Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367368Here's my own immersion conundrum in AD&D:

1 minute rounds. These equal a lot of parrying, thrusting, loss of luck, general fatigue, etc. I get that.

But then you fire an arrow. ONE arrow. One arrow is marked off. (Or two if you happen to use the rate of fire rules). In Basic D&D, you don't get rate of fire. You just get the one arrow. That also takes a whole minute.

But did I just get over it? Well, yes, I did. Because we were somehow, in our precociousness, able to acknowledge that it was a game and we were having fun...

Good point.  I highly doubt that there are situations where someone picks up a game system, reads it, and then discovers that they agree with everything in that game system 100% across the board.  Since gaming is a subjective hobby, there is going to have to be a certain amount of leeway given for any particular game system by the reader on certain rules in that game system.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367368And in any case,I also think that 4E's martial powers are flavorful and interesting- My warlord for example has a maneuver called "Diabolic Stratagem" which involves a feint that intentionally makes himself seem vulnerable.. but if an enemy is lured into attacking, it triggers a retaliation from nearby allies. It fits his personality- he's wiley and unpredictable, and (as a half-orc) he's not above sacrificing a little blood in order to win a battle. Warlords have an "inspiring word" power that helps lead their allies to victory and his is "Come on you mugs, you want to live forever? Let's go!"

Averngers have an "Oath" power that can help them make attacks against their chosen target- as a DM I often encourage the player to say "Let's hear your oath!".. and that gets players a hook for roleplaying.

Powers relate directly to roleplaying if you let them.

Another good point.  I think that the power descriptions are a duel-edged sword of sorts in that it could go either way.  They can be used by some players as a spring board for more role-playing elements in their characters and games, and they can also become a straight jacket for some players.

Quote from: Drohem;367372Another good point.  I think that the power descriptions are a duel-edged sword of sorts in that it could go either way.  They can be used by some players as a spring board for more role-playing elements in their characters and games, and they can also become a straight jacket for some players.

Absolutely. The same could and should be said about the power names, for that matter. I've been thinking that in my Greyhawk 4e game I'm going to encourage or even require people to rename their powers, just to break through that initial mental barrier.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367369It's little because his character is a halfling.

You have no idea how hard I'm laughing right now.

Quote from: Thanlis;367380You have no idea how hard I'm laughing right now.

At least I made you laugh! That's a good thing.

Quote from: Thanlis;367380The same could and should be said about the power names, for that matter. I've been thinking that in my Greyhawk 4e game I'm going to encourage or even require people to rename their powers, just to break through that initial mental barrier.

Absolutely. Exactly what I did back when Tome of Battle appeared for D&D 3.5 (well, not quite 'back when...' - I table banned that atrocity and am finally letting bits and pieces of it into my campaign). The names for the maneuver didn't suit me at all, as they upped the Martial Arts movie style the book was going for. Take that away, rename the powers and disciplines, and you're already a huge step closer to traditional fantasy fare... it that's what you like.

Which is my main point, I guess. There are so many 4E powers whose poor naming convention makes me whince (and oh, that blissful thread on Enworld where people dedicate their bitching to that topic alone... a noble effort! )... and then again, just sometimes power names will click with me. E.g., I love the powers of the tavern brawler in Martial Power 2, as they totally get across that vibe of the dirty fighter ("Slash and Pummel", "Eye Gouge", "Hilt Smash", "Relentless Headlock"). I mean, it's still piss poor writing involuntarily succeeding wildly at comedy gold, but I love it!

This not/clicking of names must be the same for everyone, I guess. So what I'm saying Thanlis is, I'd talk this through with the players. Yes, it's certainly nice to re-introduce Greyhawk names to some spells (though some were spared the axe), but short of that, I'd prioritize it to a question you pose to your players individually ('So, which names of the powers you chose don't you like? Let's rename these'). In my book, solid things in the game to be renamed by the DM on his own to create a campaign-world feel would be: rituals and magic items.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367368Here's my own immersion conundrum in AD&D:

1 minute rounds. These equal a lot of parrying, thrusting, loss of luck, general fatigue, etc. I get that.

But then you fire an arrow. ONE arrow. One arrow is marked off. (Or two if you happen to use the rate of fire rules). In Basic D&D, you don't get rate of fire. You just get the one arrow. That also takes a whole minute.

But did I just get over it? Well, yes, I did. Because we were somehow, in our precociousness, able to acknowledge that it was a game and we were having fun...

And in any case,I also think that 4E's martial powers are flavorful and interesting- My warlord for example has a maneuver called "Diabolic Stratagem" which involves a feint that intentionally makes himself seem vulnerable.. but if an enemy is lured into attacking, it triggers a retaliation from nearby allies. It fits his personality- he's wiley and unpredictable, and (as a half-orc) he's not above sacrificing a little blood in order to win a battle. Warlords have an "inspiring word" power that helps lead their allies to victory and his is "Come on you mugs, you want to live forever? Let's go!"

Averngers have an "Oath" power that can help them make attacks against their chosen target- as a DM I often encourage the player to say "Let's hear your oath!".. and that gets players a hook for roleplaying.

Powers relate directly to roleplaying if you let them.

Something interesting happenned in this thread a ltitle while ago.   There has been a bit of a shift from 'rules that support role-playing' to 'rules that support immersion', and though the two are very close, not quite the same.
You made the very good point earlier that you can roleplay in combat...later your examples (and Peregrins) were both excellent.  

I guess I still go back (and this is me, all on me) to the fact that when I created my ruleset, I added a ton of non-combat skills in, because while I agree that you can roleplay in combat, that is not where the meat of roleplaying is found.  
Interacting with the enviroment and NPCs in non violent situations is.  We spoke (or wrote earlier about rewards for solving encounters in a non combat fashion.  Are thereany of the feats you mention for aiding these alternate resolutions?

More important to me (and again, this is me), roleplaying is mainly what happens before combat, after combat, and especially dealing with the ramifications and rewards of an encounter.  I like it when my adventurers use combat or adventures as a means to an end...I dislike it when combat is that end.

Quote from: LordVreeg;367406I guess I still go back (and this is me, all on me) to the fact that when I created my ruleset, I added a ton of non-combat skills in, because while I agree that you can roleplay in combat, that is not where the meat of roleplaying is found.  
Interacting with the enviroment and NPCs in non violent situations is.  We spoke (or wrote earlier about rewards for solving encounters in a non combat fashion.  Are thereany of the feats you mention for aiding these alternate resolutions?

(I know you asked this somewhere up thread and it wasn't answered.  Well, at least not that I can remember.  

In answer to your question, yes, in 4e D&D there are both powers and feats that aid skill roles that can be outside of combat alone.  There are Utility powers that aid skill rolls like Diplomacy and Bluff.  Also, there are feats that give situational bonuses to certain skills outside of combat.  In fact, there is a whole category of feats that do this well- the Guild feats category.

Quote from: LordVreeg;367406Interacting with the enviroment and NPCs in non violent situations is.  We spoke (or wrote earlier about rewards for solving encounters in a non combat fashion.  Are there any of the feats you mention for aiding these alternate resolutions?

More important to me (and again, this is me), roleplaying is mainly what happens before combat, after combat, and especially dealing with the ramifications and rewards of an encounter.  I like it when my adventurers use combat or adventures as a means to an end...I dislike it when combat is that end.

Utility powers and skill tricks are exactly what you are talking about.

For example: Invokers are literally messengers of the gods- they are different than clerics, in that they have been directly tasked by their divine patrons. (Joan of Arc would be more like an Invoker as opposed to a cleric). Invokers can get a power that does this:


Emissary of the Gods (Divine, Daily)
"You speak with the voice of the gods, compelling others to heed your words."

Effect: You gain a +5 power bonus to your next Diplomacy check or Intimidate check during this encounter. If you make this check as part of a skill challenge, you gain 2 successes if the check is successful and don't gain a failure if the check fails.

Bards can get a similar ability, but theirs is used in a different way- it isn't divine, it's arcane.

Words of Friendship (Arcane, Charm, Encounter)
"You infuse your words with arcane power, turning even the simplest speech into a compelling oration."

Effect: You gain a +5 power bonus to the next Diplomacy check you make before the end of your next turn.

They do the same thing! Sort of.. but the Invokers power is divine, and his power is based on him speaking with the divine authority of her god, while the bard is simply weaving in a bit of subtle charm magic.

Enough Powers, here's a feat that works in tandem with the Bard's Words of Friendship spell: Friendly Deception


Friendly Deception
Benefit: When you use words of friendship, you can apply the power bonus to a Bluff check instead of a Diplomacy check.

In other words- Words of Friendship is a magical effect that makes a truthful speaker likable. But with this feat, it allows the silver-tongued bard to lie effectively supported by a bit of feyborn charm.

Rogues can get similar abilities ("Master of Deceit" allows a rogue to re-roll a bluff check through being an accomplished liar).

The danger here is that certain players might want to roll the dice without having to play out the roleplay, but I think that's not how these powers are meant to be used. In fact, they kinda provide more roleplaying hooks: you wouldn't normally use Emissary of the Gods in order to ask where the nearest tavern is... You'd use it to inspire a nation, or rally a crowd, or debate an opposing clergy-member.  Your character is literally speaking with the authority of a god at that point.

Before combat, combat, and after combat is all an artificial distinction as far as I am concerned. It's all part of the game, there's nothing to be ashamed of when battle breaks out in an adventure.

EDIT: (Drohem mentions it already..)

Do you think it also might hurt people's perception that a lot of these util powers, though they can be used outside of combat, are worded explicitly as if they were to be used during combat (using words like turn and such)?

When trying to get others to sit down and play, I found that they rejected the wording of the powers ("See! It's all about combat!") even when told that they can be used in or outside of an encounter (and that an encounter is more than just combat).

Quote from: Peregrin;367411Do you think it also might hurt people's perception that a lot of these util powers, though they can be used outside of combat, are worded explicitly as if they were to be used during combat?

When trying to get others to sit down and play, I found that they rejected the wording of the powers ("See! It's all about combat!") even when told that they can be used in or outside of an encounter (and that an encounter is more than just combat).

It's probably unfair of me, but I tend to lay that responsibility back on the people who have the misconception in the first place.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367350Obviously I disagree. These are your limits, and there's nothing wrong with them, but they are your limits.

I disagree. The problem arises from the combination of both the expectation developed by a history of consistent  play style support from a specific game line and the deviation in support by the game line from the play style previous supported.

QuoteNo, they made a new edition of the game that just didn't appeal to you. (Is that too subtle of a difference? I have no idea..)  It's not a question of whether it is unplayable "by you", it's that you decided you'd rather not play it. But you still have previous editions to play with so it's a wash, isn't it? Once again, your limits are your own responsibility.

This just simply isn't true. Satisfying our RPGing needs is indeed our responsibility, but the fact that a game line who's previous incarnations succeeded in satisfying our needs and who's current incarnation does not is not our "responsibility". Your and Seanchai's arguing to the contrary is both silly and puzzling. I didn't, nor did RandallS say that they were wrong to change the game this way, or that it made the game objectively bad in some way, only that the combination of a changed game line and unchanged expectations are to blame for some of our dissatisfaction with the current edition of DnD. It's not an insult, or a slam, or a condemnation... it's a fact. What follows from that, however, is that (speaking for myself), I either have to change my go-to fantasy game to better match my expectations, or I have to change my expectations to better match 4e DnD, because it would be unrealistic and kind of silly to expect them to change the game itself if the experience 4e currently provides is satisfactory to enough people for it to be profitable for them. That is also a fact.

Here's some more feats:

Halfling Fast Talk
Prerequisite: Halfling
Benefit: You gain a +2 feat bonus to Bluff checks. In addition, if you make a Bluff check and dislike the result, you can expend your second chance power to reroll the check.

This is just a static bonus- you don't have to "declare" that you are using Halfling Fast Talk, but it gives a nice little hook for roleplaying your character. Ie, this is not a feat you give to your grim halfling that rarely speaks. You are saying something about your character with this feat.

Animal Empathy
Prerequisite: Trained in Nature
Benefit: You gain a +2 feat bonus to Nature checks. Also, when you would make an Insight check against a natural beast, you can make a Nature check instead.

Another great way to detail out a character that has the ability to calm or soothe (or tame) an animal. He gets a little bonus in the skill, even though he cant communicate with the animal through speech. Not much of a combat bonus but it does say something interesting about the character.

Quote from: jgants;367352Maybe I'm crazy, but I just don't get why 4e is so hard to immerse in.  Seriously, it seems like the only complaint, over and over again, has to do with encounter and daily martial powers.

Personally, letting the fighter do cool maneuvers seems way more immersive to me (and in line with genre fiction) than being stuck saying nothing but "I roll to hit" over and over and over again.   How is that really role-playing the character?  How does that really help imagine yourself in the fight?

There sure is a lot of angst over WotC trying to make combat interesting for everyone.

And seriously, you can't get over martial powers but you are A-OK with AC and HP, two of the most un-immersive mechanics ever invented?  And Vancian magic was just peachy but daily powers for anyone else is pure fail?  I just can't understand that POV.

I'll tell you why it's less immersive for me. It's a combination of two things. One is exactly as you mention. The "cool powers" martial characters get. The codification of them, to me, was not necessary because in our games martial characters have always been able to try doing "cool" things. The difference was they were not spelled out for the most part. A fighter would just come up with a plan, ask the DM about whether the attempt would be allowed and how difficult it would be, and then rolled the dice. To me, this is still a superior way of doing it because it feels less restrictive or codified to me. Then again, I've also been toying with "freeform" magic systems like in Iron Gauntlets, Roma Imperious, and stuff like True Sorcery, so even magic has felt that way to me in previous editions to one degree or another. 4e has just amplified that to a degree I'm not happy with. Also, the level of tactical detail in 4e has it feeling more like Battletech to me than DnD. It's just not what I've come to want from my RPGing experience most of the time. I am working on changing my expectations though because I like Battletech, and I loved TFT back in the day (holy shit I wish I still had them, I had all the TFT stuff at one time), so DnD being designed to play more like those games shouldn't in theory be so distasteful to me. I'm working on it.

Quote from: Sigmund;367415I disagree. The problem arises from the combination of both the expectation developed by a history of consistent  play style support from a specific game line and the deviation in support by the game line from the play style previous supported.



This just simply isn't true. Satisfying our RPGing needs is indeed our responsibility, but the fact that a game line who's previous incarnations succeeded in satisfying our needs and who's current incarnation does not is not our "responsibility". Your and Seanchai's arguing to the contrary is both silly and puzzling. I didn't, nor did RandallS say that they were wrong to change the game this way, or that it made the game objectively bad in some way, only that the combination of a changed game line and unchanged expectations are to blame for some of our dissatisfaction with the current edition of DnD. It's not an insult, or a slam, or a condemnation... it's a fact. What follows from that, however, is that (speaking for myself), I either have to change my go-to fantasy game to better match my expectations, or I have to change my expectations to better match 4e DnD, because it would be unrealistic and kind of silly to expect them to change the game itself if the experience 4e currently provides is satisfactory to enough people for it to be profitable for them. That is also a fact.

What I am saying is that you can play any edition you like, including whatever you played before. Nothing in that regard has changed. And especially in the case of a person that was already playing an out of print edition, D&D4 could not have had any possible effect.

The one corner case is this: If you were playing 3.5 and then 4th came out, and the rest of the gaming group jumped ship to play 4th, well.. then you have a decision to make. But I really think that a) there's enough people and interest out there to play whatever game you like. b) Tele-location tools and social networking is more advanced than it is have ever been in our lifetimes- which means if you can only find one guy that plays but he lives in some 3rd world country like Uruguay (heh) you can still game, and c) flexibility isn't the worst thing in the world. As long as you have friends and a gaming group, it probably won't kill you. Heck, I even played Gurps and Basic Roleplay a couple of times. I even playtested a FUDGE adventure! Somehow I lived.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367368Here's my own immersion conundrum in AD&D:

1 minute rounds. These equal a lot of parrying, thrusting, loss of luck, general fatigue, etc. I get that.

But then you fire an arrow. ONE arrow. One arrow is marked off. (Or two if you happen to use the rate of fire rules). In Basic D&D, you don't get rate of fire. You just get the one arrow. That also takes a whole minute.

But did I just get over it? Well, yes, I did. Because we were somehow, in our precociousness, able to acknowledge that it was a game and we were having fun...

And in any case,I also think that 4E's martial powers are flavorful and interesting- My warlord for example has a maneuver called "Diabolic Stratagem" which involves a feint that intentionally makes himself seem vulnerable.. but if an enemy is lured into attacking, it triggers a retaliation from nearby allies. It fits his personality- he's wiley and unpredictable, and (as a half-orc) he's not above sacrificing a little blood in order to win a battle. Warlords have an "inspiring word" power that helps lead their allies to victory and his is "Come on you mugs, you want to live forever? Let's go!"

Averngers have an "Oath" power that can help them make attacks against their chosen target- as a DM I often encourage the player to say "Let's hear your oath!".. and that gets players a hook for roleplaying.

Powers relate directly to roleplaying if you let them.

Hence my mentioning what we are each willing to accept from an RPG in terms of what we feel doesn't work right. In combining what we will and won't accept from a RPG with what a specific game supplies in terms of mechanics, genre, and support we arrive at games we prefer and games we don't. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. You, however, are continuing to come across as defensive, and given the attacks on 4e I've read in the past I suppose that's not entirely unwarranted, but I'd just like to point out that the vast majority of the posts in this particular thread have been about exploring why we each like or dislike 4e as compared to OD&D and/or other games, not how objectively bad we think 4e is, so I'm really hoping you can stop defending 4e and instead engage with the topic more fully so we can learn more from your extensive experience running the game. Some of us really do run into difficulties with the level of rules interaction and particular rules abstractions designed into 4e, so I keep hoping to read something that helps me past this stumbling-block for me because the fact remains DnD is going to be the easiest game to find players for, and I really do like RPGing.

Quote from: Thanlis;367380Absolutely. The same could and should be said about the power names, for that matter. I've been thinking that in my Greyhawk 4e game I'm going to encourage or even require people to rename their powers, just to break through that initial mental barrier.

That's a cool idea... really cool idea.

QuoteYou have no idea how hard I'm laughing right now.

It's funny, but honestly my first reaction to your post Benny quoted was the same as his... I was not aware your sorcerer was a halfling either.