I respect what 4e tried to do, as I understand it anyway. But people aren't computers. So while a highly codified system is essential for a CRPG, it fails in the real world.

As examples look at law or language.  These are human systems that evolve over time, and are closer to the spirit of the RPG.

Quote from: mcbobbo;678879I respect what 4e tried to do

I don't.  It was painfully stupid.

Quote from: TristramEvans;678760This is the long and the short of it...



There's no other definition. If someone's saying any different they're mistaken. There does seem to be a number of people who don't "get it", though these tend IME to be the same people who obsess about mechanical balance and are pissed off that 4th edition was cancelled; in other words people who don't like or have a grudge towards old school gaming. There's also a few of the "You Can Never Say Any Edition of D&D Does Anything That 4th Edition Isn't As Good At Or I'll Take It As A Personal Attack!"-types at TBP.

It's unfortunate, you had a decent thought but you couldn't stop yourself from shitting.

Having to ask if they can do something is what people are tired of.

Quote from: Sommerjon;679235It's unfortunate, you had a decent thought but you couldn't stop yourself from shitting.

I don't understand that statement. Though it is true I often post from the crapper on my iPhone. Enjoy that mental image.

QuoteHaving to ask if they can do something is what people are tired of.

Well, I have no idea who these people are you speak of, but my players don't ask to do something, they describe what they are attempting to do. As a GM, my rulings are thus based on 3 basic questions:

Is this something they could accomplish without substantial risk? If yes, then the action resolves as per the player's intentions; if not, then...

Is this possible? If not, I'll tell the player and explain why. Depending on the circumstances this may mean automatic failure, or I may give the player the chance to revise their approach. If it is possible then...

How difficult is this? This is where system enters play. If the system doesn't cover that situation (or I think it will interfere with the flow of the game to look it up) , then I wing it. Otherwise I default to how the system would handle it, or the closest approximate situation.

That's really all there is to it. And it takes like 1000x longer to type out than it does to resolve it in my head during play.

Quote from: TristramEvans;679250I don't understand that statement. Though it is true I often post from the crapper on my iPhone. Enjoy that mental image.

There's no other definition. If someone's saying any different they're mistaken. Fine so far.
 There does seem to be a number of people who don't "get it", though these tend IME to be the same people who obsess about mechanical balance and are pissed off that 4th edition was cancelled; in other words people who don't like or have a grudge towards old school gaming. There's also a few of the "You Can Never Say Any Edition of D&D Does Anything That 4th Edition Isn't As Good At Or I'll Take It As A Personal Attack!"-types at TBP. And there's the shitting.

Quote from: TristramEvans;679250Well, I have no idea who these people are you speak of, but my players don't ask to do something, they describe what they are attempting to do. As a GM, my rulings are thus based on 3 basic questions:

Is this something they could accomplish without substantial risk? If yes, then the action resolves as per the player's intentions; if not, then...

Is this possible? If not, I'll tell the player and explain why. Depending on the circumstances this may mean automatic failure, or I may give the player the chance to revise their approach. If it is possible then...

How difficult is this? This is where system enters play. If the system doesn't cover that situation (or I think it will interfere with the flow of the game to look it up) , then I wing it. Otherwise I default to how the system would handle it, or the closest approximate situation.

That's really all there is to it. And it takes like 1000x longer to type out than it does to resolve it in my head during play.

Like I said they have to ask for your blessing if they can do something.

Quote from: Sommerjon;679265Like I said they have to ask for your blessing if they can do something.

If they aren't asking the GM's blessing, then they would be asking the rules for the blessing of being able to do X. I prefer asking a thinking being sitting at my table whether I can do X to asking a sit of rules that has no idea of the exact situation at our table nor of our campaign nor of our style of play. If I wanted to have the rules be supreme, I'd play a boardgame or a computer game instead of a tabletop RPG.

Quote from: Sommerjon;679265Like I said they have to ask for your blessing if they can do something.

I would rather have a world of possible options open to me than only those that were pre-conceived by another and codified in a book. Those endless possibilities have to be adjudicated by a thinking human being in order to be possible. Its what makes the tabletop experience unique. I don't enjoy giving that up in exchange for a few pre-programmed tricks the rulebooks decided I could try. YMMV.

Quote from: TristramEvans;678760There does seem to be a number of people who don't "get it", though these tend IME to be the same people who obsess about mechanical balance and are pissed off that 4th edition was cancelled; in other words people who don't like or have a grudge towards old school gaming. There's also a few of the "You Can Never Say Any Edition of D&D Does Anything That 4th Edition Isn't As Good At Or I'll Take It As A Personal Attack!"-types at TBP.

While I'm okay with the idea of a tactical arena fantasy RPG, and I'm even okay with it being called D&D, the unpleasant thing about 4E is how much of its fanbase is made up of the two groups you describe:

Number-crunchers who are obsessed with mechanical balance.
Rules Matter system-wanks who had always hated D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;678843This is why I no longer run system that fixate players attention on builds, what kinds of "stuff" they get at each new level, and the numbers they can crunch via mechanical masturbation, as the dominating focus of the game.

But, but DEAD LEVELS, man. DEAD LEVELS.

Quote from: RandallS;679290If they aren't asking the GM's blessing, then they would be asking the rules for the blessing of being able to do X. I prefer asking a thinking being sitting at my table whether I can do X to asking a sit of rules that has no idea of the exact situation at our table nor of our campaign nor of our style of play. If I wanted to have the rules be supreme, I'd play a boardgame or a computer game instead of a tabletop RPG.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;679294I would rather have a world of possible options open to me than only those that were pre-conceived by another and codified in a book. Those endless possibilities have to be adjudicated by a thinking human being in order to be possible. Its what makes the tabletop experience unique. I don't enjoy giving that up in exchange for a few pre-programmed tricks the rulebooks decided I could try. YMMV.

I honestly can't fathom the mindset of people who want to expunge the only element of RPGs that makes them different from boardgames and CRPGs. It's baffling that twats like Luke Crane, who have clearly had a very unhappy history actually playing RPGs, are so influential. These people have to be bitter non-gamers. There's no other explanation.

Quote from: Haffrung;679332But, but DEAD LEVELS, man. DEAD LEVELS.

I'm in the minority I suppose because I never considered a level that gave me increased hit points and a better chance to score hits to be "dead".

On the contrary, these things helped keep characters alive.

The reason my Dragon Age game ended abruptly, was because the players felt that they didn't get enough sparkly colored rainbow powers shooting out of their ass every time they levelled up.

I made my life easier and no longer run games for these kinds of people. I'm happier now for it. Nothing is worse than running a game that you aren't excited to prep and play.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;679339 I'm in the minority I suppose because I never considered a level that gave me increased hit points and a better chance to score hits to be "dead".

On the contrary, these things helped keep characters alive.

.

I'm of the same mindset.  Sure, it's nice to get a new power now and then, but gaining HP, better combat skills, and/or increased saving throws was pretty good, especially at low levels.

Heck, going from level 1 to level 2 resulted in double the hit points, and double the life expectancy in combat.  That's a huge bonus right there regardless if you're also able to get a new maneuver or power.

Quote from: Sommerjon;679265There's no other definition. If someone's saying any different they're mistaken. Fine so far.
 There does seem to be a number of people who don't "get it", though these tend IME to be the same people who obsess about mechanical balance and are pissed off that 4th edition was cancelled; in other words people who don't like or have a grudge towards old school gaming. There's also a few of the "You Can Never Say Any Edition of D&D Does Anything That 4th Edition Isn't As Good At Or I'll Take It As A Personal Attack!"-types at TBP. And there's the shitting.


Like I said they have to ask for your blessing if they can do something.

Isn't 95% of everything a character does at the whim of the GM?


"I open that door"    Nope...its 'wizard locked'  or "Seems to be barred somehow"

"I charge the ogres!"  Nope...your horse just ran into a huge covered pit the ogres dug earlier" or "Sure if you can make a difficult Ride skill roll"

"I seduce the Queen!"  Nope...she actually loves her husband so much the thought of another man make sher ill"   or "It's remotely possible if you really sweep he roff her feet while the king has neglected her and is off hunting again"

Its all gm whim.


Seems more an issue of 'Is the gm an asshat or not'

I have never once played an rpg where gm whim was not the final say in everyhthing.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679355I'm of the same mindset.  Sure, it's nice to get a new power now and then, but gaining HP, better combat skills, and/or increased saving throws was pretty good, especially at low levels.

Heck, going from level 1 to level 2 resulted in double the hit points, and double the life expectancy in combat.  That's a huge bonus right there regardless if you're also able to get a new maneuver or power.

Expectations changed once combat became the mainstay of play instead of a dangerous part of it.

Challenges were to be in expected ranges and thus survivable by default unless the party mashed the wrong button or something.

Therefore increased survival rates, were no longer such a great thing since survival was taken for granted. To remain interesting, all those strung together fights had to provide ample opportunity to go KAPOW!! and ZOWIE!!! and all the multicolored buttons were needed to provide for that.

Thus, any level without multihued anal rainbow sparklies were "dead".

Quote from: Exploderwizard;679378Expectations changed once combat became the mainstay of play instead of a dangerous part of it.

Challenges were to be in expected ranges and thus survivable by default unless the party mashed the wrong button or something.

Therefore increased survival rates, were no longer such a great thing since survival was taken for granted. To remain interesting, all those strung together fights had to provide ample opportunity to go KAPOW!! and ZOWIE!!! and all the multicolored buttons were needed to provide for that.

Thus, any level without multihued anal rainbow sparklies were "dead".

It's really the triumph of the munchkins over the grognards.

Quote from: Sommerjon;679265And there's the shitting.

Those are the types. If there's any shitting being done, it's them on old school play.

QuoteLike I said they have to ask for your blessing if they can do something.

So you didn't understand what I wrote. Let me try and simplify it:

Ex: Mother May I?
Player: can I jump over that bridge?
GM: yes/no/maybe (roll)

This style obviously has nothing to do with rulings vs rules. It's as characteristic of a group playing 4th edition as it is any old school game.

Ex: what I described
Player: I jump over the bridge
GM: okay/ that's not possible/ give me a roll for that

Neither of these things have to do with or are particularly associated with Rulings vs Rules. If you dislike playing mother may I? style then don't, I don't, but it doesn't alter the GMs side of the equation in the least.

I've come to the conclusion from reading these boards that either one of two things must be true:

1. You guys aren't accurately describing the average 4e player.

2. I played 4e nothing like the average 4e player.

Because, while I played 4e and enjoyed it, it was still a filtered through the GM experience and while the rules for combat were rather codified, there was always stuff that didn't fit and rulings were still made at the table and combat wasn't the majority of the game (though it was a major component, but then again, combat has been a major component of D&D games for me since I started playing in the late 80s. Major just means it was LIKELY to happen every session, though).