Quote from: Kyle Aaron;224994It sounds pretty dull.

Werd to yo' mamma.

Quote from: RPGPundit;225134There are plenty of rules-heavy games where the actions described are based on the situation in play; rather than being abstract super-maneuvers that have no connection to any sense of "immersion" in the fantasy world of the rpg.

Hell, the Hero System is rules-heavy and has all this crazy 'half-' and full-' action goodness with maneuvers thrown in, but you can use these to describe combat as opposed to take yourself out of it.

Quote from: Stuart;225135Anything without a battlemat really -- because you're forced to use descriptive language to articulate where in the game world your character is.  Systems with less detailed / more abstract combat system are also better in that regard.

Hero and GURPS use battlemats and they aren't as bad as this. I think 4e just took it too far. They decided that 4e combat should be a mini game that is outside of the roleplaying game; a tactical miniature game within a roleplaying game. Which is what they wanted and they succeeded. Some people like it. Others don't power to 'em all.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: Age of Fable;225174I played 3rd edition several times, and I tended to find that I did have this problem in the combats, but not at other times.

Well, since your initial problem statement was about 4e combat, this might not be a very informative comparison. I was expecting you to say something about an older edition of D&D to be honest, or BRP/CoC, or something else entirely.

Quote from: GameDaddy;224937Exactly! I took inspiration from one of the Best of the Dragon magazine articles some years ago, The article was titled Monkish Combat in the Arena of Promotion, back in the day when monks had to defeat a grandmaster one level higher than them, before they could advance to the next level.

Anyway, The table listed an illustrated version of different battle maneuevers including blocks, strikes, kicks, and other unique moves each of which offered a unique circumstance modifier to combat. Some moves were more effective against some kinds of blocks or parries, of course. I modified this table so that it could be used with different types of weapons as well. The players had to secretly pick a manuever just prior to resolving combat, if it was against an NPC, I randomly rolled what the NPC was going to do, then simply narrated the combat.

This actually speeded up play, since everyone quickly came to know that a high block or parry, was simply not effective against a low strike, disarm attempt, on so on, plus the combats were simply spectacular, especially when there was in-party fighting.

There used to be those little booklet games - crap, I'm at work and I don't have them...Final Fantasy?..Where you were one kind of fighter, and you traded a card with another and then as you both announced what you were doing, the combinations' results were determined. So I would choose high thrust and you would would choose high block (unknown to each other), our sheets would tell use to turn to a certain page where the results (in this case a successful parry) would be known. Elliot will know grace us with his knowledge and a link, I'm sure

But I'd love to see what you have as I always thought that would be a great resolution system, or more accurately something like that would, if the mechanics of larger battles could be worked out. gimmie gimmie...

Quote from: RPGPundit;225182a) the very idea of "fun" loses all meaning, because its an artificial fun.

a) I've had tons of fun playing 4e, and none of it was artificial.

Quoteb) the game itself thus doesn't actually end up being very fun at all: it just turns into one pointless episode of false shallow artificial coolness after the next. If there is no real chance that you won't be "awesome" then there really is little point in playing. You might as well be wanking.

b) we've had a TPK, an almost TPK, and multiple character deaths. Unless you think that dying is awesome, you must realize that 100% awesome all the time is not a guarantee.

QuoteRPGPundit

c) you're a dumbass blinded by ego and grognard rage. But you're fun to laugh at, so it's cool.

Quote from: worrapol;224951As I understand it, Mike mearls himself says that the point of 4E DnD is to focus on rules terminology - see this post by him where he compares his OD&D campaign with 4E: http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=campaignstories&action=display&thread=543#1203183973

Note especially



and



from what he is saying here, it seems intended for 4E players to think and act in terms of "game elements" and leave "game fiction" out. In 4E, it doesn't matter how a trap is made and trying to think up a way to defuse the trap via logic coherent to the setting misses the purpose of the game - instead 4E players should think "aha - a trap, that's a skill challenge to which I can apply these exception based rules to my advantage, yea me!"

Likewise a 4E player is not supposed to think, much less say, "my ranger makes a daring leap across the tavern table, grabs the chandelier, and stabs the villain" he is supposed to think and say "my striker oriented ranger makes a shift movement, employs a skill challenge to improve its attack function."

James Wyatt makes a similar point here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080630

 

The game fiction for why a Cave Slime always matches DC against the player's level is irrelevant. The point is to understand and relish the game mechanics affecting in play challenges and be rewared with a comensurate treasure parcel. The point isn't to ask what is meaningful to "stuff happening to adventurers" (that's old D&D my friend) but instead to monitor and exploit the interplay of game elements in a suitably rewarding manner as defined by the rules. "How slippery is the cave slime?" will always be answered in 4E by "as much as it needs to be to ensure proper game balance and appropriate to the treasure parcel it will provide." Remember - fiction is irrelevant, only the game elements are relevant.

So yes, this is a feature of 4E Dungeons and Dragons. Those who perceive it as a problem would probably enjoy some other RPG better. Whether it becomes a trend in role playing in general, only time will tell. But since D&D has always been the most common entry point into RPGs, I uspect this approach to play will quickly become the norm over the next few years.

Me? I'm sticking with BRP, but what do I know?

Where does one subscribe to your newsletter?

Great post - and welcome!

That post on OD&D was quite interesting. Mr. Mearls, if you're around, can you dig a little deeper into this:

QuoteOD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised. I can write rules without worrying about strict interpretations or covering every possible case.

Do you know what drive the process so that in 4e you do feel the need to write rules that are concerned with strict interpretation covering every possible case?

And please note: I assume this is not distinct to 4e among D&D editions. I'm just curious to get the insight as to what keeps driving this to the forefront of the design. Is it organized play? Is it demand/feedback? Is it the volume of requests for the "official" WotC interpretation of a rule?

One last thing - please let me know if my read was incorrect and you were not saying that you felt more bound to do this in 4e.

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: Jackalope;224956This is the most absolutely idiotic thing I've ever read.

So basically, no matter how good a character gets, everything should remain an identical challenge?  Nobody gets better, the numbers just get bigger.

I just don't get it.

I'm going to be charitable, and assume the designers knew what they were doing when they created those game mechanics, but basically, it looks like the universe alters itself based on how good or bad we are. If we're really good (or bad) at stuff, rocks move, rivers change their course, and walls become more slippery. Why? Because we're too damn good (or bad). It seems pretty pointless to me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;225134Its based on the absurd and utterly idiotic idea that the PCs have to be ABSOLUTELY AWESOME at all times or else the world ends.  So low level characters have to be AWESOME. High level characters have to be AWESOME....No, the domination of Jargon in 4e is part of a conscious attempt to try to destroy (exterminate, if you will) the very possibility of experiencing "immersion" in D&D. Because immersion is evil. Because Ron Edwards said so.  You want a game that intentionally encourages people to be as disconnected from their character as possible, to think of him as a playing piece (a miniature?) on a board, and not as a personality that you assume while acting out adventures in an imaginary world. Imagination must be exterminated.

I concur.

It sounds similar to what you get when you have straight-attribute tests in e.g. BRP or Basic D&D. Slime is slime is slime, you can always trip no matter how studly you are.

In other respects, though, it does sound like a treadmill.

Answer to James Skach: you're thinking of Lost Worlds, originally published by Nova Games. Some more info: http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/lostw.shtml

Also, in an RPG context, this sort of "guessing game" approach is used in Burning Wheel and Riddle of Steel.

Quote from: Spinachcat;225150I believe John Wick once referred to D20 as the game where you roll over 10.  Oddly, this aspect of identical challenges plays better than it reads and certainly makes it easier on the GM to design encounters.   Yes, it can become laughable that at 20th level, every firepit is Epic Fire and every slime is Epic Slime and every orc is Epic Orc, but its nothing that a sharp storyteller can't easily get past.

I just find it offensive, because it flies right in the face of the very core of D&D.  You work up to the dragon.  That's the point.

When you start, a handful of orcs is a serious threat to your life, and a dragon is so terrifying your heart may literally seize in your chest and you'll fall dead from fright.  Then one day, you're kicking the dragon's ass and making it your mount, while your legions of troops stomp the shit out of the orcs and pacify the lands so you can draw settlers and forge your own kingdom.

This whole scheme of everything remaining an ever constant and identical challenge really just means that the game is stagnant and never changing.

Quote from: Jackalope;225229This whole scheme of everything remaining an ever constant and identical challenge really just means that the game is stagnant and never changing.

It's simplicity itself to present the party with tougher than recommended challenges. All that's really changed is the system being transparent enough for the DM to know with some degree of certainty when he or she is doing so. Besides, even with challenges of parity there's huge scope for variance.

Quote from: Jackalope;225229I just find it offensive, because it flies right in the face of the very core of D&D.  You work up to the dragon.  That's the point.

Exactly.

This is what many 4e critics have been saying from the get go. But apparently, that's not FUN.

I remember playing 2e AD&D when it first came out. We made new PCs and got ready to game (I made a Bard named Leander Ashgarth) and I sat there fliping through the PHB while everyone got ready to play.There, within the first few pages, was the Elmore picture of the adventurers standing there all proud and heroic over the corpse of a rather small green dragon. And I remember looking at that picture and dreaming of the moment our party could do that. It was distant, but delicious goal. It gave me something to look forward to. We had maybe nine or ten levels to go, but it was awesome. And our first encounter was against Goblins... they rocked us, but we still won. And it was amazing.

I actually wish I could like D&D 4e. There's more players in the area and I miss saying that I played D&D.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: RPGPundit;225182You might as well be wanking.

Remember joysticks?  

RPGs are all about playing out fantasies.   I suspect sword & sorcery fantasies and sexual fantasies have significant overlap for most people.

Quote from: James J Skach;225215Do you know what drive the process so that in 4e you do feel the need to write rules that are concerned with strict interpretation covering every possible case?

RPGA is the main feedback loop for D&D.  Since RPGA happens at conventions where strangers sit down and play, there is none of the "interpretation acceptance" that happens in home games where we all have agreed upon, often unspoken house rules.  

Thus, the biggest concerns that go up the WotC ladder are not about immersion or storytelling, but how to make Rule X work with Exception Y to keep peace at the table and keep the game flowing instead of breaking down into yet another rules argument.

Quote from: Jackalope;225229I just find it offensive, because it flies right in the face of the very core of D&D.  You work up to the dragon.  That's the point.

Why does everyone need to work up to the dragon?  In fact, why should play time fun include any notion of "work" at all?

The core of OD&D / AD&D is not the core of D&D 4e.   As I tell everyone when I do any 4e demos, take everything you know about D&D and put it on the side.   4e is not an evolution of earlier editions.  4e is a brand new fantasy game that simply uses the D&D title.   Once you treat 4e as if it was a new RPG called "Tombs & Terrors" without any relation to any other RPG you own, everything becomes easier to accept.

Quote from: Spinachcat;225268Why does everyone need to work up to the dragon?  In fact, why should play time fun include any notion of "work" at all?

Is the concept of delayed gratification completely foreign to you?

I killed an umber hulk last week.  My first in 20 years of gaming.  Three months ago, I wouldn't have lasted through the first round.  Having earned the right to kill umber hulks makes killing them all that much more sweet.

Quote from: Spinachcat;225268The core of OD&D / AD&D is not the core of D&D 4e.   As I tell everyone when I do any 4e demos, take everything you know about D&D and put it on the side.   4e is not an evolution of earlier editions.  4e is a brand new fantasy game that simply uses the D&D title.   Once you treat 4e as if it was a new RPG called "Tombs & Terrors" without any relation to any other RPG you own, everything becomes easier to accept.

Precisely.

That's why people wanting to play D&D should give 4th Ed a pass and people wanting a FRPG that is different from D&D might be pleasantely surprised if they try it.

The legitimacy of calling a completely new game by a name that means something else is a different matter altogheter. But I can see how some folk might have real issues with it.