAI" also fails if the rules in question don't govern something that we're familiar with IRL. How does magic work? If something about a spell seems to bring into question how it functions, we have to determine its meaning from the rules themselves.

My argument doesn't really apply to the clearly absurd - an example would be using telekinesis and napkins to grapple the tarrasque to death in 3e. But in situations like the 4e stealth rules, where there is much less of a clear-cut way to interpret the rules (or at least seems so), that is when intense parsing is called for.

This. The design of 4e, with it's utterly intrusive meta-game elements like milestones and magic rings that don't work properly until you've beaten someone up, is sufficiently alien to my gaming style that I feel uncomfortable pretending that I understand what the intent was.

Further the rules and examples are so poorly written that I have seen threads where two people looking at the same piece of text argue for pages that it can only be interpreted to mean two completely opposite things. And in some of those cases the general concensus seems to be forming around concepts that aren't even in the books.

The RAW are unclear, and 4e is so obviously the work of a committee that I have no clue what the RAI are, or even it there was a single 'intent' behind it.

Why is WotC not the Blizzard of RPG publishers?

 

[med stud]

This is not a problem with 4e, it's a problem with homo sapiens. I think arguments like these have been going on since the first two climbed down from the trees .

 

[Mort_Q]

This is not a problem with 4e, it's a problem with homo sapiens. I think arguments like these have been going on since the first two climbed down from the trees .

Given what we know of human evolution, it's likely that the two that gave rise to us didn't climb down... they were pushed.