Quote from: Sigmund;367415Satisfying 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".

I'm not sure what they means.

Seanchai

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367416Here'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.

Now, these are roleplaying enabling rules.  These and the others you showed above.  Not much of a combat bonus?  who cares?

I am a big believer in rules that support the roleplay.  We have social encounter rules that are engaged every time a PC meets a new NPC (and the GM gets to take more notes, hooray!), and skills can help a lot of these.  I appreciate the examples you brought out, and I can honestly say this little exchange has been the most persuasive bit you have ever shown me.

Where the hell were these when I playtested this game last year?  

Sigmund, I know a lot of folks houserule the social stuff, and a lot of GMs and a lot of games do fantastically with it that way.   I find these skills and their inclusion really adds a lot in a concrete fashion to a character.  One of my online guy's character is studying oeneology (LITERALLY) but we have over 300 skills.  And having a system and framework helps some people.

Quote from: Seanchai;367451People aren't rational actors. They can love ice cream, love marshmallows, love chocolate, and love nuts, but hate rocky road ice cream. It makes no sense, but that's people.

I'm with you. When people have no problems with, for example, HP, but say 4e's marking mechanics "break immersion," "is dissociative," or whatever buzz words they'd like to use, I go, "Bwuuh?"

But...shrug.

What irritates me is the incessant, almost desperate need for people who don't like 4e to back up their subjective opinion with an objective root cause. It's like the Christians who set out to destroy science so that they can somehow prove that their faith is correct.

Seanchai

Every last word of this is complete bullshit, but your attempt at connecting dogmatic blind faith to non-4e fans is noted for its high degree of irony.

Quote from: LordVreeg;367457Now, these are roleplaying enabling rules.  These and the others you showed above.  Not much of a combat bonus?  who cares?

True, but these are feats, and they used to be spells.  Since they have nothing to do with stabbing orcs in the face, they aren't powers, even for the Wizard.

Quote from: Seanchai;367451What irritates me is the incessant, almost desperate need for people who don't like 4e to back up their subjective opinion with an objective root cause. It's like the Christians who set out to destroy science so that they can somehow prove that their faith is correct.

Seanchai

I have a different viewpoint on this. I operate under the basic premise that everything we talk about boils down to opinions and preferences in any case. I prefer, however, to read about opinions which also unfold the logic and arguments that sustain them, rather than just read blanket statements left to stand their dicks in the wind, on their own, as some random "Fuck You!" shouted on a public street for no reason whatsoever.

I have much more chances to be able to relate to said opinions if I come to understand the logic behind them, rather than the alternative, even if I end up still not sharing them or disagreeing with them.

"I like blue!"
Err. Okay.

"I always liked blue, because I was born and grew up near the ocean. That's why I prefer Pirate games which include extensive descriptions of ships and seamanship, as opposed to just monkeys and wooden legs. Pirates of the Carribean suck donkey balls."
Okay. Well, as for me, I prefer the pulp treatment of the topic blablabla.

See the difference?

It's nonsensical to me to come crying in a discussion about gaming that people's opinions are... opinions. Opinions may come from somewhere though, and it's cool to be able to share and compare viewpoints, whether they are personal preferences based on experiences, considerations of this rather than that factual evidence... whatever the case may be.

Quote from: Seanchai;367447I think the folks here would be shocked if they ever sat down at my table.

Seanchai

Damned right.

Quote from: Seanchai;367451People aren't rational actors. They can love ice cream, love marshmallows, love chocolate, and love nuts, but hate rocky road ice cream. It makes no sense, but that's people.

What irritates me is the incessant, almost desperate need for people who don't like 4e to back up their subjective opinion with an objective root cause. It's like the Christians who set out to destroy science so that they can somehow prove that their faith is correct.

Seanchai

And once again, you use people not liking Your Favorite Game as an excuse to frame them in the most derogatory manner possible.

When you finally pull your head out of your ass on this, the popping sound will deafen the American midwest.

Quote from: jeff37923;367466And once again, you use people not liking Your Favorite Game as an excuse to frame them in the most derogatory manner possible.

I think he's stated before that it's not his favourite game - he just likes the ear biting and chest pounding. Something that allows him to fit in here almost seamlessly.

Quote from: One Horse Town;367467I think he's stated before that it's not his favourite game - he just likes the ear biting and chest pounding. Something that allows him to fit in here almost seamlessly.

You saucy little bitch!

purrrrrrrrrrr

Quote from: One Horse Town;367472purrrrrrrrrrr

Quote from: Seanchai;367451People aren't rational actors. They can love ice cream, love marshmallows, love chocolate, and love nuts, but hate rocky road ice cream. It makes no sense, but that's people.

I'm with you. When people have no problems with, for example, HP, but say 4e's marking mechanics "break immersion," "is dissociative," or whatever buzz words they'd like to use, I go, "Bwuuh?"

But...shrug.

What irritates me is the incessant, almost desperate need for people who don't like 4e to back up their subjective opinion with an objective root cause. It's like the Christians who set out to destroy science so that they can somehow prove that their faith is correct.

Yeah, I can certainly understand not liking some of the rules (there's plenty I dislike) I just don't see them as a barrier to immersion.

For example, I hate marking.  Not because it breaks my immersion, just because it is annoying and fiddly and yet one more thing to keep track of.  I also dislike that I can't houserule out marking without essentially breaking the game (similar to how AoO was a pain in 3e).  But none of that makes me lose the feel of the game any more than stupid rule X from random game Y does (most RPGs do tend to have at least a few rules you dislike).

I also agree combat still takes too long.  Instead of upping everyone's hp and using the healing surge mechanic (another overly fiddly bit I don't think works as well as it could), I would have preferred less hp and everyone having a single second wind per day (like in Star Wars Saga).  But, again, certainly nothing that prevents me from imagining the game world or whatever.

Quote from: Seanchai;367445No. You can say it again. You can frame it differently. You're still wrong. "The game" or elements thereof might be why you hold the opinion that you do, but being able to point to the cause of your dissatisfaction doesn't make it objectively bad or problematic. It doesn't make it source a problem for anyone but you.

Seanchai

I didn't say it was objectively BAD.  I didn't say it was not a roleplaying game.  I said it was objectively emphasizing mechanics and tactics over immersion and simulation by design.  Fate objectively emphasizes narration and story over immersion and simulation by design.  That doesn't make it a bad game either.

What starts half these flamefests is when a 4e detractor says "It's a boardgame" or "it's a MMOG on paper", true.  The other half however, are started when the 4e supporters claim when we start talking about immersion that "4e is no different from earlier editions".  That's just a load of horsecrap.

The thing that's important for me to point out is that I don't really have a problem with most of the rules, per se, it's the implementation and description.  I could GM 4e, but I'd basically go through everything they have now, and yank out the powers I want, rename them and piece together new classes.  I don't know if I want to take the time for that, and in the case of non-magical classes (rogue, fighter) etc getting "powers", I'm not sure I could start changing things without causing the whole thing to implode.

I also have a much higher tolerance for abstraction as a player then I do as a GM.  Knowing the why's and how's isn't as important for me as a player, so I could possibly have fun playing 4e.

All that being said, 4e is less immersive by design then earlier editions of D&D, that's not a value judgement, just a fact.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367414

QuoteDo 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.

Oh, it's not either. It's a shift in design that occured some time between D&D 3.0 and 4E. If you open the 3.0 rulebooks, you'll see that 'encounter' predominantly (if not 100% exclusively) means 'combat encounter'. If you then look at the 3.5 DMG, you'll see the statements that 'adventures are basically strings of encounters' and the divide into combat- and non-combat encounters (the whole section on urban adventures goes with the latter, e.g.).

But then 4E appeared, and suddenly the new subsystem of 'skill challenges' put all the freeform roleplaying with the occasional skill checks into the category 'this is an encounter'.

So when people only dimly acquainted with 4E see 4E's utility powers geared at 'what you can do in an encounter', their first thought is that this is stuff you do in combat.

And how could they not. Heck, like Enworld's Mark even I don't think that freeform roleplaying with occasional skill checks ought to be replaced by skill challenges. And judging by how Mike Mearls runs what he terms 'skill challenges' but doesn't remotely match the subsystem described in the 4E DMG, he would concur:

Quote from: MearlsI tend to run skill challenges in stealth mode, asking for skill checks as appropriate. I've found this establishes a nice flow of roleplay at the table and makes it easier for me to set the scene. So, I might roleplay an interaction and ask for the occasional skill check, marking successes and failures as appropriate.

And on another occasion he even literally says, 'announcing skill challenges might break your immersion'. Oooooooh loooky bad,  incoherent term being used!! By 4E designers!!! Get them!!!

Quote from: Mike Mearls, Dungeon Magazine 164, page 120Don’t Break Immersion

Many players who like roleplaying enjoy it for the
sense of immersion it brings. It’s fun to take on the
role of Larthus Silverstep, halfling spy and conman,
dickering over the fate of the Carrastan Isles with the
archdevil Pholstarm. If your group has ever dropped
into in-character banter—each of the players portraying
his or her character in an improvised scene—then
you now how much fun that can be. As a DM, the best
way to keep these players happy is to let them get lost
in the moment. Jarring them out of a scene—whether
with implausible outcomes, an intrusive appearance
by the rules, or a dramatic scene undercut by a die
roll—is the surest way to lose them.
To these players, immersion glues a scene together
and allows it to come to life. Breaking that immersion
is like seeing a boom mic float down from the top of
the screen during a TV show, or watching a science
fiction movie in which it’s painfully obvious that the
“aliens” are stuntmen wearing gorilla suits. These
types of events break the mood and remind you that
you’re watching a movie or playing a game. The players
aren’t bold adventurers in a world of fantasy, but
players sitting around a table
Immersion is a funny thing, in that it tends to arise
naturally from the group’s play style. As a DM, here
are things you can do to help promote it. (...)
+✦ Don’t tell the players they’re in a skill challenge.
Players who enjoy immersion hate it when
they are forced to think in terms of rules, rather
than in terms of what their characters want to do.
Keep track of successes and failures, asking for
skill checks as appropriate, and allow the challenge’s
results to play out naturally. The key to this
approach is that the players don’t think “I’m going
to use Intimidate here.” Instead, they roleplay an
intimidating statement in response to your cues and
descriptions, allowing a threat to play out naturally,
just as if they were having a conversation with an
NPC. Let them make the check after they speak.

And that's not all. Here's a sidebar which has again a WotC designer telling us the same thing that people in this thread have been telling us - namely, that 4E mechanics can easily become a hindrance to immersion and roleplaying, no matter your level of familiarity with these game mechanics.

Quote from: Martial Power 2, page 84Roleplaying a Warlord (side-bar)

Your role in the party is to coordinate your allies' offense and bolster their will to keep fighting long after they might have given up. Warlords present a special roleplaying challenge, because what you do relates to abstract mechanics of the game, such as hit points, basic attacks, and healing surges. It's easy for other martial characters to provide vidid descriptions of their crippling attacks, but your exploits can be harder to visualize.

The book then goes on to give advice how to rectify the situation (and here we veer again into the region of comedy gold: you ought to congratulate other players for rolling well, that will make you feel playing a warlord, ahem). But in any case, the book right there in black and white admits that playing a warlord in 4E "presents a roleplaying challenge" because heavier than all other martial classes, playing a warlord you mostly interact with abstract mechanics.

There, they said it. So in short, this thread reminds me of 2008 (and I've said it before). It's like all that fanboy noise drowns the designers straight off admitting that some of the reservations towards 4E are totally deserved.

It's bloody annoying! Like Jim Skach said in the thread I linked above (and which I think is pure gold), it's freaking 2010 and it's bloody time we treat 4E like any other RPG. It has design issues, and whether we play or keep playing it or not, let's discuss the stuff we like and would port to our own game of choice (even if it's 4E itself) and let's discuss stuff we like to kick out because it's just badly designed. Honestly.

Quote from: Windjammer;367487it's freaking 2010 and it's bloody time we treat 4E like any other RPG.

I don't think that's ever going to happen, to be honest.
Awesome post, WJ.