Quote from: RPGPundit;225326The issue isn't about the challenge level of monsters; its about the fact that challenges in general in 4e don't have any relation to the concept of the world.  A party of 1st level characters walking into a dungeon will encounter 1st level slippery dungeon moss; and a party of 30th level characters walking into a dungeon will encounter 30th level slippery dungeon moss; for no reason that makes sense within the setting. The system is set up so that "balance" in the game actually destroys any sense of immersion in the world, for the alleged purpose of "creating fun", when in fact such a scheme destroys one of the major sources of REAL fun in an RPG, that of being able to connect to your character and to a world where that character exists and interacts with in coherent ways.  With 4e, all of that is reduced to so much "window-dressing".

RPGPundit

This was the discussion on tBP (before I got banned again), and one poster referred to it as 'always fighting orcs'.  No matter what level, you had roughly even odds of surpassing a skill check.  I am still trying to wrap my head around the claims of that showing how 'awesome' your characters have become, but I think minions are mostly wankery, too.  Easily replaced by a skill challenge trap that deals the character level in damage every round, and is defeated with a 1/- skill challenge.  As in, one success, no failure count.

Let me let you kids in on a little secret. There are numbers in an RPG. These numbers purportedly represent the world. The secret is that they do not. They are arbitrary marks on a bathtub. You do not fight kobolds or demons, you fight a set of numbers. The rest is your imagination.

Once you accept that the numbers have no necessary relation to the world, it becomes very easy to see how this works. You can have goblins of various level. You can pull surprises. Not all monsters have to be the same.

What's the difference between fighting demons and fighting very buff kobolds?

Quote from: droog;225558What's the difference between fighting demons and fighting very buff kobolds?

The rules and the numbers that make up the feel of the game. In D&D 4th edition is makes for a High Fantasy 24/7 game. In Hero is four color punching time. In GURPS is grim and gritty combat.

Change the one of the elements then you get a different feel.

Quote from: droog;225558Let me let you kids in on a little secret. There are numbers in an RPG. These numbers purportedly represent the world. The secret is that they do not. They are arbitrary marks on a bathtub. You do not fight kobolds or demons, you fight a set of numbers. The rest is your imagination.

Once you accept that the numbers have no necessary relation to the world, it becomes very easy to see how this works. You can have goblins of various level. You can pull surprises. Not all monsters have to be the same.

What's the difference between fighting demons and fighting very buff kobolds?

They're spelled differently?

I mean, if you want to reduce it all the way to the numbers, then 4e fails on at least the skill challenges.  And, you can eliminate the levels, if everything is going to succeed on 11+.  In fact, you don't really need all those fancy dice, because at the heart of it all, it's just a game of craps.

Or, were you going to take your ad reductio in a different direction?

Quote from: RandallS;225513They were a bit above average, but not yet heroes.

See, I'd call having eight times the normal amount of hit points and a special ability more than "just a bit above average." I can't remember if peasants had the same range of Ability Scores as the PCs, but even if they do, being able to cast spells, buy actual weapons and armor, etc., has got to put you above average...

Quote from: RandallS;225513Therefore, 4E feels very limiting to all those people who prefer another way of playing that used to be quite doable in previous editions of D&D without much effort on their part.

Except I think you're overstating the case and that sometimes some folks find 4e limiting because they want to. Check out, for example, Jason Vey's thread over on TBP. You're right - the difference between start characters and, oh, peasants is greater in 4e - I just wouldn't say it was all that small in previous editions.

Seanchai

Quote from: dar;225338At least you state this as an opinion instead of some universal fact plucked from the science labs.

I enjoy minis for relative placement for most games, but when RPG combat breaks out boards or measuring tape, then I lose a huge chunk of the immersion aspect.   As a GM, I find that the player language usually changes into much more rules terms once the board / battlemat comes out.

Quote from: Edsan;225351the only unique thing about this game is that it has the most valuable logo of the market attached to it.

There is no doubt that if last summer a PDF called "Tombs & Terrors" came out with the exact same rules as 4e, there would be nowhere near the fervor.   The logo = the fervor.

Quote from: Spinachcat;225575Look at it from a business perspective...
Setting Scale with PC = big sales for video games
Not Setting Scale with PCs = low sales for RPGs

The logical business choice is to make your next RPG setting scale to the PC.   If this choice helps sell more books, that means more gamers and more gamers means that this aging and dying hobby gets a whiff of life.

Then you run into the Media Utility problem.  You've just demonstrated why, using this logic, publishing tabletop RPGs at all is a colossal waste of time and resources.  Since TRPGs can't compete with ERPGs on the latter's terms and win, no matter how much you try to ape them, you either quit making TRPGs in favor of ERPGs or you accept different terms of success by maximizing the TRPG medium's unique qualities.  WOTC is on the former road, and in time it will make that leap in the pursuit of ever-maximized shareholder value because the TRPG product simply cannot deliver the promised results.  I choose the latter; if I want an ERPG, then I will fire up WOW- not play D&D.

Even if you always needed an 11+ to succeed (you don't), and even if the numbers were always the same except for being scaled to level (they're not), you'd still have very different fights against demons instead of kobolds.

For instance, a kobold fight is almost always going to be against multiple foes. You'll have a bunch of minions, some dragonshields to command them, and some artillery to harass you while the dragonshields keep you busy. An equally levelled fight against devils is more likely to be a few Legion Devils fighting in formation, and a succubus who uses you as a meat shield. A demon fight would be a group of carnage demons taking turns surrounding someone and using their multiple attacks and pack tactics to kill you in a couple of rounds.

All of those fights would involve different numbers, different tactics, and different challenges.

Quote from: Seanchai;225572See, I'd call having eight times the normal amount of hit points and a special ability more than "just a bit above average."

Various types of humans were listed in the Monsters sections of early editions of D&D. Plain old "non-leveled" men had 1d6 hit points in OD&D, the same as any first level character. They could wear armor and use weapons just like first level characters, but had a 5% less chance to hit. I'm most familiar with OD&D men at the moment (as I'm working on Microlite74), but as I recall, 0-level humans in B/X D&D was also 1 hit dice. In AD&D, it was less, but still could be as high as 4 hit points (as I recall) -- the same as the maximum hit point for a first level magic-user and only one-half the maximum hit points for a first level fighter.  Normal men were real threats to low level characters in early D&D, and even more of a threat in large groups.

QuoteExcept I think you're overstating the case and that sometimes some folks find 4e limiting because they want to.

I find it limiting because it cannot be used to run either of my major campaign worlds (Arn or the Hidden Valley). Every other version of D&D could do so from its core rule books, perhaps with a few pages of house rules.  I'd have to change so much of 4E that it would no longer be anything like 4E to use it in Arn or the Hidden Valley -- it's be as bad as trying to run these campaigns with GURPS.  I can't use 4E to run a low power, normal human centered swords and sorcery campaign either.  

As I can't use 4E to do the things I like to do in a RPG when I could easily do them in every other edition, I find 4E limiting.  I guess you could say I find it limiting because I want to find it limiting. If I didn't want to find it too limiting, I could just toss my campaign worlds and come up with new campaign worlds that fit the 4E way. However, I value these worlds, which have been in use for since the late 1970s (for Arn) and the early 1980s (for the Hidden Valley), far more than the latest set of rules being pushed to market. If the rules can't do my worlds without a major rewrite, they are too limiting for me -- and therefore useless to me. RPG rules are supposed to be my servant, not my boss.

Quote from: Seanchai;225572I just wouldn't say it was all that small in previous editions.

5% less chance to hit and two less HPs on average.

RandallS concerns are one major stumbling block for some players. When you take your formally general purpose RPG and focus on a single sub genre. Some fans are going to get irritated and look for alternatives.

D&D exception based design means that some rules designer could fix that by creating a new set of powers and/or classes. I am sure some third party will do just that.

Another way to encourage in-game talk is to reward it. Scion, Exalted, and several other games do this so well that we've ported the mechanic to other systems. The basic idea is that if you express your action with non-rules talk you get an extra die. If it's really good you can get 3 dice and experience. They also tie resource regaining to the "stunting" making it a necessity, not just a frill.

Quote from: estar;225585RandallS concerns are one major stumbling block for some players. When you take your formally general purpose RPG and focus on a single sub genre. Some fans are going to get irritated and look for alternatives.

This is especially true if the single sen-genre the new edition focuses on is one of the few the old player absolutely has no interest in.

Not to split hairs, but I am baffled that any fantasy setting/system that contains elves, dwarves and halflings could be considered generic.

Quote from: StormBringer;225568Or, were you going to take your ad reductio in a different direction?

I thought I already had.

Quote from: droog;225692I thought I already had.

Ok, well, reducing any game to just the numbers makes it incredibly boring.  There is a reason games are not just 'roll a die, get higher than your opponent'.

By the numbers, a high level kobold may not be much different than a demon.  Except, there are expectations that go along with the labels 'demon' and 'kobold'.  These may very well be different from table to table, but the expectations on their behaviour is what makes it a role-playing game.