What CAN'T you do with 4e?

[ExploderWizard]

Is there some reason you're being evasive? It was an honest question.

What you described is easy to narrate, so that's not the problem. If you accept that PC's get to choose whether an attack is lethal in the first place, then it's not a power issue. It's easy to generate an in-game rationale for it, so that ain't it.

No, really, what's the problem?

With all due respect my answer stands. If your gaming group has no problem with the mechanics as written then use them and game on.

 

[Scribble]

Is that It does if you want a satisfying result. In other editions of the game you could make a character up with, what, 2 pages of rules? The complicated (caster) classes had a shared base of spells to work with, but there was room in that selection to make each and every character unique.

This is ignoring the feats aspect. Every class had feats that modified its behavior in some way. Feats based on the class were just as important to the class as the rest of the abilities.

Powers and feats go hand in hand. In a lot of cases they took the feats that allowed a character to DO something and made them powers.

 

[Nellisir]

Unless of course your wizard reduces 6 guys to zero with an area spell and says " knock out the subchief and the shaman. toast the rest"

Either it's not a problem, or rule it's all or nothing. Pretty simple fix.

 

[BryonD]

What you described is easy to narrate, so that's not the problem. If you accept that PC's get to choose whether an attack is lethal in the first place, then it's not a power issue. It's easy to generate an in-game rationale for it, so that ain't it.

How in the word is is remotely a good thing that the game expects me to have to generate in-game rationales for my narrative so as to conform to the limitations of the rules?

The rules should not use the players.

The rules should comply to the narrative. But 4E is built on the exact opposite assumption.

Every time there is an issue where the rules don't make sense, the defense is "you can make up a reason". Screw that! If the game tells me I have to forget my vision and replace it with something that is more compliant, then the game has already failed.

 

[Mallus]

How in the word is is remotely a good thing that the game expects me to have to generate in-game rationales for my narrative so as to conform to the limitations of the rules?

The rules should not use the players.

Carefully explain to me how offering a player the choice between knocking out or killing each opponent caught in the same area of effect attack amounts to the rules 'using the players' or demonstrates some critical limitation of the system. Because that was the specific situation we were talking about.

The rules should comply to the narrative.

Seeing as everyone has a different idea of what the narrative is, this could be slightly problematic.

But 4E is built on the exact opposite assumption.

Yes. It's assumption is something like 'provide a solid, playable mechanical foundation that individual groups can choose to narrate in ways suitable for their particular campaigns'.

Screw that! If the game tells me I have to forget my vision and replace it with something that is more compliant, then the game has already failed.

How likely is it that a commercially released product will match your 'vision' without you needing to meet it a part of the way (ie, do a little rationalizing and reconceptualizing)? It looks like you're making a textbook unreasonable demand.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Carefully explain to me how offering a player the choice between knocking out or killing each opponent caught in the same area of effect attack amounts to the rules 'using the players' or demonstrates some critical limitation of the system.

I would suggest that, in some cases, offering specific additional choices are limitations upon the system, because they affect how the player(s) view the narrative, and hurt immersion.

As a simple example of this, imagine a pit trap where, when sprung, each player is given a choice to have his surprised character fall into the trap or not. For those who fall, the players are given an additional choice about the amount of damage that they would like to take. They are also given a choice about whether or not they would like to spontaneously heal twice the damage given. The trap is described as being in no way magical.

For many players (myself included), such a trap would damage gameplay. Indeed, inclusion of these choices would damage my ability to make the one choice I most critically want from an RPG system: the choice of immersing myself in the imaginary world presented.

The idea that all area effects can selectively kill or render unconscious those within it depending upon the desires of the being initiating that effect is one which critically damages my ability to take the world presented "seriously". It draws me out of the immersive experience into the "WTF? Ho do we narrate these rules?" experience.

YMMV, of course, and if these things don't bother you, all the more power to you.

One may modify/house rule 4e like any other system, but if there are enough elements that require modification, it makes little sense to switch from a system that one has already modified. Moreover, when "houserule it!" immediately becomes the mantra of the initial release, it seems rational to consider that the system itself might not be all that it is advertised to be.

RC

 

[SweeneyTodd]

How in the word is is remotely a good thing that the game expects me to have to generate in-game rationales for my narrative so as to conform to the limitations of the rules?

Honest answer: I can't think of a single roleplaying game I've ever played or run where I didn't have to do this.

It's just something you don't notice you do, most of the time. Converting attack -> damage -> description in any RPG, for example. We've internalized it so we don't think about it, but it's the same thing, I think.

Every time there is an issue where the rules don't make sense, the defense is "you can make up a reason". Screw that! If the game tells me I have to forget my vision and replace it with something that is more compliant, then the game has already failed.

If the actual effects of the rules are not something you're comfortable with, then yes, you probably don't want to play it.

Question (and I ask this not to try to trap you in some kind of silly debate fallacy, I'm interested in your opinion): If the rules worked the way they did, and offered some explanation for how that should be imagined in the game world, would you have a different response?

If the rules worked in a way that you liked, but the explanation for how to imagine it made you go "Bleck, that's dumb", how would you feel about that?

I think there's some interesting ground for discussion there. No answer you could make could be "wrong", it's just preference, but it might be interesting to separate "rules that I don't like, as rules" from "rules that I don't like because I don't like their implied effect on the imagined landscape".

 

[ExploderWizard]

Carefully explain to me how offering a player the choice between knocking out or killing each opponent caught in the same area of effect attack amounts to the rules 'using the players' or demonstrates some critical limitation of the system. Because that was the specific situation we were talking about.


Seeing as everyone has a different idea of what the narrative is, this could be slightly problematic.


Yes. It's assumption is something like 'provide a solid, playable mechanical foundation that individual groups can choose to narrate in ways suitable for their particular campaigns'.


How likely is it that a commercially released product will match your 'vision' without you needing to meet it a part of the way (ie, do a little rationalizing and reconceptualizing)? It looks like you're making a textbook unreasonable demand.

While I do not feel that 4E totally fails as an RPG it is an example of a weak one. Nothing prevents roleplaying in nearly any rulest, D&D or otherwise but there are fundemental design priorites in any given system that promote or detract from it.

To me, a roleplaying game centers around the DM and the players each having fun with the primary goal being to entertain themselves and everyone else at the table with the events that take place in the game.

A wargame (again to ME) centers around the players having fun trying to defeat opponents with an ultimate goal of winning.

The fact that the majority of development in 4E rules centers around combat balance indicates that it leans more towards a wargame. You can roleplay in a wargame but the design handles it less well than a roleplaying game. In reverse it would be something like 80% of the Flames of War rulebook dealing with roleplaying your commanders with the remainder devoted to a cursory discussion about how to handwave the rules of combat.

In a roleplaying game there is no real NEED to have perfectly balanced combat rules. If a particular gaming group finds that they do actually NEED balanced rules then there would seem to be a conflict within the group as the reason. If player A is jealous of the damage output of player B then there is a competitive conflict within the party. If the DM is out to kill the PC's, again there is a conflict that no set of rules will resolve.

A lot of arguements that disguise themselves as edition wars are actually about gaming groups with vastly conflicting styles. All it takes to screw up a group is 1 person who is trying to WIN during a roleplaying game.

 

[LostSoul]

As a simple example of this, imagine a pit trap where, when sprung, each player is given a choice to have his surprised character fall into the trap or not. For those who fall, the players are given an additional choice about the amount of damage that they would like to take. They are also given a choice about whether or not they would like to spontaneously heal twice the damage given. The trap is described as being in no way magical.

For many players (myself included), such a trap would damage gameplay.

Yeah, that sucks; it's no fun to provide your own adversity.

Indeed, inclusion of these choices would damage my ability to make the one choice I most critically want from an RPG system: the choice of immersing myself in the imaginary world presented.

Really? I didn't see that coming. I think it would be more immersive for me, because I'd have to imagine myself falling, how hurt I was, if I bruised my bad arm, etc. in order to come up with the right damage figure.

 

[Lizard]

I would suggest that, in some cases, offering specific additional choices are limitations upon the system, because they affect how the player(s) view the narrative, and hurt immersion.

As a simple example of this, imagine a pit trap where, when sprung, each player is given a choice to have his surprised character fall into the trap or not. For those who fall, the players are given an additional choice about the amount of damage that they would like to take. They are also given a choice about whether or not they would like to spontaneously heal twice the damage given. The trap is described as being in no way magical.

There are many games that work like that; the key is, the CHARACTERS aren't deciding, the PLAYERS are.

Imagine, for simplicities sake, a system whereby the players have 10 "damage tokens" and two "plot immunity" tokens. The pit trap does two "tokens' worth of damage. Alternatively, the player can spend one plot immunity to negate it, or take double damage now to earn another Immunity token to use later. Each player decides (normal damage, no damage, or double damage) and then describes what happens. One might say "I fall, but roll to minimize the hurt -- normal damage". One might say "I fall badly, bruising my head" -- double damage. One might say "I grab the ledge at the last minute and leap out, unharmed" No damage, and spend a token. From the perspective of the CHARACTERS, none of these decisions were conscious; they are unaware of the narrative context.

4e shoves D&D much more strongly towards this type of system than ever before, though hit points and saving throws have always been part of it -- read EGG's essays on those two mechanics in the original 1e DMG -- he talks about them as narrative conventions, not as simulations.

I have an initial adverse reaction to 4e because 3x fit in my mental 'simulationist' box, wherase other games I've played and enjoyed, such as Vampire or Sailor Moon, are more firmly abstract/narrativist. Once I accept that 4e is basically no longer the same KIND of game 3e was (mostly simulationist, a bit gamist, only a touch narrativist), it becomes much more tolerable judged on its own merits as its own game, and not really as a continuation/upgrade ofr 3e.