Why is it so important?

[AllisterH]

I think a much stronger argument would be to compare D&D's play experience which historically is 'high levels are different than low levels' with the Diablo play experience and ask, 'Is there something about today which causes most new D&D pen and paper gamers to expect something closer to the Diablo play experience than historic D&D?'

I have to disagree with this. It kind of implies that Diablo and "new" fantasy is what people think of wizards, but I don't think that's true.

People wanting to play wizards don't use Conan or LotR wizards as their influence mainly because they aren't the stars. They use Pug, they use Vlad Taltos and Belgarath, all "old" fantask a.k.a printed well before 2E and in each case, those guys don't worry about "spells running out"

They might hide/curtail their spellwork because it might attract the BBEG's attention, but other than that?

 

[Merlion]

That's not the same thing as following a chain of reasoning that says a certain design feature will create a certain effect

Except you can't say definitively that a certain design feature will have a certain effect when you only have partial information about it.


You can say, "From what we know about it now its likely to have this effect."

I don't think we have all or even most of the information about this issue. I think we are missing large pieces of the "puzzle". So I find your assertion that this or that is definitively going to be a certain way in 4e to be jumping to a conclusion based on incomplete information.

 

[Imaro]

I have to disagree with this. It kind of implies that Diablo and "new" fantasy is what people think of wizards, but I don't think that's true.

People wanting to play wizards don't use Conan or LotR wizards as their influence mainly because they aren't the stars. They use Pug, they use Vlad Taltos and Belgarath, all "old" fantask a.k.a printed well before 2E and in each case, those guys don't worry about "spells running out"

They might hide/curtail their spellwork because it might attract the BBEG's attention, but other than that?

Pug was exactly like a 1st level D&D wizard in Magician:Apprentice. Just sayin

 

[gizmo33]

I don't think we have all or even most of the information about this issue. I think we are missing large pieces of the "puzzle". So I find your assertion that this or that is definitively going to be a certain way in 4e to be jumping to a conclusion based on incomplete information.

Yes, like I don't know what page number of the 4E PHB the wizard is described on? I've already made this point about relevance, because it's logical but someone of a non-sequitur to suggest that incomplete information that's also irrelevant to the issue matters.

So what are the missing and potentially significant pieces of the puzzle? As I've said (also unaddressed), it hasn't take much for you (and others) to conclude that the traditional DnD Vancian magic system would not be to your liking in 4E, in spite of the incomplete information that you have.

And don't you think it's reasonable to assume that they'll accomplish what they set out to do? If WotC, hypothetically, makes the statement that "PCs should never have to interrupt the the flow of the story in order to regain resources" doesn't this assume *some* sort of solution that we can safely say, for arguments sake, is successful? Does it make any sense to withold judgement because WotC might fail to achieve it's design goals? If 4E says "the goal is that every game session ends in a TPK" I suppose you would want to wait for the rules details before having an opinion on that?

I haven't seen you address, or even acknowledge any of the above three points to the degree that I could understand calling my posts insensible to be anything other than rude. I'm sure you have ideas on the topics, I'd just rather see them than see unsubstantiated and irrelevant statements about what you think to be the overall nature of my ideas.

 

[Imaro]

And finally a quote from Jason Duvall, at the end of his first campaign arc, who has an actual play thread on RPG.net called SWSE Mystery of the Sith...

- The CL system is utterly useless in determining the threat to PCs. Maybe I'm missing something, but I was routinely sending groups of NPCs with higher CLs than the heroes, only to be chewed up by the PCs, and the only time they seemed really threatened was when it was in the ship (more on that later) or when there were a whole bunch of NPC foes... which made for long and dull combats. Even the players have told me that they'd like to see more dangerous fights. Hopefully the next session will give them this, in spades.


...Just saying I don't think I' the only one who found the problem I stated above with the game.

 

[gizmo33]

They might hide/curtail their spellwork because it might attract the BBEG's attention, but other than that?

I would find this an extremely difficult restriction to implement in an RPG. The problem for me is that I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every chracter within 1000 mile radius of a spell caster, and the potential reaction of that person to the spell. Secondly, and apropos to Wyatt's comment - I can imagine it would be extremely disruptive to the so-called "plot" of a DnD game to have a half-a-dozen high level mages or outsiders of varying alignments teleporting in to an adventure to find out who was casting what.

 

[Merlion]

So what are the missing and potentially significant pieces of the puzzle? As I've said (also unaddressed), it hasn't take much for you (and others) to conclude that the traditional DnD Vancian magic system would not be to your liking in 4E, in spite of the incomplete information that you have.

Huh?

See this is the trouble. half the time I dont even know what exactly your talking about, so I just try to address what seems to be your overall point.

I dont like the Vancian system. In any addition. At least not as the sole means of a wizard using magic.


And as far as what we're missing....thats the POINT. We dont KNOW.

And don't you think it's reasonable to assume that they'll accomplish what they set out to do? If WotC, hypothetically, makes the statement that "PCs should never have to interrupt the the flow of the story in order to regain resources" doesn't this assume *some* sort of solution that we can safely say, for arguments sake, is successful?

I havent heard them make that exact statement, but maybe they have.


I am coming from the position that I assume that they are going to want to try to introduce new options without completely destroying existing playstyles.

I haven't seen you address, or even acknowledge any of the above three points to the degree that I could understand calling my posts insensible to be anything other than rude. I'm sure you have ideas on the topics, I'd just rather see them than see unsubstantiated and irrelevant statements about what you think to be the overall nature of my ideas.

I do that only because just about the only thing you say that I can understand is that you think per-encounter abilities will remove the concept of resource management and wont do anything of the things they claim it will do...although I am a little unclear on what you think they are claiming its going to do. As near as I can tell your fixed on the notion that everyone is automatically going to do things a certain way under certain circumstances.

The thing is tho, while a baseline has to be assumed to some extent, D&D is a GAME, which is social, and interactive, and which is generally also a means of interactive storytelling. So some things, especially play style related things, cant be determined by crunching the numbers.

I dont mean this as an insult, but trying to communicate with you often feels like trying to have a discussion with a computer.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And what you are missing is that per-encounter resources are still resources.

Oi! Is it possible to get past this? I have already said per-encounter resources dozens of times. They are resources; they are just not significant resources.

I, for one, grow weary of repeating everything over and over again. I've given my reasoning on this in exacting detail. I note that neither you, nor anyone else, has pointed out an actual flaw in that reasoning. That doesn't make me correct, but it does give you ample ability to demonstrate me to be incorrect on that basis.

If you care to respond to what I said, fine. Otherwise, I hope you'll understand if I stop responding to your comments.

RC

 

[Merlion]

Oi! Is it possible to get past this? I have already said per-encounter resources dozens of times. They are resources; they are just not significant resources.

I, for one, grow weary of repeating everything over and over again. I've given my reasoning on this in exacting detail. I note that neither you, nor anyone else, has pointed out an actual flaw in that reasoning. That doesn't make me correct, but it does give you ample ability to demonstrate me to be incorrect on that basis.

If you care to respond to what I said, fine. Otherwise, I hope you'll understand if I stop responding to your comments.

RC

Your idea of significant appears to be based entirely on wether something effects the NEXT encounter.

Something can be significant based solely on how it impacts the CURRENT encounter.

 

[Grog]

Oi! Is it possible to get past this? I have already said per-encounter resources dozens of times. They are resources; they are just not significant resources.

If a 4E wizard has the ability to cast a fireball once per encounter, how is that not a significant resource? It could potentially make the difference in the fight he's currently in.

I, for one, grow weary of repeating everything over and over again. I've given my reasoning on this in exacting detail. I note that neither you, nor anyone else, has pointed out an actual flaw in that reasoning.

The flaw has been pointed out over and over again, by myself and others. Anything that can make a difference in a given encounter the PCs are facing is, by definition, significant.