What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[MrMyth]

That's a problem with "Everything's core", isn't it?

You can't really have mechanics that are setting-specific while at the same time having every mechanic be core.

At some point, you have to choose which it is going to be.

I see it as a question of 'default' vs 'allowed'. I expect to see Dragonmarks in an Eberron game - that doesn't mean a DM can't allow them in another setting, but it isn't necessarily the default. Similarly, Themes in Dark Sun will help put the starting PCs at a slightly stronger power level, just like in previous editions they might start at 3rd Level.

Does that mean, in previous editions, that you weren't allowed to run a game that started at 3rd Level without setting it in Dark Sun? Well, no - but it helped make the setting distinct.

Similarly, we might see optional theme rules show up for use outside of Dark Sun - but by having a stronger emphasis on them and having them default from the start, they become a part of the setting, and help it feel distinct.

Which is really how I like it. I want the settings to feel unique without being so different that they aren't compatible - the fact that my current game has both featured planar exploration, astral sea sailing, and a trip into a Domain of Dread has been a good thing.

That's not to say there isn't room for unique setting properties - but I think a level of balance can be found. I don't think anything about 4E inherently prevents unique campaign elements. We just haven't seen any settings that really needed it. The ones that got incorporated into the basic setting still have elements of it - travel among the different planes ala Planescape, and you'll run into different planar properties and mutability, have to deal with portal mechanics and so forth. Find yourself trapped in a Domain of Dread, and you have to figure out its rules and what conditions might let you escape - if you can.

Is that the same as having Fear/Insanity points? Maybe not. But I wouldn't be surprised if we saw something along those lines when we get a full Ravenloft setting - for now, we get a taste of it that make it more available to a general game, and I'm ok with that. Eberron and FR, our only actual setting releases, feel as distinct as they ever have. Dark Sun is looking likely to be even more so - not just with themes, but with the standard emphasis on survival and brutality and what sounds like more intense rules for staying alive in the harsh heat of the world.

I'm just not seeing that having rules portable across setting inherently undercuts the uniqueness of each setting itself.

 

[Scribble]

But that exactly supports my point. Any natural born leader can theoretically inspire someone from death's door. But not every natural born leader is a warlord. But in 4E only a warlord can inspire from death's door. It doesn't make any sense.

Makes sense to me. Warlord is good at reading people and knowing what will really rile them up, and get them back on their feet.

If I were knocked out, and someone was yelling "Dude get up- you have to get up- the finale of The OC is on in a few minutes if you don't get up you'e gonna miss it!!! Now FIIIIGHT"

It's going to have much less of an effect on me then if someone were yelling "Get up! Get up now, if you don't get up they're going to kill your wife! She needs you now don't you dare give in- you get up and FIIIIGHTTT!!!"

Addmitedly this is an over the top scenario (I like to go for the funny) but my point is simply that the Warlord is just better then most at knowing what will inspire you, without having to really have been a part of your life for a long time.

A father or loved one or whatever can inspire a son from death's door with the right words or emotion. But such a person doesn't necessarily have a skill or utility power. So tough luck for their 4E incarnation -- a warlord's career ability trumps a loving father's unskilled untrained pure raw natural inspiration.

And this is where we go back to what we were talking about earlier I think... That this is where RPGs shine. The ability of the DM to take a good framework and bend it to whatever fits best for the campaign.

Sure there isn't a rule for every corner case imaginary, and I applaud that. Basing how a warlord could be part of the world on the corner case of someone's father not being able to do the healing trick by raw is a recipe for disastrous minutia in my opinion.

Give me the basic rules of how the warlord does it. If at some point down the line, we role-play an emotional "Goddammit, you bitch! You never backed away from anything in your life! Now fight! Fight! Fight! Right now! Do it!" scene ala the Abyss, as the DM I can use the basic framework to let it happen.

 

[MrMyth]

Uh oh! I've been rolling for random magic items. Please don't turn me into the WotC Police!

I might disagree with most of RC's points, but I've absolutely got to back him here - there is a definite difference between 'allowed' and 'supported'. Sure, you can work out rules for rolling for random magic items, but there aren't any in the books nor is there an especially easy method to figure it out.

Now, I'm a fan of not having random rolling being the default, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see the option. Whenever DMG3 or the equivalent comes along, I'd love to see a big section of optional rules that includes things like this.

 

[NoWayJose]

Why can't an AD&D wizard teach his buddy the fighter, who he's spent years looting and camping with, one single 1st level spell?

Why can't a computer programmer or digital artist teach his buddy the plumber, who he's spent years looting and camping with, one single Perl\CGI script or Photoshop faux-Impressionist image.

See above. Also, of course it's gamist. D&D is a game.

You're gaming me on the semantics. I think you know the definitions of verisimilitude, gamist, simulationist, etc. so let's not waste our time on this.

This is covered in 4e. It would be a stunt (page 42).

Ah, page 42. Who needs rules about anything, where every possibility is covered under page 42.

 

[MrMyth]

But that exactly supports my point. Any natural born leader can theoretically inspire someone from death's door. But not every natural born leader is a warlord. But in 4E only a warlord can inspire from death's door. It doesn't make any sense.

A father or loved one or whatever can inspire a son from death's door with the right words or emotion. But such a person doesn't necessarily have a skill or utility power. So tough luck for their 4E incarnation -- a warlord's career ability trumps a loving father's unskilled untrained pure raw natural inspiration.

Anyone can swing a sword, but not every can master it - if you truly want your character to be a natural born leader, you'll need to be a Warlord, or multiclass Warlord, or take a feat or utility power or skill power that lets you perform similar actions.

Or, if you are in a rare situation where there truly is a vital emotional connection on the line - that is absolutely the situation that 'page 42' is for, to cover a scenario the rules don't address. I'd certainly allow a son to try and rouse his father to save the family.

But I wouldn't want to see a specific feat for that, because it isn't a common enough scenario to need to represent in the codified rules.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

nor is there an especially easy method to figure it out.

I learned to count before kindergarten, so to each their own on what counts as "especially easy."

How did you roll for magic items in previous editions once new material was released beyond the core? 1E AD&D helped you with the release of Unearthed Arcana, but after that if you wanted to add additional materials you were on your own. The same is true for every other edition past the core book. So maybe it's my 27 years of practice rolling when the system doesn't support it that makes it easier for me.

 

[Scribble]

Runecasting in a Norse setting, specific incredible physical feats in a Celtic setting, primitive argriculture and merely keeping a village alive in a Biblical setting, complex social standing within a Victorian setting, Honor in an Oriental setting, fear effects and social isolation within a Gothic horror setting -- these have all been done in various previous editions (in some cases by 3pp).

If the flavour determines the mechanics, then mechanics must exist to support the flavour. If the mechanics come first, then you can describe what the mechanics decide however you like.

I'm not really advocating one thing comes first here though.

I'm advocating that rules shouldn't be added to the game to make the setting feel unique, as that's the flavor's job, and I'm also saying that if rules are created for one setting, and they are good for the game they should be added to the game as a whole.

Like the rune-casting you mentioned. Ok, sure, it's expected in a Norse setting, but why separate that from other areas? It seems like a useful thing for any game setting.

If while creating your Norse setting you suddenly found there wasn't anything in the game to support rune-casting then sure, add it to the game, but then why not add rune-casting to the game as a whole?

Or better yet just a base mechanic of fortune telling of some type that can be re-skinned for the other areas. (IE in ravenloft we use tarrot cards or tea leaves. In darksun we use entrails...)

 

[Umbran]

First, that is why I referenced 2e and 3e... not 1e. Second... so what, for more of D&D's history it has had specific rules for different campaign settings, including Hollow World for BECMI. (which if I recall correctly, and I may not be, there were only two major settings for... yet rules were used to bring out the uniqueness in different regions with the gazetteer series as well.)

The number of settings tends to increase as the edition gets older. In general, you don't come out of the gate with a dozen of the things - they build up over time.

When it was two years old (1980) 1e had just Greyhawk in print, iirc. At the analogous time in its history (1991) I think 2e had Greyhawk, FR, and Dragonlance (all carried over from the previous editions, none of which call for notable mechanical changes outside of classes and races), and Dark Sun had just come out. Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Al Qadim - all were later in 2e's history.

And now, two years out, 4e has? A couple of settings close to the core rule set that were carried over from the previous edition... and now Dark Sun? Interesting, and I expect the analogy may well be intentional on their part.

There seems to me to be a whole lot of sense to allowing a game to run along with its core rules for a while before offering up lots of variations.

Personally for me the problem is that they have chosen not to differentiate any of the settings listed above through unique rules to enhance their flavor.

Okay. Is this more about how WotC doesn't produce mechanical changes to back up setting flavor, or is it just that the settings they've produced so far are bland in flavor?

...as I was very specific about what era/editions of D&D I was speaking of and what characterictics I was talking about... again, not once did I mention 1e or races and classes.

You were clear about era (2e and 3e). You were not clear about the characteristics - you didn't mention any specific ones at all! So I chose some characteristics to start with, as they'd gotten mentioned elsewhere in the thread, and seemed relevant.

 

[MrMyth]

Ah, page 42. Who needs rules about anything, where every possibility is covered under page 42.

Are you really saying we need, somewhere in the rules, an actual power or feat to represent a family member's ability to call back a loved one from the brink of death in a moment of epic inspiration? Isn't that absolutely the sort of corner-case - informed by character motivations and not any mechanics - that it is useful to have some guidelines for the DM to use, rather than just having to make a decision and say 'yes' or 'no'?

 

[pemerton]

If you fluff it that way, why is it that an ultra-charismatic non-warlord can't accomplish the same task using raw natural ability? It's just so completely utterly arbitrary and gamist that only a warlord can do this. Inspiring people from death's door is NOT part of a profession. A father or loved one can do it, a close friend and comrade-in-arms, charismatic priest invoking your faith in a god (without healing magic per se), etc.



Which is very problematic if you're truly roleplaying and immersed in your character and imagining what your PC is doing, and not "reverse engineering" what the rules say.

Well, I did say upthread that the 4e-style approach may not be appealing to those who dislike it's strong metagame element. But once you accept that element, it answers your question - the reason non-Warords can't do the same is because the player of a non-Warlord doesn't get the "fate points"/"metagame tokens" that let one do this.

(You can see that I see things a bit different from MrMyth, who explains it in ingame terms, about the Warlord being a natural leader. I agree with you that that doesn't entirely make ingame sense - hence the move to the metagame realm to understand what is going on. And I agree with Mallus.)

That said, on the 4e threads LostSoul and I were having a discussion recently about whether a Diplomacy check could be used to heal a PC. And Mallus addresses the same point in his post upthread.

I agree with Mallus that the answer is yes (applying p 42) although it woud have to be handled in such a way that it doesn't mechanically overshadow the Heal skill, second wind and class features. My thought was that the check should be Moderate or Hard based on the relationship, and that a failure should cause psychic damage to the one attempting the check. LostSoul also suggested granting combat advantage when making the check - as a balancing factor, and understood in the game as resulting from the emotional state in response to the injury of the PC being healed.