Yet another look at KotSF/4th Ed.

[Stomphoof]

Sorry, but WotC and Hasbro aren't wet behind the ears newbie game developers. When they put something out they've hashed over what to include and why. Maybe they got it wrong (they have before) but I can't believe they'd release an introductory game unless THIS is the game they want to introduce us to.



Sure. As I keep saying over and over and over, I can roleplay anything. The question is, does the game support and enourage this via its system.



Yes, that is an opinion. Many people argue otherwise. Combat requires the most rules IF combat is the focus. If it isn't the focus of the game it doesn't require more rules than anything else.

Read the critics of D&D. Why should I not be able to come up with a creative combat maneuver on the fly? Why am I limited to a "Cleave"? Can't I spin in a circle to build up momentum? What if I want to dive off a rock and use my downward motion ot inflict greater damage? Can I pick up the halfling and use him as a weapon? Or perhaps I'd like to pick up some dirt and throw it in my enemy's eyes?

D&D's rules are as constraining in combat as you claim RP rules would be.



Reaction rolls?
Haggling skill?
Seduction skills?
Gaining followers and determining their willingness to follow orders?
Rules for determining whether a hireling is likely to work for you based on your personality?
Disads including psychological and social?

GURPS, HERO, 1E and 2E D&D, Hackmaster, RIFTS, even 3.0 and 3.5. ALL of these have hard rules for roleplaying. And I'm not even delving into the "diceless" or "dice light" systems.

So you are psychic and can tell us that for certain, no if ands or buts, that 4th Ed's Players Handbook and DMG will NOT have these rules that you need?

Until the actual sourcebooks come out you are basing everything off a level 1-3 adventure. And it is entirely possible that they decided to write a combat oriented adventure. The biggest changes that I am aware of are those to the combat engine.

 

[LostSoul]

So, after reading past another comment that attacks my qualitifications to have an opinion,I argue that a roleplaying game not only provides rules for the resolution of combat, but also provides a framework within which characters can interact socially with the world around them. This framework includes rules as rich as those provided for the combat system. The sort of examples that come to mind are reaction rolls for NPCs based on the roleplaying the PC does, haggling, PC disadvantages and personality quirks, and rich rules for social interactions such as seduction and intimidation.

While not as rich as the combat system, skill challenges are a detailed system for dealing with non-combat encounters.

It's a rare game that has non-combat resolution as rich as combat resolution. I can't think of any.

And yes, there are two line descriptions of skills that do some of these things in 4E, but they are given the same handwaving treatment as "history". Now Stealth? Perception? THESE skills get attention.

It is my belief that History didn't get as much of a write-up as Perception (and only one line less than Stealth, by the way) so that individual DMs could use History in the manner of their choosing - i.e., whichever way is best for the group.

And let's not limit "roleplaying" to social interactions. How about my ability to cut down a tree and build a barrier on the fly? My options for purchasing a house in town? My choices for caving in a section of the tunnel?

Unless another skill is better suited to your task, you can just roll your base modifier - Stat + 1/2 level. There isn't a specific skill for building stuff, so you could roll any stat that seems appropriate to the DM.

To purchase a house, Streetwise, possibly Diplomacy.

To cave in a tunnel, Dungeoneering.

 

[Endroren]

1. 4e has the almost exactly same social rules as 3e, which is to say, more than 2e or 1e.

I guess I can't say anything here except that you are wrong. Please pick up your 1E, 2E, Basic, 3E, and 3.5E books and take the time to read through them again. I don't have time to do the research for you.

2. The RPG I've seen host the most roleplaying of any RPG I've ever played was Faery's Tale. It hasn't got roleplaying rules. At all. This is because "amount of rules for roleplaying" is not a measure of how much a game encourages roleplaying. Roleplaying comes from character and setting, and interaction between DMs and Players. These are rules independent.[/quote[

I cannot speak for Faery's Tale. I've thumbed through the book but haven't actually played it. I won't try to argue about something I haven't read.

3. Arguing that the balance between combat and roleplaying in the plotline of an introductory module in some way reflects an inherent balance between combat and roleplaying in the ruleset itself is dumb. The fact that it is an introductory module does not change this.

It has nothing to do with the plot line. Look at those rules and tell me how many of them focus on character and role playing and how many focus on combat. If this is meant to introduce me to what D&D is, then I've just been introduced to a combat game.

4. You continue to fail to define what it is that would count as a ruleset having a strong emphasis on roleplaying. This is because you can't.

Have you read my posts? Did you read my discussion of the types of open options that allow a player to do more than fight battles? Have you seen where I talked about the emphasis placed on combat skills vs non-combat skills?

5. You can play D&D as a fight club with no roleplaying. You can play it as a game of nothing but roleplaying, or roleplaying with skill-based challenges, and with no combat at all. This has been true of every edition of D&D ever, and continues to be true of 4e.

Of course, you already know these things. You're just saying otherwise.

Again, please take the time to read your books. You'll quickly see otherwise.

 

[ShinRyuuBR]

Meh, may as well just have a crossbow then. 'Magic Missile' isn't exactly a flavourful alternative to me.

Well, that's taste... Anyway, a crossbow would be vs. AC, Magic Missile is vs. Reflex, which usually means a higher hit rate. Plus it's probably good against insubstancial creatures, because it's force damage.

scorching burst isn't reliable enough to protect the wizard all the time.

I can see how the "no damage on miss" rule for minions can spoil this. Aside from that, was there another problem with the spell?

 

[Endroren]

While not as rich as the combat system, skill challenges are a detailed system for dealing with non-combat encounters.

It's a rare game that has non-combat resolution as rich as combat resolution. I can't think of any.

Lots of folks will scoff but just flip through Hackmaster. Check out the Quirks and Flaws section, the character background section, the drinking and taverns rules. Just because folks aren't aware of these games doesn't mean they don't exist.

Even 3.0 and 3.5 spent a good deal of time on these issues. Granted not as much as previous editions or other RPGs (which. I'll add, is one reason many people griped about 3.0/3.5).

It is my belief that History didn't get as much of a write-up as Perception (and only one line less than Stealth, by the way) so that individual DMs could use History in the manner of their choosing - i.e., whichever way is best for the group.

Diplomacy then.

Unless another skill is better suited to your task, you can just roll your base modifier - Stat + 1/2 level. There isn't a specific skill for building stuff, so you could roll any stat that seems appropriate to the DM.

I ABSOLUTELY agree that there are ways to do it, but what I keep saying is that when they make it a side note and fail to explore it fully, it suggests it isn't important to the game.

 

[Endroren]

So you are psychic and can tell us that for certain, no if ands or buts, that 4th Ed's Players Handbook and DMG will NOT have these rules that you need?

Until the actual sourcebooks come out you are basing everything off a level 1-3 adventure. And it is entirely possible that they decided to write a combat oriented adventure. The biggest changes that I am aware of are those to the combat engine.

Psychic? No need! Here is my evidence for my argument:

- A $30 book dubbed "An Introduction to Dungeons and Dragons" that professes to show you what it is like to play the game. -

What is your evidence to argue against me? Are you psychic? Because I'm basing my opinions off a product that I am holding in my hands.

 

[Family]

I've always thought diplomacy first, then bluff, then intimidate, then roll inititive.

Much like happens on message boards from time to time.

 

[Endroren]

I've always thought diplomacy first, then bluff, then intimidate, then roll inititive.

Much like happens on message boards from time to time.

ROFLMAO

 

[Stomphoof]

Psychic? No need! Here is my evidence for my argument:

- A $30 book dubbed "An Introduction to Dungeons and Dragons" that professes to show you what it is like to play the game. -

What is your evidence to argue against me? Are you psychic? Because I'm basing my opinions off a product that I am holding in my hands.

Besides the fact that it doesnt hold every single rule to the game in its covers? Not much else. There is absolutly NO WAY that the little $30 intro adventure can hold every single rule in the DMG and Players Handbook.

And if you honestly think that then there is something wrong.

 

[Cheesepie]

Psychic? No need! Here is my evidence for my argument:

- A $30 book dubbed "An Introduction to Dungeons and Dragons" that professes to show you what it is like to play the game. -

What is your evidence to argue against me? Are you psychic? Because I'm basing my opinions off a product that I am holding in my hands.

I am going to have to say that Keep on the Shadowfell does not show 4E in a good light in regards to what you look for in an RPG. That's too bad for Wizards, because they pretty much just lost your sale.

Besides the fact that it doesnt hold every single rule to the game in its covers? Not much else. There is absolutly NO WAY that the little $30 intro adventure can hold every single rule in the DMG and Players Handbook.

And if you honestly think that then there is something wrong.

Could you please point out where he stated that Keep on the Shadowfell is a comprehensive rules compendium for the 4E game system? He did not. However, he did say that KotS was a "A $30 book dubbed "An Introduction to Dungeons and Dragons" that professes to show you what it is like to play the game.", and the game it showed him was not to his taste.

Is KotS-only 4E the same game as real 4E? I seriously doubt it. In that case, didn't Wizards monumentally screw up their introductory adventure?

EDIT: Please note that I am very, very in favour of 4E. It's just Endroren's opinion is not invalid.