Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[catsclaw227]

I thought we were all trying to put a halt to edition wars...

Some people like some ways to play the game, others like other ways.

 

[Ariosto]

To substitute a down pillow for a sack of concrete for one shot, then swap the props again for the next, is simple enough on a movie set.

It seems to me pretty cumbersome for an RPG, though. The very necessity that should be mother to the invention is missing!

I'm not stuck with an out-of-shape actor playing Stupendous Man in a rubber muscle suit. I can just give SM, the sack of concrete, Granny June, the bullets from a gangster's gun -- each element -- whatever characteristics are appropriate to it and let them interact accordingly.

 

[Barastrondo]

I'm just curious, when discussing the actual merits of a game, and it's rules how does this factor in to it? Not trying to be snarky just trying to clarify what you mean.

The way I see it, if the rules and merits of a game are tools in a toolbox, then it becomes relevant to ask how you're using them. How good is the new electric screwdriver if you're trying to use it to drive a nail, for instance. Level 2 kobold slingers aren't tools to show how tough 9th-level characters are (while minions would be). They're more critters that are specialized in the 1-5 level bracket.

I disagree with you here to a point. I agree that in previous editions hp's were a function of fantasy biology... but I don't see 4e as making hp's a function of narrative role. Instead they've become a function of balancing out in-game challenge to PC's according to role and level. This is mechanics not narrative based design.

I should probably call it a fusion of narrative mechanics and the desire to deliver a "play" experience. Things like minions and healing surges aren't there to deliberately simulate a narrative, but at the same time they're great tools for achieving one while still having the rolling dice part of the game be fun as well.

Yes, but didn't 3e/3.5 porovide you with the tools for both. You could have a world populated by rank and file kobolds, kobolds modified to fit the narrative and/or a mixture of both. The problem, IMO, is that 4e only provides one aspect as opposed to giving you both and letting one decide the type of game he wants.

I don't think that 3/3.5 went very far into the idea of the narrative at all. It could do both, but it had a very limited feel for the narrative — as anyone who wanted to create an NPC with about 50 skill points and 4 hit points found out. It went for mechanical consistency above all — the sage has many levels in Expert not because the mechanics of levels are the most excellent pick for how you should represent him, but because skill points are intrinsically tied to level gain. The minotaur has strong Reflex and Will saves not because minotaurs are naturally more agile and strong-willed than bullish-tough, but because it's a monstrous humanoid and they're all like that.

Now, again I recognize that such mechanical consistency is absolutely a selling point for other people. It wasn't my cup of tea, though. For the amount of handwaving I tended to do, the system's strengths outweighed its drawbacks by enough that I would still run it at the time, but not so much that I'd run it again now.

(Also my wife is having at least as much fun as me with the new edition, if not more. I realize I'm being a Big Girl when I say that her enjoyment compounds my own, but... well, that's the way it is.)

I'm curious, why do you feel 4e is great for.. "the situation will be the foundation for the mechanics"... I guess what I'm wondering is what does it do specifically that makes it great for this type of game. I think it's a great "challenge based on interaction of mechanics in play game", but I fail to see how it in any way promotes or encourages "narrative" first. If anything I feel it promotes mechanics first and applied narrative to fit the mechanics. Now granted the mechanics can often be interpreted in many ways but that still isn't "narrative" first... it's mechanics first.

Mostly it's actual play experiences talking. I have a good chemistry with the system. The way I work in plotting out a game system, I always start with a narrative in mind, and then I check out the tools available to me. If I have some aspect of a story in mind, I generally have the freedom to put together almost anything I want. Once I have that in mind, it's time to add the game aspects, and well, that's how I see it working.

Some system particulars? Well, I do like role-based mechanics for opponents. Some self-analysis reveals I like to use brutes, skirmishers and minions above all, and tend to move only toward controllers as mid-bosses or end-bosses. Now, that may not be the most mechanically ingenious way for me to set up encounters, but like I said, I start with an idea of what the fight might be like first and then build stats to fine-tune it. (Reskinning monsters is probably just a subset of role-based mechanics, but I love the implementation so much it deserves a separate mention.)

Skill challenges I also like a lot. They allow for some variable definition of what a "scene" is. For instance, take the infiltration of a fort. You can play out the "evading patrols, ambushing sentries, working the locks, and finding your way to the inner sanctum" part as a series of separate encounters... or you can make it a skill challenge, compressing that part of the evening into one intense "encounter" and then getting to the next part. Skill challenges are a way to play with narrative pacing, something I find quite useful.

And for that matter, I also favor the "encounter" structure to more detailed timekeeping. It's another way to play with pacing. I've seen some interesting things happen when several encounters back-to-back are treated as one long running encounter, for instance.

Do I think 4e would teach a strong narrative style to newcomers? No, probably not (though I'd rank it pretty high among versions of D&D that could encourage it). Does it play nicely with a DM who's already got a strong interest in narrative play? Oh heck yes.

 

[Mallus]

I don't see the descriptions as interchangeable skins... to me that's actually patronizing to the players.

How, exactly, is that patronizing?

Like "OK now I'm just telling you this cool bit of fluff to spice up the game; I say you're fighting pirates but really it would be the same if I said you were fighting giant battlemechs or rabid fur seals."

I imagine a smart DM wouldn't re-skin a 50ft battlemech as a 6ft pirate. The fact you can create idiotic re-skinning examples doesn't mean good examples don't exist.

Ask a Champions player if it's somehow patronizing to define a Ranged Killing Attack in more than one way (ie, the idea that effects-based rules are somehow patronizing is batty).

Now, their loyalty to the Fire Bat means something: it means they're AC 9.

What it means is you decided they're not particularly effetive combatants. One imagines you could have decided differently without insulting your players...

But he's AC 9... he's a naked dude.

Can't he be skilled at dodging blows?

If you mean for them to be super-dextrous and adept at parrying with the cutlass, give them some bonuses... but you should tell the players something like "These guys are uniformly agile and experts with a unique fighting style!"

Welcome to 4e! Please enjoy your stay.

Really, most of these points boil down to being mired in D&D-isms. There's nothing wrong with preferring a specific edition/set of tools. But we probably shouldn't confuse a preferred set of representational strategies with logic.

 

[AllisterH]

I

As to your example of Blackbeard's pirates: it really depends on what you mean for them to be. If you mean for them to be super-dextrous and adept at parrying with the cutlass, give them some bonuses... but you should tell the players something like "These guys are uniformly agile and experts with a unique fighting style!" So let them treat the cutlass as a shield, and give them whatever bonus you would give someone for a good Dex (-1 in OD&D, making them AC 7; -3 or -4 in AD&D, making them perhaps AC 6 or AC 5). But don't just set something completely arbitrary and treat it like it's normal.

Hmm....I think you might be getting your AC rejigging seriously off as the 4e system isn't arbitary to what I understand how you mean.

AC of -4 in AD&D translates to an AC of 24 in both 3e and 4e. Again, using your example of the 10th level naked pirate.

A 10th level buck naked human PC can achieve the same thing as the pirate so I'm not sure why you consider it weird.....

Going by the guidelines in the DMG, a PC can almost always achieve the same range of AC as the NPC/Monsters can. THe only difference is that the DMG method doesn't worry about the details as to how, just the end result.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You see only the math.

No, he sees how the math is screwing up his willing suspension of disbelief. The math is intruding upon his imagination in a way that damages his fun.

 

[Korgoth]

Hmm....I think you might be getting your AC rejigging seriously off as the 4e system isn't arbitary to what I understand how you mean.

AC of -4 in AD&D translates to an AC of 24 in both 3e and 4e. Again, using your example of the 10th level naked pirate.

A 10th level buck naked human PC can achieve the same thing as the pirate so I'm not sure why you consider it weird.....

Going by the guidelines in the DMG, a PC can almost always achieve the same range of AC as the NPC/Monsters can. THe only difference is that the DMG method doesn't worry about the details as to how, just the end result.

When I said -3 or -4 I was referring to Dex bonuses in AD&D... so that pirate would turn out to be AC 6 or AC 5, which are the equivalent of AC 14 or AC 15 in 3E/4E.

 

[Korgoth]

What it means is you decided they're not particularly effetive combatants.

If anybody in the party approaches the 7th level naked guy as if he's an ineffective combatant, I hope that guy has a blank character sheet handy.

As far as being good at dodging blows... sure, they're great at dodging blows. An AC 9 guy standing next to a veteran warrior still gets missed by that warrior 45% of the time. That accounts for his dodging, parrying, etc.

 

[Mallus]

As for 4e being 'dry and boring'...

I think some people are looking for the inspiration to run the game from the rules themselves. While some of 4e's fluff is terrific --things like the Shadowfell and the Astral Sea-- there is less of it in the core books.

Other people get their inspiration from other sources; literature, film, comics, etc. For them --ie me and my friends-- we couldn't care less if the rules themselves are inspiring. We're looking for an interesting and easy-to-use task-resolution system. The imaginative bits we can provide for ourselves.

Our 4e is a rich, colorful, amusing and batty-as-all-Hell experience. Rather like our 3e experience (albeit easier to run!).

 

[Mallus]

As far as being good at dodging blows... sure, they're great at dodging blows. An AC 9 guy standing next to a veteran warrior still gets missed by that warrior 45% of the time. That accounts for his dodging, parrying, etc.

Now imagine that the naked guy is even better at dodging blows ie his base unarmored (and unclothed) AC is 5. Can you picture it? There's no reason an NPC who isn't a reject from a Shaw Brothers movie can't have a base unarmored AC equivalent to chain mail.

See what I mean about being mired in D&D-isms?

There are lots of ways to represent things in the given game space.