[Was]Forked Thread: GTS 2009 D&D Seminar : [Is] Playstyle & Evolution Discussion

[Derren]

A lot of peole want rules support for roleplay.

Fixed it for you. Monopoly has no "rules" for roleplay, so I guess that means its an awesome RPG....

I am so happy that features like detect evil are gone. Why speaking with that hooded guy, we know he is evil.

Which actually weren't any problem to role playing, but required the DM to think more and take this abilities into account.

What we need are adventures that supporting roleplay and encouters that you can solve through speaking in charakter and perhaps some skill checks (challenge).
Or adventure with more background and story and not only dungeoncrawls you can place in every campaign setting.

That too, but in 4E its either freeform in a extremly unlogical setting which requires a big, noticeable split betwen the combat world and non combat world (Think Final Fantasy/The Aeris controversy) or using broken skill challenges....

It would be better if non combat and combat could happen in the same "world", but for that 4E is too abstract. So why not take this separation even further and make non combat into its own (optional) game instead of ignoring it completely?

 

[ferratus]

That too, but in 4E its either freeform in a extremly unlogical setting which requires a big, noticeable split betwen the combat world and non combat world (Think Final Fantasy/The Aeris controversy) or using broken skill challenges....

How in God's holy tetragrammaton name is it any different in 4e? 3e consolidated NWP's into a consolidated skill set, and 4e consolidated the skills so that all 4e skills would be equal. There is nothing missing in terms of "roleplaying options" between 4e and prior editions, and all editions had a hard split between combat and non-combat mechanics. If you say "D&D is either freeform in an extremely illogical setting which requires a big noticeable split between the combat world and non combat world" then we can all be on the same page again.

It would be better if non combat and combat could happen in the same "world", but for that 4E is too abstract. So why not take this separation even further and make non combat into its own (optional) game instead of ignoring it completely?

I do think there needs to be a development of the non-combat side of the D&D game beyond skills challenges, and skill challenges need to be tweaked. Calling them broken is a bit strong, but they are definately underperforming, and need some tweaking in concept. Skill challenges should be used when each skill can be applicable to a complex situation.

For example traversing a wilderness is a good example of a skill challenge because Endurance can set the pace and endure the elements, Athletics can traverse the obstacles, Nature can find the path and keep yourself stocked with provisions, Perception can spot the dangers, and Stealth can avoid monsters and hide your trail. When you fail any of these checks, you can easily see what the penalty for failure is, and what a partial success would look like.

In contrast, the first skill challenge we were introduced to (negotiating with the duke for aid) is a really bad skill challenge. Not only does it divide the flow of conversation into artificial die rolls, but it is multiple die rolls for a single pass/fail resolution. You want a skill challenge to be a case where you want to set an entire scene around it and it gives a sense of time passing. You do not want it to be a drag on a relatively short task, where one skill check will do.

Don't get me wrong, it would be nice to have a "battle of wits" mechanic that resembles combat and you defeat your enemy in some way, but I don't think skill challenges are the solution. It is perhaps equivelant to what I don't like about combat in prior editions, which is that melee combat was uninteresting because you just moved adjecent to an enemy and hit them till they fell over. Skill challenges do the job of resolving the defeat of an enemy, but it is repetative and a blunt instrument. Unfortuneately, unlike my Talent system, I have no solution for this problem.

Speaking of which, I'm kind of dissappointed that I didn't get any feedback on that, but I guess this forum is for kvetching. I'll take it to the 4e house rules forum.

 

[Hereticus]

A lot of peole want rules for roleplay.

Role play happens, an experienced DM does not need rules for non-combat situations.

Alot of good role play opportunities come about with creative use of spells.

How in God's holy tetragrammaton name is it any different in 4e? 3e consolidated NWP's into a consolidated skill set, and 4e consolidated the skills so that all 4e skills would be equal. There is nothing missing in terms of "roleplaying options" between 4e and prior editions, and all editions had a hard split between combat and non-combat mechanics.

The difference is not in the skill set.

 

[hong]

Role play happens, an experienced DM does not need rules for non-combat situations.

Alot of good role play opportunities come about with creative use of spells.

This is an important point; 10-20 years of D&D have taught ppl that creative problem-solving can only come about through use of spells. A lot of those spell uses have been moved to skill checks, but this hasn't caught up wth the culture. Eg a guy in our game was lamenting how he didn't have cool gadget spells like detect magic anymore. I pointed out that detecting magic was now an Arcana check, and disabling magic traps was similarly an Arcana check.

 

[Derren]

How in God's holy tetragrammaton name is it any different in 4e? 3e consolidated NWP's into a consolidated skill set, and 4e consolidated the skills so that all 4e skills would be equal. There is nothing missing in terms of "roleplaying options" between 4e and prior editions, and all editions had a hard split between combat and non-combat mechanics. If you say "D&D is either freeform in an extremely illogical setting which requires a big noticeable split between the combat world and non combat world" then we can all be on the same page again.

The difference is that 3Es skill system was more open, especially skills like knowledge and craft which were further divided into several categories. Also 4Es automatic skill gain doesn't lend itself very well to using skills for role playing purposes as, according to their skills, a 4E character can basically do everything.
More than in 3E, skills in 4E are just another level dependant ability.

And I don't feel that there was such a big combat/out of combat split in 3E.
Most things you could do in 3E during combat also made sense when seeing through "non combat lenses". The only thing really striking out is falling, and that is a problem in every D&D edition.
In 4E on the other hand there is a big rift between how the game world is percieved during combat and outside of combat. That includes for example the different geometry (1-1-1), mechanics linked to having a certain number of combats a day without any regard to what happened in those combats/how long they are (milestones) or having abilities which only trigger when used on level appropriate enemies, but not when used on enemies which are too weak.
That means that there is a big rift between combat and non combat in 4E as they operate under very different "rules". Now the problem is that only the "combat world" gets any attention in the rule books apart from skill challenges and a few suggestions for the DM.

 

[hong]

The difference is that 3Es skill system was more open, especially skills like knowledge and craft which were further divided into several categories. Also 4Es automatic skill gain doesn't lend itself very well to using skills for role playing purposes as, according to their skills, a 4E character can basically do everything.

A 10th level 4E character can do everything compared to a 1st level 4E character.

A 10th level 4E character may not be able to do everything compared to another 10th level 4E character.

One of these situations is far more likely to crop up in actual play.

In 4E on the other hand there is a big rift between how the game world is percieved during combat and outside of combat. That includes for example the different geometry (1-1-1), mechanics linked to having a certain number of combats a day without any regard to what happened in those combats/how long they are (milestones)

This is simply putting into the books things that ppl were already doing.

That is, unless you were ACTUALLY tracking which buffs ran out in 4 rounds, which ran out in 6 rounds, which ran out in 3 minutes, and so on. Which seems like an awful lot of work.

or having abilities which only trigger when used on level appropriate enemies, but not when used on enemies which are too weak.

This is because abilities only trigger when the spotlight exists to be shone on you. And the spotlight certainly exists both in and out of combat.

 

[Hereticus]

Alot of good role play opportunities come about with creative use of spells.

This is an important point; 10-20 years of D&D have taught ppl that creative problem-solving can only come about through use of spells.

Please, that's not what I said.

A lot of those spell uses have been moved to skill checks, but this hasn't caught up wth the culture. Eg a guy in our game was lamenting how he didn't have cool gadget spells like detect magic anymore. I pointed out that detecting magic was now an Arcana check, and disabling magic traps was similarly an Arcana check.

This is not an edition war post, but I believe that your reply has forced my hand in posting some differences.

1) Casting a ten minute ritual means that they will almost never be used during an encounter.

2) Read through the level one through three spells, there are so many good spells that are perfect for non-combat situations.

I have played a mostly a Wizard in 4.0E, and have made extremely good use of cantrips, I love that system. Perhaps a great fix for 4.0E would be to have a tiered level of cantrips available to spell casters that improve with level.

My favorite ritual by far is Make Whole, and it is only first level. My eladrin wizard joined the group as "The Mechanic", offering to fix anything that was broken. In town there were so many role playing opportunities using that angle. But that is only one spell, and it got old soon. We need more cantrips and rituals like that.

Have you ever gone fishing on a boat using the Thunder Wave at-will spell? Do not cast it from the front of the boat unless your intent is to sink it.

 

[Piratecat]

Hong, please tune down the snark. You're doing that thing again. You know, the one that makes me want to come to Australia and beat you with a stick.

 

[hong]

This is not an edition war post, but I believe that your reply has forced my hand in posting some differences.

1) Casting a ten minute ritual means that they will almost never be used during an encounter.

2) Read through the level one through three spells, there are so many good spells that are perfect for non-combat situations.

Cool, I misread your initial post.

I have played a mostly a Wizard in 4.0E, and have made extremely good use of cantrips, I love that system. Perhaps a great fix for 4.0E would be to have a tiered level of cantrips available to spell casters that improve with level.

That's not a bad idea. Either that, or make more cantrips available as you increase in level.

 

[Hereticus]

I pointed out that detecting magic was now an Arcana check, and disabling magic traps was similarly an Arcana check.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Along with Passive Insight and Passive Perception, we added Passive Arcana to our character sheets.