D&D 4E The problem with 4e

[Dragonstriker]

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.

I agree, however in the type of thread that prompted this one this is clearly not the issue, simply poster's failure (or wilful refusal) to understand english. (For illustration, see threads on milestones, vorpal weapons, cloud of daggers, ad nauseum)

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

I agree again and this was the type of discussion I referred to as helping understanding - My books arrived 3 days ago (thanks Amazon!) so I haven't contributed to the discussions on stealth or skill challenges, but I did read them and I'm aware that those rules are... contentious? problematic? Ah, need handling with care.

 

[jtrowell]

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 .

Such optimism ! We all know that the first error was leaving the oceans ...

 

[hexgrid]

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.

I've found that the best way to deal with posts like this is to not read them.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I agree, however in the type of thread that prompted this one this is clearly not the issue, simply poster's failure (or wilful refusal) to understand english. (For illustration, see threads on milestones, vorpal weapons, cloud of daggers, ad nauseum)

I'm sure that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

However, 4e is a system of the kind that I mentioned in my post: one that is unclear and generally nebulous. You want to say that the RAI says one thing, but the system is so muddled that my interpretation could be equally supported by the "RAI." Because of the unclear RAW, we can't see the RAI.

At least with 3e, you could point to the telekinesis + napkins and say, "Well, yep, that is totally legit by the rules. But! that is nonsensical, we need to fix it, and - gee, we have a solid enough understanding of and grounding in the mechanics to know what to change to fix it. Isn't that nice?"

I agree again and this was the type of discussion I referred to as helping understanding - My books arrived 3 days ago (thanks Amazon!) so I haven't contributed to the discussions on stealth or skill challenges, but I did read them and I'm aware that those rules are... contentious? problematic? Ah, need handling with care.

This week, sure, it's stealth.

I'm sure it'll be another issue next week.

And another one, for the next.

The more the system is examined, the more holes seem to be cropping up. That might not be accurate, but that's how it seems to me.

 

[Dragonstriker]

However, 4e is a system of the kind that I mentioned in my post: one that is unclear and generally nebulous. You want to say that the RAI says one thing, but the system is so muddled that my interpretation could be equally supported by the "RAI." Because of the unclear RAW, we can't see the RAI.

I was making a general point to avoid singling out individual posters, but read http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=234064 and then tell me it's the designer's vague rules causing the problem.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I was making a general point to avoid singling out individual posters, but read http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=234064 and then tell me it's the designer's vague rules causing the problem.

It is.

To avoid being hong-like, I'll attempt to explain why.

The designers have attempted to make a rules framework that seems rather similar in construction to that of the rules framework of Magic. Keywords, specifically, give me that impression, and how a game element equipped with such-and-such keywords is supposed to be able to use those keywords to inform other game elements of how to interact with it.

The problem, however, is that the designers did not codify presentation, formatting, or precisely how these keywords interact. While there seems to be some amount of consistency, there are a few cases in which there are bizarre interactions that don't seem to make any sense. You get conflicting answers from the rules - most likely the result of conflicting design decisions, IMO. Too many cooks have spoiled the soup.

Because the system is not terribly robust, when you run into a situation in which a rule or power does not have the same kind of wording as most others, or references something or uses a keyword in a way that is not entirely consistent with the rest of the ruleset, or attempts to interface with another element in an inelegant fashion, you result in the rules giving two conflicting answers. Cloud of Daggers interacting with the minion rules is an example of an object attempting to interface with a class, and it returning two different answers - and it is because of the relatively ambiguous nature of the wording of the power. In an attempt to save space, WotC has introduced ambiguity.

The Cloud of Daggers vs Minions problem seems to be a legitimate one. It is sensical that CoD would not autokill minions, but it is also sensical that it would - I could make arguments either way. Your appeal to RAI does not function here, because either of the interpretations of the RAW is a viable one.

 

[Obryn]

However, 4e is a system of the kind that I mentioned in my post: one that is unclear and generally nebulous. You want to say that the RAI says one thing, but the system is so muddled that my interpretation could be equally supported by the "RAI." Because of the unclear RAW, we can't see the RAI.

I think you're stretching.

Look back at 1e and 2e. Even better, look back at RC D&D. Lots of stuff is left open and nebulous. Like, tons, actually. 1e wasn't clear at all in many, many situations, and groups were generally left to figure out & interpret the rules for themselves. (I think probably less than 5% of all groups actually used the AD&D combat rules as-written, including segments, weapon speeds, and weapon-vs-armor tables.) Depending on who you talk to, this was either their greatest strength or their greatest weakness. Amazingly enough, there was still plentiful rules-lawyering here, mitigated only by the lack of a popular internet.

Look at 3e. 3e tried to nail everything down. Nevertheless, there was tons of rules-lawyering and rule arguments, as you well know. Like, gads. Oodles. The internet propelled this to stratospheric levels. And you should also know that RAI was hardly a trump card in 3e rules discussions.

So... we have 3+ nebulous editions and 1 pretty concrete one. Rules lawyering & arguments happened in all of them. It's almost like it's a trait of gamers, isn't it?

-O

 

[proto128]

Why is WotC not the Blizzard of RPG publishers?

Because, if so, we wouldn't have 4e for another year and it wouldn't be any closer to gaming nirvana than it is now.

Also we'd only be getting one supplement and no 3rd party support, but you could play 4e on homemade and Ikea tables right out of the gate.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I think you're stretching.

So what if past editions were nebulous, as well? That's irrelevant. The sins of the past edition don't excuse the sins of the next.

Look at 3e. 3e tried to nail everything down. Nevertheless, there was tons of rules-lawyering and rule arguments, as you well know. Like, gads. Oodles. The internet propelled this to stratospheric levels. And you should also know that RAI was hardly a trump card in 3e rules discussions.

RAI was never a trump card in 3e discussions, and that was a good thing. RAI is subjective, and it should never have to be brought up - the rules should try to be as crystal-clear as possible.

That's why we have rules, so that we can point to something and say, "This says that X is true, therefore it is." Once you bring RAI into it, you taint the boolean: you allow room for "Well, it says X, but because of Z, I think X actually means X+Y."

It's almost like it's a trait of gamers, isn't it?

Can't argue with that.

 

[arcanaman]

Don't forget all the people who were upset when wotc annoucened

because before they said they weren't working of another edition or

something like that