Quote from: SettembriniThe 4e blogs keep us telling what is/was un-fun. Could they pretty please tell us what actually IS fun in D&D?

I think that's actually an excellent question.

Uh, the very article talks about crits. Even goes so far as to state that spell casters should have them to.

Quote from: darUh, the very article talks about crits. Even goes so far as to state that spell casters should have them to.

Yep, apparently the new paradigm is:

fun = more KEWL POWERZ ROXXORZ!!!
everything else = unfun

I'm kind of surprised they even bothered to leave die rolling in at all.  Or just changed it so that no matter what you roll, it's a crit.

I think dar was responding to the part of the thread about crits, not the part about what WotC thinks is fun.

Quote from: jgantsYep, apparently the new paradigm is:

fun = more KEWL POWERZ ROXXORZ!!!
everything else = unfun

I'm kind of surprised they even bothered to leave die rolling in at all.  Or just changed it so that no matter what you roll, it's a crit.

Yes, that's EXACTLY what they're saying!

:rolleyes:

-O

Quote from: cr0mThe part that really stood out for me was "it's drama you didn't create, and you don't want."

What if the drama that your players really want is the tension that comes from deadly perilous situations that you can't always overcome? Not everyone sees his PC as a super-empowered legendary hero of a fantasy novel, and not everyone feels cheated when that PC chokes and dies on poison gas.

The game setting exists outside the needs of your PC or your story, and it's deadly. Explore it at your own peril.

Quote from: James McMurrayI think dar was responding to the part of the thread about crits, not the part about what WotC thinks is fun.

I was responding to Settembrini. Maybe crits isn't 'whats fun about D&D' but the wotc designers seem to think it is, and are saying it.

I like the idea of spell casters rolling with crits and fumbles.

That being said, I don't like the general tone about the older version of the game displayed in the articles on D&DI, or in the podcast. I know that they are excited about what they have created, and that they think it is much better, but it makes me cringe every time 3.5 is badmouthed by the very company I purchased it from.

I'm interested in the new version, even a little excited, but that interest diminishes a little bit every time they deride their very own products. Why would I buy a second car from the guy who sold me a lemon? Even while he snickers and laughs at how bad the lemon is.

Quote from: HaffrungWhat if the drama that your players really want is the tension that comes from deadly perilous situations that you can't always overcome? Not everyone sees his PC as a super-empowered legendary hero of a fantasy novel, and not everyone feels cheated when that PC chokes and dies on poison gas.

The game setting exists outside the needs of your PC or your story, and it's deadly. Explore it at your own peril.

Pretty much. If there is something about D&D 4 that would disappoint me, it would be if they go out of their way to take away my prerogative as a GM to create situations where life or death can hang on a die. Because as I've argues earlier, unless the DM is clueless, these situations are not accidental.

Quote from: HaffrungWhat if the drama that your players really want is the tension that comes from deadly perilous situations that you can't always overcome? Not everyone sees his PC as a super-empowered legendary hero of a fantasy novel, and not everyone feels cheated when that PC chokes and dies on poison gas.

The game setting exists outside the needs of your PC or your story, and it's deadly. Explore it at your own peril.

I don't know--I'm just trying to figure out what they're getting at. My impression is that they're not trying to get away from deadly situations, but they are trying to get away from deadly situations resolved by a single saving throw. It's not very clear from the article though.

Quote from: HaffrungWhat if the drama that your players really want is the tension that comes from deadly perilous situations that you can't always overcome?

You can get those without Save or Die effects.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou can get those without Save or Die effects.

I can get protein from steak, but it doesn't mean I wanna eat steak every day. Sometimes I have a hankering for other sources.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou can get those without Save or Die effects.

Depends on how you use saves. I often use them as a saving grace. That is, your PC does something dumb and perilous (jumping over a lava pool that's 15 feet across), and this is your way to maybe not die.

Also, many standard threats in D&D are deadly to low-level PCs, without any recourse to save or die. I have my own poison tables, where damage ramps up depending on the type of poison. A 2nd level PC gets bit by a monster with strong poison, and he's almost certainly dead just from the 6d6. The save allows him to maybe live.

So to me, a saving throw mean "you've made a serious error that will probably get you killed. Let's see if fate is smiling on you..."

Quote from: JamesVI can get protein from steak, but it doesn't mean I wanna eat steak every day. Sometimes I have a hankering for other sources.

So you're saying you can't get an infinite number of too-perilous situations without resorting to save or dies? Or just that you're ticked they're taking the option away. It'd probably be very easy to leave it in. For instance, Disintigrate will probably stay a spell that deals tons of hit point damage if you fail a save. Change it to "you die." I expect the rest to be similarly handled.

Quote from: HaffrungDepends on how you use saves. I often use them as a saving grace. That is, your PC does something dumb and perilous (jumping over a lava pool that's 15 feet across), and this is your way to maybe not die.

Also, many standard threats in D&D are deadly to low-level PCs, without any recourse to save or die. I have my own poison tables, where damage ramps up depending on the type of poison. A 2nd level PC gets bit by a monster with strong poison, and he's almost certainly dead just from the 6d6. The save allows him to maybe live.

So to me, a saving throw mean "you've made a serious error that will probably get you killed. Let's see if fate is smiling on you..."

As you're someone that uses save or dies in a way that 3.5 didn't, you're probably not their target with this change, and are expected to continue happily house ruling whatever system you decide to play.

Quote from: James McMurraySo you're saying you can't get an infinite number of too-perilous situations without resorting to save or dies? Or just that you're ticked they're taking the option away. It'd probably be very easy to leave it in. For instance, Disintigrate will probably stay a spell that deals tons of hit point damage if you fail a save. Change it to "you die." I expect the rest to be similarly handled.

And I probably will, but that's not the point.

I know it's pretty easy to house rule stuff, but at the same time effects that were save or die or even instant death, in previous editions lose their flavor and purpose, or are more suspect to exploitation. I mean just because some "death effect" can do 500 HP, doesn't mean it will kill you, especially with the PC hackers out there in the web.