D&D 4E The problem with 4e

[proto128]

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

Again, if this was Blizzards of the Coast, everyone would've been, "They're very much working on it and it's going to be awesome!"

Then, upon announcement: "OMG 4TH EDITION! This can't come out quick enough!"

Instead there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the internet added "grognard" and "neckbeard" to its vernacular.

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.

I figured DMs were encouraged to make a decision one way or the other should some sort of conflict or logjam arise. Were it me, I'd err on the side of the players but ultimately follow RoC for final arbitration. YMMV.

 

[Dragonstriker]

It is.

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

-snip-

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.

You didn't read the thread did you?
Hit, Miss and Effect ARE clearly explained, but the OP is wilfully misinterpreting; I repeat my assertion they are either a troll, or can't comprehend english.
You know, I get that you're a 4e hater, but don't use the inability of some posters to read as a grindstone for your axe.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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

No, all it requires is for people to exercise a bit of common sense and come to a consensus.

It's what has been done for dozens of years with dozens of RPGs.

Where you see a problem I (and I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people who buy the rules and play the game) do not.

Sometimes there are rules which are unclear, and one of the main purposes of the ENworld rules forums is so that people can chat with one another about the way that they are interpreting particular rules.

Some people prefer to intensely parse the language in order to come up with a decision about it, others don't. We have a problem when people (normally the RAW guys) think that their way is only or best way which trumps other peoples common sense - it doesn't, and it has even led to short term bannings for people in the past who got too aggressive about "RAW".

Regards

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

While I agree that there is no one way to play, there is definitely a one way to read many of the rules in the rulebooks (I will not say all because I hate to use absolutes ). There is somewhat of a lack of reading comprehension in the general population, and while gamers are typically are better than others, many gamers are still terrible. Add to this the relatively poor editing of the core books, and you have a recipe for arguments.

Your point PlaneSailing is generally good about being civil. I heartilly agree. That does not mean that when there is an argument about what the text says, that any interpretation is right. There is one right way to interpret what it says. There may be many interpretations about what the meaning was intended to be, but the text says what it says, and that is that. Whether you have to use the rules as they are written is an obvious "no", but the rules as written are still a good thing to think about.

I think that it is funny that there are repeated arguments about what the texts say that are based on what people think that the rules should say and not what it actually does. It is obvious that you can play with whatever rules that you want, but the rules that are written in the books, in the way that they are written, are the official rules. Anything else is a house rule. I like house rules, but I can admit when one is a house rule, and be OK with that.

EDIT: By the way, the thread title can almost not help but make this into an edition war. Just the way it is.

 

[Ulthwithian]

At the very least, there are a few RAI views (which I admit should be more subjective than RAW) that should end all arguments; namely, the views of the people who wrote the RAW. Especially in what is essentially a technical document, they should be able to clearly define this. If they can't, they have serious issues.

Having said that, RPGs are a game of RAI, not RAW. Specifically, the RAI as interpreted by the gamemaster. That is his or her job in the context of the game. (At least, it's one of the jobs.) If RAW can be agreed upon (and that is primarily a function of the writing quality of the RAW), then RAI, if it differs from RAW, must contain house rules. Which is all well and good from the perspective of a game, but not very good from the perspective of discussing the rules.

Fortunately, I am blessed with the fact that my group almost never gets into these arguments.

 

[hong]

The job of the rules is to resolve conflicts in gameplay, not to resolve conflicts on D&D mailing lists such as this one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

Not a haiku!

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

But salt travels through time!

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

The job of the rules is to resolve conflicts in gameplay, not to resolve conflicts on D&D mailing lists such as this one.

I completely agree Master Hong. The thing is, an argument had with strangers on a furom may avert an argument at the table amongst friends. Averting an argument with friends is the point of the rules, and if discussing it in forums gets you there, then the sore feelings of strangers is worth the saved value of friends.

If only I can multiply my number of posts by 100, then I can catch Master Hong!

 

[GnomeWorks]

You didn't read the thread did you?

Bits and pieces.

Hit, Miss and Effect ARE clearly explained, but the OP is wilfully misinterpreting; I repeat my assertion they are either a troll, or can't comprehend english.

And again, this is all subjective.

You know, I get that you're a 4e hater, but don't use the inability of some posters to read as a grindstone for your axe.

Way to be dismissive, jerk.

No, all it requires is for people to exercise a bit of common sense and come to a consensus.

Common sense, it turns out, isn't so common. What seems obviously true to you may seem like a completely arbitrary decision to me.

The things the game deals with are not things that we interact with in our normal lives. Thus, the only thing we can relate them to is the ruleset itself. What common sense can exist in a world that throws simulationism out the window, as the presumed setting in 4e surely does? Certainly not the brand that I follow.

It's what has been done for dozens of years with dozens of RPGs.

Sins, past, future, you know the drill here.

Where you see a problem I (and I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people who buy the rules and play the game) do not.

That's fine.

Sometimes there are rules which are unclear, and one of the main purposes of the ENworld rules forums is so that people can chat with one another about the way that they are interpreting particular rules.

And again, I'll point out that the general weakness of the ruleset framework provided by 4e means that these discussions will devolve into RAI, which is totally subjective - making it pretty much useless to have rules discussions.

EDIT: By the way, the thread title can almost not help but make this into an edition war. Just the way it is.

At this point in the conversation, only if you want it to be.

At the very least, there are a few RAI views (which I admit should be more subjective than RAW) that should end all arguments; namely, the views of the people who wrote the RAW. Especially in what is essentially a technical document, they should be able to clearly define this. If they can't, they have serious issues.

And this is what I am saying - the rules framework is weak and inconsistent in several places. The RAI is unclear, and "common sense" can't really apply, because we're dealing with gamist mechanics and a setting that contains things that we do not encounter in everyday life.

The job of the rules is to resolve conflicts in gameplay, not to resolve conflicts on D&D mailing lists such as this one.

And to provide a reasonable framework for doing so. The ruleset should not conflict with itself, or be inconsistent.