TheRPGSite

I can think of a couple. For starters, the idea that magic users have a basic attack spell they can cast an unlimited number of times. I think that's basically a good idea, it supplants the uncomfortable notion of magic users having to rely on sub-par weapons, without actually increasing the Magic-user's power in any meaningful way.

Another element I think is a good idea is the idea, in principle, of ritual magic. I'm not sure that the particular execution of rituals as presented in 4e is great, but the idea that wizards should be able to, if given enough time (much more than can be done in the middle of a battle), cast (certain kinds of) spells without using up their spell slots, is a fundamentally good one.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;360705I can think of a couple. For starters, the idea that magic users have a basic attack spell they can cast an unlimited number of times. I think that's basically a good idea, it supplants the uncomfortable notion of magic users having to rely on sub-par weapons, without actually increasing the Magic-user's power in any meaningful way.

Another element I think is a good idea is the idea, in principle, of ritual magic. I'm not sure that the particular execution of rituals as presented in 4e is great, but the idea that wizards should be able to, if given enough time (much more than can be done in the middle of a battle), cast (certain kinds of) spells without using up their spell slots, is a fundamentally good one.

RPGPundit

I think both of the above ideas are horrible.  Magic should have a cost, either in spell slots, mana, spell points, or whatever.  Casting it willy nilly may achieve some aspect of balance, but the cost in flavor is too high.

Nonsense, JRR. Nonsense.

And they are not exactly innovations, rituals did already exist in 3.x (in  a better form, IMHO) and for the unlimited magic attack, there were warlocks and reserve feats and this if you limit the search to D&D.

Magic users were largely useless at lower levels.  No big surprise in games that level up very slowly from level 1, the magic user players were largely sitting around bored playing gameboy or watching television.

Saving throws translated to target numbers and reflex target made the same as the "armorless" AC target. It never made sense to me that they were different.

That's pretty much all that occurs to me.

Quote from: JRR;360706I think both of the above ideas are horrible.  Magic should have a cost, either in spell slots, mana, spell points, or whatever.  Casting it willy nilly may achieve some aspect of balance, but the cost in flavor is too high.

Flavor is a part of setting and genre. Maybe being able to cast a magic missile at will doesn't work for your setting but it works for others.

Also Rituals do have a cost, components. Components have to be purchased in gold in-game which leads to better roleplaying than any mechanical system of mana , or spell points.

Quote from: RPGPundit;360705For starters, the idea that magic users have a basic attack spell they can cast an unlimited number of times. I think that's basically a good idea, it supplants the uncomfortable notion of magic users having to rely on sub-par weapons, without actually increasing the Magic-user's power in any meaningful way.

RPGPundit

I don't understand why this is an uncomfortable notion. Could you please explain?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;360712Saving throws translated to target numbers and reflex target made the same as the "armorless" AC target. It never made sense to me that they were different.

That's pretty much all that occurs to me.

The genius of AC in the earlier editions, was that it was just one single defense stat to do attack rolls against.  AC was able to accommodate not just armor, but also how agile a target was against attacks.  This is what made THAC0 very easy to implement.

With four static defense stats in 4E, AC isn't so impressive any longer.  If I had designed 4E, I probably would have used fortitude/reflex/will as the static defenses and eliminate AC altogether.  Armor could be changed into something which "soaks" up hit point damage.

EDIT:  In such a system, melee attacks would be against a target's fortitude and ranged attacks would be against a target's reflex.

Quote from: RPGPundit;360705I can think of a couple. For starters, the idea that magic users have a basic attack spell they can cast an unlimited number of times.

I like the resource management side of magic in the various incarnations of D&D, which is why I like the constraints of the pre-4e D&D/Vancian magic system, so this doesn't appeal.

If you want to shoot magic missles or lightning bolts each round, get a wand or a ring.

Quote from: RPGPundit;360705Another element I think is a good idea is the idea, in principle, of ritual magic.

Still has a resource management requirement, isn't readily adapted to combat, can be made super-cool in terms of components and ritual elements - yeah, this I like.

I'm glad they began to break down the notion that healing the party required a divine spellcaster.  Certainly, there were some small exceptions like bards and the occasional cure spell, but now most of the so-called Leaders have some ability to keep people going during the fight.

Unfortunately, this whole business relies on those second winds or healing surges or whatever they're called which I thought was implemented and explained rather poorly.

Quote from: estar;360715Flavor is a part of setting and genre. Maybe being able to cast a magic missile at will doesn't work for your setting but it works for others.

Also Rituals do have a cost, components. Components have to be purchased in gold in-game which leads to better roleplaying than any mechanical system of mana , or spell points.

That's no different from most spells in any edition of D&D.  Components have been required since day one.

Another vote in favor of rituals. I think they are great.

Getting rid of infravision (or darkvision) for most creatures is a decidedly good thing.  So is getting rid of alignment detection spells.

I like both of the innovations Pundit cites...as implemented in other games.

Not sure I'd like them as part of D&D, let alone see them as improvements. Of course, I'm coming from an OD&D/Basic/1e perspective.

Quote from: JRR;360724That's no different from most spells in any edition of D&D.  Components have been required since day one.

Components didn't appear until the AD&D 1e Player's Handbook appeared. There were no spell components in OD&D.

And Pundit, mages with an attack they can use every round isn't very new either. A common house rule for OD&D allowed magic-users to use slings (1d4 points of damage, same as their dagger -- using Greyhawk damage rules). A lot of GMs simply allowed magic-users to zap targets with a magic blast from a wand for the same damage (but unlike a magic missile spell, required a roll to hit just like the sling).  This was no different from letting them use a sling and pick up stones as ammo, but it fit the character class better.

Another thumb's up to rituals, which in some way are a throw-back to the pre-AD&D magic system -- where stuff like creating magic items, golems, homonculi, etc. weren't spells, but rather required a minimum level, usually some special knowledge or item, time, and money. The trend in AD&D to conform all these kinds of procedures (as well as things like summoning demons or familiars) into the "daily slot" spell system always felt awkward and shoe-horned to me, so I'm just as happy to see the rituals re-separated from the spells. The only possible game-balance impact I can see is the Int-based min/max spells per level -- in AD&D, if a character learns a bunch of non-combat ritual-type spells then he might not have room to learn all the good combat-oriented spells too. That's a pretty minor factor, though (especially since, in practice, this rule seemed to almost always be ignored).

I'm less thrilled with giving magic-users and infinitely-reusable "zap" spell, but can see that as the game has become increasingly combat-oriented that something like this was probably needed, and if the spell is no more effective than thrown daggers or darts it doesn't significantly change the shape of the game. For flavor purposes, though, I'd still rather have it be a minor wand (with a large number of charges and easy to recharge) than an intrinsic ability -- AD&D already posits that every first level magic-user starts the game with a major magic item (a book of 1st level spells), so why not with two?

Quote from: ggroy;360717The genius of AC in the earlier editions, was that it was just one single defense stat to do attack rolls against.  AC was able to accommodate not just armor, but also how agile a target was against attacks.  This is what made THAC0 very easy to implement.

With four static defense stats in 4E, AC isn't so impressive any longer.  If I had designed 4E, I probably would have used fortitude/reflex/will as the static defenses and eliminate AC altogether.  Armor could be changed into something which "soaks" up hit point damage.

EDIT:  In such a system, melee attacks would be against a target's fortitude and ranged attacks would be against a target's reflex.

I don't totally disagree with you, but the AC vs. Reflex/Will/Fortitude split is part of what distinguishes physical attacks from magical attacks, mechanically speaking. Yeah, some physical attacks target Reflex, but they're exceptions.

On the other hand, getting rid of the distinction would clear up many of the irksome weapon vs. implement issues. On the third hand, you'd lose one of the ways you can distinguish two weapons. So I dunno; might work out, might not. I'd playtest it if I were designing.

Anyhow. Innovations. I like power sources a great deal. Primal Power and reportedly Martial Power II add a lot of fluff vis a vis power sources, which is great. I like that I can define a campaign world's feel partially by saying "OK, these power sources are available to these cultures."

I like skill challenges. I understand that I am the only person in the world who likes them. I think they were poorly understood even by the designers at first; it was only with DMG 2 that we really got good skill challenge rules and good examples of skill challenges.

I think healing surges are interesting. They're important resource management, but they're perhaps too subtle as resource management, since you can't tell how important they are until you've played a fair bit of the game. Also, you need some decent GMing skills to make them meaningful. So interesting innovation, but the implementation could at least use a little explanation.

The DMG 2 material on boons and training as magic item replacements, I like that.

Other things I like (and dislike) about the game were not terribly innovative.

Quote from: JRR;360706I think both of the above ideas are horrible.  Magic should have a cost, either in spell slots, mana, spell points, or whatever.  Casting it willy nilly may achieve some aspect of balance, but the cost in flavor is too high.

I don't agree at all. I find 4e one of the worst RPGs I've ever played, but on this I agree with Pundit.

I concede the ideas have merit, but the 4e implementation is horrid.

Is the magic missile (sic) spell of 4e really different than simply firing a crossbow? Is it 'magical' in any way? There is literally nothing that spell does that cannot be equivalently accomplished with a physical ranged weapon. A mage (if created the right way) might even be BETTER at tossing a javelin than casting the spell.

Rituals are an interesting idea, and certainly make a lot of sense, the implementation of so many of them is so bad. Ten minutes' chanting and some gold to 'magically' see something 100 feet away? Seriously? A number of other rituals likewise don't make much sense...theoretically good idea, poor implementation.

Darts + a bearer to carry more (plus flasks of oil, and a hired linkboy to carry a lamp from which they may be lit) makes the magic-user a tad bit more useful than anyone's giving credit, in older editions.

But of course for most people since the rulebook didn't say "Magic-users can take darts as their weapon proficiency, and hurl flasks of oil" the idea of up and doing so must have been just beyond comprehension.

I get sick and tired of the notion that creeps up with every post 1e game that "Well now we've finally fixed the mage!  No more useless 1st level!" because if you can't think of ways to play the character so they're actually useful (like I outlined above), maybe a pen and paper RPG is a bit much for you.  And to the "guy with a game boy" example?  Thank god I don't have to game with anyone like that.

(http://rtsponderings.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/a-lawn.jpg)

Reading this thread reminds me of a guy trying to talk himself into visiting the nasty crack whore that stands on the corner down the street... "Well, she's got nice taste in shoes..."

Spellcasters having reliable attacks works great in play, but for me it really kills the flavor.  Magic is supposed to be mysterious and powerful, so having blast attacks at your fingertips all the time creates a completely different dynamic that, IMO, doesn't emulate classic fantasy all that well.  What it does remind me of is Mutants & Masterminds, so 4e came off feeling almost like a contemporary comic-book sort of fantasy game.  I would also say the same thing about 3.x and its higher power-curve compared to older editions, but to a lesser extent.

That doesn't make it a bad game, but the implied setting doesn't exactly interest me.

I liked the constant magic missile bit. Yes magic should be powerful / have limits, but gas-powered mages (be they vancian or point buy) aren't something I ever saw in fantasy before D&D, and have always bugged me.

Rituals were pretty nice too. The idea of using casting times as a limiter on utility isn't new, but I think it's underutilised.

If they really wanted to "get it right" for flavor (IMO) there would be some element of spell failure, and of spectacular spell failure for trying something way outside your capabilities.

As others have said, static saves were nice. Though also as others have said, AC could have been cut in favor of armor as DR.

I kind of liked 1w/2w/3w martial powers, and don't know why.

I've got mixed feelings about healing surges, etc. I like the idea of healing that scales with level (as opposed to characters actually becoming harder to heal as their hit points increase)... I'd just rather limit the available sources of healing to... you know... magic or sleep.

Powers made it so combat maneuvers were separate from each other... as opposed to the old feats/class features/ etc. bit, that would often let you stack a munch of modifiers on a single attack and break the game (had some fun with twf/sneak attack builds in 3.x).

There's probably lots of little things I'm missing.

Quote from: beejazz;360757I liked the constant magic missile bit. Yes magic should be powerful / have limits, but gas-powered mages (be they vancian or point buy) aren't something I ever saw in fantasy before D&D, and have always bugged me.

So you...never read Jack Vance.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;360758So you...never read Jack Vance.

Nope. As a kid, I got fantasy from Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, whoever wrote The Book of Three, The Horned King, etc. (edit: also Harry Potter and those crappy Goosebump books)  and a bunch of old fairy tales and mythology books. I don't think D&D picked up Vancian magic (as opposed to all the other possible models) because it was iconic or widespread... they did it for gameplay reasons. Not a bad thing, just not something I like.

There are no innovations to be found in 4e. Or... not in the first three books, anyway (I haven't seen any others.) That's not what they're trying to show it off as either, so that should work out fine.

Marketing-wise, it's just D&D all over again, but neater and more balanced.

I would say that it borrows very heavily from other games, 3e (+ splats) included.

I like the idea of at-will attacks for spellcasters. Not just things like Magic Missile or Cloud of Daggers...but also cantrips like Light, Prestidigitation and Ghost Sounds. I always thought it was silly in AD&D that these relatively minor things took up an entire 1st level spell slot.

If one divorces the idea of spellcaster flavor from D&D, then someone who can always channel at least a small amount of magical energy is more fitting to the ideal. Especially since I believe that one of the primary influences of the 4E Wizard was Jim Butcher's "Harry Dresden" series wherein casters can summon quick and dirty expressions of power on a regular basis, but for the big, world altering type stuff they have to spend time and effort setting it up (ala' rituals) So in this regard I find the design decisions here to be very flavorful.

I like that attacks are made against static defenses, and that savings throws have become a duration tracker rather than a defensive mechanic.

I like that summoners have to use their actions to command creatures.

I like that monsters each have their own gimmick. Goblins get to scurry away when you miss them, Hobgoblins get to make a savings throw as soon as they are hit with an effect, Gnomes turn invisible when you hit them, Orcs go into a frenzy when wounded, Gnolls get bonuses for attacking in packs...

Before, it felt as though the only difference between one melee monster and the next was HD.

I like the modularity of the design. The whole Fiendish Drow Half-Dragon Pirate3/Ninja4/Cyborg2/Zombie10 culture of 3.x really got on my nerves after a while.

That being said, there are also some newer elements of the game that really bug me.

Quote from: ggroy;360717EDIT:  In such a system, melee attacks would be against a target's fortitude and ranged attacks would be against a target's reflex.

What about characters that want to nimbly dodge out of the way of attacks, rather than just standing there and taking it?

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see an alternate armor system, but I haven't found a good way to augment it yet.

Nothing listed in this thread so far has struck me as good (for D&D; they may be good ideas for other, non-D&D games) or innovative. Rituals have some potential, but all they do is codify things that were previously specific to a campaign (seriously, is there a DM out there who didn't make up something like "to open the gates of the sealed city of the dwarves, you have to *blah* *blah* *blah*"?) and lumped in a bunch of spells that belonged to the utility niche. All the while fucking up the rest of the magic system. Good grief.

Quote from: Melan;360768All the while fucking up the rest of the magic system. Good grief.

QFT. Rituals may have been a moderately good idea back when (http://www.ptolus.com/diary_MM1.html) Mearls submitted them to supplement and not supplant a functional magic system - a system which allowed the use of utility magic in as well as outside combat.

Nothing in 4E's (alleged) innovations can ever outweigh the loss of removing utility magic from the game. And no, this isn't helped by copy-pasting names of (previous editions') utility spells on rituals.

Quote from: Shazbot79;360766What about characters that want to nimbly dodge out of the way of attacks, rather than just standing there and taking it?

Could use a defense roll as a free action when attacked, which would be d20 + reflex mod.  If it's greater than the attack roll, the player could shift to an adjacent square unharmed.

Quote from: ggroy;360775Could use a defense roll as a free action when attacked, which would be d20 + reflex mod.  If it's greater than the attack roll, the player could shift to an adjacent square unharmed.

Less die rolls is better?

It might be more productive to have less defense values. maybe just a Physical Defense for which you can add either DEX or CON, or a Magic Defense, for which you can add either CON or WIS.

Then again, do we really need 6 ability scores? Seems like they can all be rolled into something like Strength, Agility, Intellect and Willpower.

But here we start getting into game design which is another thread entirely.

Quote from: Shazbot79;360776Less die rolls is better?

Back in the 1E AD&D days, I liked using defense rolls in place of a static AC.

Quote from: Shazbot79;360776It might be more productive to have less defense values. maybe just a Physical Defense for which you can add either DEX or CON, or a Magic Defense, for which you can add either CON or WIS.

Dragon Warriors did something like this, with every player and monster having a physical defense and a separate magic defense.

Quote from: Shazbot79;360776Then again, do we really need 6 ability scores? Seems like they can all be rolled into something like Strength, Agility, Intellect and Willpower.

But here we start getting into game design which is another thread entirely.

If one doesn't have any spellcasters, in principle a minimalist game could be played with only strength and dexterity (agility).

Adding magic would require another stat, such as "psyche" for lack a better term.  This would encompass the spellcasting combat functions of intelligence, will and charisma.

Quote from: ggroy;360777Adding magic would require another stat, such as "psyche" for lack a better term.  This would encompass the spellcasting combat functions of intelligence, will and charisma.

Or simply Body, Mind and Spirit scores. (I think these are the stats that BESM uses)

See, people say that 4E rebuilt D&D from the ground up, but it really didn't. No more than AD&D or 3rd Edition did, at least.

The game still has those same 6 stats, still has HP and AC, still has magic items rate with +'s, still has alignments, still has levels and classes. In order for the game to be rebuilt from the ground up, all of these things would need to be revisited and perhaps revised.

Of course if everything that's recognizable as D&D is removed from D&D...even if it makes a better game in the longrun, is it really worth it?

Meh...I'm tired and babbling.

Quote from: Shazbot79;360766I like the idea of at-will attacks for spellcasters. Not just things like Magic Missile or Cloud of Daggers...but also cantrips like Light, Prestidigitation and Ghost Sounds. I always thought it was silly in AD&D that these relatively minor things took up an entire 1st level spell slot.

I like that attacks are made against static defenses, and that savings throws have become a duration tracker rather than a defensive mechanic.

I like that monsters each have their own gimmick. Goblins get to scurry away when you miss them, Hobgoblins get to make a savings throw as soon as they are hit with an effect, Gnomes turn invisible when you hit them, Orcs go into a frenzy when wounded, Gnolls get bonuses for attacking in packs...

Before, it felt as though the only difference between one melee monster and the next was HD.

Trimmed down, these are the major points that came to my mind too. Good stuff!

I dunno if it's an innovation exactly, but I was impressed at how many nuanced differences they could wring out of one combat system. Clerics and Wizards both have spells that summon a damage field that lasts for a few turns but the Cleric damage fields are generaly safer -- they only harm someone who ends their turn in the AoE. Wizard damage fields generaly hit anything that enters or starts it's turn in the damage field.
 
The difference in wording is subtle but the battlegrid effect is quite different. Cleric damage fields are a threat like an unexploded handgrenade. "Leave or get blowed up!" Whereas Wizard damage fields are killing stuff right now.
 
There was also a trend of Wizard damage fields causing friendly fire, whereas Cleric friendly fire was harmeless or beneficial.
 
I don't know if all Wizard and Cleric damage fields follow those patterns, but when I read the PH it came across as a very fresh idea to segregate classes not only by damage type (clerics get radient, wizards get force) but also by the game mechanics of when their damage fields increment.
 
I thought it was a good idea to nerf the Cleric's Armor proficiency.
 
And also when I got a chance to play, I enjoyed seeing how many things don't work in difficult terrain. We made that mistake exactly one time and never ever fought in difficult terrain again. :p

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;360791I dunno if it's an innovation exactly, but I was impressed at how many nuanced differences they could wring out of one combat system. Clerics and Wizards both have spells that summon a damage field that lasts for a few turns but the Cleric damage fields are generaly safer -- they only harm someone who ends their turn in the AoE. Wizard damage fields generaly hit anything that enters or starts it's turn in the damage field.
 
The difference in wording is subtle but the battlegrid effect is quite different. Cleric damage fields are a threat like an unexploded handgrenade. "Leave or get blowed up!" Whereas Wizard damage fields are killing stuff right now.
 
There was also a trend of Wizard damage fields causing friendly fire, whereas Cleric friendly fire was harmeless or beneficial.
 
I don't know if all Wizard and Cleric damage fields follow those patterns, but when I read the PH it came across as a very fresh idea to segregate classes not only by damage type (clerics get radient, wizards get force) but also by the game mechanics of when their damage fields increment.
 
I thought it was a good idea to nerf the Cleric's Armor proficiency.
 
And also when I got a chance to play, I enjoyed seeing how many things don't work in difficult terrain. We made that mistake exactly one time and never ever fought in difficult terrain again. :p

That sounds terribly like a Wargame when one reads it cold. Not saying that is a bad or good thing but it certainly a Quantum Leap from this to 'I like the fact that I can now play a Lizardman' or 'I like the fact that you could devise a Priestly class that better reflected the God they were supposed to worship rather than just being a second class fighter than could heal'.

Quote from: RandallS;360741Components didn't appear until the AD&D 1e Player's Handbook appeared. There were no spell components in OD&D.

And Pundit, mages with an attack they can use every round isn't very new either. A common house rule for OD&D allowed magic-users to use slings (1d4 points of damage, same as their dagger -- using Greyhawk damage rules). A lot of GMs simply allowed magic-users to zap targets with a magic blast from a wand for the same damage (but unlike a magic missile spell, required a roll to hit just like the sling).  This was no different from letting them use a sling and pick up stones as ammo, but it fit the character class better.

Key words bolded. House rule. I'm pretty certain we're talking RAW here. Otherwise what is the point to this whole discussion? You can house rule away anything, anytime.

Quote from: Melan;360768All the while fucking up the rest of the magic system. Good grief.

+1.

Wasn't going to be the first to say it. But yeah.

You want a good systematic ritual system? Try the Relics & Rituals for 3e. Great flavor and fits nicely with the system.

Quote from: jibbajibba;360794That sounds terribly like a Wargame when one reads it cold. Not saying that is a bad or good thing but it certainly a Quantum Leap from this to 'I like the fact that I can now play a Lizardman' or 'I like the fact that you could devise a Priestly class that better reflected the God they were supposed to worship rather than just being a second class fighter than could heal'.

Well, you've been able to play a lizardman forever. It's a lot harder to do innovative fluff.

Do note my comments on power sources earlier, though -- I think that qualifies.

Quote from: beejazz;360760whoever wrote The Book of Three, The Horned King, etc.

Lloyd Alexander

(Sorry to be a pedant, but he was one of my favorite authors, sadly now deaceased.)

Quote from: IMLegend;360796Key words bolded. House rule. I'm pretty certain we're talking RAW here. Otherwise what is the point to this whole discussion? You can house rule away anything, anytime.

My point was that is is not a "new idea" created especially for 4e -- it is simply copying something previous done (and expanding it too far, IMHO, but that's another issue). I really get tired of pro D&D designers getting credit for creating things that were done long ago simply because they managed to get them into the official(tm) rules. It's a pet peeve of mine that isn't going to change, so feel free to ignore my comments.

Quote from: jeff37923;360800Lloyd Alexander

(Sorry to be a pedant, but he was one of my favorite authors, sadly now deaceased.)

Ah, thanks. That was on the tip of my tongue, but just wasn't coming. I read a lot as a kid, but didn't pay much attention to authors until later.

Quote from: Melan;360768Nothing listed in this thread so far has struck me as good (for D&D; they may be good ideas for other, non-D&D games) or innovative. Rituals have some potential, but all they do is codify things that were previously specific to a campaign (seriously, is there a DM out there who didn't make up something like "to open the gates of the sealed city of the dwarves, you have to *blah* *blah* *blah*"?) and lumped in a bunch of spells that belonged to the utility niche. All the while fucking up the rest of the magic system. Good grief.

Melan nails it from the 3 point line.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;360750Darts + a bearer to carry more (plus flasks of oil, and a hired linkboy to carry a lamp from which they may be lit) makes the magic-user a tad bit more useful than anyone's giving credit, in older editions.

But of course for most people since the rulebook didn't say "Magic-users can take darts as their weapon proficiency, and hurl flasks of oil" the idea of up and doing so must have been just beyond comprehension.

I get sick and tired of the notion that creeps up with every post 1e game that "Well now we've finally fixed the mage!  No more useless 1st level!" because if you can't think of ways to play the character so they're actually useful (like I outlined above), maybe a pen and paper RPG is a bit much for you.  And to the "guy with a game boy" example?  Thank god I don't have to game with anyone like that.

(http://rtsponderings.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/a-lawn.jpg)

Get over yourself. I've loved wizardly types since my beloved Holmes edition, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the idea of a wizard doing magical stuff more often from the beginning, even if I do despise the entire rest of 4e.

Quote from: Thanlis;360745I like skill challenges. I understand that I am the only person in the world who likes them.

I don't know. My jury is still out on this one. I've played in WotC's skill challenges as interpreted by a new DM and didn't much care for them. I've written one, but not run it yet. I'll decide how much I like them after I see how much mileage I can get out of them.

Seanchai

I'll just point out that the "let's change the rules to make the mage less sucky at low levels" has pretty much been SOP for D&D since day 1.  It's right up there with "I don't like how AC works" and "I hate hit points" in the trinity of the top reasons people kept making D&D clones.  Large portions of the gaming population have always had issues with how mages, AC, and HP worked.

Also, do we really need whiny arguments about how X or Y doesn't qualify as "innovation" because somebody kind-of sort-of did something not quite the same but remotely similar years ago?  Can't we just accept the definition of "innovations" as being "positive changes for D&D and similar style games"?  Do we really need pedantic arguments over semantics yet again?

I think one of my problems with it all is that the rules have been changed from a mechanical perspective to balance the game but there hasn't been enough of a 'fluff' based explanation of it.

So I like the idea of Hit point recovering quickly. If they truely do represent luck and endurance and skill as turning that deadly blow into a scratch then they should recover quickly but for that to'work' there has to be an effect of damage that you didn't dodge in time.

The same is true of magic. in the old versions there was reference to the fact that spells were memorised but the effect of casting the spell released energies that erased it. So that was a pretty daft bit of fluff but one that holds up well in Vance and in the Amber books where a hung spell is realeased in much the same way. Likewise a Spell point system where spell of different levels cost varying points due to their power makes sense. It provides a nice in game explanation of how the thing works. They seems to have dropped all that for the purposes of game balance so now there is no attempt to explain in game effects other than to say these are the rules.

Take daily and per encounter powers. If a Fighter uses a special move that move is not deemed magical but he can't use the same move again until tomorrow? There is no logic to this in game other than to say that is the rule.

From a game balance perspective great but from a role-play immersive perspective it's a bit crap.

I think this outweighs most of the good stuff (the varying Power sources being a good thing).

Quote from: IMLegend;360796Key words bolded. House rule. I'm pretty certain we're talking RAW here. Otherwise what is the point to this whole discussion? You can house rule away anything, anytime.

Then we can't talk about OD&D in this thread.  There's no RAW there.

Quote from: jibbajibba;360828From a game balance perspective great but from a role-play immersive perspective it's a bit crap.

This.  And -

DM: Okay, you strike the ogre with your Silvernipple Raptor Strike.  Also, one of your buddies within ten feet can spend a healing surge.  Oh, and pick an enemy to slide as well.
Player: Awesome!!!  
DM: Next round, what do you do?
Player: Silvernipple Raptor Strike!
DM: No, you did that already.

Quote from: winkingbishop;360848DM: Okay, you strike the ogre with your Silvernipple Raptor Strike.  Also, one of your buddies within ten feet can spend a healing surge.  Oh, and pick an enemy to slide as well.
Player: Awesome!!!  
DM: Next round, what do you do?
Player: Silvernipple Raptor Strike!
DM: No, you did that already.

"He looks prepared for that; perhaps because he's just seen it."

God, you're unimaginative.

Quote from: jrients;360847Then we can't talk about OD&D in this thread.  There's no RAW there.

I'm cool with that. No more OD&D allowed in this thread then. So let it be written, so let it be done.

No?...damn...I tried.

Quote from: Thanlis;360851"He looks prepared for that; perhaps because he's just seen it."

God, you're unimaginative.

So? Shouldn't prevent one from trying it anyway.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;360750Darts + a bearer to carry more (plus flasks of oil, and a hired linkboy to carry a lamp from which they may be lit) makes the magic-user a tad bit more useful than anyone's giving credit, in older editions.

Quotebecause if you can't think of ways to play the character so they're actually useful (like I outlined above), maybe a pen and paper RPG is a bit much for you.

I want to play a magic-user, not a tomb raider that runs around with a cart of lawn darts and who hurls moltav cocktails lit by a lamp carrying street urchin. Who happens to cast a spell once a day. What literature has that?

Guess I need to turn in my roleplaying card then. :rolleyes:

Having to discern what Gygax et al "really meant" decades after the fact just reinforces that they should have written more clearly in the first place. I shouldn't have to have say a degree in Obscure Fantasy Literature Analysis just to play a game as the authors intended.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;360758So you...never read Jack Vance.

As someone who really likes Vance and even more obscure authors, I'll be the first to admit that he's not highly read and never has been, even with the free advertising from AD&D. While he provided Gygax with a germ of an idea to balance his game Cugel et al aren't what most people think of when they picture a wizard.

Nor was D&D Vancian magic terribly Vancian. Dying Earth RPG did a better job, but then again D&D wasn't just a Dying Earth RPG.

Quote from: Thanlis;360851"He looks prepared for that; perhaps because he's just seen it."

God, you're unimaginative.

Do all the monsters suddenly have a hive mind?

Quote from: Casey777;360859I want to play a magic-user, not a tomb raider that runs around with a cart of lawn darts and who hurls moltav cocktails lit by a lamp carrying street urchin. Who happens to cast a spell once a day. What literature has that?

Guess I need to turn in my roleplaying card then. :rolleyes:

Having to discern what Gygax et al "really meant" decades after the fact just reinforces that they should have written more clearly in the first place. I shouldn't have to have say a degree in Obscure Fantasy Literature Analysis just to play a game as the authors intended.

Halle-fuckin-lujah!

So in order to make my wizard a worthwhile contributor in combat I have to:

1. make sure I'm proficient with darts.

2. make sure I have a high enough dexterity to really utilize any thrown object.

3. purchase darts and flasks of oil over and above all the usual equipment and spell components for a wizard.

4. hire and pay an underling NPC specifically to run around and light my little
puddles on fire and hold my hand.

Yeah, sounds like a whole bunch of extra fucking around and expense just to be more useful than that one spell a day.

Quote from: winkingbishop;360848DM: Okay, you strike the ogre with your Silvernipple Raptor Strike.  Also, one of your buddies within ten feet can spend a healing surge.  Oh, and pick an enemy to slide as well.
Player: Awesome!!!  
DM: Next round, what do you do?
Player: Silvernipple Raptor Strike!
DM: No, you did that already.

This was a constant headache with "I Improved Trip him" guy in my 3.0 campaign, but then he was eaten by a purple worm and that was the end of the problem. ;)

(Of course, the same problems can arise with "I hit him with my longsword" guy if that's all there is to combat. One trick ponies are no fun.)

Quote from: kryyst;360862Do all the monsters suddenly have a hive mind?

You, too, are an unimaginative idiot.

Seriously. Any time you find yourself critiquing any RPG by making up a dialogue between two people who could not play their way out of a paper bag, you have failed. You are proving yourself incapable of intelligent conversation. Don't be that person.

The example was one of two things: either a player who didn't bother to read the rules, or a player who read the rules but wanted to be a douche to the DM. "Ha ha, look at me, I'm going to point out that I can't use my encounter attack twice in one encounter instead of trying to work with the DM. My critique of the system is more important than working with the rest of the table to enhance immersion. My penis is better than you."

I have so little tolerance for that shit I can't even begin to tell you.

btw, if anyone's interested in actually fucking talking about the question -- which I think is a really interesting one, I just don't buy it as this crippling "ha ha I gotcha!" flaw -- I'm hearing Martial Power 2 talks about it. I don't know if it's any good or not. I mentioned earlier in the thread that the fluff in Primal Power was good; this sort of attempt to conceptualize powers is what I was thinking of. Hopefully MP2 is also good.

Quote from: Thanlis;360872btw, if anyone's interested in actually fucking talking about the question -- which I think is a really interesting one, I just don't buy it as this crippling "ha ha I gotcha!" flaw -- I'm hearing Martial Power 2 talks about it. I don't know if it's any good or not. I mentioned earlier in the thread that the fluff in Primal Power was good; this sort of attempt to conceptualize powers is what I was thinking of. Hopefully MP2 is also good.

Fuck! That reminds me...I need to go buy that!

I too like the "Zap", however, it really only fits well into high-magic worlds.  I like the Dragon Age implementation better, where a mage needs a staff or wand to cast Arcane Lance.

Ritual magic is always welcome.

As far as resource management for magic goes, I liked Shadowrun 2nd ed with the drain mechanics.  If you managed the Force of the spells properly and didn't sustain tons of spells, you could cast all day.  If you went for uber-pwnage, you got wiped out quickly.

Considering hit points really aren't supposed to be wounds, but getting tired, etc... I like the idea of healing surges, but the implementation sucked.  What they wanted was a steady stamina-regen like you get in video games, but ticking off hps regenning every round is hard to keep track of, hence healing surges.  They should have tried not to mimic the mmog experience too closely for healing I think.  It's great for playing WoWRPG, not too good for anything else.  A Wound/Vitality system would have suited them better.

Quote from: jibbajibba;360794That sounds terribly like a Wargame when one reads it cold. Not saying that is a bad or good thing but it certainly a Quantum Leap from this to 'I like the fact that I can now play a Lizardman' or 'I like the fact that you could devise a Priestly class that better reflected the God they were supposed to worship rather than just being a second class fighter than could heal'.

You must not play a lot of MMOGs.  The bottom half of what Malleus said is the kind of conversation that goes on every day on every MMOG forum in the world. :D

Quote from: jibbajibba;360828I think one of my problems with it all is that the rules have been changed from a mechanical perspective to balance the game but there hasn't been enough of a 'fluff' based explanation of it.

So I like the idea of Hit point recovering quickly. If they truely do represent luck and endurance and skill as turning that deadly blow into a scratch then they should recover quickly but for that to'work' there has to be an effect of damage that you didn't dodge in time.

The same is true of magic. in the old versions there was reference to the fact that spells were memorised but the effect of casting the spell released energies that erased it. So that was a pretty daft bit of fluff but one that holds up well in Vance and in the Amber books where a hung spell is realeased in much the same way. Likewise a Spell point system where spell of different levels cost varying points due to their power makes sense. It provides a nice in game explanation of how the thing works. They seems to have dropped all that for the purposes of game balance so now there is no attempt to explain in game effects other than to say these are the rules.

Take daily and per encounter powers. If a Fighter uses a special move that move is not deemed magical but he can't use the same move again until tomorrow? There is no logic to this in game other than to say that is the rule.

From a game balance perspective great but from a role-play immersive perspective it's a bit crap.

I think this outweighs most of the good stuff (the varying Power sources being a good thing).

This is the core behind Pundit's rants that 4e is a Forgite's pure-gamist-fantasy-made-flesh.  Cut out the swine-flu and you're left with a salient point - 4e is all about the mechanical metagame.  You don't care why a rule is there, because the only reason it's there is to make a tactical game.  It has nothing to do with rules, classes, or spells flowing logically from a cosmology or setting.  It just is.

If this is what you think I mean:

QuoteHaving to discern what Gygax et al "really meant" decades after the fact just reinforces that they should have written more clearly in the first place. I shouldn't have to have say a degree in Obscure Fantasy Literature Analysis just to play a game as the authors intended.

When I suggest you think of creative ways to use a "low power" character and quit trying to be motherfucking Gandalf the White at 1st level, then yeah, I can definitely understand why you have reading comprehension problems.  

Seriously, I love how every time I or anyone else suggests that characters start off slow, think outside the box, and look back in n sessions from atop the peak they've climbed there's this chorus of BAAAAAAAWWWWWWW GYGAX KICKED ME IN THE NUTS AND TOOK MY LUNCH MONEY BAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW.  Listen, I will openly admit to not being the sharpest pineapple in the basket sometimes, but I got it when I played it the first few times, and I got it again when I picked it back up in '99.  I've introduced AD&D to people whose sole experience with RPGs prior to was video games, and they got it.  My seven year old gets it.  Why can't you?  Oh, wait, I'm sorry, the old way is broken, right.  :roll:

So, kiddies, since AD&D worked for millions of people (and still does for more than just my gaming group), maybe it's you who need to get over it.

Quote from: IMLegend;3608701. make sure I'm proficient with darts.

In OD&D there were no weapon proficiencies. All characters were proficient with all weapons. In pre-supplement OD&D, all weapons even did the same 1d6 damage.

Quote2. make sure I have a high enough dexterity to really utilize any thrown object.

Dexterity had no real effects on throwing objects or weapons in OD&D. Attribute scores had very little effect on play unless the Greyhawk rules were used, even there they had less effect on play than in later editions.

Quote3. purchase darts and flasks of oil over and above all the usual equipment and spell components for a wizard.

No spell components in OD&D. So you would have plenty of money to buy darts and oil -- especially as you did not need to spend any on armor.

Quote4. hire and pay an underling NPC specifically to run around and light my little puddles on fire and hold my hand.

Hirelings were ALWAYS a good idea in OD&D. People to carry touches and treasure -- and to find traps/help fight monsters.

Quote from: RandallS;360893a bunch of good stuff

+1  Yep, somebody else who gets it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;360888You must not play a lot of MMOGs.  The bottom half of what Malleus said is the kind of conversation that goes on every day on every MMOG forum in the world. :D

I'm not exactly the kind of person who's been shy of criticizing 4E, but the unabating eagerness to point out 4E's proximity to MMOs strikes me as wrongheaded. What Malleus' posting describes is indicative of something else.

I remember an email exchange I had in early 2008 with Mearls where I pointed out to him that nothing of the preview material for 4E had encouraged me to think that the upcoming edition will fix 3.5's greatest flaw as a game. That flaw, in my estimate, is that the actual game takes place before the players meet at the table. The actual game is when they build their characters, using their splats at home. By the time the session starts and battle commences, all the important choices to be made in the game system have been made already. The amount of deliberation you put into building your character as opposed to the amount of careful deliberation needed in play was extremely disproportionate. And that meant that 3.5, as a game to be played at the table, was fundamentally flawed. It's like having two chess champions meet who have memorized the game they will play in advance. It's a tedious, pointless exercise.

In reply, Mearls said that 4E designers really saw that flaw early on and wanted 4E to be a different game. The idea was that the amount you'd spend on fine tuning your PC would be much less, due to (a) a lesser amount of crunch to choose from when building your PC and (b) the higher amount of deliberation needed when playing him - in particular, deliberation of which power to use when and in light of what the other guys at the table did.

Having played 4E quite a bit, I must say it's a resounding success in that area. Area (b) is much more developed in its design than it ever was in 3.5. It's a fucking amazing design success at delivering a team game with heat of the moment quick thinking. I like that. I like that a lot. I also like to use a sandglass timer to bring on the heat even more.

But here comes the cost you pay for this move. All the bull shit lingo that tormented the char-op forums in the fora of yesterday have moved to the limelight of table talk. That's because all the decision making that occupied the optimizers when building their characters has now moved to the area of playing them.

Quote from: Casey777;360859As someone who really likes Vance and even more obscure authors, I'll be the first to admit that he's not highly read and never has been, even with the free advertising from AD&D. While he provided Gygax with a germ of an idea to balance his game Cugel et al aren't what most people think of when they picture a wizard.

Hmmmmm.  From Wikipedia:  Among Jack Vance's his awards are: Hugo Awards, in 1963 for The Dragon Masters and in 1967 for The Last Castle; a Nebula Award in 1966, also for The Last Castle; the Jupiter Award in 1975; the World Fantasy Award in 1984 for life achievement and in 1990 for Lyonesse: Madouc; an Edgar (the mystery equivalent of the Nebula) for the best first mystery novel in 1961 for The Man in the Cage; in 1992, he was Guest of Honor at the WorldCon in Orlando, Florida; and in 1997 he was named a SFWA Grand Master.

You don't win awards like that without your books being pretty widely read.

Quote from: Thanlis;360872You, too, are an unimaginative idiot.

Seriously. Any time you find yourself critiquing any RPG by making up a dialogue between two people who could not play their way out of a paper bag, you have failed. You are proving yourself incapable of intelligent conversation. Don't be that person.

The example was one of two things: either a player who didn't bother to read the rules, or a player who read the rules but wanted to be a douche to the DM. "Ha ha, look at me, I'm going to point out that I can't use my encounter attack twice in one encounter instead of trying to work with the DM. My critique of the system is more important than working with the rest of the table to enhance immersion. My penis is better than you."

I have so little tolerance for that shit I can't even begin to tell you.

btw, if anyone's interested in actually fucking talking about the question -- which I think is a really interesting one, I just don't buy it as this crippling "ha ha I gotcha!" flaw -- I'm hearing Martial Power 2 talks about it. I don't know if it's any good or not. I mentioned earlier in the thread that the fluff in Primal Power was good; this sort of attempt to conceptualize powers is what I was thinking of. Hopefully MP2 is also good.

What the fuck are you on about - seriously?

The fake conversation stems back to the argument of mechanics for the sake of mechanics with no fluff surrounding them.  Magic, in previous editions was based on 'story logic' of spells working like one shot programs that you stored in ram (cuz computer analogy works well).  In this new system they've created a whole slew of mechanical tools to combat balance the classes but built no story logic into it.  Why can the fighter do this attack every round, but not this one..... that's what the fake conversation is eluding to you douche.  

There name calling it makes everything sound more authentic.

Seriously (there now this should sound important) if 4e is first and foremost a mechanical system then the rest doesn't matter the rules are there because they are rules.  But then again that's pretty much the way board games work.  No one questions why the Pawn can only move 1 sometimes 2 spaces and attack diagonally - but oh that Rook, such a show off.

However if the rules are there because they are the mechanical interface to give us the players some guidelines as to why the story world works the way it does then there should be some story logic to decide why this power can be used all the time and this one once a day.

Quote from: Windjammer;360895That's because all the decision making that occupied the optimizers when building their characters has now moved to the area of playing them.

Maybe, but in the end, there isn't really less of an importance on build, it's just that a lot of the build is built-in through guaranteed magic items, magic items you make yourself, etc...  They focused more on the play at the table which is a good thing, and to do that, they made it hard for you to gimp your build.  Instead of emphasizing tactical MMOG character building, they are emphasizing tactical MMOG power use.  Which is a very good change, but don't try to tell me the core game hasn't incorporated even more from MMOGs then the previous version.  Rationalize variable-timed power use, healing surges etc... however you want, they're still MMOG mechanics brought to paper, not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

Quote from: kryyst;360904Magic, in previous editions was based on 'story logic' of spells working like one shot programs that you stored in ram (cuz computer analogy works well).

Not quite. Vancian magic was invented by Gygax purely for meta game reasons: so the wizard could do more powerful stuff than the fighting man, so he should be able to do it less often. Rationalizating this by pointing to pulp fiction (Vance) came as an afterthought, sort of cover up job. You can hear this from the horse's mouth if you watch the interview with GG as part of the extras on the DVD for the second D&D movie. (Clever, ey? I reference a source that is too tasteless for most people to check.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;360910but don't try to tell me the core game hasn't incorporated even more from MMOGs than the previous version.

I wouldn't. I'm just seeing the rationale for these things coming from certain experiences the designers (and some players) had with D&D 3.5, and not from MMOs. Healing surges is one of them (mechanically they are the same thing as wands of cure light wounds, except that the game cuts out the interim step of the PCs purchasing said gear). Making monsters function different when 'bloodied' is another. Even monster roles and party roles.

I think these things strike people as MMO'isms because of the naming conventions used. Just wanted to point out that the underlying design doesn't seem to be motivated by MMOs. Not in my estimate, anway. Which is why the major culprit for me isn't the design, but the bullshit MMO talk at the table that ensues.

Quote from: kryyst;360904Seriously (there now this should sound important) if 4e is first and foremost a mechanical system then the rest doesn't matter the rules are there because they are rules.  But then again that's pretty much the way board games work.  No one questions why the Pawn can only move 1 sometimes 2 spaces and attack diagonally - but oh that Rook, such a show off.

However if the rules are there because they are the mechanical interface to give us the players some guidelines as to why the story world works the way it does then there should be some story logic to decide why this power can be used all the time and this one once a day.

That's because 4E D&D isn't an Immersive Role-Playing Game (IRPG), but a Tactical Role-Playing Game (TRPG).  The post where I talk about these terms is here. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=360881&postcount=315)

Quote from: Windjammer;360916Not quite. Vancian magic was invented by Gygax purely for meta game reasons: so the wizard could do more powerful stuff than the fighting man, so he should be able to do it less often. Rationalizating this by pointing to pulp fiction (Vance) came as an afterthought, sort of cover up job. You can hear this from the horse's mouth if you watch the interview with GG as part of the extras on the DVD for the second D&D movie. (Clever, ey? I reference a source that is too tasteless for most people to check.)

First - no fair on the reference, that's cheating.

Secondly regardless of why it came into being chicken/egg the explanation made it into the early books and became part of the setting.  I'm not surprised that it was a mechanical balance, but they backed it up with story.  This hasn't been done in 4e, though 4e is hardly alone in that regard.  It just happens to have the distinction of being a significantly different version of D&D in most regards from every previous edition.

Quote from: CRKrueger;360917That's because 4E D&D isn't an Immersive Role-Playing Game (IRPG), but a Tactical Role-Playing Game (TRPG).  The post where I talk about these terms is here. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=360881&postcount=315)

Not that I'm trying to be purposely argumentative.  But fuck that.  It's either a Role Playing game or it's not.  I mean this sudo category crap is just distinction for the point of distinction.  If I start making up a story for why my Pawn is attacking your Knight, that doesn't mean I'm role playing - that just means I'm a nut job.

4e is an RPG, though you can certainly scrape out all that RPG stuff and play it as a board game ala Descent.   But then you aren't playing all of 4e in it's entirety.  If you want to judge only a portion of 4e, that's fine but then we should be defining those portions from the start.

Again - not really purposely picking on you, despite my comment I actually agree with with what you are suggesting for the most part in that post.

Quote from: CRKrueger;360917That's because 4E D&D isn't an Immersive Role-Playing Game (IRPG), but a Tactical Role-Playing Game (TRPG).  The post where I talk about these terms is here. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=360881&postcount=315)

I think that is a very nice distinction. to paraphrase Marx, 'From each according to his motivation to each according to mechanical game balance.'

Magic in pre 4e D&D sprang as much from the sympathetic magic from L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt's "Harold Shea" series as from Vance.

Quote from: JRR;360903Hmmmmm.  From Wikipedia:  Among Jack Vance's his awards are



You don't win awards like that without your books being pretty widely read.

Jack Vance and Gene Wolfe share at least one thing, they're more writer's writers than popular writers. Also note that many of those awards post-date D&D and only one is for a fantasy work, none of which is a Dying Earth work. Vance is as much a science fiction writer as a fantasy writer.

But I'd loved to be proved wrong and shown that Dying Earth fantasy is popular or even well-known. The more people that read the subgenre or Vance in general the merrier.

It doesn't matter if D&D magic was Vancian, psuedo-vancian or whatever. The point really is that the designers thought it was necessary to wrap some sort of concept round magic provide some insight as to why it worked the way it did.
You will never read a fanatasy novel where the Wizards can just do stuff all the time without years ofstudy or it tiring them out or it opening up a path to the Duat to allow a horde of demons to escape or something.
4e removes that because its not deemed important.

Quote from: kryyst;3609214e is an RPG, though you can certainly scrape out all that RPG stuff and play it as a board game ala Descent.   But then you aren't playing all of 4e in it's entirety.  If you want to judge only a portion of 4e, that's fine but then we should be defining those portions from the start.

Again - not really purposely picking on you, despite my comment I actually agree with with what you are suggesting for the most part in that post.

I never said 4e wasn't a role-playing game, however, you can't tell me that 4e hasn't chosen mechanical cohesion over immersion and setting cohesion.  The powers in 4e aren't designed to make sense in the cosmology of FR or Greyhawk, Eberron or anything else, they are there to make a good tactical game with the trappings of generic D&D fantasy.  It's not a wargame, not a boardgame, it is however, a tactical RPG, a RPG that makes for a good tactical game first.  If you want to know why the powers work the way they do within the setting, you make that up yourself, or just toss it to the back of your mind the same way you do in a MMOG.

I'm not really picking on 4e alone, 3e did much the same thing with oddball standard classes like the Shadowdancer.  The character can teleport via shadows?  How does that work?  Are they divinely powered, arcane, why can they do it and no one else?  Ah, fuck it, who cares, you can TELPORT VIA SHADOWS!  It sounds like a Penny Arcade strip. :D

Seriously though, if we don't come up with some sub-categories, we're always gonna be repeating the same arguments that all have at their core differing definitions of "what is a roleplaying game".

Quote from: CRKrueger;360917That's because 4E D&D isn't an Immersive Role-Playing Game (IRPG), but a Tactical Role-Playing Game (TRPG).  The post where I talk about these terms is here. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=360881&postcount=315)

This definition clarification works for me.

Quote from: jibbajibba;360929It doesn't matter if D&D magic was Vancian, psuedo-vancian or whatever. The point really is that the designers thought it was necessary to wrap some sort of concept round magic provide some insight as to why it worked the way it did.
You will never read a fanatasy novel where the Wizards can just do stuff all the time without years ofstudy or it tiring them out or it opening up a path to the Duat to allow a horde of demons to escape or something.
4e removes that because its not deemed important.

And that is why it fails as an rpg.

Quote from: kryyst;360904In this new system they've created a whole slew of mechanical tools to combat balance the classes but built no story logic into it.

However if the rules are there because they are the mechanical interface to give us the players some guidelines as to why the story world works the way it does then there should be some story logic to decide why this power can be used all the time and this one once a day.

This is an aspect about 4e game design that has stretched my limits of the suspension of disbelief to the maximum. While I can see that the Fighter might not be able to pull off the same maneuver during the same combat encounter, what is to prevent him from trying it other than an artificial limit?

When you factor in Daily abilities, it really makes no sense. A Fighter isn't drawing upon arcane energies or divine energies to power what he can do. A Fighter is using his skills and experience to do what he does. So why is there a Daily limited ability for a Fighter? The answer is obvious: Game Balance.

In their effort to make all of the classes balanced, they have removed some of the logical aspects in designing some of the classes. The end result is a bland combination of "powers" that are structured very similarly from class to class. Since a Witch and a Cleric have At-Will, Encounter, and Daily, then the Fighter must also be set up the same way to achieve balance.

It is too bad that they didn't think about setting up the magic system this way and then leaving the non-casting classes with a different approach. In short, they shoehorned every class into the same design paradigm when they didn't need to do it that way.

Quote from: kryyst;360904The fake conversation stems back to the argument of mechanics for the sake of mechanics with no fluff surrounding them.  Magic, in previous editions was based on 'story logic' of spells working like one shot programs that you stored in ram (cuz computer analogy works well).  In this new system they've created a whole slew of mechanical tools to combat balance the classes but built no story logic into it.  Why can the fighter do this attack every round, but not this one..... that's what the fake conversation is eluding to you douche.

I'd respond to this but I'm too busy giggling about "one shot programs that you stored in RAM." Those are so common.

Quote from: JRR;360935And that is why it fails as an rpg.

And yet, many thousands of us are using it as a RPG just fine.  :rolleyes:


BTW - Am I the only one that noticed the 4e spells for wizards are STILL using the fluff explanation of memorization (see the part about spell book feature - you pick which spell to "memorize" that day)?

The limited powers use thing is obvious - using said power tires you out, or uses up your divine favor, or de-memorizes your spell or whatever so you need to rest before using it again.  Everyone I played with had no problem whatsoever getting that concept immediately nor did they feel it made immersion an issue.

Quote from: PaladinCA;360944This is an aspect about 4e game design that has stretched my limits of the suspension of disbelief to the maximum. While I can see that the Fighter might not be able to pull off the same maneuver during the same combat encounter, what is to prevent him from trying it other than an artificial limit?

When you factor in Daily abilities, it really makes no sense. A Fighter isn't drawing upon arcane energies or divine energies to power what he can do. A Fighter is using his skills and experience to do what he does. So why is there a Daily limited ability for a Fighter? The answer is obvious: Game Balance.

In their effort to make all of the classes balanced, they have removed some of the logical aspects in designing some of the classes. The end result is a bland combination of "powers" that are structured very similarly from class to class. Since a Witch and a Cleric have At-Will, Encounter, and Daily, then the Fighter must also be set up the same way to achieve balance.

It is too bad that they didn't think about setting up the magic system this way and then leaving the non-casting classes with a different approach. In short, they shoehorned every class into the same design paradigm when they didn't need to do it that way.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I've been in the early alpha of a handful of MMOGs and I can tell you that this is exactly the argument that's come up in all of them.  Classes would suspend disbelief better if they worked differently, but then they become far to difficult to balance, thus by definition all MMOGs end up being TRPGs rather then IRPGs, balance and tactics of the mechanics always trumps Immersion.  D&D 4e embraces this philosophy.  It truly is a MMOG-on-paper, a Tactical RPG.  That's not an insult, it is what it is.

Quote from: jgants;360947The limited powers use thing is obvious - using said power tires you out, or uses up your divine favor, or de-memorizes your spell or whatever so you need to rest before using it again.  Everyone I played with had no problem whatsoever getting that concept immediately nor did they feel it made immersion an issue.

This makes a lot of sense for the casting classes. Much less so for the non-casting ones.

Quote from: CRKrueger;360948I hate to sound like a broken record, but I've been in the early alpha of a handful of MMOGs and I can tell you that this is exactly the argument that's come up in all of them.  Classes would suspend disbelief better if they worked differently, but then they become far to difficult to balance, thus by definition all MMOGs end up being TRPGs rather then IRPGs, balance and tactics of the mechanics always trumps Immersion.  D&D 4e embraces this philosophy.  It truly is a MMOG-on-paper, a Tactical RPG.  That's not an insult, it is what it is.

At first, I considered the MMO on paper argument to be silly and/or false. After playing the game during the past year, I'm actually coming around to a different point of view, one that almost agrees with that argument.

Are there any innovations, though?

The only one that possibly comes close is making all characters viable in combat. It's a biggun, but dunno whether it's innovative.

Quote from: One Horse Town;360951Are there any innovations, though?

The only one that possibly comes close is making all characters viable in combat. It's a biggun, but dunno whether it's innovative.

Well, IF "Game Balance" is an innovation, then I dare say they have probably achieved it.

Quote from: PaladinCA;360944This is an aspect about 4e game design that has stretched my limits of the suspension of disbelief to the maximum. While I can see that the Fighter might not be able to pull off the same maneuver during the same combat encounter, what is to prevent him from trying it other than an artificial limit?

So here's a real answer that works fine for me.

I have never ever seen an action movie or read a novel in which the hero did the same thing with the same degree of effectiveness every time. Sometimes he puts forth more effort. Sometimes he gets lucky. Sometimes he's more motivated because his sidekick is in distress. A story in which the hero hits the creatures with the same attack the same way every time is dull.

"And then Conan swung his sword, down and to the left. Again."

In, say, AD&D, the fighter gets the "extra oomph" effect by rolling well sometimes and not rolling well sometimes. We remember the big hits, because those are the times when Conan summons up everything he can.

But as players, we don't have any control over when they happen. Sometimes you roll max damage on the kobold in the first fight of the day. This doesn't actually suck or anything; it's just a thing, and you don't remember that particular big roll, because it's not memorable.

Dailies and encounters give you more control over when your fighter digs deep and does something impressive. You can say "hey, this is the Moment," and pull out all the stops. You get to decide when you're going to add that bit of texture to the world.

That's cool. I mean, it really is. It also can cause some suspension of disbelief problems, obviously. I have been a deeply immersive roleplayer for 20 years, and I don't know how 4e would affect my immersion, because I don't get to play in a campaign environment. (I play a lot of LFR. LFR is not an immersive environment for me, so far.) But the idea of getting additional immersion by controlling when my PC puts forth the extra effort... I think I would get something out of that.

Coming back to Paladin's question -- your fighter doesn't know what he's doing. If you want, you can think of it this way: he can try to put forth that extra effort, but he doesn't have it in him. Or the orc isn't giving him that opening, for whatever reason. Your fighter may think he's trying to do the big attack; he doesn't know he's just doing an at-will.

And yeah, that's the part that might be a problem for immersive play. I don't think so? But I dunno for sure. There's a trade off here.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;360892So, kiddies, since AD&D worked for millions of people (and still does for more than just my gaming group), maybe it's you who need to get over it.

Cool that it works for you, you've made that clear. I don't mind slow character progression or low powered playing and I wouldn't play games like Call of Cthulhu, Tekumel, Traveller as well as D&D if I didn't like it or thinking outside the box. And I can pick the maximum weapon damages available to an AD&D magic-user (RandallS's post regarding to OD&D doesn't apply to AD&D AFAIK). For that matter I'm no 4E fanboy and I started with and still enjoy Holmes Basic. But even Mythmere's mused about more magic ala 4E as an option to Swords & Wizardry.

The quoted paragraph of mine should've gone at the end of my post, which combined replies to two separate posts into one. (shrugs) Spell casters didn't mesh well with many people's exceptions of them going in (or thieves for that matter, Cugel doesn't come to most people's minds) and for example it wasn't until a few years ago that the origins of the Cleric as a Hammer Horror priest/monster hunter came to public light. Until then the Cleric didn't click to me. No all that's not required to play the game, but it is a disconnect.

Quote from: jibbajibba;360929You will never read a fanatasy novel where the Wizards can just do stuff all the time without years ofstudy or it tiring them out or it opening up a path to the Duat to allow a horde of demons to escape or something.

I don't remember any particular limits in Harry Potter. They didn't even really need wands...

Quote from: jibbajibba;3609294e removes that because its not deemed important.

You're right - what's important in a novel and what's important in a game are different. For example, if novelist created wizard who could cast spells as often as they'd like, he'd have a difficult time coming up with a conflict or challenge for said wizard to overcome. In an RPG, there are mechanics which balance a wizards power and so fluff isn't needed...

Seanchai

Quote from: One Horse Town;360951Are there any innovations, though?

Probably not, but the thread isn't about innovation, it's about site traffic.

Seanchai

Quote from: jibbajibba;360929It doesn't matter if D&D magic was Vancian, psuedo-vancian or whatever. The point really is that the designers thought it was necessary to wrap some sort of concept round magic provide some insight as to why it worked the way it did.
You will never read a fanatasy novel where the Wizards can just do stuff all the time without years ofstudy or it tiring them out or it opening up a path to the Duat to allow a horde of demons to escape or something.
4e removes that because its not deemed important.

Yep, and that's why 4e fails as an RPG.  Because they completely missed the simple fact that it's the why things are the way they are not how does that translate into a mechanic.

Quote from: PaladinCA;360949This makes a lot of sense for the casting classes. Much less so for the non-casting ones.

It's an abstraction.  Just like HP or AC.

I suppose they could have just given the fighter "fatigue points" or something and have each attack cost a certain amount of fatigue and then have complex rules for how to recover fatigue, etc.

So, the options were:
A. Leave the fighter really boring to play tactically while everyone else gets to do cool stuff.
B. Create a complex system for managing the fighter's abiltiies that will slow down combat even more.
C. Give the fighter cool stuff to do but at the same level of murky abstraction that the rest of combat uses and that uses the same rules as everyone else to keep the game rules simple and modular.

I seriously don't see how A or B were better options than C.  I really don't.

1st: All characters have something no one else has. That's what game balance is all about. It's not about comparable damage or anything. It's about everyone else's character will make you a bit envious.

2nd: No teleport. OK, you can reappear behind a glass door at levels 1 - 5. No problem. But whenever you want to cross the continent it's about 100 gp and limited number of destinations.

3rd: Choosing a race does have noticeable effect.

Quote from: jgants;360965So, the options were:
A. Leave the fighter really boring to play tactically while everyone else gets to do cool stuff.
B. Create a complex system for managing the fighter's abiltiies that will slow down combat even more.
C. Give the fighter cool stuff to do but at the same level of murky abstraction that the rest of combat uses and that uses the same rules as everyone else to keep the game rules simple and modular.

I seriously don't see how A or B were better options than C.  I really don't.

Given your choices of boredom, complexity, or the way it turned out, I suppose you're right.

But I'm saying that I would have liked it to be different than it came out. I'm also wondering what other options were considered. I don't, however, have what I consider to be a viable alternative designed yet -- Not being a game designer myself.

I understand their reasoning. I just don't fully embrace their implementation.

Quote from: Seanchai;360960Probably not, but the thread isn't about innovation, it's about site traffic.

Seanchai

Traffic is fine AFAIK.

Quote from: Casey777;360859As someone who really likes Vance and even more obscure authors, I'll be the first to admit that he's not highly read and never has been, even with the free advertising from AD&D. While he provided Gygax with a germ of an idea to balance his game Cugel et al aren't what most people think of when they picture a wizard.

Nor was D&D Vancian magic terribly Vancian. Dying Earth RPG did a better job, but then again D&D wasn't just a Dying Earth RPG.

D&D magic is closest to the magic in the original Dying Earth book. There, wizards are wizards, and they do have to memorize spells which are forgotten on casting. In Eyes of the Overworld this still seems to be the rule but mainly you get to see the reason for D&D thieves (i.e., Cugel) having a chance to cast spells from scrolls, but not really become proficient. There may be other sources for that bit, as well.

If you take the wizards from The Dying Earth as the model for the wizards in D&D, a lot things make better sense, not only from a spellcasting perspective but also how they fit in socially or personality-wise. They're more like Turjan or Mazirian than Gandalf or Merlin.

(Note, the fourth DE book was published well after D&D was created, and the mages there operate on entirely different principles.)

Quote from: IMLegend;360870So in order to make my wizard a worthwhile contributor in combat I have to:

1. make sure I'm proficient with darts.

2. make sure I have a high enough dexterity to really utilize any thrown object.

3. purchase darts and flasks of oil over and above all the usual equipment and spell components for a wizard.

4. hire and pay an underling NPC specifically to run around and light my little
puddles on fire and hold my hand.

Yeah, sounds like a whole bunch of extra fucking around and expense just to be more useful than that one spell a day.

Note, being a worthwhile contributor in combat isn't the only way to be a worthwhile contributor. It's just a result of the increasing focus on combat in the game over the years, and to be fair, The Fantasy Trip, which was published in the 70's, took exactly the approach of balancing magic users in combat. (IMO, in an overall more simulationist way than what I read about 4e.)

But if combat isn't the focus, then you contribute in a bunch of ways including being an extra set of eyes and ears and perhaps most importantly another person contributing ideas.

Quote from: JRR;360924Magic in pre 4e D&D sprang as much from the sympathetic magic from L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt's "Harold Shea" series as from Vance.

Still have that one on the shelf. Unfortunately (a) The Compleat Enchanter isn't very well written, at least in the first few pages, and (b) I get itchy every time I pick it up.

(I was able to overcome both obstacles with Three Hearts & Three Lions; actually the first few pages of that one are fairly good, but once the character arrives in fantasy land, the main story never gets off the ground.)

Quote from: One Horse Town;360970Traffic is fine AFAIK.

Yeah, when you stir the pot. Clearly, with the threads he started today and at least one of their subjects, today was a pot stirring day.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;360960Probably not, but the thread isn't about innovation, it's about site traffic.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;360994Yeah, when you stir the pot. Clearly, with the threads he started today and at least one of their subjects, today was a pot stirring day.

Seanchai

Show us on this doll where the naughty theRPGSite touched you, Seanchai.

Fuckin' A, you are like the guy dumped by his first girlfriend who then starts the He-Man Woman Haters Club. If you don't like this forum and its members, then why are you here?

Quote from: jeff37923;360996Show us on this doll where the naughty theRPGSite touched you, Seanchai.

Fuckin' A, you are like the guy dumped by his first girlfriend who then starts the He-Man Woman Haters Club. If you don't like this forum and its members, then why are you here?

Because the whiny pussies at tBP would boot his ass if he tried this shit even once over there.

Quote from: jeff37923;360996If you don't like this forum and its members, then why are you here?

Because he doesn't like this forum and it's members.

Just like Seanchai is a big part of why YOU come back.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361016Because he doesn't like this forum and it's members.

Just like Seanchai is a big part of why YOU come back.

Except Jeff doesn't make a habit of complaining about the forums and members in general, but continue posting screeds about how shitty the forums and members are.

So, everyone, what's your favorite prehistoric animal?
I really dig mammoths, but trilobites are kind of neato, too. Also they have this kick ass gorgonopsid thingy on the first episode of Primeval that really fluffs my pillow.
I just can't decide.

Quote from: Aos;361018So, everyone, what's your favorite prehistoric animal?

That is a tough question to answer.  I would have to say it is either the Arctodus simus or the Canis dirus.  It's hard to decide.

Quote from: StormBringer;361017Except Jeff doesn't make a habit of complaining about the forums and members in general, but continue posting screeds about how shitty the forums and members are.

So?

This is an internet messageboard about geek culture...you can candy coat it with as many pretty words about solidarity and communication as you like, but underneath it all we all come here to fight...you included.

We like the RPGsite because there are people of differing viewpoints and we can call them fucking retards without the mods getting their panties twisted over it.

Quote from: Aos;361018So, everyone, what's your favorite prehistoric animal?

The (crypto)Dire Turtle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiolania)!

(http://www1.atwiki.com/ptolusalem?cmd=upload&act=open&pageid=10&file=lolsaurus.jpg)

Homo sapiens is, at least, good for a laugh.

If you only want extinct animals, that giant carnivorous flightless bird that got recycled in Nausicaa's pretty damn cool. Diatryama or something like that.

Edit: Diatryma/Gastornis

Quote from: Shazbot79;361021We like the RPGsite because there are people of differing viewpoints and we can call them fucking retards without the mods getting their panties twisted over it.

On one hand, this is awesome. Because when one of you people says something completely fucking retarded, I can call you out on your shit. Right?

Wrong. Because the majority of you twits all fucking agree on the same general premises, the few voices that generally disagree with you get stamped out and ignored and mocked. Bullshit communities on the internet - here, tBP, En World, wherever the fuck - become personality cults. Those who tend to frequent a given board either follow the most vocal, offensive fucktards around or generally keep to themselves, because they know that - when it comes down to it - logic holds no sway. Opinions of those other than the most popular have no meaning.

On the other, this view is fucking retarded. Because the internet isn't the holy land of reasonable discussion and argument, it's the haven for the socially retarded who can't actually handle a real argument, or be bothered to possibly promote their position through reason and logic. A casual disparaging comment to the origin of an idea is viewed as sufficient to make the argument go away.

Don't try to make this situation sound any fucking better than any other joint on the tubes. It may not suffer the same kind of bullshit as EN World or tBP, but just because chocolate ice cream has a different flavor from vanilla ice cream doesn't fucking mean they both aren't ice cream.

Are you sure it's chocolate ice cream? Better have a taste to be certain.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361021This is an internet messageboard about geek culture...you can candy coat it with as many pretty words about solidarity and communication as you like, but underneath it all we all come here to fight...you included.

I don't. I come here to discuss. And when the discussion gets shitted up, I go to a different thread. The worst thing you can do to a thread is to engage the douchebag.

Quote from: Windjammer;360772Nothing in 4E's (alleged) innovations can ever outweigh the loss of removing utility magic from the game. And no, this isn't helped by copy-pasting names of (previous editions') utility spells on rituals.

This is not bourne out in actual play if anything the utility effects (tenser's floating disk, etc) get cast MORE.

Estar is correct. And for the record, plesiosaur.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;361036I don't. I come here to discuss. And when the discussion gets shitted up, I go to a different thread. The worst thing you can do to a thread is to engage the douchebag.

Except that inevitably, somebody always DOES engage the douchebag...and then someone engages that person FOR engaging the douchebag and so on.

People wouldn't troll if it wasn't something that actually worked. Sure, on an intellectual level, we know that the only way to win that game is not to play...but people play anyways. It's like feeding quarters into a machine that advertises kicking you in the nuts.

Anyway...I would say that in the case of Seanchai and Jeff90210, that neither come here solely to be pricks...but both come here to be pricks. Mostly people come here to argue...including you. You proved it by arguing against me with the quoted post.

And hell, I'm not saying that's a bad thing...arguing and prickishness are what these sites are for. Hell, the RPGsite is sorted of founded on the Pundit being a massive prick.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;361033Wrong. Because the majority of you twits all fucking agree on the same general premises, the few voices that generally disagree with you get stamped out and ignored and mocked. Bullshit communities on the internet - here, tBP, En World, wherever the fuck - become personality cults. Those who tend to frequent a given board either follow the most vocal, offensive fucktards around or generally keep to themselves, because they know that - when it comes down to it - logic holds no sway. Opinions of those other than the most popular have no meaning.

Welcome to the internet...online shopping on floors on and two..streaming tv on floor three, porn in the basement and be sure to visit our extensive restaurant review section.

Quote from: Thanlis;360872You, too, are an unimaginative idiot.

Seriously. Any time you find yourself critiquing any RPG by making up a dialogue between two people who could not play their way out of a paper bag, you have failed. You are proving yourself incapable of intelligent conversation. Don't be that person.

The example was one of two things: either a player who didn't bother to read the rules, or a player who read the rules but wanted to be a douche to the DM. "Ha ha, look at me, I'm going to point out that I can't use my encounter attack twice in one encounter instead of trying to work with the DM. My critique of the system is more important than working with the rest of the table to enhance immersion. My penis is better than you."

I have so little tolerance for that shit I can't even begin to tell you.

btw, if anyone's interested in actually fucking talking about the question -- which I think is a really interesting one, I just don't buy it as this crippling "ha ha I gotcha!" flaw -- I'm hearing Martial Power 2 talks about it. I don't know if it's any good or not. I mentioned earlier in the thread that the fluff in Primal Power was good; this sort of attempt to conceptualize powers is what I was thinking of. Hopefully MP2 is also good.

You really need to get the fuck over yourself. If a dude wants to make a joke about a part of a game that he doesn't like then who the fuck are you to judge it? Prick. If you wanna live under the delusion that you're better than anyone around here go right the fuck ahead but you're gonna be an unhappy little penis if you think your displeasure is gonna suddenly get us all lock-stepping to your agenda. While it's not my main complaints about 4e, the fact that powers that are described as being nothing more than special combat maneuvers yet still can't be used more than once a day is fucking stupid.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;360892If this is what you think I mean:



When I suggest you think of creative ways to use a "low power" character and quit trying to be motherfucking Gandalf the White at 1st level, then yeah, I can definitely understand why you have reading comprehension problems.  

Seriously, I love how every time I or anyone else suggests that characters start off slow, think outside the box, and look back in n sessions from atop the peak they've climbed there's this chorus of BAAAAAAAWWWWWWW GYGAX KICKED ME IN THE NUTS AND TOOK MY LUNCH MONEY BAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW.  Listen, I will openly admit to not being the sharpest pineapple in the basket sometimes, but I got it when I played it the first few times, and I got it again when I picked it back up in '99.  I've introduced AD&D to people whose sole experience with RPGs prior to was video games, and they got it.  My seven year old gets it.  Why can't you?  Oh, wait, I'm sorry, the old way is broken, right.  :roll:

So, kiddies, since AD&D worked for millions of people (and still does for more than just my gaming group), maybe it's you who need to get over it.

As other games prove, starting off slow and using magic more than once a day are not mutually exclusive. We get it, you like earlier version of DnD. So do many of us. You can stop being a bitch protecting her young now.

Quote from: JRR;360935And that is why it fails as an rpg.

I agree. That really is what turns me off to it as well when you get down to the nitty gritty.

Quote from: jgants;360947And yet, many thousands of us are using it as a RPG just fine.  :rolleyes:


BTW - Am I the only one that noticed the 4e spells for wizards are STILL using the fluff explanation of memorization (see the part about spell book feature - you pick which spell to "memorize" that day)?

The limited powers use thing is obvious - using said power tires you out, or uses up your divine favor, or de-memorizes your spell or whatever so you need to rest before using it again.  Everyone I played with had no problem whatsoever getting that concept immediately nor did they feel it made immersion an issue.

Glad you can. I dislike it so much I can't enjoy the experience, unfortunately.

Quote from: Sigmund;361043You really need to get the fuck over yourself. If a dude wants to make a joke about a part of a game that he doesn't like then who the fuck are you to judge it? Prick. If you wanna live under the delusion that you're better than anyone around here go right the fuck ahead but you're gonna be an unhappy little penis if you think your displeasure is gonna suddenly get us all lock-stepping to your agenda. While it's not my main complaints about 4e, the fact that powers that are described as being nothing more than special combat maneuvers yet still can't be used more than once a day is fucking stupid.

Who am I? I'm the guy who's going to judge you when you act like an idiot. I'm sorry if you were expecting some sort of comfortable warm bath where you don't have to talk to people who disagree with you.

If you actually want to talk about design, I had a post about three posts down where I talk about what's going on with dailies and encounters. If you just want to sit around and sneer at stuff you don't understand, you're useless.

It is odd that a Spell point system, which is the default way 'most' players 'fixed' the D&D spell system with house rules wasn't adopted. A spell point system both boosts lower level casters with more lower level spells but it also limits the very high level caster by limiting the number of very high level spells. Of course it only works if you tweak spells like Fireball to carry a variable of +1 point per dice damage up to a maximum of the casters level (or similar). In this regard you could easily have had a combat fatigue pool that was managed in exactly the same way for combat types to fling out those special moves.

This would have offered balance and some sort of in game explanation and to cap it all its the type of system that is used in most MMOGs

Quote from: Thanlis;360953So here's a real answer that works fine for me.

I have never ever seen an action movie or read a novel in which the hero did the same thing with the same degree of effectiveness every time. Sometimes he puts forth more effort. Sometimes he gets lucky. Sometimes he's more motivated because his sidekick is in distress. A story in which the hero hits the creatures with the same attack the same way every time is dull.

"And then Conan swung his sword, down and to the left. Again."

In, say, AD&D, the fighter gets the "extra oomph" effect by rolling well sometimes and not rolling well sometimes. We remember the big hits, because those are the times when Conan summons up everything he can.

But as players, we don't have any control over when they happen. Sometimes you roll max damage on the kobold in the first fight of the day. This doesn't actually suck or anything; it's just a thing, and you don't remember that particular big roll, because it's not memorable.

Dailies and encounters give you more control over when your fighter digs deep and does something impressive. You can say "hey, this is the Moment," and pull out all the stops. You get to decide when you're going to add that bit of texture to the world.

That's cool. I mean, it really is. It also can cause some suspension of disbelief problems, obviously. I have been a deeply immersive roleplayer for 20 years, and I don't know how 4e would affect my immersion, because I don't get to play in a campaign environment. (I play a lot of LFR. LFR is not an immersive environment for me, so far.) But the idea of getting additional immersion by controlling when my PC puts forth the extra effort... I think I would get something out of that.

Coming back to Paladin's question -- your fighter doesn't know what he's doing. If you want, you can think of it this way: he can try to put forth that extra effort, but he doesn't have it in him. Or the orc isn't giving him that opening, for whatever reason. Your fighter may think he's trying to do the big attack; he doesn't know he's just doing an at-will.

And yeah, that's the part that might be a problem for immersive play. I don't think so? But I dunno for sure. There's a trade off here.

Forgetting for a moment that I said the exact same thing in response to one of your posts already, I can say that it messes with immersion for me. I see no reason why an experienced combatant couldn't full off the same maneuver more than once in a day, or "encounter" of whatever. He's a highly trained duelist who is used to the heat of battle... I would think anyway. It just doesn't make much sense to me. I'm glad it doesn't bother other folks, but for me it's jarring and silly, along with the marking mechanics I've talked before about how it might make more sense in some kinds of wuxia fantasy setting, but I have yet to get anyone to agree to try it, and I'm still not sure that would work for me. For the spell casters it just doesn't seem as jarring though. I too wish they had kept this particular mechanic to just the spellcasters and come up with a different one for the physical types.

Quote from: Sigmund;361051Forgetting for a moment that I said the exact same thing in response to one of your posts already, I can say that it messes with immersion for me. I see no reason why an experienced combatant couldn't full off the same maneuver more than once in a day, or "encounter" of whatever. He's a highly trained duelist who is used to the heat of battle... I would think anyway. It just doesn't make much sense to me. I'm glad it doesn't bother other folks, but for me it's jarring and silly, along with the marking mechanics I've talked before about how it might make more sense in some kinds of wuxia fantasy setting, but I have yet to get anyone to agree to try it, and I'm still not sure that would work for me. For the spell casters it just doesn't seem as jarring though. I too wish they had kept this particular mechanic to just the spellcasters and come up with a different one for the physical types.

Hm. So... do you want your martial characters to be able to put forth extra effort when it comes to the really tough tasks, or do you want them to just have the same steady effect all the way through? (I don't think there's a wrong answer to the question.)

Quote from: Aos;361018So, everyone, what's your favorite prehistoric animal?
I really dig mammoths, but trilobites are kind of neato, too. Also they have this kick ass gorgonopsid thingy on the first episode of Primeval that really fluffs my pillow.
I just can't decide.

Neanderthals

Quote from: GnomeWorks;361033On one hand, this is awesome. Because when one of you people says something completely fucking retarded, I can call you out on your shit. Right?

Wrong. Because the majority of you twits all fucking agree on the same general premises, the few voices that generally disagree with you get stamped out and ignored and mocked. Bullshit communities on the internet - here, tBP, En World, wherever the fuck - become personality cults. Those who tend to frequent a given board either follow the most vocal, offensive fucktards around or generally keep to themselves, because they know that - when it comes down to it - logic holds no sway. Opinions of those other than the most popular have no meaning.

On the other, this view is fucking retarded. Because the internet isn't the holy land of reasonable discussion and argument, it's the haven for the socially retarded who can't actually handle a real argument, or be bothered to possibly promote their position through reason and logic. A casual disparaging comment to the origin of an idea is viewed as sufficient to make the argument go away.

Don't try to make this situation sound any fucking better than any other joint on the tubes. It may not suffer the same kind of bullshit as EN World or tBP, but just because chocolate ice cream has a different flavor from vanilla ice cream doesn't fucking mean they both aren't ice cream.

What a whiny little bitch you are.

Quote from: Thanlis;360872You, too, are an unimaginative idiot.

Seriously. Any time you find yourself critiquing any RPG by making up a dialogue between two people who could not play their way out of a paper bag, you have failed. You are proving yourself incapable of intelligent conversation. Don't be that person.

The example was one of two things: either a player who didn't bother to read the rules, or a player who read the rules but wanted to be a douche to the DM. "Ha ha, look at me, I'm going to point out that I can't use my encounter attack twice in one encounter instead of trying to work with the DM. My critique of the system is more important than working with the rest of the table to enhance immersion. My penis is better than you."

I have so little tolerance for that shit I can't even begin to tell you.

btw, if anyone's interested in actually fucking talking about the question -- which I think is a really interesting one, I just don't buy it as this crippling "ha ha I gotcha!" flaw -- I'm hearing Martial Power 2 talks about it. I don't know if it's any good or not. I mentioned earlier in the thread that the fluff in Primal Power was good; this sort of attempt to conceptualize powers is what I was thinking of. Hopefully MP2 is also good.

The real shame about this is that the poster took it so seriously.  I mean...seriously.  If you bother to look at how the thread was developing you would have seen that it was primarily praise for certain aspects of 4E.  I pulled out a quote for a poster that summed up my feelings pretty well.  The fictional exchange was obviously a satire, an absurd dialogue for the puzzling lack of explanation for why the rules are the way they are.  It doesn't break the game by itself.  That particular lack of detail is just one of the more obvious symptoms of a game that puts the numbers and balance on a higher pedestal than tradition and detail.

Still, it's not a terrible game.  Of course people are going to fill in the gaps of information with their own ideas.  But for me, 4E messed with far too many tropes, shook the little details and idiosyncrasies that I think of when I rally my pals: "Let's play some motherfucking Dungeons and Dragons!"  Perfect balance, powers that tell me what my characters do, 1st level characters having "heroic" power... it simply isn't for us.  And that's okay.  Seriously.

I don't hate 4E, but I do dislike frothing at the mouth over it.  I would play 4E before at least a dozen other systems.  You wouldn't have to strand me on a deserted island with it.  It just so happens that I have the ability to make a choice in the game I run, and 4E is not the one for my group.  We played it, we enjoyed aspects of it, but we ended sessions feeling unsatisfied.

You can go ahead and start froth over these "edition" skirmishes, but the only thing your hateful post really demonstrated was that you are the only one trying to wave a dick in someone's face.  Zip it up and relax.  It doesn't seem like I'm the one having trouble with "tolerance" or "intelligent conversation."  And to call me "unimaginitive" in the same virtual breath (post) that you also suggest Martial Power 2 might "talk about" the issue is ludicrous.  You shouldn't need a sourcebook to explain the backbone of your system.  You have imagination, as I suspect all posters here do.  But be my guest and buy that book.  Please.  Remember that I am thankful for people like you.  Hopefully you can keep WoTC in business long enough to give them another shot at D&D that will fit with me and my group better.

Oh, and I forgot the other question: Giant sloths.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361042Except that inevitably, somebody always DOES engage the douchebag...and then someone engages that person FOR engaging the douchebag and so on.

People wouldn't troll if it wasn't something that actually worked. Sure, on an intellectual level, we know that the only way to win that game is not to play...but people play anyways. It's like feeding quarters into a machine that advertises kicking you in the nuts.

Anyway...I would say that in the case of Seanchai and Jeff90210, that neither come here solely to be pricks...but both come here to be pricks. Mostly people come here to argue...including you. You proved it by arguing against me with the quoted post.

And hell, I'm not saying that's a bad thing...arguing and prickishness are what these sites are for. Hell, the RPGsite is sorted of founded on the Pundit being a massive prick.



Welcome to the internet...online shopping on floors on and two..streaming tv on floor three, porn in the basement and be sure to visit our extensive restaurant review section.

I'm guilty of this for sure. :D Sue me.

Quote from: Thanlis;361052Hm. So... do you want your martial characters to be able to put forth extra effort when it comes to the really tough tasks, or do you want them to just have the same steady effect all the way through? (I don't think there's a wrong answer to the question.)

The second one.  Evening out damage potential across all attacks, but making them all essentially 'at-wills' would fit the mechanics into what people already know about physical reality.  Perhaps a feat or something to boost damage a few times a day to keep up with the casters, although I have never seen that problem personally.  

Swap out weapon bonuses of less than +3 or +4 to something mundane rather than magical, to keep the magical weapons as something that is really magical.  A 'mundane' mithril steel sword has a non-magical +4, but if you have the heart of a dragon and a piece of a star, you can make any weapon +5.  It would be unlikely someone would waste all that effort on a dagger, so perhaps a proportional level of enchantment is in order.  The same applies to armour.  That way, the Fighter has the magical, near artifact level stuff, and the other classes wouldn't bother because the cost is too high.  Then a Fighter's boosts can be regulated a bit more organically.

And yes, stripping the Fighter of his gear would then drop the power level, but let's face it:  is that any different than a Magic-User without their spellbooks?  A Cleric without their holy symbol?  A Thief without their tools?  Fighters aren't the only ones dependent on gear, and they never have been.

Quote from: Thanlis;361049Who am I? I'm the guy who's going to judge you when you act like an idiot. I'm sorry if you were expecting some sort of comfortable warm bath where you don't have to talk to people who disagree with you.

If you actually want to talk about design, I had a post about three posts down where I talk about what's going on with dailies and encounters. If you just want to sit around and sneer at stuff you don't understand, you're useless.

Judge away pussy. Just know you're getting judged back. Congratulations on being just about as useful as me. How does it feel to be a hypocrite?

Quote from: winkingbishop;361056And to call me "unimaginitive" in the same virtual breath (post) that you also suggest Martial Power 2 might "talk about" the issue is ludicrous.  You shouldn't need a sourcebook to explain the backbone of your system.  

I don't. Apparently some people do.

Quote from: Thanlis;361052Hm. So... do you want your martial characters to be able to put forth extra effort when it comes to the really tough tasks, or do you want them to just have the same steady effect all the way through? (I don't think there's a wrong answer to the question.)

I don't mind extra effort being available to martial characters, but the approach 4e uses is not to my taste. Perhaps using a point system, such as spell points for magic and fatigue points for martial types would be more palatable for me. I was disappointed enough with 4e that I left my gaming group who decided to stay with the system and have been looking for a fantasy game I enjoy more. Digging on Iron Gauntlets now, but also checking out BRP. I would definitely play older versions of DnD too so not having cool maneuvers is something I'm ok with too.

Quote from: estar;361038

Quote from: WindjammerNothing in 4E's (alleged) innovations can ever outweigh the loss of removing utility magic from the game. And no, this isn't helped by copy-pasting names of (previous editions') utility spells on rituals.

This is not bourne out in actual play. If anything the utility effects (tenser's floating disk, etc) get cast MORE.

Sure, for every 4 utility spells of the game they removed, the 1 spell that didn't get cut gets cast more often these days than it did previously. If 5E continues the trend, there'll only be 10 utility spells left, and then Tenser's disk will get cast seriously regularly.

I mean, they'd probably call it Tenser's disk but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a +1 shuriken you can fire at-will.

Quote from: StormBringer;361060The second one.  Evening out damage potential across all attacks, but making them all essentially 'at-wills' would fit the mechanics into what people already know about physical reality.  Perhaps a feat or something to boost damage a few times a day to keep up with the casters, although I have never seen that problem personally.  

Yeah, I think balance is pretty unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.

So OK. Preferences established. We're immersed in our characters, etc. There's a big challenge in your face, biggest thing you've seen in a while. Two of your party members are down.

Are you OK with the fact that you can't muster up any extra effort? Your character has no reserves to draw on?

Quote from: StormBringer;361060The second one.  Evening out damage potential across all attacks, but making them all essentially 'at-wills' would fit the mechanics into what people already know about physical reality.  Perhaps a feat or something to boost damage a few times a day to keep up with the casters, although I have never seen that problem personally.  

Swap out weapon bonuses of less than +3 or +4 to something mundane rather than magical, to keep the magical weapons as something that is really magical.  A 'mundane' mithril steel sword has a non-magical +4, but if you have the heart of a dragon and a piece of a star, you can make any weapon +5.  It would be unlikely someone would waste all that effort on a dagger, so perhaps a proportional level of enchantment is in order.  The same applies to armour.  That way, the Fighter has the magical, near artifact level stuff, and the other classes wouldn't bother because the cost is too high.  Then a Fighter's boosts can be regulated a bit more organically.

And yes, stripping the Fighter of his gear would then drop the power level, but let's face it:  is that any different than a Magic-User without their spellbooks?  A Cleric without their holy symbol?  A Thief without their tools?  Fighters aren't the only ones dependent on gear, and they never have been.

Might work, but I still think a Spell point/ Fatigue Point model offers a clearer balance and real world explanation. I knwo managaging another counter might be a pain and the benefit of computer games that do this is that the bookkeeping is done for you.
Hey maybe that is one of those neat little gimmics you can sell a Fatigue/point hitpoint/Spell point tracker. a little digital clock with 3 read outs where you can spend points and they recover at a set rate. Sounds like an ideal Ipod App to me :)

I woudl dearly like to get away from everyone being gear dependent as well but that is a whole other bag of worms and D&D has always been gear dependent its in its DNA.

Quote from: RandallS;360893In OD&D (snip)

Didn't we already say no more OD&D in this thread? Does no one pay attention anymore?

Quote from: Sigmund;361063I don't mind extra effort being available to martial characters, but the approach 4e uses is not to my taste. Perhaps using a point system, such as spell points for magic and fatigue points for martial types would be more palatable for me. I was disappointed enough with 4e that I left my gaming group who decided to stay with the system and have been looking for a fantasy game I enjoy more. Digging on Iron Gauntlets now, but also checking out BRP. I would definitely play older versions of DnD too so not having cool maneuvers is something I'm ok with too.

Or just go with some system that provides some kind of hero point mechanism. I picked up Barbarians of Lemuria recently, and it looks like it hits a sweet spot in terms of crunch vs. simplicity.

Quote from: Thanlis;361065Yeah, I think balance is pretty unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.

So OK. Preferences established. We're immersed in our characters, etc. There's a big challenge in your face, biggest thing you've seen in a while. Two of your party members are down.

Are you OK with the fact that you can't muster up any extra effort? Your character has no reserves to draw on?

I would be. Victory should never be assured.

Quote from: IMLegend;361067Didn't we already say no more OD&D in this thread? Does no one pay attention anymore?

No! Because OD&D is like fucking Jason Voorhees...it just won't goddamn die already : (

Quote from: Sigmund;361069I would be. Victory should never be assured.

Moot point -- nobody said "assured." Come on, we're doing pretty well here. I'm just talking extra effort.

Quote from: Thanlis;361065Yeah, I think balance is pretty unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.

So OK. Preferences established. We're immersed in our characters, etc. There's a big challenge in your face, biggest thing you've seen in a while. Two of your party members are down.

Are you OK with the fact that you can't muster up any extra effort? Your character has no reserves to draw on?

I would prefer that the player draws on their reserves.  A clever tactic or desperate ploy keeps the DM on their toes as well, providing a challenge for everyone at the table.  Tracking which rule intersects with which situation is dreadfully boring to me.  It's a way of rewarding the rules lawyers, which I am generally against, in principle.

Besides, good planning means you won't need to muster the extra effort.  As Sun Tzu says, if you don't go into battle with the outcome already decided, you are going to lose.  ;)

Quote from: Thanlis;361065Yeah, I think balance is pretty unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.

So OK. Preferences established. We're immersed in our characters, etc. There's a big challenge in your face, biggest thing you've seen in a while. Two of your party members are down.

Are you OK with the fact that you can't muster up any extra effort? Your character has no reserves to draw on?

You mean the point in the game where you really have to test yourself - yeah that's where it gets interesting.  If you've always got that one trick left that will win the day then it nullifies your actual success.

Quote from: Thanlis;361071Moot point -- nobody said "assured." Come on, we're doing pretty well here. I'm just talking extra effort.

To be fair, if the 'extra effort' has no real effect in the outcome, it's neither 'extra' nor is it 'effort'.  I know you weren't saying it's a guaranteed victory, but without some enhanced odds of turning the battle to your favour, it's not really useful.  I prefer to have the battle turn from the cleverness of the players, not strictly from the application of the rules.

EDIT:  Also, what Kryyst said.  Fucking ninja posting.  ;)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;360892If this is what you think I mean:



When I suggest you think of creative ways to use a "low power" character and quit trying to be motherfucking Gandalf the White at 1st level, then yeah, I can definitely understand why you have reading comprehension problems.  

Seriously, I love how every time I or anyone else suggests that characters start off slow, think outside the box, and look back in n sessions from atop the peak they've climbed there's this chorus of BAAAAAAAWWWWWWW GYGAX KICKED ME IN THE NUTS AND TOOK MY LUNCH MONEY BAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW.  Listen, I will openly admit to not being the sharpest pineapple in the basket sometimes, but I got it when I played it the first few times, and I got it again when I picked it back up in '99.  I've introduced AD&D to people whose sole experience with RPGs prior to was video games, and they got it.  My seven year old gets it.  Why can't you?  Oh, wait, I'm sorry, the old way is broken, right.  :roll:

So, kiddies, since AD&D worked for millions of people (and still does for more than just my gaming group), maybe it's you who need to get over it.

{zzzzzzzzz} {snort} Huh? ... what?... what are you still grognarding on about? {yawn} AD&D rulz, and no one knows how to play as good as you, and 4e players are stupider than your 7 year old? (skip/repeat, skip/repeat, skip/repeat) {yawn} Jesus will someone fix that fucking record, it seems broken. {yawn} I'm going back to bed...{grumble}...fucking grognards...{grumble}...{zzzzzzzzz}

And of course, Magic-Users were severely restricted in spell use, but those rules were often ignored.  Memorization times, when properly enforced, kept the casters precisely in line with the non-casters.  The amount of rest needed depended on the highest level of spell to be recovered, up to 12 hours if you needed your 9th level spells back.  In addition, it took 15mins of study per spell level for each spell.  Cast two fireballs today?  An hour and a half to get those back, after resting for 6hrs.

The problem, from what I can see, is that most groups didn't enforce the very rules that were meant to keep things more or less balanced.  Honestly, I can't recall any literature where the wizard was blasting things left and right.  Merlin was more of a diviner than anything, Gandalf didn't fireball his way through Moria, and even Robert Aspirin's humourous Myth series has pretty limited spell use, and that was a high magic milieu.  Similar to other humour books, like Discworld, it was a parody precisely because in serious literature, all the allegedly ultra-powerful wizards never cast spells.

The whole idea of wizards blasting everything in sight only came about after computer games with spell points, near as I can tell.  So I have to disagree that casting spells more often is an innovation or improvement.  I think the underlying idea for that came about as a failure to enforce the rules that were in place to begin with, as well as a misinterpretation of the role of spell casters.

Quote from: StormBringer;361074To be fair, if the 'extra effort' has no real effect in the outcome, it's neither 'extra' nor is it 'effort'.  I know you weren't saying it's a guaranteed victory, but without some enhanced odds of turning the battle to your favour, it's not really useful.  I prefer to have the battle turn from the cleverness of the players, not strictly from the application of the rules.

That's fair. So you're not really interested in the idea of ebb and flow a la story -- you're more digging on the idea of players using their minds to overcome obstacles?

Quote from: Thanlis;361080That's fair. So you're not really interested in the idea of ebb and flow a la story -- you're more digging on the idea of players using their minds to overcome obstacles?

Generally, that would be a fair assessment.  I prefer the story to emerge organically from the interactions of the players, rather than having something in mind before events take place.

Quote from: StormBringer;361084Generally, that would be a fair assessment.  I prefer the story to emerge organically from the interactions of the players, rather than having something in mind before events take place.

That is not exactly what I mean, insofar as I don't say "I'm going to use this daily in this combat." It's more I like being able to react to the situation with something other than "welp, it's a big problem, I guess I keep hitting it."

But I dig the desire to be tactically smart as well. I mean, one of the things I like a lot about 4e is that it provides for some rich tactical decisions, after all.

The last few posts in this exchange are highlighting some of the problems I have with some RPGs: Some power or bit of text that does the hard work for the player or dictates the actions of others.

Take a satirical example like some 4E Warlord ability, let's call it Spirited Thunderspittle.  You use the ability and the game tells you that you gave an inspirational speech, you get to order another character to attack, and some badguys get routed.  

4E is by no means the only offender.  Far worse was some class feature or feat I read in an official 3.5 book.  Something to the effect of Master Tactician.  The fluff tells you your plan was just so darn good that you and your allies get an initiative or attack bonus for x rounds.  Or whatever.

I'm uncomfortable with traits like that.  Maybe its because they give "command of the battle/narrative" over to the mechanics, when instead I want players to have "command of their characters."  Its a subtle difference in game play, but not easily ignored.

Quote from: ThanlisBut I dig the desire to be tactically smart as well. I mean, one of the things I like a lot about 4e is that it provides for some rich tactical decisions, after all.

So does every version of D&D if you emphasize playing it as a skirmish-scale wargame.

Quote from: IMLegend;361075{zzzzzzzzz} {snort} Huh? ... what?... what are y

I like how people like you can't come up with concrete arguments beyond "GO HOME, GRANDMA!"

It makes poking holes in you so much more fun.

Quote from: winkingbishop;361088I'm uncomfortable with traits like that.  Maybe its because they give "command of the battle/narrative" over to the mechanics, when instead I want players to have "command of their characters."  Its a subtle difference in game play, but not easily ignored.

If it's a magical effect granting the bonuses, do you object?

Quote from: Shazbot79;361016Because he doesn't like this forum and it's members.

Just like Seanchai is a big part of why YOU come back.

I'm afraid I began to ignore Jeff37923, StormBringer, and several others some time ago when it became clear they were rabid, but I can see from what others have quoted their stirring their usual shit.

There are some folks I don't like here. I ignore them. I don't read what they write and usually don't respond to what they have to say. But that's a handful out of 2,600 or so members.

Moreover, my comments in this thread weren't a condemnation of Pundit...well, you can't say as a person because he isn't one. Let's say, "...as a personality." (Of course, that's just in this thread because of obviously don't shy away from condemning him elsewhere...)

But this thread is basically a troll. Pundy suggested we all think nice thoughts about 4e. Pundy did that. He brought up 4e in a positive light. He knows it's a powder keg.

So is 4e innovating? Shrug. Probably not. But the OP really isn't interested in giving 4e it's due. He's interested in another edition war, which he got.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;361109I'm afraid I began to ignore Jeff37923, StormBringer, and several others some time ago when it became clear they were rabid, but I can see from what others have quoted their stirring their usual shit.

There are some folks I don't like here. I ignore them. I don't read what they write and usually don't respond to what they have to say.

Seanchai

Except for someone who is ignoring what I post, you sure spent a lot of time and effort refuting my points in this thread. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=16411&page=33) Go on, admit that you are a closet fan.

Quote from: Windjammer;361064I mean, they'd probably call it Tenser's disk but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a +1 shuriken you can fire at-will.

And don't forget, that +1 shuriken will automatically return to your hand after every throw.  There's no need for multiple shurikens anymore.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;361099I like how people like you can't come up with concrete arguments beyond "GO HOME, GRANDMA!"

It makes poking holes in you so much more fun.

Oh spare me. My point is I can argue until I'm blue in the face, and what good will it do me? Absolutely nothing I say will change your opinion, so why waste my time and energy? It get's boring listening to your same old, worn-out arguments as to why your game is better and all who play something else are below you mentally. I'd rather go take a nap than listen to you beat that poor dead horse. So take your imagined argumental high-ground and shove it up your pompous ass.

Quote from: Seanchai;361109But this thread is basically a troll. Pundy suggested we all think nice thoughts about 4e. Pundy did that. He brought up 4e in a positive light. He knows it's a powder keg.

So is 4e innovating? Shrug. Probably not. But the OP really isn't interested in giving 4e it's due. He's interested in another edition war, which he got.

Seanchai

Winner winner chicken dinner.

Quote from: Thanlis;361100If it's a magical effect granting the bonuses, do you object?

That's a good question.  Generally, I'd say no, even if its magic.  So let's say for the sake of example there is spell you can cast on your comrade that makes them "a magical master tactician."  I wouldn't want the game mechanics to take so many liberties by just filling in the details with roll mods.  And I'm thankful that there isn't a spell that does that.

Its a matter of taste, really.  How much are you going to let your rule system get away with?  At what point does the game go from being "first-person" to "tactical."  And either way, play which one is more fun for you and your group.

Again, I don't really dislike 4E, just disinterested.  I jumped all over the idea of a Warlord (you mean we don't need a godbotherer in the group to stay standing?).  But playing one, moving bits all over the combat map, and everything attempting to be about balance didn't jive well with what I expected from Dungeons and Dragons.  Doesn't make it a foaming This Game is SHIT or anything.  Just not what I wanted.

Quote from: IMLegend;361119Oh spare me. My point is I can argue until I'm blue in the face, and what good will it do me? Absolutely nothing I say will change your opinion, so why waste my time and energy? It get's boring listening to your same old, worn-out arguments as to why your game is better and all who play something else are below you mentally. I'd rather go take a nap than listen to you beat that poor dead horse. So take your imagined argumental high-ground and shove it up your pompous ass.

QFT.  I'm sick to death of the "4e can't be a RPG because its too easy...  OD&D is the only true RPG..." elitist nonsense from old blowhards who have apparently been asleep since the late 70s and missed every popular RPG since.

It's exactly the same nonsense I always heard in my professional life - where those newfangled programming languages aren't "real languages" because they are too easy to use.  How dare something not be arcane and elitist?

For goodness sakes, the "D&D has been dumbed down for the masses" ship set sail THIRTY YEARS AGO - get over it already!  While you are at it, feel free to turn in your abacus for a calculator.

Quote from: Seanchai;361109I'm afraid I began to ignore Jeff37923, StormBringer, and several others some time ago when it became clear they were rabid...

Translation:  "They don't agree with me and call me on my petulant bullshit"

Quote from: StormBringer;361124Translation:  "They don't agree with me and call me on my petulant bullshit"

Translation: "I'm a nerd playing at internet tough guy."

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;361130Translation: "I'm a nerd playing at internet tough guy."

An internet version of Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, or Josef Stalin.  :pundit:

Quote from: kryyst;360961Yep, and that's why 4e fails as an RPG.  Because they completely missed the simple fact that it's the why things are the way they are not how does that translate into a mechanic.

It fails as an Immersive RPG, because it never tried to be.

It excels as a Tactical RPG, which was it's design focus.

Quote from: CRKrueger;361134It fails as an Immersive RPG, because it never tried to be.

It excels as a Tactical RPG, which was it's design focus.

Agree completely.

Quote from: CRKrueger;361134It fails as an Immersive RPG, because it never tried to be.

It excels as a Tactical RPG, which was it's design focus.

Soooo by that extension the evolution of D&D is to not be D&D anymore - fair enough.

Quote from: kryyst;361137Soooo by that extension the evolution of D&D is to not be D&D anymore - fair enough.

I don't particularly see myself using 4e for much, but saying it's "not D&D" or "not a RPG" is the kind of stuff that just causes shitstorms.  That's why I like sub-genres of RPG, it defines things better.

As far as 4e not being the same kind of RPG as earlier editions, I would generally agree, however, 3e had quite a bit of disconnect between setting cohesion and mechanics, particularly with the 150 splatclasses.  It just comes with trying to be the generic-fantasy-setting-neutral-game-that-somehow-still-works-with-all-the-published-settings.

Quote from: Drohem;361116

Quote from: WindjammerI mean, they'd probably call it Tenser's disk but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a +1 shuriken you can fire at-will.

And don't forget, that +1 shuriken will automatically return to your hand after every throw.  There's no need for multiple shurikens anymore.

Hey, I didn't leave out that "returning_" in my reference to the +1 shuriken by accident. Seriously, what's that crazy talk of rationalizing mechanics story-wise? Get off my 5E lawn NOW!!!!!


...quite exhausted from all this exasperation. "Tracking ammo isn't FUN" - did people not get that 4E memo?

Quote from: Thanlis;361068Or just go with some system that provides some kind of hero point mechanism. I picked up Barbarians of Lemuria recently, and it looks like it hits a sweet spot in terms of crunch vs. simplicity.

I am at the moment.

Quote from: Windjammer;361142Hey, I didn't leave out that "returning_" in my reference to the +1 shuriken by accident. Seriously, what's that crazy talk of rationalizing mechanics story-wise? Get off my 5E lawn NOW!!!!!

I'm still trying to figure out why my magic-user doesn't know how to build a keep until he hits level 11. :(

Quote from: Thanlis;361071Moot point -- nobody said "assured." Come on, we're doing pretty well here. I'm just talking extra effort.

I answered the question. I would be fine with no "reserves" to be drawn upon. I am capable of visualizing that reserves have been drawn on, combined with a bit of good fortune, if I roll high on a damage roll, or crit even.

Quote from: StormBringer;361072I would prefer that the player draws on their reserves.  A clever tactic or desperate ploy keeps the DM on their toes as well, providing a challenge for everyone at the table.  Tracking which rule intersects with which situation is dreadfully boring to me.  It's a way of rewarding the rules lawyers, which I am generally against, in principle.

Besides, good planning means you won't need to muster the extra effort.  As Sun Tzu says, if you don't go into battle with the outcome already decided, you are going to lose.  ;)

Also good points.

Quote from: StormBringer;361079And of course, Magic-Users were severely restricted in spell use, but those rules were often ignored.  Memorization times, when properly enforced, kept the casters precisely in line with the non-casters.  The amount of rest needed depended on the highest level of spell to be recovered, up to 12 hours if you needed your 9th level spells back.  In addition, it took 15mins of study per spell level for each spell.  Cast two fireballs today?  An hour and a half to get those back, after resting for 6hrs.

The problem, from what I can see, is that most groups didn't enforce the very rules that were meant to keep things more or less balanced.  Honestly, I can't recall any literature where the wizard was blasting things left and right.  Merlin was more of a diviner than anything, Gandalf didn't fireball his way through Moria, and even Robert Aspirin's humourous Myth series has pretty limited spell use, and that was a high magic milieu.  Similar to other humour books, like Discworld, it was a parody precisely because in serious literature, all the allegedly ultra-powerful wizards never cast spells.

The whole idea of wizards blasting everything in sight only came about after computer games with spell points, near as I can tell.  So I have to disagree that casting spells more often is an innovation or improvement.  I think the underlying idea for that came about as a failure to enforce the rules that were in place to begin with, as well as a misinterpretation of the role of spell casters.

In a way I agree with ya, and in a way I don't. When I talk about being able to use magic more often in 4e it's not the at-will magic missiles I'm referring to. I liked that I could use Mage Hand and Prestidigitation to do "magic stuff" all the time. Chill my drink in the pub, pull a chair over to myself with my mind, pass someone the salt by pointing at it... that stuff is fun.

Quote from: Sigmund;361149In a way I agree with ya, and in a way I don't. When I talk about being able to use magic more often in 4e it's not the at-will magic missiles I'm referring to. I liked that I could use Mage Hand and Prestidigitation to do "magic stuff" all the time. Chill my drink in the pub, pull a chair over to myself with my mind, pass someone the salt by pointing at it... that stuff is fun.

Minor magics or cantrips would add a good deal of flavour to magic users in any edition without vastly overpowering them.  There would have to be some pretty substantial limits, however, as ingenious players would find a way to abuse them if they weren't in the spirit of the game (see bag of rats and bag of sand).

Quote from: CRKrueger;361139I don't particularly see myself using 4e for much, but saying it's "not D&D" or "not a RPG" is the kind of stuff that just causes shitstorms.  That's why I like sub-genres of RPG, it defines things better.

As far as 4e not being the same kind of RPG as earlier editions, I would generally agree, however, 3e had quite a bit of disconnect between setting cohesion and mechanics, particularly with the 150 splatclasses.  It just comes with trying to be the generic-fantasy-setting-neutral-game-that-somehow-still-works-with-all-the-published-settings.

I'm so happy the groups I played 3.x with pretty much ignored almost all the splatbooks for 90% of our 3.x playing history. Only once in all these years have I played a class that came from outside the PHB. I believe I wouldn't have enjoyed it much if we had tried to bring in all that stuff.

Quote from: StormBringer;361151Minor magics or cantrips would add a good deal of flavour to magic users in any edition without vastly overpowering them.  There would have to be some pretty substantial limits, however, as ingenious players would find a way to abuse them if they weren't in the spirit of the game (see bag of rats and bag of sand).

True, although I think if I were to run some older editions containing those today I would make one or two spells that could be used any time, with no limit.

To the return to the actual thread title... (ironic, I know)...

While it perhaps doesn't qualify as an 'innovation' for everyone, one thing I like about 4E is the art direction. It's vastly more solidified, and the quality of the art is head and shoulders above 3E. Sure, some people might find the color scheme of the illustrations to err on the childish, but as far as a baseline quality and unity of vision goes, 4E books look splendid. I'm in the process of finalizing my review of Draconomicon 2, an absolutely gorgeous book. During these past days I've picked Races of Destiny and Unapproachable East off my shelves... Well, let's just say that they didn't fare the comparison with the 4E Draconomicon very well.

Seriously, 3E books lack a lot of charm that 2E had, and at the same time aren't as slick as 4E books. So they are the worst of both worlds, in a manner of speaking.* I think art direction in 4E improved over both of these. As an example, I love the first Monster Manual for 4E to bits. I even admit I bought the deluxe copy recently. See what a fanboy I am? (Apart from garnering geek cred, the deluxe copy also serves the secondary purpose of player punishment: harder bookcover equals more SMACK power!)

On a more general note, I also think that the layout of the rules is vastly improved and one of 4E's best innovations. The Pathfinder RPG is a beautiful book, but I wish I had taken heed a bit more of the layout lessons that informed the 4E books. I seriously drool over those 4E monster stat blocks. They haven't just simplified the content, they've improved the presentation by miles and miles and miles.

Whatever shape 5E will take, I hope it takes these things as seriously and does them as well as 4E did.

PS. So yeah, I hope I didn't offend anyone's sensitivities in extending the term 'innovation' beyond the game-mechanical.

* I'll later post my cover design 'improvements' to my copies of the 3.5 core books by editing them into this post. So stay tuned. ;)

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;361130Translation: "I'm a nerd playing at internet tough guy."

Sorry, no.  That isn't even remotely what that is, as I didn't threaten to "kick his ass" or anything similar.

Brush up on your internet arguments and take a quick spin through the logical fallacy section while you are there.  You will be better able to employ those devices once you know what they are.

Quote from: Windjammer;361154On a more general note, I also think that the layout of the rules is vastly improved and one of 4E's best innovations. The Pathfinder RPG is a beautiful book, but I wish I had taken heed a bit more of the layout lessons that informed the 4E books. I seriously drool over those 4E monster stat blocks. They haven't just simplified the content, they've improved the presentation by miles and miles and miles.

If one uses particular books often enough, the artwork and layout quality falls into the background after awhile.  Anybody who has DM'ed numerous 1E AD&D games, will know this from first hand experience.  :pundit:

Quote from: Sigmund;361153True, although I think if I were to run some older editions containing those today I would make one or two spells that could be used any time, with no limit.

Hmmm...  I would still think you would need to limit the selection pretty heavily.  First or second level spells that don't do damage, for example.  Or convert some of the spells into constant effects, then take them out of the spell lists.

Your method benefits from simplicity and ease of use, however.  I tend to over-design things like that.  :)

Quote from: StormBringer;361155Sorry, no.  That isn't even remotely what that is, as I didn't threaten to "kick his ass" or anything similar.

Brush up on your internet arguments and take a quick spin through the logical fallacy section while you are there.  You will be better able to employ those devices once you know what they are.

Oooh la la (http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x292/grapperyeah/French.gif)

Quote from: StormBringer;361158Hmmm...  I would still think you would need to limit the selection pretty heavily.  First or second level spells that don't do damage, for example.  Or convert some of the spells into constant effects, then take them out of the spell lists.

Your method benefits from simplicity and ease of use, however.  I tend to over-design things like that.  :)

Oh I wouldn't make spells usable that way, just cantrips, and not even all of those I don't think, just a few that are more useful for flavor and RP than combat... unless one thinks quite creatively :D

Edit: I notice I actually used the word spells myself, so in that I misspoke, I meant cantrips, like the Useful or Legerdemain ones from Unearthed Arcana or 0-level stuff from 3.x

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;361160Oooh la la (http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x292/grapperyeah/French.gif)

Vive La France!  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Sigmund;361161Oh I wouldn't make spells usable that way, just cantrips, and not even all of those I don't think, just a few that are more useful for flavor and RP than combat... unless one thinks quite creatively :D

Ah, I see.  That would work even better, then.  James M had a good LiveJournal post about that some time back, which I stole and turned into an article for Chaos Ex.  Having certain spells memorized allowed for some minor effects until they were cast.  For example, having hold portal memorized allows the Magic-User to shut any open door or window within 10 feet by thought alone.  It isn't magically sealed, of course, but it does provide the effect without mucking around with separate cantrip lists or anything.  The downside is that not all spells are amenable with these effects, so the choices are necessarily limited.

Damn it, this thread is moving far too fast to re-insert an image into a post 3 pages ago (posted 15 minutes ago). So here we go. I talked how I liked 4E art directions and found most of 3.5 on that front rather unpleasant.

So here's how I used 4E power cards (from the early Deluxe Character Sheet Folder) to improve the cover design of my beloved 3.5 core books. I let colour scheme and meaning of the card text be my guide here:

(http://www1.atwiki.com/ptolusalem/?cmd=upload&act=open&page=Optional%20player%20material&file=corebooks35covers.jpg)

Quote from: Sigmund;361145I answered the question. I would be fine with no "reserves" to be drawn upon. I am capable of visualizing that reserves have been drawn on, combined with a bit of good fortune, if I roll high on a damage roll, or crit even.

Heh. I am amused at the idea of Conan deciding to hit Kobold #5 extra-hard because Kobold #5 insulted his mother, or something.

So far, nobody's been willing to say that there's anything good at all about being able to pick your spots. It's both funny and tragic.

D&D4 is a game that's very friendly to folks that insist on playing cold (no prep) and stupid (no prior knowledge), be they players or GMs, but I do think that the "everything is core" idea will bite them in the ass eventually as the entitlement mentality it implies and encourages filters throughout the user network.

Quote from: IMLegend;361119Oh spare me. My point is I can argue until I'm blue in the face, and what good will it do me? Absolutely nothing I say will change your opinion, so why waste my time and energy? It get's boring listening to your same old, worn-out arguments as to why your game is better and all who play something else are below you mentally. I'd rather go take a nap than listen to you beat that poor dead horse. So take your imagined argumental high-ground and shove it up your pompous ass.

Here here.

But you can't really blame them. This site is pretty much a wildlife preserve for old-school lifers, since most of the other RPG forums out there have been taken over by people who are actually interested in advancing the hobby, rather than keeping it mired in Larry Elmore paintings and obtuse mechanics.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361191This site is pretty much a wildlife preserve for old-school lifers, since most of the other RPG forums out there have been taken over by people who are actually interested in advancing the hobby, rather than keeping it mired in Larry Elmore paintings and obtuse mechanics.

Calling you on this bullshit.

Quote from: Drohem;361193Calling you on this bullshit.

You go right ahead.

Quote from: jeff37923;360716I don't understand why this is an uncomfortable notion. Could you please explain?

I don't think a Wizard should have to act like a fighter unless he wants to.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Shazbot79;361191This site is pretty much a wildlife preserve for old-school lifers, since most of the other RPG forums out there have been taken over by people who are actually interested in advancing the hobby, rather than keeping it mired in Larry Elmore paintings and obtuse mechanics.

Heard this one before and it was wrong then as well.

Quote from: RPGPundit;361198I don't think a Wizard should have to act like a fighter unless he wants to.

RPGPundit

OK, that made no sense. Could you explain a bit more in depth?

I mean, there is nothing in any version of D&D that I know of where a Wizard is ever forced to act like a Fighter.

Quote from: jeff37923;361200OK, that made no sense. Could you explain a bit more in depth?

I mean, there is nothing in any version of D&D that I know of where a Wizard is ever forced to act like a Fighter.

Poor Mialee. I'm sure they also put her on steroids.

(http://www1.atwiki.com/ptolusalem/?cmd=upload&act=open&page=Optional%20player%20material&file=Article_Tunnel_Guardian.jpg)

[Pic I had saved on my hard drive. IIRC it was in the art order for D&D 3.5 "Dungeonscape", but never saw the light of print.]

Too bad.  That's a kick ass piece of art.

Quote from: StormBringer;361151Minor magics or cantrips would add a good deal of flavour to magic users in any edition without vastly overpowering them.  There would have to be some pretty substantial limits, however, as ingenious players would find a way to abuse them if they weren't in the spirit of the game (see bag of rats and bag of sand).

I allow magic-users to cast all sorts of minor magic at a cost of one hit point (I use HP for spell points) any time. They do need a handmade wand. If they try to do something too powerful (read too abusive) with minor magic, the wand overloads and shatters for 1d6 damage -- and they can't do minor magic until they make another one.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361191Here here.

But you can't really blame them. This site is pretty much a wildlife preserve for old-school lifers, since most of the other RPG forums out there have been taken over by people who are actually interested in advancing the hobby, rather than keeping it mired in Larry Elmore paintings and obtuse mechanics.

You will now need to explain how the hobby can be 'advanced'.  Presumably, you mean 'improving the rules', in which case you will have a very difficult assignment in showing that a specific set of rules can be objectively improved, and further that it has been objectively improved.

A point to dwell on before you start:  card games and board games don't get near-complete overhauls every five years.

Quote from: RandallS;361206I allow magic-users to cast all sorts of minor magic at a cost of one hit point (I use HP for spell points) any time. They do need a handmade wand. If they try to do something too powerful (read too abusive) with minor magic, the wand overloads and shatters for 1d6 damage -- and they can't do minor magic until they make another one.

Very nice.  I would probably beef up their hit points if I were to use such a system, as it seems a bit unfair that they weak in hit points to begin with, and are then penalized further for casting spells.  Although, I would imagine it depends on the play style of the group.  Skulking around the ruins and keeping the Magic User well away from combat would be the order of the day.

Quote from: Sigmund;361161Oh I wouldn't make spells usable that way, just cantrips, and not even all of those I don't think, just a few that are more useful for flavor and RP than combat... unless one thinks quite creatively :D

Edit: I notice I actually used the word spells myself, so in that I misspoke, I meant cantrips, like the Useful or Legerdemain ones from Unearthed Arcana or 0-level stuff from 3.x

Actually, Pathfinder does this for all spellcasting classes (Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Druid). You have to select your 0-level spells, but you can use them as often as you want.

Quote from: RandallS;361206I allow magic-users to cast all sorts of minor magic at a cost of one hit point (I use HP for spell points) any time. They do need a handmade wand. If they try to do something too powerful (read too abusive) with minor magic, the wand overloads and shatters for 1d6 damage -- and they can't do minor magic until they make another one.

I remember trying something like this in Basic D&D. We called it the 'Cocaine Rule' since you were burning out your character's hit points in order to cast extra spells.

Quote from: Thanlis;361065Yeah, I think balance is pretty unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.

So OK. Preferences established. We're immersed in our characters, etc. There's a big challenge in your face, biggest thing you've seen in a while. Two of your party members are down.

Are you OK with the fact that you can't muster up any extra effort? Your character has no reserves to draw on?

Yes.  As Willy Mays once said he didn't understand the idea of giving 110% in clutch situations.  If you aren't already doing the best you possibly can, you don't deserve to be on the field.  I'd say the same thing can be applied to D&D.

Quote from: jeff37923;361215I remember trying something like this in Basic D&D. We called it the 'Cocaine Rule' since you were burning out your character's hit points in order to cast extra spells.

Was that the Bright Lights Big City campaign?  :)

Quote from: jeff37923;361200OK, that made no sense. Could you explain a bit more in depth?

I mean, there is nothing in any version of D&D that I know of where a Wizard is ever forced to act like a Fighter.

If a 1st level wizard has one spell (and maybe a couple of cantrips) within a very short time they will be out of any magical attack possibility.
They are thus obliged to either be a useless lump, or to get a staff, sling, crossbow, whatever, and fight in a way they are neither designed to do, nor are they stylistically attractive in doing. Some people say "Gandalf didn't shoot fireballs all over the place". That's true. But I also didn't see Gandalf having to carry around a bag full of darts in order to be good for something after using up his one and only "light" spell.

Since players are going to equip their magic-user with darts or whatever anyways (because they'll be bored out of their mind if they don't, and the other players will want to kill them also, if they don't contribute regularly to the group's survival), it doesn't actually do ANYTHING to change the "balance" of the game, it makes the magic-user no more powerful in any way to say "the magic-user can fire a bolt of energy as a ranged attack that does 1d4, just like a dart". And it means that it looks and feels like the magic-user is doing what he's supposed to, rather than being a really really crappy fighter or rogue.

So yes, I think that's a good idea.

The other side of that is the way that the abilities in 4e make just about every fighter class feel like they're casting spells or using magic powers, it totally sucks. But that's not the theme of this thread in particular.

RPGPundit

Also, just for the record, the only motivation I had for starting this thread was for giving 4e the credit it is due for some of those few ideas that I think are quite redeemable in it. I generally can't stand 4e, but I strongly suspect that the next time I run old-school D&D (whenever that may be) I'll be using the two rules I praised in the OP in some form or another.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Shazbot79;361191Here here.

But you can't really blame them. This site is pretty much a wildlife preserve for old-school lifers, since most of the other RPG forums out there have been taken over by people who are actually interested in advancing the hobby, rather than keeping it mired in Larry Elmore paintings and obtuse mechanics.

Look out, your stupidity is showing.

Quote from: RandallS;361206I allow magic-users to cast all sorts of minor magic at a cost of one hit point (I use HP for spell points) any time. They do need a handmade wand. If they try to do something too powerful (read too abusive) with minor magic, the wand overloads and shatters for 1d6 damage -- and they can't do minor magic until they make another one.

Nice little house rule :D I like it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;361221If a 1st level wizard has one spell (and maybe a couple of cantrips) within a very short time they will be out of any magical attack possibility.
They are thus obliged to either be a useless lump, or to get a staff, sling, crossbow, whatever, and fight in a way they are neither designed to do, nor are they stylistically attractive in doing. Some people say "Gandalf didn't shoot fireballs all over the place". That's true. But I also didn't see Gandalf having to carry around a bag full of darts in order to be good for something after using up his one and only "light" spell.

Since players are going to equip their magic-user with darts or whatever anyways (because they'll be bored out of their mind if they don't, and the other players will want to kill them also, if they don't contribute regularly to the group's survival), it doesn't actually do ANYTHING to change the "balance" of the game, it makes the magic-user no more powerful in any way to say "the magic-user can fire a bolt of energy as a ranged attack that does 1d4, just like a dart". And it means that it looks and feels like the magic-user is doing what he's supposed to, rather than being a really really crappy fighter or rogue.

So yes, I think that's a good idea.

The other side of that is the way that the abilities in 4e make just about every fighter class feel like they're casting spells or using magic powers, it totally sucks. But that's not the theme of this thread in particular.

RPGPundit

OK, I get it now.

However, it seems like what you say is innovative is just taking the sow's ear of the Magic-User throwing a dart and saying that it is the silk purse of the Magic-User firing a low power spell. Same game effect, different special effects.

Quote from: RPGPundit;361222Also, just for the record, the only motivation I had for starting this thread was for giving 4e the credit it is due for some of those few ideas that I think are quite redeemable in it. I generally can't stand 4e, but I strongly suspect that the next time I run old-school D&D (whenever that may be) I'll be using the two rules I praised in the OP in some form or another.

RPGPundit

I agree. I will use em in some form too. Some great ideas have already been shared in this thread.

Quote from: RPGPundit;361222Also, just for the record, the only motivation I had for starting this thread was for giving 4e the credit it is due for some of those few ideas that I think are quite redeemable in it. I generally can't stand 4e, but I strongly suspect that the next time I run old-school D&D (whenever that may be) I'll be using the two rules I praised in the OP in some form or another.

RPGPundit

So would the concept of DDI be considered a 4E innovation?

Quote from: RPGPundit;361221If a 1st level wizard has one spell (and maybe a couple of cantrips) within a very short time they will be out of any magical attack possibility.

That's one more than any other first level character.  Yet people still bitch.  I don't get it.

I suppose I'm too hung up on Vance (and Bellairs, and the second Amber series, and Susanna Clarke) but I don't want magic-users to have intrinsic, at-will, infinitely usable magical abilities. I want them to be ordinary humans and spells to be something difficult that require a lot of study, a lot of practice, and a lot of preparation, so that casting a spell, even a lowly "1st level" one, is a big fucking deal. The pre-4E D&D system isn't necessarily a great match for this feel (because there's no chance for spell failure, because high level casters have too many slots, and because there's no mechanism for trying to modify spells other than by creating entirely new spells*) but it's better than most -- better than mana/spell-point systems, and way better than 4E's system.

*quick & dirty house-rule suggestions: 1) the spell-levels in the book are what is guaranteed to work properly -- a prestidigitator can memorize and cast one 1st level spell and it will function as intended 100% of the time -- but mages can attempt to memorize more or higher-level spells with increased chance of failure -- so if that prestidigitator attempted to memorize 2 1st level spells instead of one each would only be 75% likely to function properly (+ 20% chance of fizzling and 5% chance of reversed/harmful effect); if he tried to memorize a 2nd level spell it would have 60% chance of functioning (+30% fizzle + 10% reversed) and so on; 2) the slots indicated on the charts are the maximum number of spells of that level that a mage can memorize (or memorize at 100% if you're also using #1 above) but he's further limited to a total number of spell-levels equal to his Int score -- so a sorcerer with 16 Int might be able to memorize up to 4 level 1, 4 level 2, etc. spells, but only up to 16 total levels, so if he chooses to memorize a 5th level spell and 2 4th level spells he only has 3 levels left, which could be a 3rd level spell, a 2nd and a 1st, or 3 1sts (option: mages with bound familiars can use their familiar's Int in addition to their own -- worth only 1-2 extra points in the case of a mundane familiar but potentially much more in the case of an imp or quasit; and of course spells on scrolls or stored in items don't count towards the total); 3) at the time the spell is being memorized the mage can decide he wants to memorize a "variant" version of the spell that functions slightly differently than what's described in the book in exchange for an increased chance of spell failure (at the GM's discretion, suggested around 10-25% depending on the degree of modification -- and the GM shouldn't tell the caster the failure chance until the spell is attempted); casting such a variant spell successfully makes memorizing that same variant again easier (by 5%) until eventually it can be used interchangeably with the base-spell -- thus most high-level casters will tend to have personal "trade mark" variants on most of the common spells.

I agree that if you can use magic every round it stops being, well, "magical".  If anything I would prefer if things moved in the other direction, with magic being even more difficult to use but having a larger effect, even from level 1.  Perhaps this is simply to suggest that all magic should be "ritual" magic and no magic should be combat magic.

Quote from: JRR;361231That's one more than any other first level character.  Yet people still bitch.  I don't get it.

Because people don't like it that way. What I don't get is why ya'all can't understand that if I don't like my fantasy game the way it is I'm gonna talk it out with folks and either change it or find a different game. That's just as valid an approach as sucking it up and accepting it the way it is, and for many of us more fun. As long as our approach isn't impeding the enjoyment of the other players in our games what the fuck's the problem with it? I thought talkin that shit out is part of the purpose of our damn forums anyway.

Quote from: T. Foster;361232I suppose I'm too hung up on Vance (and Bellairs, and the second Amber series, and Susanna Clarke) but I don't want magic-users to have intrinsic, at-will, infinitely usable magical abilities. I want them to be ordinary humans and spells to be something difficult that require a lot of study, a lot of practice, and a lot of preparation, so that casting a spell, even a lowly "1st level" one, is a big fucking deal. The pre-4E D&D system isn't necessarily a great match for this feel (because there's no chance for spell failure, because high level casters have too many slots, and because there's no mechanism for trying to modify spells other than by creating entirely new spells*) but it's better than most -- better than mana/spell-point systems, and way better than 4E's system.

*quick & dirty house-rule suggestions: 1) the spell-levels in the book are what is guaranteed to work properly -- a prestidigitator can memorize and cast one 1st level spell and it will function as intended 100% of the time -- but mages can attempt to memorize more or higher-level spells with increased chance of failure -- so if that prestidigitator attempted to memorize 2 1st level spells instead of one each would only be 75% likely to function properly (+ 20% chance of fizzling and 5% chance of reversed/harmful effect); if he tried to memorize a 2nd level spell it would have 60% chance of functioning (+30% fizzle + 10% reversed) and so on; 2) the slots indicated on the charts are the maximum number of spells of that level that a mage can memorize (or memorize at 100% if you're also using #1 above) but he's further limited to a total number of spell-levels equal to his Int score -- so a sorcerer with 16 Int might be able to memorize up to 4 level 1, 4 level 2, etc. spells, but only up to 16 total levels, so if he chooses to memorize a 5th level spell and 2 4th level spells he only has 3 levels left, which could be a 3rd level spell, a 2nd and a 1st, or 3 1sts (option: mages with bound familiars can use their familiar's Int in addition to their own -- worth only 1-2 extra points in the case of a mundane familiar but potentially much more in the case of an imp or quasit; and of course spells on scrolls or stored in items don't count towards the total); 3) at the time the spell is being memorized the mage can decide he wants to memorize a "variant" version of the spell that functions slightly differently than what's described in the book in exchange for an increased chance of spell failure (at the GM's discretion, suggested around 10-25% depending on the degree of modification -- and the GM shouldn't tell the caster the failure chance until the spell is attempted); casting such a variant spell successfully makes memorizing that same variant again easier (by 5%) until eventually it can be used interchangeably with the base-spell -- thus most high-level casters will tend to have personal "trade mark" variants on most of the common spells.

I'm actually really digging your vibe here. The potential for craziness and further adventure is awesome. Maybe add in another minor alteration that says after exhausting his spells for the day a mage can TRY to remember a non-memorized spell from his book out of desperation but the chance for failure and calamity is much greater then even the minor stretching you describe.

Quote from: 837204563;361234I agree that if you can use magic every round it stops being, well, "magical".  If anything I would prefer if things moved in the other direction, with magic being even more difficult to use but having a larger effect, even from level 1.  Perhaps this is simply to suggest that all magic should be "ritual" magic and no magic should be combat magic.

I'm kinda looking for a happy medium, where wizards don't have to start as one-hit-wonders, but also aren't all-day powerhouses either. I think maybe a couple spells... especially with T. Foster's simple house rule making fledgling wizards more prone to mishaps... combined with some less powerful rituals would be ideal. My solution for making some simple flavor oriented cantrips basically "at-will" is meant to help move that way too... just give the young mage a way to be "wizardly" without being more powerful. That's the one direction 4e went in that I appreciate.

Quote from: Sigmund;361241Because people don't like it that way. What I don't get is why ya'all can't understand that if I don't like my fantasy game the way it is I'm gonna talk it out with folks and either change it or find a different game. That's just as valid an approach as sucking it up and accepting it the way it is, and for many of us more fun. As long as our approach isn't impeding the enjoyment of the other players in our games what the fuck's the problem with it? I thought talkin that shit out is part of the purpose of our damn forums anyway.

No one minds how you change the game at your table, what I object to is changing the core rules to turn magic users into infinite laser cannons.

Foster, I'm just curious.  How are spell/mana points worse than fire-and-forget?  Fantasy Craft managed to use them in conjunction with making spellcasting a skill to help give melee users a significant edge without resorting to 'all-you-can-eat' low-powered bits.  The fact that they also refresh per scene rather than in an allotted amount of game-time means that spellcasters won't be sucking their thumbs later on in an adventure, either.  Also, from a fluff-perspective, I think spell/mana points can help give the feeling that you're channeling energy but that it's also limited rather than something you can just innately pull out of thin-air.

Quote from: StormBringer;361212Very nice.  I would probably beef up their hit points if I were to use such a system, as it seems a bit unfair that they weak in hit points to begin with, and are then penalized further for casting spells.  Although, I would imagine it depends on the play style of the group.  Skulking around the ruins and keeping the Magic User well away from combat would be the order of the day.

I've used a Hit Point/Body Point system for years. Hit points as in the books but 1st level characters always get the maximum roll. Body Points represent real damage and generally equal CON. Hit points recover rapidly (75% of max HP per full night sleep) provided the character has no BP damage. BP damage is taken when one runs out of HP or on critical hits (natural 20 that would otherwise hit).

All character classes can spend HP for benefits. Magic-users use HP as spell points, fighting classes can spend HP to put extra effort into their blows, etc.

Quote from: JRR;361244No one minds how you change the game at your table, what I object to is changing the core rules to turn magic users into infinite laser cannons.

I don't recall anyone seriously proposing that.

Quote from: RandallS;361255I've used a Hit Point/Body Point system for years. Hit points as in the books but 1st level characters always get the maximum roll. Body Points represent real damage and generally equal CON. Hit points recover rapidly (75% of max HP per full night sleep) provided the character has no BP damage. BP damage is taken when one runs out of HP or on critical hits (natural 20 that would otherwise hit).

All character classes can spend HP for benefits. Magic-users use HP as spell points, fighting classes can spend HP to put extra effort into their blows, etc.

Damn, that's actually not bad either.

Quote from: StormBringer;361209You will now need to explain how the hobby can be 'advanced'.  Presumably, you mean 'improving the rules', in which case you will have a very difficult assignment in showing that a specific set of rules can be objectively improved, and further that it has been objectively improved.

A point to dwell on before you start:  card games and board games don't get near-complete overhauls every five years.

Yes...I mean that the rules have largely improved over time.

Objectivitely improved?

There are always a few random nutjobs out there who obstinately refuse to believe that things like streamlining core mechanics and consolidating disparate subsystems is a good thing.

Take the d20 system's core mechanic of d20+modifiers vs. ascending target number representing difficulty. All in all a lot more elegant than AD&D's old way of percentage roles, high rolls, low rolls, d10 rolls for initiative. Or looking everything up amidst numerous fucking charts.

Anyone who can't agree that this is an improvement has been sticking their fingers in their ears and arguing "LALALALALA" for the past 20 years.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361262Yes...I mean that the rules have largely improved over time.

Objectivitely improved?

There are always a few random nutjobs out there who obstinately refuse to believe that things like streamlining core mechanics and consolidating disparate subsystems is a good thing.

Take the d20 system's core mechanic of d20+modifiers vs. ascending target number representing difficulty. All in all a lot more elegant than AD&D's old way of percentage roles, high rolls, low rolls, d10 rolls for initiative. Or looking everything up amidst numerous fucking charts.

Anyone who can't agree that this is an improvement has been sticking their fingers in their ears and arguing "LALALALALA" for the past 20 years.

Instead of a d20, they could have used any other die instead.  A d100 + modifiers vs. target number system, wouldn't have been much different other than adding together larger numbers.

Quote from: ggroy;361263Instead of a d20, they could have used any other die instead.  A d100 + modifiers vs. target number system, wouldn't have been much different other than adding together larger numbers.

Could have used a D10, could have used a D100.

My point is that the challenge resolution mechanic which has formed the core of the game system since third edition is a definite improvement over the older systems to all but the most delusional TSR holdouts.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361269My point is that the challenge resolution mechanic which has formed the core of the game system since third edition is a definite improvement over the older systems to all but the most delusional TSR holdouts.

Of course, this is a matter of opinion and not an objective fact.  (BTW, I agree with you here.)

Quote from: Peregrin;361252Foster, I'm just curious.  How are spell/mana points worse than fire-and-forget?  Fantasy Craft managed to use them in conjunction with making spellcasting a skill to help give melee users a significant edge without resorting to 'all-you-can-eat' low-powered bits.  The fact that they also refresh per scene rather than in an allotted amount of game-time means that spellcasters won't be sucking their thumbs later on in an adventure, either.  Also, from a fluff-perspective, I think spell/mana points can help give the feeling that you're channeling energy but that it's also limited rather than something you can just innately pull out of thin-air.

I don't think spell/manna points are "worse" than fire-and-forget spells, just that they impart a different feel that doesn't match as well what I want for magic-users. Also, I must confess I'm utterly unfamiliar with FantasyCraft's implementation and had more in mind RuneQuest (or, for that matter, AD&D psionics) -- where the caster has a certain number of points available, knows various spells each with an associated point-cost, and can cast any of those spells in any combination until he runs out of points, in which case he has to wait until his points refresh and can then cast some more.

This has a very "internal" feel to me -- the spells are part of the character's mind or psyche, and his use of them is limited only by his personal energy reservoir. Whereas in the Vancian (for lack of a better word) system, spells are entirely external to the caster -- they're formulas in books that he studies and enacts in order to tap into external power sources to achieve specific effects. The power neither comes from the caster nor is it being channeled through him -- it's already out there in the world and he's just learned the methods of triggering and manipulating it.

I like magic that feels not like the caster needs to have any particular inborn talent or ability, but that it's something he's learned and mastered through mental accuity and years of study and practice. In this regard I think it's also important to remember that the "casting time" of spells (in AD&D) is really just the "triggering time" -- the time needed to complete the formula and trigger the effect in a particular time and place -- but that before you can get to that point even the simplest level 1 spells require a considerable investment of study and preparation time up-front. Power Word Kill is triggered in a single segment (6 seconds), but in order to be able to do that you have to have first done 2 hours 15 minutes of arduous study and preparation, and to have had at least 12 hours of rest prior to that to be in the proper mental state to even make the attempt. Poster 837204563 mentioned upthread the notion of "all spells as rituals" as a potential rules-change, but when you include the rest and preparation times they already are, it's just that most of the ritual has been performed offstage before the session starts.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361262Take the d20 system's core mechanic of d20+modifiers vs. ascending target number representing difficulty. All in all a lot more elegant than AD&D's old way of percentage roles, high rolls, low rolls, d10 rolls for initiative. Or looking everything up amidst numerous fucking charts.

If only it were that simple.

Without even digging into the books, I can probably name a half dozen modifiers in 3.x that apply consistently (BaB, Str bonus, etc), another half-dozen that are situational (spells, magic items), and all of them have to be checked against the others to make sure they can stack.  4e may have trimmed the list a bit, but added another whole section of complexities with the powers and their effects, especially the movement effects.

And those modifiers are scattered among at least two books, and gods help you if you are using splats.  Further, with the 4e design goal of 'each monster is special', you now have an additional set of books to reference for modifiers and movement effects.  

You have a unique definition of 'streamlined'.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361269My point is that the challenge resolution mechanic which has formed the core of the game system since third edition is a definite improvement over the older systems to all but the most delusional TSR holdouts.

That might be your point, but you have yet to show how it is valid.  In other words, your positive assertion doesn't make it true.  In fact, as I have just shown, your premise isn't even necessarily correct.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361269Could have used a D10, could have used a D100.

My point is that the challenge resolution mechanic which has formed the core of the game system since third edition is a definite improvement over the older systems to all but the most delusional TSR holdouts.

It'd be great if they actually managed to make the game surrounding that core mechanic run smoothly.  3.x was basically 'Cross-Reference Edition', and 4e just runs slow as shit unless you study which specific encounter builds to avoid.  That's ignoring the real problems with the systems, like cascading stat effects in 3.x, or feat bloat.

Not a TSR holdout here, either.  I was born in '87, I could give a shit about when the game was made, but I can certainly tell OD&D/Basic is a hell of a lot easier to work with than 3.x from a DM's perspective, and a lot easier than 4e from a player's perspective (my demo games with new players have indicated to me that, despite being advertised as noob friendly, 4e fails by overwhelming new entrants).

That's not to say I hate 3e or 4e -- I don't.  But they're not better in every aspect, and they're certainly different games from older editions, to the point of almost being unrecognizable in terms of gameplay style, so what's better for an adventure-path style game that 3e or 4e encourages may not be as good for site-based/sandbox play like older editions.

4E=Norton antivirus
it gets bigger and slower every iteration and they keep telling you its getting better

Quote from: T. Foster;361232I suppose I'm too hung up on Vance (and Bellairs, and the second Amber series, and Susanna Clarke) but I don't want magic-users to have intrinsic, at-will, infinitely usable magical abilities. I want them to be ordinary humans and spells to be something difficult that require a lot of study, a lot of practice, and a lot of preparation, so that casting a spell, even a lowly "1st level" one, is a big fucking deal.

Hell yeah.  (What's the Old Norse for that?)

FWIW, I'm not against a manna/spell-point system.  I'm just don't like it in my D&D game.  To me, so-called Vancian-magic (http://www.philotomy.com/#vancian) is part of what makes D&D feel like D&D.  

(On the other hand, I'd readily play a D&D-based game with a different magic system—like Spell Law, for example—but it wouldn't have them same feel, to me.)

Quote from: T. Foster;361272I don't think spell/manna points are "worse" than fire-and-forget spells, just that they impart a different feel that doesn't match as well what I want for magic-users.

Gotcha, and I can totally empathize.  I also prefer mechanics that help put forth a certain flavor.

Quote from: Peregrin;361281Gotcha, and I can totally empathize.  I also prefer mechanics that help put forth a certain flavor.

To echo what Philotomy said above, even though I like the Vancian system (or something like it) for magic-users, I wouldn't be opposed to a spell-point-type system for another type of caster, someone whose magic was inborn rather than learned -- like psionics (if the psionics rules in OD&D/AD&D didn't suck) or the magic used by elves and faeries (a la the notion from Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, that human magic -- the complex formulas contained in spell books -- is an attempt to reproduce via scholarship the same effects that elves and faeries perform naturally and instinctually).

Quote from: T. Foster;361286...even though I like the Vancian system...for magic-users, I wouldn't be opposed to a spell-point-type system for another type of caster...like psionics...or the magic used by elves and faeries (a la the notion from Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, that human magic -- the complex formulas contained in spell books -- is an attempt to reproduce via scholarship the same effects that elves and faeries perform naturally and instinctually).

Yeah, what he said.  (This is my all-too-common refrain following T. Foster's posts...)

Quote from: T. Foster;361286To echo what Philotomy said above, even though I like the Vancian system (or something like it) for magic-users, I wouldn't be opposed to a spell-point-type system for another type of caster, someone whose magic was inborn rather than learned -- like psionics (if the psionics rules in OD&D/AD&D didn't suck) or the magic used by elves and faeries (a la the notion from Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, that human magic -- the complex formulas contained in spell books -- is an attempt to reproduce via scholarship the same effects that elves and faeries perform naturally and instinctually).

That would be cool.  It's also one of the reasons I'm fond of the implied setting that Burning Wheel has (say what you will about the system/game).  Elves have their own distinct magic via spell songs, and humans/orcs use sorcery.  It helps distinguish the cultures/races a bit.

That's one of the things I really don't get out of 4e and it's power-system -- that sort of "world-flavor."  It works wonderfully from a game perspective, but from a world-building perspective is just lacks panache.  You no longer have differing sorts of resource management for each class (let alone different types of magic) and I think that takes away something from the game.

Back in the day, there was one 1E AD&D game I played in where the DM had a houseruled magic system based on expending hit points to cast spells, instead of the default AD&D vancian system.  This homebrewed system did something like cast a level X spell, at the cost of X hit points.

In practice at low levels, it wasn't any better that the default vancian slots system.  With a d4 hit dice for magic users, a level 1 magic user typically had at most 3 hit points to expend in casting spells without falling unconscious (ie. for a magic user with 4 hit points at level 1, without any constitution bonus).

Quote from: Peregrin;361290That's one of the things I really don't get out of 4e and it's power-system -- that sort of "world-flavor."  It works wonderfully from a game perspective, but from a world-building perspective is just lacks panache.  You no longer have differing sorts of resource management for each class (let alone different types of magic) and I think that takes away something from the game.

It is in that sense hardly worse than 3e. In that game, you have:

* 7 pseudo-Vancian (2 spont.; effectively only 3 spell lists with a few extra spells chucked in)

* 4 non-casters (mostly with variations of "I hit things")

Not exactly the stuff of world-building (for me.) If mechanics are taken to be that significant, that is.

if you do not play 4E you have brain damage

Quote from: steelmax73;361297if you do not play 4E you have brain damage

Duhr?

Steelmax is a 4E haters sock puppet account trying to incite you guys into anti-4E unity once again. I would just ignore him.

Quote from: StormBringer;361273If only it were that simple.

Without even digging into the books, I can probably name a half dozen modifiers in 3.x that apply consistently (BaB, Str bonus, etc), another half-dozen that are situational (spells, magic items), and all of them have to be checked against the others to make sure they can stack.  4e may have trimmed the list a bit, but added another whole section of complexities with the powers and their effects, especially the movement effects.

And those modifiers are scattered among at least two books, and gods help you if you are using splats.  Further, with the 4e design goal of 'each monster is special', you now have an additional set of books to reference for modifiers and movement effects.  

You have a unique definition of 'streamlined'.

That might be your point, but you have yet to show how it is valid.  In other words, your positive assertion doesn't make it true.  In fact, as I have just shown, your premise isn't even necessarily correct.

Typed bonuses do not stack with themselves, untyped bonuse however, do. It's really not that difficult.

Unified challenge resolution mechanics > disjointed subsystems or pages upon pages of charts and tables.

It's easy to remember, apply and alter.

While this may be subjective, it really is only in the most technical sense...the only people who can't agree that this is an improvement are quixotic whackjobs who dogmatically argue tradition for tradition's sake. And just because you happen to frequent a board full of such quixotic whackjobs who are more than willing to parrot your old-timey gaming sentiments, doesn't make this not true.

Believe it or not, there is a reason people stopped playing the older editions in favor of the new ones....and if you actually think that more people are playing Basic/AD&D than are playing 3.x/4E/Pathfinder, then it's time for you to step up your haliperidol dosage.

So like I said before...people who are actively contributing to the hobby in a meaningful way. The kids picking up their first copies of the PHB are the game designers of tomorrow, and your ilk simply does not have anything of value to offer them. All you do is sit on your lawn and yell at them to keep it down.

P.S.
Movement rules in 4E are all contained in the PHB and encompass about 2 pages.

I love the phrase 'saving throw'. It's awesome.

Gotta correct myself on one point: there's actually no shortage of utility magic in 4E once you look beyond the core rulebooks.

Even for people who never bought anything beyond that first Player's Handbook, there's this handy free article. (http://www.wizards.com/files/366_Ritually_Speaking.pdf)

And for people who bought stuff beyond, there's plenty. By my reckoning, there are 268 rituals (http://www1.atwiki.com/ptolusalem/?cmd=upload&act=open&page=Optional%20player%20material&file=Revenge%20of%20the%20Giants%20Campaign%20Rules%20-%20Addendum%20-%20Ritual%20List.pdf) in print currently (including from DDI only the aforementioned article). I really hope the upcoming Rules Compendium for 4E will collect them in a handy place for those who (like myself) don't subscribe to DDI.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361262Objectivitely improved?

It depends on what the objective of your game is. For me, 3.0 and higher aren't improvements overall as they ALL make combat take far longer than I want it to. I like my average combat to be no longer than 10-15 minutes and wondering monster combat to take about half that. Easy to do in TSR editions before the Player's Option stuff, harder to do with each edition after that as they all seem to have decided that most of the fun in the game is in the combats and the longer and more detailed the better. That's a game-killing negative for the types of games I run. If the gamesystem can't easily to 10 minute or less combats regularly, then it is totally useless for me.

QuoteThere are always a few random nutjobs out there who obstinately refuse to believe that things like streamlining core mechanics and consolidating disparate subsystems is a good thing.

It certainly can make learning the game easier, although the execution of it in WOTC editions of D&D just adds back the complexity in modifiers and feats and other exceptions to the standard rules. It's quite possible to do old school with the D20 standard mechanic, my own Microlite74 (and the upcoming "Microlite75") demonstrate this. They use the D20 core mechanic without all the modifiers and exception-based things to retrofit 0e.  It works well.  However, I doubt it is intrinsically better for all things -- in fact, it limits design by "forcing" one to use one core system even when something different specially designed for its purpose might map to "game reality" better or even be easier for a specific activity.

QuoteAnyone who can't agree that this is an improvement has been sticking their fingers in their ears and arguing "LALALALALA" for the past 20 years.

Or they just have different objectives for their game.  For example, a critical hit in D20 systems has none of the flavor you get by using a huge table of critical hit results for each weapon type like you get in Rolemaster. If your objective is flavor, a universal, tableless mechanic may not be an improvement even though is is faster and easier to use in play.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361308Steelmax is a 4E haters sock puppet account trying to incite you guys into anti-4E unity once again. I would just ignore him.

Got proof of that you want to share with us?

Otherwise, the guy can speak for himself and his nature will become self-evident.

Quit trying to shut down the voices of those who do not share your opinions.

Quote from: jeff37923;361326Got proof of that you want to share with us?

Otherwise, the guy can speak for himself and his nature will become self-evident.

Quit trying to shut down the voices of those who do not share your opinions.

Look at his only other post. I mean, do you enjoy being manipulated emotionally under false pretenses? Are fake posts all you have left?

Quote from: Shazbot79;361312Typed bonuses do not stack with themselves, untyped bonuse however, do. It's really not that difficult.

And you have every type for every spell and magic item memorized?

AD&D is even simpler.  There is no stacking, so add in all your bonuses and roll a d20 to see if you hit.

You are arguing in bad faith and you know it.

QuoteUnified challenge resolution mechanics > disjointed subsystems or pages upon pages of charts and tables.

It's easy to remember, apply and alter.

Unified challenge resolution mechanics are not really unified, so you are incorrect.

QuoteWhile this may be subjective, it really is only in the most technical sense...the only people who can't agree that this is an improvement are quixotic whackjobs who dogmatically argue tradition for tradition's sake. And just because you happen to frequent a board full of such quixotic whackjobs who are more than willing to parrot your old-timey gaming sentiments, doesn't make this not true.

No, it's subjective in every sense, and that is the point.  But thanks for conceding that.  Now go back to your Candyland M:tG MMO on paper ruleset, the adults are having a discussion.

QuoteBelieve it or not, there is a reason people stopped playing the older editions in favor of the new ones....and if you actually think that more people are playing Basic/AD&D than are playing 3.x/4E/Pathfinder, then it's time for you to step up your haliperidol dosage.

It's the same reason people upgraded their iPods when they came out with new ones, too.  It's human nature.  Sadly, your argument is utterly false, relying on people's innate neophilia to assume something is better because it is popular.  I can't help you with your miserable high school years of never being popular, but perhaps you can start a support group around here, there seem to be several people suffering from the same delusion.

QuoteSo like I said before...people who are actively contributing to the hobby in a meaningful way. The kids picking up their first copies of the PHB are the game designers of tomorrow, and your ilk simply does not have anything of value to offer them. All you do is sit on your lawn and yell at them to keep it down.

Except for the resurgence of vintage style rules that you are unable to comprehend.  It must be baffling that some people don't want the new shiny just because it is new and shiny, but none of this matters, because you have utterly failed to show how a new ruleset is objectively better than an older one.  Remember Monopoly?  Aside from re-arranging (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=748626) the properties (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=1509312) and moving it to Atlantic City, it hasn't changed in over 100yrs.

Take your angsty, hate your parents, emo whining elsewhere.  You haven't stumbled on the coolest thing EVAR which will garner you the popularity the other kids in your class cruelly denied you.  The more you insist it is objectively better, the less credible your argument becomes.  It doesn't help that you only offer opinion and positive assertions, I promise.

QuoteMovement rules in 4E are all contained in the PHB and encompass about 2 pages.

So, none of the movement effects in a couple hundred pages of power listings are really there?  Or are you saying they aren't actually movement effects?  Or are you trying to deny their impact because you know looking all those up is far, far more involved than a couple of 'to hit' charts from older editions?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361329Look at his only other post. I mean, do you enjoy being manipulated emotionally under false pretenses? Are fake posts all you have left?

Hello?  Who?  Let me check.

Yeah, he's here...  Just leave a message?  Ok.

Yeah, I got it, I will let him know.


The pot called.  He said "You're black".

well, I had no idea sock puppetry and  manufactured outrage were held in such high regard!

Quote from: RPGPundit;361221If a 1st level wizard has one spell (and maybe a couple of cantrips) within a very short time they will be out of any magical attack possibility.
They are thus obliged to either be a useless lump, or to get a staff, sling, crossbow, whatever, and fight in a way they are neither designed to do, nor are they stylistically attractive in doing. Some people say "Gandalf didn't shoot fireballs all over the place". That's true. But I also didn't see Gandalf having to carry around a bag full of darts in order to be good for something after using up his one and only "light" spell.

Since players are going to equip their magic-user with darts or whatever anyways (because they'll be bored out of their mind if they don't, and the other players will want to kill them also, if they don't contribute regularly to the group's survival), it doesn't actually do ANYTHING to change the "balance" of the game, it makes the magic-user no more powerful in any way to say "the magic-user can fire a bolt of energy as a ranged attack that does 1d4, just like a dart". And it means that it looks and feels like the magic-user is doing what he's supposed to, rather than being a really really crappy fighter or rogue.

So yes, I think that's a good idea.

The other side of that is the way that the abilities in 4e make just about every fighter class feel like they're casting spells or using magic powers, it totally sucks. But that's not the theme of this thread in particular.

I have played three sessions of 4e with the same character, a warlock. I have never once used a weapon. If I play again, and if I take a casting class, I likely will not take any weapons as I can't see why I would need them.

So yes, that's a big change - not necessarily a bad one.

Re: cantrips - we've always allowed 0-level spells to be "at-will" spells, at least since 3.0, and it works nicely to help the mages feel more like magic-users than walking scroll cases.

Quote from: StormBringer;361331Remember Monopoly?  Aside from re-arranging (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=748626) the properties (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=1509312) and moving it to Atlantic City, it hasn't changed in over 100yrs.

Well apart from the junior edition, oh and Star Wars monopoly obviously, oh and Monopolgy Deal the Card Game obviously, oh and the Monopoly Here and Now edition with the cute little credit card and digital cost tracker, oh and the online Monopoly game. Apart from those, well and the city editions for everywhere from London to Paris, Toyko to Springfield, it hasn't changed for 100 years  :) well obviously apart from the Mega Version produced in 2006 ... it hasn't changed for over 4 years .... well apart from the 2008 world edition and all that messy business in removing Isreal from the Jerusalem city location and the fuss that caused ... it hasn't changed in almost 2 years  :)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361329Look at his only other post. I mean, do you enjoy being manipulated emotionally under false pretenses?

You have not provided any evidence that this is a false pretense. In fact, you are attempting to use an emotional appeal yourself here.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361329Are fake posts all you have left?

If you are saying that steelmax73 is a sockpuppet of mine, then you really need to provide some proof of that and provide that proof to the admin and mods. Considering that in all the times before I just countered your own points and mocked you directly, it is pretty unlikely that I would create a sockpuppet. It is more likely that you just do not like the opinion presented and are trying to shut it down by any way you can.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361337well, I had no idea sock puppetry and  manufactured outrage were held in such high regard!

You are throwing shit up against a wall to see if anything sticks and that is all.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361337well, I had no idea sock puppetry and  manufactured outrage were held in such high regard!

As a veteran of the edition wars I would have thought you would be used to this around here.

Quote from: IMLegend;361341As a veteran of the edition wars I would have thought you would be used to this around here.

Abyssal Maw is using the tactic of manufactured outrage right now.

Quote from: jeff37923;361343Abyssal Maw is using the tactic of manufactured outrage right now.

Oh I'm not pointing fingers, just saying manufactured outrage runs rampant in any 4e "conversation" around here from both sides of the argument. I've probably been guilty of it myself. Or, at least guilty of falling for it.

Quote from: IMLegend;361347Oh I'm not pointing fingers, just saying manufactured outrage runs rampant in any 4e "conversation" around here from both sides of the argument. I've probably been guilty of it myself. Or, at least guilty of falling for it.

OK, sorry if I offended you because that was not my intent.

Quote from: jibbajibba;361339Well apart from the junior edition, oh and Star Wars monopoly obviously, oh and Monopolgy Deal the Card Game obviously, oh and the Monopoly Here and Now edition with the cute little credit card and digital cost tracker, oh and the online Monopoly game. Apart from those, well and the city editions for everywhere from London to Paris, Toyko to Springfield, it hasn't changed for 100 years  :) well obviously apart from the Mega Version produced in 2006 ... it hasn't changed for over 4 years .... well apart from the 2008 world edition and all that messy business in removing Isreal from the Jerusalem city location and the fuss that caused ... it hasn't changed in almost 2 years  :)

Yes, but the rules haven't changed in a century.  If you look at the patent application, the rules read almost exactly as they do today.  I mentioned the re-arranging of the properties already.  It's not like UK Monopoly has additional rules for taking tea every other turn, or a mini-game involving Norman invasions.

The common thread is that they are all Monopoly, and are all easily recognizable as such.  You can be certain that a game called Monopoly that involved collecting various forms of bacteria and combining them to create the strongest form of life on an alien planet would meet with a vast hue and cry.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;361299Duhr?

He doesn't play 4e. I think he spelled it all out in his post...

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923;361340You are throwing shit up against a wall to see if anything sticks and that is all.

Wasn't CavScout using this exact tactic of yelling 'sockpuppet' at every opportunity shortly before he got banned?

Quote from: jeff37923;361349OK, sorry if I offended you because that was not my intent.

No offense taken...this time. Who knows what the future holds.:D

Quote from: StormBringer;361350You can be certain that a game called Monopoly that involved collecting various forms of bacteria and combining them to create the strongest form of life on an alien planet would meet with a vast hue and cry.

If that's wrong, I don't want to be right.  I'd play that shit, especially if that life form could come back to Earth and ravage the first world.

I have nothing of relevance to say, except that StormBringer just cracked me up.  Carry on.

Quote from: winkingbishop;361358If that's wrong, I don't want to be right.  I'd play that shit, especially if that life form could come back to Earth and ravage the first world.

I have nothing of relevance to say, except that StormBringer just cracked me up.  Carry on.

I aim to please.  :)

Quote from: StormBringer;361353Wasn't CavScout using this exact tactic of yelling 'sockpuppet' at every opportunity shortly before he got banned?

Keep it in your pants, mate.

A casual search hasn't shown up any obvious sockpuppetry.

Quote from: Peregrin;361274I was born in '87, I could give a shit about when the game was made, but I can certainly tell OD&D/Basic is a hell of a lot easier to work with than 3.x from a DM's perspective, and a lot easier than 4e from a player's perspective...

I want to play OD&D or preferably AD&D again some time to compare and contrast. Just an adventure. And using all the rules.

One of the members of my group keeps commenting on the length of our fights. He's an AD&D fan. I don't disagree that they're longer than those in previous editions - I'm thinking, however, that they're more satisfying.

I'd be curious to see what my own and other folks in my group would think of OD&D and AD&D after having played 3e and 4e.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPundit;361222Also, just for the record, the only motivation I had for starting this thread was for giving 4e the credit it is due for some of those few ideas that I think are quite redeemable in it. I generally can't stand 4e, but I strongly suspect that the next time I run old-school D&D (whenever that may be) I'll be using the two rules I praised in the OP in some form or another.

Perhaps if a) you were a real person rather than a deliberately constructed personality, b) hadn't declared your undying hatred of 4e, c) weren't the instigator of a quixotic war against "the Swine," and d) hadn't clearly been trying to generate traffic on the site, I might take that at face value. I don't. This is just backpedaling bluster.

Seanchai

Quote from: One Horse Town;361363Keep it in your pants, mate.

A casual search hasn't shown up any obvious sockpuppetry.

I am not particularly concerned about sockpuppets.  That is your business.  I am concerned, however, about the tactic of screaming 'sockpuppet' as employed by people who wish to shut down a conversation.

Quickly! Coordinate the grievances!

Quote from: StormBringer;361350Yes, but the rules haven't changed in a century.  If you look at the patent application, the rules read almost exactly as they do today.  I mentioned the re-arranging of the properties already.  It's not like UK Monopoly has additional rules for taking tea every other turn, or a mini-game involving Norman invasions.

The common thread is that they are all Monopoly, and are all easily recognizable as such.  You can be certain that a game called Monopoly that involved collecting various forms of bacteria and combining them to create the strongest form of life on an alien planet would meet with a vast hue and cry.

Just to be a pedant. This isn't entirely true. the Junior version I played last night with my daughter has quite different rules and one assumes the rules of the Monopoly card game are somewhat different what with their not being a board and all. And the DVD edition must surely have expansions of some type.
Just cos you only play OMonopoly at home and can match the rules up to the patent doesn't mean the rest of us haven't moved on to Monopoly 4e (which if you ask me is more of a MMO than a real board game).

Also if someone released a monopoly game about collecting various forms of bacteria and combining them to create the strongest form of life on an alien planet there would not be a hue and cry as no one woudl give a Shit (unless it wasn't Hasbro in which case they would sue their arses back to the 19th century). In fact I can easily image a Monopoly variant in which the streets were replaced with features of bacterial families and when you got them all rather than adding houses and hotels you bred 'colonies' and when someone else landed on them they had to pay disease points :)

To the outsider I expect that AD&D And 4E D&D would look quite the same. You all sit round a table prending to be elves and Warriors (no they are not elves they are Trieflings!) and you decide what you do and roll a d20 to see if it worked .... The difference between a 2e Barbarian and a 4e Dragonborn is probably about the same as replacing the Top Hat with a kangaroo, and an at will power replacing a stunt is akin to being allowed to mortage properites or not... I would guess ... to the untrained observer... possibly.

Quote from: StormBringer;361350It's not like UK Monopoly has additional rules for taking tea every other turn, or a mini-game involving Norman invasions.

But it definitely should.

Quote from: RPGPundit;361222Also, just for the record, the only motivation I had for starting this thread was for giving 4e the credit it is due for some of those few ideas that I think are quite redeemable in it. I generally can't stand 4e, but I strongly suspect that the next time I run old-school D&D (whenever that may be) I'll be using the two rules I praised in the OP in some form or another.

I agree with you. My group doesn't hate 4e or 3e, but they prefer RC D&D or even better, Swords & Wizardry (be it Classic or White Box). Said this, we use houserules from every available edition of D&D on different campaigns.

Quote from: T. Foster;361232I suppose I'm too hung up on Vance (and Bellairs, and the second Amber series, and Susanna Clarke) but I don't want magic-users to have intrinsic, at-will, infinitely usable magical abilities. I want them to be ordinary humans and spells to be something difficult that require a lot of study, a lot of practice, and a lot of preparation, so that casting a spell, even a lowly "1st level" one, is a big fucking deal.

I see where you come from, but I'm afraid that most times casting a 1st level spell is not a big fucking deal, not by a long stretch.

Quote*quick & dirty house-rule suggestions: 1) the spell-levels in the book are what is guaranteed to work properly -- a prestidigitator can memorize and cast one 1st level spell and it will function as intended 100% of the time -- but mages can attempt to memorize more or higher-level spells with increased chance of failure -- so if that prestidigitator attempted to memorize 2 1st level spells instead of one each would only be 75% likely to function properly (+ 20% chance of fizzling and 5% chance of reversed/harmful effect); if he tried to memorize a 2nd level spell it would have 60% chance of functioning (+30% fizzle + 10% reversed) and so on; 2) the slots indicated on the charts are the maximum number of spells of that level that a mage can memorize (or memorize at 100% if you're also using #1 above) but he's further limited to a total number of spell-levels equal to his Int score -- so a sorcerer with 16 Int might be able to memorize up to 4 level 1, 4 level 2, etc. spells, but only up to 16 total levels, so if he chooses to memorize a 5th level spell and 2 4th level spells he only has 3 levels left, which could be a 3rd level spell, a 2nd and a 1st, or 3 1sts (option: mages with bound familiars can use their familiar's Int in addition to their own -- worth only 1-2 extra points in the case of a mundane familiar but potentially much more in the case of an imp or quasit; and of course spells on scrolls or stored in items don't count towards the total); 3) at the time the spell is being memorized the mage can decide he wants to memorize a "variant" version of the spell that functions slightly differently than what's described in the book in exchange for an increased chance of spell failure (at the GM's discretion, suggested around 10-25% depending on the degree of modification -- and the GM shouldn't tell the caster the failure chance until the spell is attempted); casting such a variant spell successfully makes memorizing that same variant again easier (by 5%) until eventually it can be used interchangeably with the base-spell -- thus most high-level casters will tend to have personal "trade mark" variants on most of the common spells.

Awesome. Definitely saving this.

Quote from: RandallS;361255I've used a Hit Point/Body Point system for years. Hit points as in the books but 1st level characters always get the maximum roll. Body Points represent real damage and generally equal CON. Hit points recover rapidly (75% of max HP per full night sleep) provided the character has no BP damage. BP damage is taken when one runs out of HP or on critical hits (natural 20 that would otherwise hit).

All character classes can spend HP for benefits. Magic-users use HP as spell points, fighting classes can spend HP to put extra effort into their blows, etc.

Very good ideas, too. Care to elaborate a bit on them, maybe in another thread?

So wait, would a rule whereby a character with the arcane power source is allowed to automatically set fire to buildings be new school or old school? I consider that kind of an innovation.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361382So wait, would a rule whereby a character with the arcane power source is allowed to automatically set fire to buildings be new school or old school? I consider that kind of an innovation.

Power sources aren't in any other edition of D&D that I'm aware of, so it would be hard to say. However, in my D&D games (which most people consider old school), anyone able to make fire can try to set a building on fire. A magic-user might try with Burning Hands or the like, but anyone could do it with flint and steel, a burning brand, etc. No special power sources, feats, skills, or rules required. :)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361374Quickly! Coordinate the grievances!

When the same complaints come from the same persons every single time, it's less a matter of a conspiracy against one group and more a matter of that one group continually being douchebags.

Quote from: Imperator;361380Very good ideas, too. Care to elaborate a bit on them, maybe in another thread?

I have a description of a version of these rules I wrote up for S&W on my blog:
Hit Points and Body Points for Swords & Wizardry (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2009/03/hit-points-and-body-points-for-swords.html).

This description has 100% HP recovery on as night's sleep. To get the rules I used originally just substitute 75%. The reason for 75% was that I noticed if (in real life) I really exhaust myself completely, one night's sleep still leaves me less than 100% of my normal oomph the next day.

Stormbringer is obsessed with me as usual.

No, the reason I bring it up; it's a rule from Chainmail.

Quote from: Imperator;361380I see where you come from, but I'm afraid that most times casting a 1st level spell is not a big fucking deal, not by a long stretch.

I think a lot of that's a matter of skewed perspectives, though -- people who are more focused on higher-level play, or on combat as the primary activity of the game and the only thing that matters. True, a lot of the 1st level spells would be pretty unimpressive if it's the only spell you know (light, detect magic, hold portal, etc.) but the "big two" -- sleep and charm person -- both qualify as big fucking deals from the perspective of the 0-level baseline -- the former can instantly drop a dozen or more men and there's nothing they can do about it, the latter can turn any person (including a king, or a high priest, or a wizard) who fails his saving throw into a virtual slave of the caster for at least a few days, possibly longer. Both of those are way more powerful than anything any other class can do at 1st level, and are downright miraculous from the perspective of what a typical 0-level person (i.e. 99% of the population of the game-world) can ever do.

Even a seemingly-innocuous utility spell like read languages is pretty miraculous in effect when compared to what a normal person without the spell can accomplish -- it allows the caster to read and understand any writing in any language, which isn't going to kill anybody, but is still a pretty big deal (and, in fact, in my play experience this seems to be one of the most commonly nerfed spells, when the GM has some code or enigma he wants the players to have to puzzle out or be mystified by and not be able to short-circuit by casting a "lowly" 1st level spell).

Quote from: One Horse Town;361363A casual search hasn't shown up any obvious sockpuppetry.

Of course AM still got the slander in without any real repercussion.

!i!

Quote from: jibbajibba;361379Just to be a pedant. This isn't entirely true. the Junior version I played last night with my daughter has quite different rules and one assumes the rules of the Monopoly card game are somewhat different what with their not being a board and all. And the DVD edition must surely have expansions of some type.

Minor variations, to be sure.  I submit that Monopoly Junior is the same as B/X or BECMI D&D, while Monopoly would be the same as AD&D.  I didn't say every variant of Monopoly is exactly the same as the original game.  What I did say is that the original game and the original rules are virtually unchanged over the course of a century.  If rules could be objectively improved, I would assume someone would have put some effort into 'improving' Monopoly in that time.  D&D has had 'improvements' every five to seven years, on average.  We should be seeing Monopoly v20 by now, if that were the case.

QuoteJust cos you only play OMonopoly at home and can match the rules up to the patent doesn't mean the rest of us haven't moved on to Monopoly 4e (which if you ask me is more of a MMO than a real board game).

:D

QuoteAlso if someone released a monopoly game about collecting various forms of bacteria and combining them to create the strongest form of life on an alien planet there would not be a hue and cry as no one woudl give a Shit (unless it wasn't Hasbro in which case they would sue their arses back to the 19th century).

Don't take this the wrong way, but I assume you don't spend much time at BoardGameGeek.  Slight manufacturing variances in game pieces across printings nearly cause riots over there.  They make theRPGsite look like opium addled catatonic Thorazine patients.

QuoteIn fact I can easily image a Monopoly variant in which the streets were replaced with features of bacterial families and when you got them all rather than adding houses and hotels you bred 'colonies' and when someone else landed on them they had to pay disease points :)

But that is, from a design standpoint, a minor cosmetic change.  Much like the location based sets you mentioned earlier, there are no real changes to the rules.  I can take my AD&D books, rename all the classes, and in short order I could be playing a game of Star Wars.  Or Lord of the Rings.  Or Dune.  Or any of a number of other genres or settings.  Switching the names doesn't change the underlying rules.

QuoteTo the outsider I expect that AD&D And 4E D&D would look quite the same. You all sit round a table prending to be elves and Warriors (no they are not elves they are Trieflings!) and you decide what you do and roll a d20 to see if it worked ....

That is an extremely superficial view.  At that magnification, your theoretical outsider likely wouldn't be able to discern D&D from whist, Warhammer, or a writer's workshop.  A quick overview of classes from both editions, however, and even the most casual gamer will see clear differences, although they will likely not have the historical background to realize how radical those changes are.

QuoteThe difference between a 2e Barbarian and a 4e Dragonborn is probably about the same as replacing the Top Hat with a kangaroo, and an at will power replacing a stunt is akin to being allowed to mortage properites or not... I would guess ... to the untrained observer... possibly.

Emphasis mine.

There are no 'stunts' in AD&D, hence, an at-will power is utterly unable to replace them in any way.  While some Fighter feats from 3.x may have some level of replication in 4e powers, for the most part, feats and powers are not remarkably similar.  Division of combat actions into at-will, encounter and daily abilities is strikingly different than previous versions, to the point that you aren't using a board for movement and keeping track of your hotels anymore, instead you have 'villages' and 'cities' on a large hex map.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361392Of course AM still got the slander in without any real repercussion.

!i!

My point exactly.

Quote from: Imperator;361380But it definitely should.

I guess between yourself and WinkingBishop, I have a popular board game to start working on.  :)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361388No, the reason I bring it up; it's a rule from Chainmail.

But Chainmail also allows wizards to cast either a fireball or a lightning bolt every single round. D&D magic-users obviously don't have this ability, so the only way to reconcile the sources is to assume that all wizards in Chainmail must have a wand of the appropriate type. Which is the key to making a "blaster" combat-oriented magic-user in old D&D -- the spell-casting system isn't really set up for it (both because of the limited slots and also due to the ease of disrupting spells cast in combat) so you need to get a wand (that functions automatically every round and can have up to 100 charges). The problem, then, is stingy GMs who are afraid to place such items where low level characters might be able to get ahold of them, or if they do, limit them to a tiny number of charges, thus relegating magic-user PCs to being second-class and not being able to take their rightful place in combat as "the guys who use wands" :)

Quote from: T. Foster;361390I think a lot of that's a matter of skewed perspectives, though -- people who are more focused on higher-level play, or on combat as the primary activity of the game and the only thing that matters. True, a lot of the 1st level spells would be pretty unimpressive if it's the only spell you know (light, detect magic, hold portal, etc.) but the "big two" -- sleep and charm person -- both qualify as big fucking deals from the perspective of the 0-level baseline -- the former can instantly drop a dozen or more men and there's nothing they can do about it, the latter can turn any person (including a king, or a high priest, or a wizard) who fails his saving throw into a virtual slave of the caster for at least a few days, possibly longer. Both of those are way more powerful than anything any other class can do at 1st level, and are downright miraculous from the perspective of what a typical 0-level person (i.e. 99% of the population of the game-world) can ever do.

Even a seemingly-innocuous utility spell like read languages is pretty miraculous in effect when compared to what a normal person without the spell can accomplish -- it allows the caster to read and understand any writing in any language, which isn't going to kill anybody, but is still a pretty big deal (and, in fact, in my play experience this seems to be one of the most commonly nerfed spells, when the GM has some code or enigma he wants the players to have to puzzle out or be mystified by and not be able to short-circuit by casting a "lowly" 1st level spell).

I've been saying this for years. The players in my current group make fun of my attitude some by calling Magic Missile, "Slay Commoner."

I like the idea of a first level wizard being respected.

A Magic Missile has the energy to half kill any living person, in my opinion, but experienced characters can always get out of the way.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361392Of course AM still got the slander in without any real repercussion.

!i!

Shit man, when are there ever repercussions for slander here? That's just par for the course. Not taking sides, I'm just sayin'....

Quote from: T. Foster;361397But Chainmail also allows wizards to cast either a fireball or a lightning bolt every single round. D&D magic-users obviously don't have this ability, so the only way to reconcile the sources is to assume that all wizards in Chainmail must have a wand of the appropriate type. Which is the key to making a "blaster" combat-oriented magic-user in old D&D -- the spell-casting system isn't really set up for it (both because of the limited slots and also due to the ease of disrupting spells cast in combat) so you need to get a wand (that functions automatically every round and can have up to 100 charges). The problem, then, is stingy GMs who are afraid to place such items where low level characters might be able to get ahold of them, or if they do, limit them to a tiny number of charges, thus relegating magic-user PCs to being second-class and not being able to take their rightful place in combat as "the guys who use wands" :)

I never noticed this in 1e. I remember a long time ago, I was in a game of 1e with a guy playing a 6th level invoker specialist. In a fight with a dragon, he cast something like 12 spells on it. Magic missiles, chromatic orbs, acid arrows, lightning bolts and fireballs. It was pretty sick.

Quote from: Cranewings;361401I never noticed this in 1e. I remember a long time ago, I was in a game of 1e with a guy playing a 6th level invoker specialist. In a fight with a dragon, he cast something like 12 spells on it. Magic missiles, chromatic orbs, acid arrows, lightning bolts and fireballs. It was pretty sick.

IIRC, the only specialist wizard in 1e AD&D was the Illusionist.  Invoker specialists did come around until 2e AD&D.

Quote from: IMLegend;361399Shit man, when are there ever repercussions for slander here? That's just par for the course. Not taking sides, I'm just sayin'....

and if there were the same people would be crying about infringements on free speech.

Quote from: One Horse Town;361406and if there were the same people would be crying about infringements on free speech.

Textbook double-bind.

Quote from: IMLegend;361399Shit man, when are there ever repercussions for slander here? That's just par for the course. Not taking sides, I'm just sayin'....

I know, and, frankly, I'm not expecting any.  But it is worth pointing out the difference between spouting spurious shit about people that doesn't ultimately matter, and accusing someone of essentially the only bannable offense here.  CavScout rode this same rail for months, and its not uncharacteristic of AM's argument style -- distract from someone's argument by forcing them to defend themselves on an unrelated, and manufactured front.

Since there won't be any repercussions, I just think it's worth pointing it out and calling it for what it is.

!i!

Quote from: One Horse Town;361406and if there were the same people would be crying about infringements on free speech.

Oh, no argument from me on that one. I'm certainly not advocating a "crackdown" or anything. I guess I'm saying something more along the lines of "don't act surprised, thicken your skin and move on". That's how it is and I don't think I would be hanging around here were it any different.:idunno:

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361410I know, and, frankly, I'm not expecting any.  But it is worth pointing out the difference between spouting spurious shit about people that doesn't ultimately matter, and accusing someone of essentially the only bannable offense here.  CavScout rode this same rail for months, and its not uncharacteristic of AM's argument style -- distract from someone's argument by forcing them to defend themselves on an unrelated, and manufactured front.

Since there won't be any repercussions, I just think it's worth pointing it out and calling it for what it is.

!i!

Point taken.

Quote from: IMLegend;361399Shit man, when are there ever repercussions for slander here?

The beatings.

Seanchai

Quote from: rezinzar;361295It is in that sense hardly worse than 3e. In that game, you have:

* 7 pseudo-Vancian (2 spont.; effectively only 3 spell lists with a few extra spells chucked in)

* 4 non-casters (mostly with variations of "I hit things")

Not exactly the stuff of world-building (for me.) If mechanics are taken to be that significant, that is.

Yeah, but everyone works off of the same resource management system in 4e.  In 3.5, a sorcerer's magic works differently than a wizard's and arcane magic works different from divine, and a monk's combat skills work differently than a fighter's, etc.  It's not to much the actual 'unique-ness' of an action, but how it feels to utilize the subsystems in play.  Unifying the subsystems into one big resource-management system that's the same for everyone makes classes feel less "different", IMO.  

You can still tell the difference between  how a wizard plays and a fighter based on their role, but the nuances of playing each class are less varied.  Rather than everyone having their own "mini game" to play, everyone is playing the same thing.

Quote from: RandallS;361387I have a description of a version of these rules I wrote up for S&W on my blog:
Hit Points and Body Points for Swords & Wizardry (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2009/03/hit-points-and-body-points-for-swords.html).

This description has 100% HP recovery on as night's sleep. To get the rules I used originally just substitute 75%. The reason for 75% was that I noticed if (in real life) I really exhaust myself completely, one night's sleep still leaves me less than 100% of my normal oomph the next day.

Cool, I'll check them out. Many thanks :)

Quote from: T. Foster;361390I think a lot of that's a matter of skewed perspectives, though -- people who are more focused on higher-level play, or on combat as the primary activity of the game and the only thing that matters. True, a lot of the 1st level spells would be pretty unimpressive if it's the only spell you know (light, detect magic, hold portal, etc.) but the "big two" -- sleep and charm person -- both qualify as big fucking deals from the perspective of the 0-level baseline -- the former can instantly drop a dozen or more men and there's nothing they can do about it, the latter can turn any person (including a king, or a high priest, or a wizard) who fails his saving throw into a virtual slave of the caster for at least a few days, possibly longer. Both of those are way more powerful than anything any other class can do at 1st level, and are downright miraculous from the perspective of what a typical 0-level person (i.e. 99% of the population of the game-world) can ever do.

Even a seemingly-innocuous utility spell like read languages is pretty miraculous in effect when compared to what a normal person without the spell can accomplish -- it allows the caster to read and understand any writing in any language, which isn't going to kill anybody, but is still a pretty big deal (and, in fact, in my play experience this seems to be one of the most commonly nerfed spells, when the GM has some code or enigma he wants the players to have to puzzle out or be mystified by and not be able to short-circuit by casting a "lowly" 1st level spell).

Hum, interesting. But it also could be argued that, as an important part of the game happens into the dungeon that argument you use is quite moot: there are few 0 level commoners to be impressed in a dungeon. :)

Quote from: StormBringer;361396I guess between yourself and WinkingBishop, I have a popular board game to start working on.  :)

Oh yeah.

Quote from: Peregrin;361417You can still tell the difference between  how a wizard plays and a fighter based on their role, but the nuances of playing each class are less varied.  Rather than everyone having their own "mini game" to play, everyone is playing the same thing.

Which, IMO, is a very good thing.

Pretty much every edition since OD&D has made a point to cut out "wacky flavor rules" in favor of "more standardized rules".  It makes the game easier to design and play.

I won't say I or my group get the same amount of flavor from the books that we used to.  We certainly don't.  And the wizard favoring PC may love the new at-will powers and being less weak, but laments the loss of the variety of spells of yore and getting to be much more powerful than everyone else.

I will say that we still get the same flavor in play.  In fact, changing to 4e has really improved a lot of things:
* The books are the easiest of any edition to use as an actual rulebook for reference.
* The rules are thin and concise enough that everyone understands the rules and there are rarely any rules questions and pretty much never a rules argument.  Which is in sharp contrast to attempts to play 2e and 3e with the same basic group, which led to non-stop arguments over rules.
* Combat is far more interesting in play than in past editions, which tended to just be drawn-out "I roll to hit" affairs (but yes, does tend to be overly long - they should have reduced HPs about 30% or so).

Quote from: RandallS;361384Power sources aren't in any other edition of D&D that I'm aware of, so it would be hard to say.

Power sources aren't codified as a game concept before 4E, but the game has it written all over it. If you do a text search on "divine power" (calling down_, drawing on_, ...) on the cleric and paladin class write-ups in the 3E PHBs, you'll see it. What's really new is primal power, but even that got rationalized by recourse to the split in faith among the inhabitants of T1's village of Homlet: divine (St Cuthbert) vs primal (old druidic).

Quote from: Imperator;361418Hum, interesting. But it also could be argued that, as an important part of the game happens into the dungeon that argument you use is quite moot: there are few 0 level commoners to be impressed in a dungeon. :)

Well, there are probably some bandits or berserkers down there, and the party has likely brought along some men-at-arms or torch-bearers, plus the low-end humanoids (kobolds and goblins) are functionally the same as 0-level humans. Plus, it helps the players learn to respect those spells when they're used against them -- a single sleep spell against a party of 1st or 2nd level characters is an almost guaranteed TPK (at least until AD&D introduced the rule that elves are 90% immune), and a charm person against the party's best fighter isn't much better (especially since you presumably want to avoid killing him but he has no problem killing you, so you're trying to immobilize or KO him while he's stabbing you in the face :)).

Quote from: Seanchai;361366I want to play OD&D or preferably AD&D again some time to compare and contrast. Just an adventure. And using all the rules.

One of the members of my group keeps commenting on the length of our fights. He's an AD&D fan. I don't disagree that they're longer than those in previous editions - I'm thinking, however, that they're more satisfying.

I'd be curious to see what my own and other folks in my group would think of OD&D and AD&D after having played 3e and 4e.

Seanchai

Oh sure.  4e fights are definitely more satisfying -- moreso than 3.x IMO.  But the thing is, the dungeon was the focus of old play, so having satisfying combat minutiae wasn't as necessary since the entire dungeon was the focus of play, rather than set-piece battles in an otherwise (relatively) static environment.

Quote from: T. Foster;361397But Chainmail also allows wizards to cast either a fireball or a lightning bolt every single round. D&D magic-users obviously don't have this ability, so the only way to reconcile the sources is to assume that all wizards in Chainmail must have a wand of the appropriate type.

ok, but what if we don't assume the wands, what if that were the concept all along?

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361410I know, and, frankly, I'm not expecting any.  But it is worth pointing out the difference between spouting spurious shit about people that doesn't ultimately matter, and accusing someone of essentially the only bannable offense here.  CavScout rode this same rail for months, and its not uncharacteristic of AM's argument style -- distract from someone's argument by forcing them to defend themselves on an unrelated, and manufactured front.

Since there won't be any repercussions, I just think it's worth pointing it out and calling it for what it is.

!i!

A new user registers, posts two posts in one discussion, directly related to the most controversial subject we ever have here, that seemingly contradict each other. First post is a simple anti-4E troll, similar to anything any of you regular nitwits could come up with.  The second one is more advanced, sort of a false flag "Anyone who doesn't like 4e is brain damaged". Here he proves that he's been around for a while (referencing the famous Ron Edwards brain damage quote and then falsely tying it to some kind of Pro 4E comment).

Ironically, who leaps out of the woodwork to defend the guy? The other 4E haters.

It was probably IP-masked, but it's definitely a sock puppet account. Are you guys like..in on it? All I ever said was "ignore him" and you are all going "SLANDERRRRR!"

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361410Since there won't be any repercussions, I just think it's worth pointing it out and calling it for what it is.

!i!

Each of us should be allowed to defend themselves against false accusations, especially when they are posted by nutbags solely to stop conversation.

Quote from: jgants;361424* Combat is far more interesting in play than in past editions, which tended to just be drawn-out "I roll to hit" affairs (but yes, does tend to be overly long - they should have reduced HPs about 30% or so).

I don't have a huge issue with your other points, and not even a huge one on this, but I will say that I think this is more an artifact of using miniatures rather than the system itself. I ran a one-shot 3.5 game using a bunch of minis and dungeon tiles that I got on eBay about a month ago and the combat was night-and-day different than "freeform" or verbalized combat. When using miniatures, combat moved much smoother IMO because there were no questions about who was where, what could hit who, can I see it, etc. I'm probably going to use minis as much as possible now that I've invested in them, but still likely to use 3.5 or eventually Pathfinder. I haven't played 4e enough to really comment on the other issues - EXCEPT - to say that the 4e books are really REALLY handsome and I enjoyed reading them.

Of course, if you aren't using miniatures in your 4e, then bill me for the last 30 seconds of your time. ;)

Of course of course - if you aren't using miniatures, you aren't plaing 4e, are ya? :)

Quote from: jeff37923;361431Each of us should be allowed to defend themselves against false accusations, especially when they are posted by nutbags solely to stop conversation.

Well, I notice you are off topic and you hate 4E, and you totally want to talk about other stuff. Was this kinda what you were going for?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361429ok, but what if we don't assume the wands, what if that were the concept all along?

Then it seems likely the game would've stayed more focused on combat and wouldn't have developed (at least not to the same extent) the more exploration-based focus, since the latter consists by-and-large of ways to try to avoid combat (sneaking and scouting and trying to draw accurate maps, running away and trying to deter pursuit (by setting obstacles or dropping distractions), attempting to align with "friendly" monsters to get help and info, attempting to talk or bribe your way past monsters, etc.) because you know that if you do get into combat (especially multiple back-to-back combats) you're likely to lose. For people who like a lot of combat this probably would be seen as a good thing, but for me who prefers all that other stuff and thinks straight-up combat is probably the least-fun part of the game, it would've been a bad thing.

Quote from: T. Foster;361438Then it seems likely the game would've stayed more focused on combat and wouldn't have developed (at least not to the same extent) the more exploration-based focus, since the latter consists by-and-large of ways to try to avoid combat (sneaking and scouting and trying to draw accurate maps, running away and trying to deter pursuit (by setting obstacles or dropping distractions), attempting to align with "friendly" monsters to get help and info, attempting to talk or bribe your way past monsters, etc.) because you know that if you do get into combat (especially multiple back-to-back combats) you're likely to lose. For people who like a lot of combat this probably would be seen as a good thing, but for me who prefers all that other stuff and thinks straight-up combat is probably the least-fun part of the game, it would've been a bad thing.

For me, I think combat should be an equally viable option amongst others (neither the best-favored nor the worst option). And I also tend to think..well, combat is fun in itself. It's exciting. Here you have a bunch of characters all dressed up in armor and weaponry and you're not going to use it?

My other point is; if we start talking about spells you can use every round, shouldn't Chainmail be considered as well?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361434Well, I notice you are off topic and you hate 4E, and you totally want to talk about other stuff. Was this kinda what you were going for?

Actually, the conversation was going pretty well until you showed up with your 4E Zealot cross to bear.

Funny thing is, I was waiting for Pundit to say whether or not he thinks DDI is considered part of 4E, because I think that is a good innovation.

But then again, you have never let reality or common sense get in the way of your 4E persecution complex.

EDIT: Also for the millionth fucking time, I hate the 4E Zealots and their assinine behavior. I can't get up enough energy to hate 4E because it is just a game that fails to scratch my gaming itch.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361440My other point is; if we start talking about spells you can use every round, shouldn't Chainmail be considered as well?

No, because we're talking about role-playing games and not minature wargames.

Quote from: Drohem;361445No, because we're talking about role-playing games and not minature wargames.

We are?! I thought we were talking about 4E. According to so many of the grognards around here 4E is just a miniature wargame anyway. What gives?

Quote from: IMLegend;361449We are?! I thought we were talking about 4E. According to so many of the grognards around here 4E is just a miniature wargame anyway. What gives?

Aww, man!  You took his bait.  Do you like the taste of chum?  :D

In so far as the ability for mages to cast spells everyone round.  D&D 4e is a latecomer to the game.  Most other mainstream RPG's have been allowing mages to cast spells every round for years and I'm not even talking about a daily limit through a spell point mechanic.  Just the ability to cast any spell you know as often as you want.  The usual offset to this freedom is some kind of test be it willpower, skill or some other risk.  

I think this is the logical counter point to a fighter doing his thing.  The fighter has to get up close and personal with his opponent to do his reaping-swing-of-death.   The mage on the other hand has to overcome his own personal willpower or risk some external force each time they cast.  They must balance risk/reward each time they cast, in essence that's their combat.

Mages spamming magic missile with no risk and in virtually the same mechanical state that archers shoot arrows.  That just takes away from the story element of being a spell caster.  But more then that it also diminishes some of the benefits of being an archer.

Quote from: Drohem;361450Aww, man!  You took his bait.  Do you like the taste of chum?  :D

Just call me Jaws baby! (Yes, you're gonna need a bigger boat.)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361440For me, I think combat should be an equally viable option amongst others (neither the best-favored nor the worst option). And I also tend to think..well, combat is fun in itself. It's exciting. Here you have a bunch of characters all dressed up in armor and weaponry and you're not going to use it?

I pretty much agree with this, and it's not like I avoid combat entirely in my games -- we pretty much always have at least 1 or 2 big throwdowns per session, often more -- I just don't want it to be the sole, or even primary, focus of the game. My ideal is for combat to generally make up about 25-33% of the game (with the other 66-75% being a mix of planning, exploration, puzzle-solving, and in-character dialogue and negotiation).

QuoteMy other point is; if we start talking about spells you can use every round, shouldn't Chainmail be considered as well?

Well, Chainmail was a tabletop wargame, not an rpg, so that's not the comparison I'd imagine most 4E fans would want to make. Since you brought it up, though, it does appear to me that 4E's play dynamic probably bears more comparison to Chainmail than it does to pre-3E versions of A/D&D.

Quote from: IMLegend;361454Just call me Jaws baby! (Yes, you're gonna need a bigger boat.)

:rotfl:

Personally, I think the 4e Warlock concepts, themes and flavour rock.

Also, the idea of combat-characters doing something other than 'I attack!' for mechanics every round, and being fully effective, rocks.

AC/Fort/Ref/Will being flat numbers makes things faster and easier and doesn't detract from gameplay.

Quote from: T. Foster;361455Well, Chainmail was a tabletop wargame, not an rpg, so that's not the comparison I'd imagine most 4E fans would want to make. Since you brought it up, though, it does appear to me that 4E's play dynamic probably bears more comparison to Chainmail than it does to pre-3E versions of A/D&D.

Well, I dunno if that's mainly an internet phenomenon or what, but the comparison woouldn't phase most people. Most people don't care, and miniatures wargame is not a grave insult, except for people who completely lack the skills to play one and thus see it as something beyond their abilities. Better to stick to "the game where nobody wins!" for those guys, right?

(How ironic is it that 'grognard" was a term that the miniatures wargamers took for themselves to differntiate themselves from the RPGers!)

 There's no way 4e *isn't* a roleplaying game (which anyone who has played it, even skeptically, can tell you). The real issue has always been "It's not according to tradition!"

And I think in certain ways that might be true, but usually not in any way that anyone is ever willing to talk about (the social network effect in particular). Much of this thread talks about characters that can cast every round, and what I want to say, (to quote Tom Jones); It's not unusual.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361430Are you guys like..in on it?

As I was saying -- case in point.

!i!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361430AAll I ever said was "ignore him"

For the record: I think you made a good call.

Quote from: Peregrin;361427Oh sure.  4e fights are definitely more satisfying -- moreso than 3.x IMO.  But the thing is, the dungeon was the focus of old play, so having satisfying combat minutiae wasn't as necessary since the entire dungeon was the focus of play, rather than set-piece battles in an otherwise (relatively) static environment.

I've seen WotC's modules and I think calling them set-pieces in relatively static environments is pretty fair. However, I'm building an fortress right now and it's not full of set-pieces and static environments. I think WotC's approach isn't a necessity, but rather the way they've decided to encapsulate information for DMs.

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923;361227So would the concept of DDI be considered a 4E innovation?

I suppose, but I don't see it as a good one; though if it had been implemented better it might have been.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361430A new user registers, posts two posts in one discussion, directly related to the most controversial subject we ever have here, that seemingly contradict each other. First post is a simple anti-4E troll, similar to anything any of you regular nitwits could come up with. The second one is more advanced, sort of a false flag "Anyone who doesn't like 4e is brain damaged". Here he proves that he's been around for a while (referencing the famous Ron Edwards brain damage quote and then falsely tying it to some kind of Pro 4E comment).

Ironically, who leaps out of the woodwork to defend the guy? The other 4E haters.

It was probably IP-masked, but it's definitely a sock puppet account. Are you guys like..in on it? All I ever said was "ignore him" and you are all going "SLANDERRRRR!"

Huh.  It's almost like you are familiar with the process of setting up a virtually untraceable sockpuppet account.  I wonder why you are so absolutely certain it is a sockpuppet?  Instead of directing your concerns to Brett, you make a public show about it, then fan the flames when Dan says it doesn't look like a sockpuppet.  Then, you lay out the tactics and strategies of this alleged sockpuppet, while slyly getting in a reference to 'the most controversial topic we have here', trying to insinuate any of us give a shit about 4e when most of us just like to spend our off time pointing out glaring design flaws.  The, we hear about a brilliant 'false flag' ploy, and how the term 'brain damaged' didn't exist prior to Ron Edward's use as proof they are a long time poster.

And it all occurred when public opinion was turning against 4e once again.  I mean, that is a hell of a string of coincidences right there.

AM is a long-time poster here.  Maybe the sockpuppet is his and he's using it to garner sympathy for himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome#Description).

!i!

Quote from: Seanchai;361367Perhaps if a) you were a real person rather than a deliberately constructed personality, b) hadn't declared your undying hatred of 4e, c) weren't the instigator of a quixotic war against "the Swine," and d) hadn't clearly been trying to generate traffic on the site, I might take that at face value. I don't. This is just backpedaling bluster.

Seanchai

Ok dude, its been a good run but I think the jig is up. I think we'd best admit to people that you're a guy I've hired to generate traffic here... I mean, you put up a good show and everything, and I congratulate you, frankly I don't think you could keep it up this long.  But really, I think at this point its just not believable anymore that you'd just be an asshole who comes on here to just engage in blatant trolling out of impotent rage AND that you'd at the same time be stupid enough not to somehow realize that if my goal is indeed to merely increase this site's traffic at any cost, you're playing right into my hands.

So yeah, everyone, its time Sean and I come clean about this, though I think at this point no one could really possibly believe that Seanchai is actually such a massive, easily-manipulated tool blinded by his full-retard levels blind primitive envy.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;361476So yeah, everyone, its time Sean and I come clean about this...

So, you guys are like..in on it?

!i!

This thread divides by zero.

Quote from: RPGPundit;361471I suppose, but I don't see it as a good one; though if it had been implemented better it might have been.

RPGPundit

I won't deny that the implementation sucked donkey balls and a lot that was promised turned out to be vaporware or crippleware, but as an innovation it has merit.

For a cheaper subscription price than buying the 4E books, you have all the information at your computer that is constantly updated with new releases. The character builder is there which creates your PC, complete with all the references for powers printed along with it. Not too shabby.

Quote from: RPGPundit;361476Ok dude, its been a good run but I think the jig is up. I think we'd best admit to people that you're a guy I've hired to generate traffic here... I mean, you put up a good show and everything, and I congratulate you, frankly I don't think you could keep it up this long.  But really, I think at this point its just not believable anymore that you'd just be an asshole who comes on here to just engage in blatant trolling out of impotent rage AND that you'd at the same time be stupid enough not to somehow realize that if my goal is indeed to merely increase this site's traffic at any cost, you're playing right into my hands.

So yeah, everyone, its time Sean and I come clean about this, though I think at this point no one could really possibly believe that Seanchai is actually such a massive, easily-manipulated tool blinded by his full-retard levels blind primitive envy.

RPGPundit

Dude! You could have offered me this job! I work cheap!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361461Well, I dunno if that's mainly an internet phenomenon or what, but the comparison woouldn't phase most people.

The differences among they're, there, and their don't phase most people, either.  Regardless, Chainmail isn't an RPG, so the comparison is not only clumsy, it's wrong.

QuoteThere's no way 4e *isn't* a roleplaying game (which anyone who has played it, even skeptically, can tell you). The real issue has always been "It's not according to tradition!"

No, that isn't the real issue, no matter how often you say it.  The real issue is that 4e utilizes role playing the same way Chess utilizes it.  The role playing doesn't arise from play, it arises between play.  In other words, it is 'role playing the gaps' between having a figurine or dice in your hand resolving some task or combat round.

QuoteAnd I think in certain ways that might be true, but usually not in any way that anyone is ever willing to talk about (the social network effect in particular). Much of this thread talks about characters that can cast every round, and what I want to say, (to quote Tom Jones); It's not unusual.

There is no greater social network effect.  That is an illusion you use to pretend you are a popular member of a mainstream hobby.  I am guessing there are more new people interested in Curling at this year's Olympics alone than new people showing an interest in RPG's in the last five years or so.

Finally, casting spells every round is unusual, and I am not expecting any kind of evidence to show how it is normal.  Rather, I expect the usual pissing and moaning about how I don't participate in the hobby, and by inference, aren't as popular or as cool or as relevant as you are.

So, fire away.  Your tired nonsensical rants are entirely too predictable, but I will continue to point them out because much like the police, I am not going to turn a blind eye just because you are only shoplifting candybars.

I dedicate this post to the Pundit and Seachai; Jeff and SB; and Ian, AM and his sock puppet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A3j0zWpTs0

To you, Aos. With love from my Traveller games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08LfHAh0jAY

Considering this whole mess involves sockpuppets, gender confusion, online personas, lust , alpha male bumps, macho posturings....I think this would be a better theme : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5dEjaJ6Mrw&feature=related

Regards,
David R

Quote from: StormBringer;361483No, that isn't the real issue, no matter how often you say it.  The real issue is that 4e utilizes role playing the same way Chess utilizes it.  The role playing doesn't arise from play, it arises between play.  In other words, it is 'role playing the gaps' between having a figurine or dice in your hand resolving some task or combat round.

I disagree with this, man. I disagreed with it, when I heard the RQ guys say the same thing about D&D back in the day. I don't play 4E, but I know a number of people who do play the game. It's a different game, no doubt, but it still plays like any other rpg. For most people (at least around here) it's just another version of D&D.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;361488I disagree with this, man. I disagreed with it, when I heard the RQ guys say the same thing about D&D back in the day. I don't play 4E, but I know a number of people who do play the game. It's a different game, no doubt, but it still plays like any other rpg. For most people (at least around here) it's just another version of D&D.

Regards,
David R

I think it was defined well earlier in the thread.

4E is a Tactical RPG while previous editions were Immersive RPGs. Still RPGs, just a different focus for the game play in RAW.

Quote from: jeff37923;361490I think it was defined well earlier in the thread.

4E is a Tactical RPG while previous editions were Immersive RPGs. Still RPGs, just a different focus for the game play in RAW.

I dunno' about the "defined well" part. I mean, who is doing the defining in these edition wars ?

I do think that 4E is more tactical but I'm not too sure about previous editions being immersive RPGs. The folks who do like it (4E) and play, still find the game extremely immersive.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jeff37923;361490while previous editions were Immersive RPGs.

Bollocks.

The game's not the thing, the snacks, players and then system are. Kyle's having an aneurism right now. Won't anyone think of Kyle? :(

Since when were all the older editions about immersion?  You ever read anything by Gygax?  As often as he talked about world-building and immersion, he threw down a bunch of meta-game beans.  I don't think meta concepts and immersion are always at odds, it just depends what the group likes.

Quote from: jeff37923;361486To you, Aos. With love from my Traveller games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08LfHAh0jAY

Derek Wildstar, reporting for duty, sir!

I recently watched the first two seasons of that on DVD at a friends house. I also have it on VHS (taped from the broadcast) in a box somewhere.  Pot is the best low budget special effect.

Quote from: RPGPundit;361476Ok dude, its been a good run but I think the jig is up. I think we'd best admit to people that you're a guy I've hired to generate traffic here...

Fine. Where's my check? I'm assuming I'll be getting that bonus we spoke of...

Seanchai

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361382So wait, would a rule whereby a character with the arcane power source is allowed to automatically set fire to buildings be new school or old school? I consider that kind of an innovation.

Any character with a torch can set fire to buildings, what would they need arcane power sources for? Hell, throw in a flask of oil and we can even make it automatic.

Edit: Late I know, but ya'all have more time to follow threads around here than I do, so I respond to 'em when I read 'em.

Quote from: David R;361488I disagree with this, man. I disagreed with it, when I heard the RQ guys say the same thing about D&D back in the day. I don't play 4E, but I know a number of people who do play the game. It's a different game, no doubt, but it still plays like any other rpg. For most people (at least around here) it's just another version of D&D.

Regards,
David R

Sure, it is more successful with some groups than others, but the video of the Robot Chicken guys belies the designers' intent.

Instead of something like "Sorry, Darkfire makes a creature's soul burn from the inside" (taking a cue from Ghost Rider), or "Well, it isn't a real fire, so it will only weaken the ice" and granting a bonus to the Strength check, or best of all, "Clever.  Ok, after a few minutes of Darkfire, the ice appears to have melted away from the door" and continuing, the lead designer gets the power card, and reads "Affects one creature" and decided the rules are iron clad and it can't possibly affect the door, because the door isn't a creature.  Shutting down the player's attempt at actually role playing, as in, thinking as their character would; and further discouraging it by referencing the rules instead of making up a sensible in-game explanation.  It was no different than reading off a Chance or M:tG card.

Of course, that isn't the official way to play it.  He could have easily used any of the above, but for the fans watching that video, his actions and ruling will become the de facto official method.  Which leads directly to a fireball not really being made of fire, because the target is 'each creature in burst'.  Hence, it is a damage effect that has the keyword 'fire'.  Traditional Japanese houses can be bombarded with fireballs and suffer nary a scorch.

My contention remains that the role playing exists in the gaps, rather than as an extension of the rules.  That doesn't necessarily make it inferior to any other game.  But the underlying rules are certainly not geared to make it any easier.

Stormbringer, I'm sure your reply was nuanced and all but I have no idea what you're talking about. This is probably my fault, as I was responding to a specific part of your reply to AM. Now, I still don't see how the roleplaying in 4E "exists in the gapes" because to me, either the rules get in the way (of role playing) or they don't and all this very much depends on the group.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;361517Stormbringer, I'm sure your reply was nuanced and all but I have no idea what you're talking about. This is probably my fault, as I was responding to a specific part of your reply to AM. Now, I still don't see how the roleplaying in 4E "exists in the gapes" because to me, either the rules get in the way (of role playing) or they don't and all this very much depends on the group.

Regards,
David R

More likely my fault, as I rather like to hear myself speak.  What were you referring to specifically?

Quote from: StormBringer;361331You are arguing in bad faith and you know it.

You're absolutely correct. I'm arguing in bad faith and I am absolutely aware of it.

In case you weren't aware, and I've given this disclaimer at least a few times here: I post here to entertain myself, because my viewpoints generally don't reflect the popular opinion of the board at large and that makes it more fun than going to RPGNET where everyone plays nicey-nice and below the belt blows get you banned right quick.

So yeah...I'm more interested in getting in verbal scraps than engaging in a high school debate competition...because I don't have much talent in expressing myself with tact and delicacy...so let me preface the following points by first reiterating, with as much diplomacy as I am able to muster, IMLegend's previous sentiment:

"So take your imagined argumental high-ground and shove it up your pompous ass."

Quote from: StormBringer;361331And you have every type for every spell and magic item memorized?

AD&D is even simpler.  There is no stacking, so add in all your bonuses and roll a d20 to see if you hit.

Unified challenge resolution mechanics are not really unified, so you are incorrect.

Still not buying it.

Perhaps the purest expression of post TSR D&D's core mechanic, minus the minutiae added by the myriad of character options, is found in Castles & Crusades, which would be my go-to system for a 1e-style game (read: boring)

The rules, all told, boil down to this: roll once, roll high.

Simple, elegant and I should have mentioned this particular attribute from the outset: intuitive.

Much, much more intuitive than AD&D's roll high for this, roll low for this, roll percentage for this, stand on your head and maturbate while singing the score from Pirates of Penzance for this.

The aforementioned D20 system challenge resolution mechanic IS unified, because it's the same type of roll, though the individual modifiers may differ.

Quote from: StormBringer;361331No, it's subjective in every sense, and that is the point.  But thanks for conceding that.  Now go back to your Candyland M:tG MMO on paper ruleset, the adults are having a discussion.

Here's the problem with your objectivity/subjectivity argument:

There ain't no such thing as "objective"

Case in point, most of us would agree that having a spiked heel ground into our scrotum to be an unpleasant experience, but some masochists dig it. So it's technically subjective.

Hell, I've had "discussions" with wacky, metaphysical philosophy nuts (The one's who try to get you to watch "What The BLEEP! Do We Know in the same way Jehovah's Witnesses try to get you to read The Watchtower) who don't believe in math.

So yeah...everything is subjective to someone.

Doesn't mean it makes a lick of goddamn sense.

And thank you, I will enjoy my Candyland, M:tG MMO on paper.

Likewise, I hope that you enjoy your dusty, boring, lifeless, endlessly retread, Tolkien-fellating campaigns. Old man.

Quote from: StormBringer;361331It's the same reason people upgraded their iPods when they came out with new ones, too.  It's human nature.  Sadly, your argument is utterly false, relying on people's innate neophilia to assume something is better because it is popular.  I can't help you with your miserable high school years of never being popular, but perhaps you can start a support group around here, there seem to be several people suffering from the same delusion.

Except for the resurgence of vintage style rules that you are unable to comprehend.  It must be baffling that some people don't want the new shiny just because it is new and shiny, but none of this matters, because you have utterly failed to show how a new ruleset is objectively better than an older one.  Remember Monopoly?  Aside from re-arranging (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=748626) the properties (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=1509312) and moving it to Atlantic City, it hasn't changed in over 100yrs.

Monopoly is a different animal than D&D.

Sure, both are games however they differ in that Monopoly is family entertainment first and foremost...you sit around a table, pull it out of the box, and play until someone wins, whereas D&D is a hobby. Meaning that when the game ends, people are still thinking about it and tweaking it.

So yeah...maybe some people have been perfectly happy playing OD&D since the 70's and have never moved on...if they're boring, and have no friends, and people's eyes glaze over when they talk to them, and they're my dad...but sexy and exciting people...like your mom...like to see things that are fresh new and exciting. (paraphrasing Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw)

In the same way that modelers don't want to rebuild the same scale B-17 again and again, gamers eventually get tired of playing their Fighting-Man and move on to Basic/AD&D...and eventually they tire of that and buy Unearthed Arcana...then they get tired of that and move on to GURPS or Warhammer.

In this way the hobby can be advanced...by creating something new. By innovating.

People like you are antithetical to this because you don't want innovation, you want drag the game system kicking and screaming back to the 70's when you were still a relevant and contributing member of the community.

Quote from: StormBringer;361331Take your angsty, hate your parents, emo whining elsewhere.  You haven't stumbled on the coolest thing EVAR which will garner you the popularity the other kids in your class cruelly denied you.  The more you insist it is objectively better, the less credible your argument becomes.  It doesn't help that you only offer opinion and positive assertions, I promise.

I don't hate my parents...I hate yours. Oh snap! No I didn't.

Quote from: StormBringer;361331So, none of the movement effects in a couple hundred pages of power listings are really there?  Or are you saying they aren't actually movement effects?  Or are you trying to deny their impact because you know looking all those up is far, far more involved than a couple of 'to hit' charts from older editions?

4E movement effects:

Push= Forces target to move a numer of squares away from you.
Pull=   Forces target to move a number of squares towards you.
Slide= Forces target to move in a number of squares in any direction.
Shift= Allows target to move through hostile spaces without being subjected to attects.
Teleport= Instantaneously moves target from one square to another within range.

For all those hundreds of powers, the movement effects boil down to these 5.

I won't blame you for not having realized this...afterall, I've never read the HERO system or Dogs In The Vineyard.

Quote from: StormBringer;361516Sure, it is more successful with some groups than others, but the video of the Robot Chicken guys belies the designers' intent.

Instead of something like "Sorry, Darkfire makes a creature's soul burn from the inside" (taking a cue from Ghost Rider), or "Well, it isn't a real fire, so it will only weaken the ice" and granting a bonus to the Strength check, or best of all, "Clever.  Ok, after a few minutes of Darkfire, the ice appears to have melted away from the door" and continuing, the lead designer gets the power card, and reads "Affects one creature" and decided the rules are iron clad and it can't possibly affect the door, because the door isn't a creature.  Shutting down the player's attempt at actually role playing, as in, thinking as their character would; and further discouraging it by referencing the rules instead of making up a sensible in-game explanation.  It was no different than reading off a Chance or M:tG card.

Of course, that isn't the official way to play it.  He could have easily used any of the above, but for the fans watching that video, his actions and ruling will become the de facto official method.  Which leads directly to a fireball not really being made of fire, because the target is 'each creature in burst'.  Hence, it is a damage effect that has the keyword 'fire'.  Traditional Japanese houses can be bombarded with fireballs and suffer nary a scorch.

My contention remains that the role playing exists in the gaps, rather than as an extension of the rules.  That doesn't necessarily make it inferior to any other game.  But the underlying rules are certainly not geared to make it any easier.

Actually, in this case the Drow's Dark Fire racial ability is a 4E reskin of "Faerie Fire" which the race got as a spell-like ability in previous editions.

The reason it wouldn't work on the door is that Faerie Fire is an illusory effect and doesn't, in fact, generate heat.

Of course, Mr. Perkins could have done a better job of explaining this to the players than simply saying "No...because the text says the abiltiy targets a creature.

However, if a player wanted to use something like "Scorching Burst" (1st level Wizard spell that actually does fire damage) and the DM said "No...because the spell targets a creature" then said DM would be utterly full of shit.

Quote from: kryyst;361453Mages spamming magic missile with no risk and in virtually the same mechanical state that archers shoot arrows.  That just takes away from the story element of being a spell caster.  But more then that it also diminishes some of the benefits of being an archer.

Ehhh...it diminishes what is unique about an archer...

But the way 4E differentiates is by making the prototypical archer class (Ranger) do a shit ton of damage, while the Wizards oft spammed at-will spells are ideally supposed to do more controller-y things (like rob enemies of options)

in this way, I think that the 4E iteration of magic missile is poorly designed, because all it does is straight damage without promoting what it is the Wizard is supposed to be good at.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361523You're absolutely correct. I'm arguing in bad faith and I am absolutely aware of it.

Then you wasted a lot of time typing this response.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361526Of course, Mr. Perkins could have done a better job of explaining this to the players than simply saying "No...because the text says the abiltiy targets a creature.

Perkins put up another series of videos where he personally runs a (sort of) director's comments on the Robot Chicken play D&D videos. Listening to his comments, it's apparent that he's extremely perceptive of the players (e.g. who's distracted when and why), so I don't think he's an ass. To the contrary. In any case, it will be interesting when the director's commentary goes up for the sequence in question here ("Can Dark Fire be worked on an object?").

My personal take on the issue is actually quite relaxed. Perkins is an expert DM guiding new players into his campaign. He's setting some base lines here. Right there, near the very first session kicking off, he frankly had to communicate whether he's going to winge this game or not. This ruling, and the drawn out sequence of "let me look at your card text and read it (though I'm one of the designers who wrote it, knows it, and doesn't need to to this)" - that serves the purpose of alerting the players to his DMing style. And that style is "please look at your card before you use it", as in "look up the mechanics, look beyond the flavour line".

Geez, is that so bad? I mean, I'm the guy who brought this issue up at the Gaming Den before my (timed) Youtube link got cross posted to Enworld and this site. And man, I was just as offended as the next guy, because I love to winge stuff in 4E. But I can totally see how some DMs might not love winging. It's that simple.

Quote from: StormBringer;361529Then you wasted a lot of time typing this response.

But Johnny....can't you see that I love you???

Quote from: Windjammer;361531Perkins put up another series of videos where he personally runs a (sort of) director's comments on the Robot Chicken play D&D videos. Listening to his comments, it's apparent that he's extremely perceptive of the players (e.g. who's distracted when and why), so I don't think he's an ass. To the contrary. In any case, it will be interesting when the director's commentary goes up for the sequence in question here ("Can Dark Fire be worked on an object?").

My personal take on the issue is actually quite relaxed. Perkins is an expert DM guiding new players into his campaign. He's setting some base lines here. Right there, near the very first session kicking off, he frankly had to communicate whether he's going to winge this game or not. This ruling, and the drawn out sequence of "let me look at your card text and read it (though I'm one of the designers who wrote it, knows it, and doesn't need to to this)" - that serves the purpose of alerting the players to his DMing style. And that style is "please look at your card before you use it", as in "look up the mechanics, look beyond the flavour line".

Geez, is that so bad? I mean, I'm the guy who brought this issue up at the Gaming Den before my (timed) Youtube link got cross posted to Enworld and this site. And man, I was just as offended as the next guy, because I love to winge stuff in 4E. But I can totally see how some DMs might not love winging. It's that simple.

I'm not saying that he made the wrong call here...I'm just saying that from an outside perspective he could have communicated why this idea wouldn't work as it relates to the game world, rather than just the rules.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361523. . . stand on your head and maturbate while single the score from Pirates of Penzance for this.

Ooooh, I'd forgotten about the Thief's optional attract-random-harlots-as-followers subsystem.

Good times. Though a trifle messy.

Quote from: StormBringer;361519More likely my fault, as I rather like to hear myself speak.  What were you referring to specifically?

Well specifically your reference to the way how chess utilizes roleplaying and AM's point that many dismiss 4E as not a roleplaying game. I reread your Darkfire example and shazbot's reply, and think that OtE beats any edition of D&D as far as roleplaying "as an extension of the rules" (encouraging player creativity, through roleplaying) but I certainly woud not say D&D is not a roleplaying game or that it utilizes roleplaying as Chess would.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Shazbot79;361523Monopoly is a different animal than D&D.

Sure, both are games however they differ in that Monopoly is family entertainment first and foremost...you sit around a table, pull it out of the box, and play until someone wins, whereas D&D is a hobby. Meaning that when the game ends, people are still thinking about it and tweaking it.

This is partly true but in fact Monopoly is not primarily sold as a game at all. :)It is a gift. You need to buy something for a kid at Christmas you know they like the Simpsons so you buy them the Simpson's Monopoly game becuase it costs $19:99 and hits one of their sweet spots. They play it once and never open the box again.

Monopoly fills an interesting niche in western socieity. It's a well known fun game but the key is the price point. In a world replete with Gift Reciprocity and Social Mores Monopoly is very similar to a nice soapstone sulpture or a Singing Carp.

I never realised this myself until I was watching Dragon's Den on the telly (if you are not familiar its a program where budding entrepeneurs try to get funding for their products /ideas from sucessful business folks who put up their own cash). This guys came on and he had a new sort of golf bag. It was a simple plastic frame and the clubs snapped on slots... Anyway it wasn't great but one of the guys backed it and afterwards the others asked why. He pointed out that the thing could be sold at a profit for £19:99 and that there were loads of people who play golf and their families at birthdays and xmas want to get them something golfie but even a cheap club is £80 and a bag of golf balls is a pretty crap gift. This thing was perfectly placed as a gift you buy for a golfer that costs 20 quid and the market for that was huge. it didn't actually matter that it would be used once then stuck in the back of a cupboard as it would have been sold for a profit.

Monopoly is like that. If you have kids you know they get invited to loads of parties at a party you have to give a gift. So there are loads of crappy kids games at £9:99, 14:99 and 19:99 depending on if its a class mate, close friend or relative. They are not meant to be actually played but to fulfil a social obligation. (I mean I have 5 scrabble sets.... )

Oh and I agree that a standard core mechanic is definitely game design progress and it gets out of the way of role playing. If you know that whatever you decide to do its target value on a d20 (or %d, or pool of d10s). I really like the WW dice pool as the mechanic "stat+skill = dice in the pool" is so easy to adapt to any game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;361543Oh and I agree that a standard core mechanic is definitely game design progress and it gets out of the way of role playing. If you know that whatever you decide to do its target value on a d20 (or %d, or pool of d10s). I really like the WW dice pool as the mechanic "stat+skill = dice in the pool" is so easy to adapt to any game.

The WW dice pool mechanic got a lot better when they retooled botch rules.

It just didn't make any sense to me that the better you were at something, the more likely it was that you would critically fumble.

So far I think that my favorite core mechanic that I've seen so far is the one that the new Dragonage P&P uses.

The game uses 3 six-sided die, with one of those dice (which the game refers to as the "dragon die") acting as sort of a "success meter."

The system works by rolling 3d6+Modifiers vs. target number (similar to D20) this determines if the action succeeds or fails. the number showing on the dragon die determines how well the action succeeds (mostly for narrative purposes)

For example, if a character is trying to tightrope walk across a clothesline strung between two rooftops, then the player rolls 3d6+6 vs. a difficulty of 20 and comes up with a 21 then the character succeeds. If a 1 is showing on the dragon die, then the character wobbles, almost falling and has to jump the rest of the way, barely making it onto the next roof...but if a 6 is showing on the dragon die, then the character easily jogs across the line, nimble as a cat.

I like this, because the resolution is straightforward, but it offers a gauge for the degree of success which the D20 system really doesn't.

The same mechanic is applied to combat rolls, where rolling doubles on any of the 3 six-sided dice gives a character a number of "stunt points" equal to the number showing on the dragon die, which the character can spend on extra bits like doing extra damage, making another attack, knocking the enemy prone, bullrushing the enemy back a few yards, etc. This is the games version of a critical hit, and to me it's a lot more interesting than simply doing double damage.

I really dig this, because it lends combat in the game a dynamic feel, with a sort of free-form melee combo system that feels a bit more natural than 4E's power system.

The hand wringing and tears of rage over whether or not Darkfire (AKA Faerie Fire!)  should be allowed to melt ice is great because .. 6 months ago, people were arguing that 4E forces DMs to only say "yes" and "constantly pamper the privileged players". Chris Perkins doesn't allow Faerie Fire to melt ice and now, some of the same fucking people are all up in arms because he said "no".

Can someone just do an honesty check at this point and admit that all of this outrage has nothing to do with 4E? I mean.. I get it; worlds are spinning out of control and someone, somewhere has hurt feelings, somewhere there is some discontent in the universe that must be tapped into by a bunch of teary-eyed used-to-be gamers.

But that has nothing to do with a game.

Oh, and dice pools suck! :D

Quote from: Peregrin;361252Foster, I'm just curious.  How are spell/mana points worse than fire-and-forget?  Fantasy Craft managed to use them in conjunction with making spellcasting a skill to help give melee users a significant edge without resorting to 'all-you-can-eat' low-powered bits.

Aren't the free (as long as you make the roll) 0-level spells in Fantasy Craft "'all-you-can-eat' low-powered bits"?

Not saying you need to go that way, just wondering what you were trying to say here.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361545The hand wringing and tears of rage over whether or not Darkfire (AKA Faerie Fire!)  should be allowed to melt ice is great because .. 6 months ago, people were arguing that 4E forces DMs to only say "yes" and "constantly pamper the privileged players". Chris Perkins doesn't allow Faerie Fire to melt ice and now, some of the same fucking people are all up in arms because he said "no".

WRONG. But way to misrepresent to bolster your point. Well done.

Speaking as one of those people who took issue with how Chris handled the issue, it was not because merely he said no. It was how he handled it and how he made the decision.

He made the decision based on combat-centric rules minutia of it targeting a creature. If Perkins had said "darkfire doesn't produce any heat", I don't think anyone would have had an issue with it.

QuoteOh, and dice pools suck

This much we can agree on.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361545The hand wringing and tears of rage over whether or not Darkfire (AKA Faerie Fire!)  should be allowed to melt ice is great because .. 6 months ago, people were arguing that 4E forces DMs to only say "yes" and "constantly pamper the privileged players". Chris Perkins doesn't allow Faerie Fire to melt ice and now, some of the same fucking people are all up in arms because he said "no".

If your player has a +5 vorpal sword on his Magic Item Wish List TM, give it to him.
If your players are to stupid to retrieve the information to solve the crime case, give it to them.
If your players are about to face a TPK and would break into tears like girls who can't handle it, give them sweet victory.

If your player wants to use any of the 800 powers in this game to blast a fragile door, don't let him.


Oh yes, I do think it's possible that a single game and its GM advice can fail in in all these ways at once. It's impressive, it doesn't come along often, but you know, Shit Happens.

Quote from: David R;361539Well specifically your reference to the way how chess utilizes roleplaying and AM's point that many dismiss 4E as not a roleplaying game. I reread your Darkfire example and shazbot's reply, and think that OtE beats any edition of D&D as far as roleplaying "as an extension of the rules" (encouraging player creativity, through roleplaying) but I certainly woud not say D&D is not a roleplaying game or that it utilizes roleplaying as Chess would.

Regards,
David R

I understand what you are saying.  Of course, no version of D&D is exactly designed to support the more social interaction level role-playing I think you are referring to.  The earlier versions much more smoothly filled the gaps, however, and they weren't nearly as sharp.  I'm not making the argument that 4e isn't a role-playing game, I am saying the move to a more rules oriented game makes this harder to achieve, to the point where it is attaining the same level of difficulty as chess or M:tG.  You can certainly do it, but you are largely on your own, and you will need to gloss over a greater number of inconsistencies.  Going by the example mentioned in the video, if one is to interpret the target listings strictly, a fireball isn't a ball of fire anymore, as it also affects 'creatures'.  Without looking up every single entry, I would suspect that just about every spell and almost any other power has the same descriptive under 'target'.

In fact, standard limiting of what can and cannot be targets in the first place already discourages creative thinking.  If there are a dozen ropes or chains in a reasonably close proximity supporting some heavy object the players want to release, why can't the Ranger Blade Cascade all the ropes?  Well, again, the target is one or more creatures.

4e is the end result for all the 'rules are not physics' folks out there, and because if it, there are a very large number of disjoints.  It is these disjoints that are the gaps needing to be filled.  Sure, the earlier editions had their problems as well; no set of rules can cover every situation.  But the gaps were not as glaring, and the ones that did exist were easier to smooth over with guidelines provided by the rules.  The description for fireball told you more or less exactly what you could melt with it; from there it was a fairly simple extrapolation to how it would affect other materials.

Quote from: StormBringer;361529Then you wasted a lot of time typing this response.

What I love about the post he made though is the delusion that young=relevant and old=irrelevant.

Quote from: jibbajibba;361543This is partly true but in fact Monopoly is not primarily sold as a game at all. :)It is a gift. You need to buy something for a kid at Christmas you know they like the Simpsons so you buy them the Simpson's Monopoly game becuase it costs $19:99 and hits one of their sweet spots. They play it once and never open the box again.

Monopoly fills an interesting niche in western socieity. It's a well known fun game but the key is the price point. In a world replete with Gift Reciprocity and Social Mores Monopoly is very similar to a nice soapstone sulpture or a Singing Carp.

I never realised this myself until I was watching Dragon's Den on the telly (if you are not familiar its a program where budding entrepeneurs try to get funding for their products /ideas from sucessful business folks who put up their own cash). This guys came on and he had a new sort of golf bag. It was a simple plastic frame and the clubs snapped on slots... Anyway it wasn't great but one of the guys backed it and afterwards the others asked why. He pointed out that the thing could be sold at a profit for £19:99 and that there were loads of people who play golf and their families at birthdays and xmas want to get them something golfie but even a cheap club is £80 and a bag of golf balls is a pretty crap gift. This thing was perfectly placed as a gift you buy for a golfer that costs 20 quid and the market for that was huge. it didn't actually matter that it would be used once then stuck in the back of a cupboard as it would have been sold for a profit.

Monopoly is like that. If you have kids you know they get invited to loads of parties at a party you have to give a gift. So there are loads of crappy kids games at £9:99, 14:99 and 19:99 depending on if its a class mate, close friend or relative. They are not meant to be actually played but to fulfil a social obligation. (I mean I have 5 scrabble sets.... )

Oh and I agree that a standard core mechanic is definitely game design progress and it gets out of the way of role playing. If you know that whatever you decide to do its target value on a d20 (or %d, or pool of d10s). I really like the WW dice pool as the mechanic "stat+skill = dice in the pool" is so easy to adapt to any game.

The problem I see with your idea here is that I and many folks I know have played Monopoly, as adults, and more than once. It's fun and simple and familiar.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361545The hand wringing and tears of rage over whether or not Darkfire (AKA Faerie Fire!)  should be allowed to melt ice is great because .. 6 months ago, people were arguing that 4E forces DMs to only say "yes" and "constantly pamper the privileged players". Chris Perkins doesn't allow Faerie Fire to melt ice and now, some of the same fucking people are all up in arms because he said "no".

Can someone just do an honesty check at this point and admit that all of this outrage has nothing to do with 4E? I mean.. I get it; worlds are spinning out of control and someone, somewhere has hurt feelings, somewhere there is some discontent in the universe that must be tapped into by a bunch of teary-eyed used-to-be gamers.

But that has nothing to do with a game.

Oh, and dice pools suck! :D

You're using selective reading to make your argument sound better AM. What was specifically said was not that the GM said no, but that the GM said no by reading and emphasizing the wording on the power card rather than just make a ruling or explain that drow fire is just faerie fire and illusory. This kind of deliberate omission (unless you're saying you truly don't understand the difference) is why folks give you such a hard time.

Quote from: Sigmund;361555What I love about the post he made though is the delusion that young=relevant and old=irrelevant.

Yeah, I felt like I was at a Who concert in the 60s or something.

"People try to put us down...  Just because we get around..."

:D

Quote from: Sigmund;361555What I love about the post he made though is the delusion that young=relevant and old=irrelevant.

Don't forget the meme of new=better.

Quote from: jeff37923;361562Don't forget the meme of new=better.

Pretty much the same meme with different labels attached.

Quote from: StormBringer;361553I understand what you are saying.  Of course, no version of D&D is exactly designed to support the more social interaction level role-playing I think you are referring to.  The earlier versions much more smoothly filled the gaps, however, and they weren't nearly as sharp.  I'm not making the argument that 4e isn't a role-playing game, I am saying the move to a more rules oriented game makes this harder to achieve, to the point where it is attaining the same level of difficulty as chess or M:tG.You can certainly do it, but you are largely on your own, and you will need to gloss over a greater number of inconsistencies.  Going by the example mentioned in the video, if one is to interpret the target listings strictly, a fireball isn't a ball of fire anymore, as it also affects 'creatures'.  Without looking up every single entry, I would suspect that just about every spell and almost any other power has the same descriptive under 'target'.

In fact, standard limiting of what can and cannot be targets in the first place already discourages creative thinking.  If there are a dozen ropes or chains in a reasonably close proximity supporting some heavy object the players want to release, why can't the Ranger Blade Cascade all the ropes?  Well, again, the target is one or more creatures.

I disagree with you almost completely here.  D&D is no more or less facilitating of role-playing in general than it ever was before.  

Yes, the powers rules are not consistent with in-world physics.  However, trying to do "creative" things with powers is hardly the beginning and end of roleplaying.  In fact, its something that some players never even really do.  Not everyone plays RPGs as problem-solving exercises.

Is it somewhat of a loss to the flavor of the game?  Yes.  Do I wish they would have not gone quite so over the top?  Yes.

Quote from: StormBringer;3615534e is the end result for all the 'rules are not physics' folks out there, and because if it, there are a very large number of disjoints.  It is these disjoints that are the gaps needing to be filled.  Sure, the earlier editions had their problems as well; no set of rules can cover every situation.  But the gaps were not as glaring, and the ones that did exist were easier to smooth over with guidelines provided by the rules.  The description for fireball told you more or less exactly what you could melt with it; from there it was a fairly simple extrapolation to how it would affect other materials.

See, here's the thing - it was not at all easy to extrapolate that kind of thing.  In fact, those kind of things led to hours upon hours upon hours of arguments for many of us.

The problem, as Seanchi said either in this thread or a different one, is that everyone will have their own idea of what "realistic" is.  They won't agree.  No one has a perfect understanding of physics, etc.  Maybe you or your group didn't have an issue, but tens of thousands of people did.

It has always been that way.  It's the reason the 1e DMG had a "how to limit how spells work" section.  It's the reason spell descriptions kept getting longer every edition.

AD&D 1e and 2e games were filled with these kind of arguments.  Then 3e came along and tried to codify and standardize it a bit more for the sole purpose of trying to eliminate the problem.  But you can't codify everything, so it didn't work.

So, what 4e did was create a trade-off.  It said, "instead of trying to codify physics and creating an environment of rules arguments, let's just make the rules really narrow".  It also gave some classes more interesting things to do with the trade-off of being a little less intuitive.

If it isn't someone's cup of tea, that's fine with me.  But I have a real problem when someone thinks that making the game less prone to arguments is somehow dumbing it down or making it less of a RPG.

I also don't like it because the previous editions of D&D were all also quite flawed and most edition changes over the years have changed largely to fix things a lot of people complained about.

Quote from: Sigmund;361555What I love about the post he made though is the delusion that young=relevant and old=irrelevant.

Don't worry...you'll be fine as long as your palm flower hasn't turned black.

Quote from: Sigmund;361556The problem I see with your idea here is that I and many folks I know have played Monopoly, as adults, and more than once. It's fun and simple and familiar.

No I agree that people have played monopoly don't get me wrong. But how often do you play monopoly? Once a year ? Twice a year? Does the number of units sold actually equate to any ammount of real play. Has an aunt ever given you a set of Delux Monopoly as a great birthday gift and you never even opened the box cos you have a perfectly good set already?  How many sets of Monopoly are like those DVD sets of 'Great Superhero Movies' or 'SciFi Classics' that your sister/cousin/neice gets you for Christmass that you never even take out of the celophane becuase you have seen all the movies already a dozen times and you already have DVDs of the ones you want to rewatch?
I really do have 5 scrabble sets. 2 I have used once 1 not at all. When you play games people get you games as gifts but they don't check out the Fantasy Flight Catalogue online they go to WH Smiths or Toys R Us (Arguably another good case for box sets perhaps...) and those games are priced right they don;t cost £50 a pop

Quote from: jgants;361569I disagree with you almost completely here.  D&D is no more or less facilitating of role-playing in general than it ever was before.  

Yes, the powers rules are not consistent with in-world physics.  However, trying to do "creative" things with powers is hardly the beginning and end of roleplaying.  In fact, its something that some players never even really do.  Not everyone plays RPGs as problem-solving exercises.

Is it somewhat of a loss to the flavor of the game?  Yes.  Do I wish they would have not gone quite so over the top?  Yes.



See, here's the thing - it was not at all easy to extrapolate that kind of thing.  In fact, those kind of things led to hours upon hours upon hours of arguments for many of us.

The problem, as Seanchi said either in this thread or a different one, is that everyone will have their own idea of what "realistic" is.  They won't agree.  No one has a perfect understanding of physics, etc.  Maybe you or your group didn't have an issue, but tens of thousands of people did.

It has always been that way.  It's the reason the 1e DMG had a "how to limit how spells work" section.  It's the reason spell descriptions kept getting longer every edition.

AD&D 1e and 2e games were filled with these kind of arguments.  Then 3e came along and tried to codify and standardize it a bit more for the sole purpose of trying to eliminate the problem.  But you can't codify everything, so it didn't work.

So, what 4e did was create a trade-off.  It said, "instead of trying to codify physics and creating an environment of rules arguments, let's just make the rules really narrow".  It also gave some classes more interesting things to do with the trade-off of being a little less intuitive.

If it isn't someone's cup of tea, that's fine with me.  But I have a real problem when someone thinks that making the game less prone to arguments is somehow dumbing it down or making it less of a RPG.

I also don't like it because the previous editions of D&D were all also quite flawed and most edition changes over the years have changed largely to fix things a lot of people complained about.

I would say its much easier to extrapolate the effect of a 20 foot wide ball of fire than it is to extrapolate the effect of deal x damage to upto 4 target creatures... just saying... Anyway a decent GM will just posit a suitably believeable effect and there you go done... no discussion ... just shut up and roll the dice so to speak.

Quote from: Sigmund;361558You're using selective reading to make your argument sound better AM. What was specifically said was not that the GM said no, but that the GM said no by reading and emphasizing the wording on the power card rather than just make a ruling or explain that drow fire is just faerie fire and illusory. This kind of deliberate omission (unless you're saying you truly don't understand the difference) is why folks give you such a hard time.

Actually it's only like 4 borderline retarded guys on a single website that give me a hard time, but I notice they seem to have a hard time with a lot of people. So it's not just me.

Anyhow, the DM in question here, was teaching new players, so I think that nuance might have been lost. When you teach a new player the easiest thing you can teach is the rules.

Certainly it would have been easier to say "It doesn't actually have any effect because all it does is create purple light.." but if you can show "this power is normally used on creatures- see the creature keyword?" that is just as valid. Equally valid is saying "it needs the fire keyword.." but it's easier to show something that is there than something that isn't.

Really, it's all just a huge corner case. I just love the moments when I see you guys argue with spittle-flecked vehemence about something and then suddenly reverse yourselves and argue the exact opposite.

Quote from: jgants;361569Yes, the powers rules are not consistent with in-world physics.  However, trying to do "creative" things with powers is hardly the beginning and end of roleplaying.  In fact, its something that some players never even really do.  Not everyone plays RPGs as problem-solving exercises.

...

The problem, as Seanchi said either in this thread or a different one, is that everyone will have their own idea of what "realistic" is.  They won't agree.  No one has a perfect understanding of physics, etc.  Maybe you or your group didn't have an issue, but tens of thousands of people did.

It has always been that way.  

That's an interesting point but I'm not sure it catches the entirety of what's deemed problematic (by some). On the one hand, yes, every game will define what's realistic differently, and if that design's end result doesn't sit with your group well that game isn't for you.

That's a good point, at least it's a good point I could see in your post (hope I'm not misreading you). But there's something else - the degree to which a game defines what it's physics is may be more or less rigid. Personally I don't mind the over-the-top stunts that 4E characters can do from level 1. I think that's actually a good thing and creates good sessions (at least, I know it does for us). But the problem starts when the rules prescribe in very great detail what takes place in the game world, and it's a bit hard to rationalize it.

Here's a great summary of the problem:

Quote from: BryonD at Enworld

QuoteI have had no trouble ever explaining encounter powers.

Pop quiz role playing. The mechanics tell you what happens and you invent a justification.

My preference is that you decide what you want to do and the mechanics simulate the outcome.

It has nothing to do with trouble. It is just a question of whether it is more fun for the mechanics to control the narrative, or the narrative to control the mechanics.

I think this is spot on. It's an element of 4E I gladly accept, but it's not one I couldn't to do without. And it's a problem that a group faces from the get to. Blinding Barrage - a rogue power that blinds enemies because he face stabs every guy around him. Nearly any Warlord power I can think of - he shouts and then things happen. They just do. All from level 1. It's actually too much hard work to rationalize their powers, so I rather do without it. The implied physics is non-detectable for me. I wish it was. As I said, it's not because it's too supernatural. It's rather that I can't picture it in any way, waiving whatever assumptions about gravity etc. It's like trying to sculpt an architectural structure depicted in an Escher drawing. It just doesn't work.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361578Anyhow, the DM in question here, was teaching new players, so I think that nuance might have been lost. When you teach a new player the easiest thing you can teach is the rules.

No, it wasn't. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=361531&postcount=344)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361578Actually it's only like 4 borderline retarded guys on a single website that give me a hard time, but I notice they seem to have a hard time with a lot of people. So it's not just me.

Anyhow, the DM in question here, was teaching new players, so I think that nuance might have been lost. When you teach a new player the easiest thing you can teach is the rules.

Certainly it would have been easier to say "It doesn't actually have any effect because all it does is create purple light.." but if you can show "this power is normally used on creatures- see the creature keyword?" that is just as valid. Equally valid is saying "it needs the fire keyword.." but it's easier to show something that is there than something that isn't.

Really, it's all just a huge corner case. I just love the moments when I see you guys argue with spittle-flecked vehemence about something and then suddenly reverse yourselves and argue the exact opposite.

Reminds me of the arguments I used to have with the guys on the VTES rules forum when I said that Hell hounds driving Sports bikes was crazy and was banned from our table. I was informed by all and sundry that as a hell hound is an ally and as allies could use equipment there was no reason they couldn't use sports bikes. I tired to explain that ... it's a dog riding a bike... and didn't they think that the spirit of the rule was more important than the letter of the rule in this case. They didn't.

Quote from: jibbajibba;361582Reminds me of the arguments I used to have with the guys on the VTES rules forum when I said that Hell hounds driving Sports bikes was crazy and was banned from our table. I was informed by all and sundry that as a hell hound is an ally and as allies could use equipment there was no reason they couldn't use sports bikes. I tired to explain that ... it's a dog riding a bike... and didn't they think that the spirit of the rule was more important than the letter of the rule in this case. They didn't.

Vampire the Eternal Struggle is a card game. Frankly I have no opinion on whether or not dogs can ride motorcycles in a card game.

(http://images.veer.com/IMG/PILL/CHI/CHI0000554_P.JPG)

I guess it depends on the card game.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361584Vampire the Eternal Struggle is a card game. Frankly I have no opinion on whether or not dogs can ride motorcycles in a card game.

I guess it depends on the card game.

Yeah they were generally of the same opionin ad um ... I knew it was a card game :)

Just though the litteral interpretation of rules as opposed to intent was pretty simillar.

(At this point they would say something like 'how do you know the intent of the designers?' and I would reply ...it's a dog riding a bike... )

Quote from: jibbajibba;361582Reminds me of the arguments I used to have with the guys on the VTES rules forum when I said that Hell hounds driving Sports bikes was crazy and was banned from our table. I was informed by all and sundry that as a hell hound is an ally and as allies could use equipment there was no reason they couldn't use sports bikes. I tired to explain that ... it's a dog riding a bike... and didn't they think that the spirit of the rule was more important than the letter of the rule in this case. They didn't.

Made something for ya jibba:
(http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu181/owlrune/raw.png)

Quote from: winkingbishop;361588Made something for ya jibba:
(http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu181/owlrune/raw.png)

That's not a sport's bike its a Hawg :) I never said I had issues with Hell hounds on Hawgs...

Nice :D

Quote from: jibbajibba;361586(At this point they would say something like 'how do you know the intent of the designers?' and I would reply ...it's a dog riding a bike... )

Well, as I was soundly schooled in another thread regarding the effects of throwing yourself on a hand grenade, the fact that it could happen means that the RAW intend that it should happen.

(http://deneshepherd.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/dog-on-bike4.jpg)

Suck it up, and let slip the hounds of cycling.

!i!

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;361547He made the decision based on combat-centric rules minutia of it targeting a creature. If Perkins had said "darkfire doesn't produce any heat", I don't think anyone would have had an issue with it.

Actually, we don't know what he made the decision on. We do know what he said. He might have, for example, recognized that Darkfire didn't produce any heat, but decided that it was easier to point out that it affected creatures than than explain that the "fire" bit was flavor text and fluff.

Seanchai

Quote from: jgants;361569I disagree with you almost completely here.  D&D is no more or less facilitating of role-playing in general than it ever was before.  

Then we will have to disagree.  When a fireball isn't actually a huge ball of actual fire, there is a problem.  That problem cascades into the role playing portion, because at that point, approximately the only thing to differentiate a fireball from Martyr's Retribution is the keyword 'radiant'.

QuoteYes, the powers rules are not consistent with in-world physics.  However, trying to do "creative" things with powers is hardly the beginning and end of roleplaying.  In fact, its something that some players never even really do.  Not everyone plays RPGs as problem-solving exercises.

And I didn't say it was the entirety of the experience, but it is a large part of it.  Not everyone plays poker for money, but without some kind of gamble involved, it isn't nearly as interesting.

It's the death of a thousand cuts.  No individual loss is particularly harmful, it's the aggregate.  Once the very things your character can do are strictly codified, you lose part of the essence of role playing, which is 'thinking outside the box'.  They were invented precisely because some guys got tired of moving their fancy Napoleanics around a sandbox and thought, 'hey what if instead of some disembodied Général, I were to take part in the battle more directly, as a soldier or grenadier?'  In other words, they grew tired of strict rules governing their actions.

QuoteIs it somewhat of a loss to the flavor of the game?  Yes.  Do I wish they would have not gone quite so over the top?  Yes.

I don't think it is a matter of 'over the top', I think it is a matter of reduction in choice.  If you wanted epic world spanning themes in a previous edition, start at 5th level.  Or 10th level.  Want to explore an unknown world as a commoner rising to greatness?  1st or 2nd level.  Magic-rich, magic-poor, hoards of otherworldly creatures or strictly mundane encounters with other humans...  the rules supported it all and just about anything else you wanted in a campaign.

Now?  2 at-wills, 2 encounters, and a daily.  Exactly 10 encounters to reach a new level.  You will have this many magic items of these levels, as per your wish list.  Adventures will have encounters comprised thusly, and two or maybe three skill challenges.  Any role playing you manage to slip in there is a bonus, but don't really strive for it or anything.

QuoteSee, here's the thing - it was not at all easy to extrapolate that kind of thing.  In fact, those kind of things led to hours upon hours upon hours of arguments for many of us.

This is going to sound snarky, but that is just how democracy works.

It may not have been simple to extrapolate those things, but no one promised an easy time of it.  Even in the 70s there were games and pastimes that allowed for non-complex social enjoyment.  Any number of board and card games give hours of fun without the need to interpret anything.  I am crazy about cribbage, because you can have several beers and shoot the breeze and still play a good game.  I don't want that same experience in my role playing, or I would just play cribbage all the time.

QuoteThe problem, as Seanchi said either in this thread or a different one, is that everyone will have their own idea of what "realistic" is.  They won't agree.  No one has a perfect understanding of physics, etc.  Maybe you or your group didn't have an issue, but tens of thousands of people did.

Actually, I don't think they had any problem with 'realistic'.  What they had a problem with is 'not winning'.  Or it's adjunct, 'not succeeding'.  Petty squabbles over eking out another point or two of damage, or why that 30' fall shouldn't have done as much damage are cloaked in 'realism', to be sure, but they were arguments about how the players didn't want to deal with even relatively minor setbacks.  Rules lawyers weren't a pain in the ass because they held up the game.  Rules lawyers were a pain in the ass because they held up the game to avoid the consequences of their bad decisions.

QuoteIt has always been that way.  It's the reason the 1e DMG had a "how to limit how spells work" section.  It's the reason spell descriptions kept getting longer every edition.

Not all, but some did.  I don't think addressing these complaints in that manner was necessarily the best way to handle it.

QuoteAD&D 1e and 2e games were filled with these kind of arguments.  Then 3e came along and tried to codify and standardize it a bit more for the sole purpose of trying to eliminate the problem.  But you can't codify everything, so it didn't work.

And what most people would take away from that lesson is that even more codification would produce continued failure.  Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

QuoteSo, what 4e did was create a trade-off.  It said, "instead of trying to codify physics and creating an environment of rules arguments, let's just make the rules really narrow".  It also gave some classes more interesting things to do with the trade-off of being a little less intuitive.

Hence, being more like a board game, and limiting the possibilities for role-playing and more importantly, interesting sessions.  The latitude for making grave mistakes also allows for the latitude for true greatness.  The programming language Java makes this exact mistake.  In trying to make sure that coders are not able to utterly auger a program through the memory stack from a simple mistake, the language is completely unable to do anything truly interesting.

QuoteIf it isn't someone's cup of tea, that's fine with me.  But I have a real problem when someone thinks that making the game less prone to arguments is somehow dumbing it down or making it less of a RPG.

Only if you think the arguments were separate from the experience.  In a way that no other social game allows, role playing encourages co-operation.  And that co-operation is achieved by compromise, group dynamics, and a diversity of opinion.  In most games today, people just expect the rules to make decisions for them.  RPGs, on the other hand, almost encourage obtaining a group consensus to make sure the rules suit your group for the maximum enjoyment.  And that is a far more valuable lesson, in my mind, than limiting a few disruptions here and there.

It is nearly the purest form of democracy one can find.

QuoteI also don't like it because the previous editions of D&D were all also quite flawed and most edition changes over the years have changed largely to fix things a lot of people complained about.

In as much as popularity doesn't necessarily equate to quality, pandering to popular complaints doesn't necessarily equate to improvement.  

I think you will find most children complain about vaccinations, but that doesn't hold sway in anyone's mind that vaccinations should be halted.  In regards to these complaints, looking back to the times, I think you will find that 'a lot of people' almost always meant 'the less than 1% of the gaming population that went to GenCon and/or wrote to Dragon'.  I imagine there was a good deal of overlap between the two.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361590Well, as I was soundly schooled in another thread regarding the effects of throwing yourself on a hand grenade, the fact that it could happen means that the RAW intend that it should happen.

Actually, that wasn't said by anyone but you, just now. I'm beginning to understand why you had such problems with that thread - you didn't actually understand a damn thing that was said in it...

Seanchai

Can we leave that grenade shit in that other thread? PLEASE?

Good lord, pass the Motrin. :banghead:

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361578Certainly it would have been easier to say "It doesn't actually have any effect because all it does is create purple light.."

"Then why does it say fire?" I imagine Perkins just grabbed what came to mind, but I can see some...uncomfortableness surrounding an explanation about names vs. flavor vs. mechanical effects.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;361611I'm beginning to understand why you had such problems with that thread...

Because you shifted your argument for the sake of argument alone?  Good, I'm glad that's beginning to sink in.

(http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/99am.jpg)

!i!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361578Actually it's only like 4 borderline retarded guys on a single website that give me a hard time, but I notice they seem to have a hard time with a lot of people. So it's not just me.

Paranoid delusion just gets funnier every time I hear it.

QuoteReally, it's all just a huge corner case. I just love the moments when I see you guys argue with spittle-flecked vehemence about something and then suddenly reverse yourselves and argue the exact opposite.

Your version of reality certainly sounds more interesting than the one that goes on out here.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361578...but I notice they seem to have a hard time with a lot of people. So it's not just me.

Hee!  I just noticed this.  This is really, really funny coming from you. :)

!i!

I notice you guys are unable to address the topic! Are you to here to fight for conformity and stamp out dissent or actually to talk about games?

Ok, I admit it. I already know why you are here.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361626I notice you guys are unable to address the topic! Are you to here to fight for conformity and stamp out dissent or actually to talk about games?

Ok, I admit it. I already know why you are here.

See?  Comedy fucking gold.

I've been reading the thread with interest since it started to see people's opinions regarding 4e.  I've made a few posts with the specific intent of making fun of you after you started being an ass as usual. :)

!i!

Quote from: PaladinCA;361612Can we leave that grenade shit in that other thread? PLEASE?

Good lord, pass the Motrin. :banghead:

.....

Quote from: Doctor jeff37923 Frankenstein It's Alive!! ALIVE!!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361626I notice you guys are unable to address the topic! Are you to here to fight for conformity and stamp out dissent or actually to talk about games?

Ok, I admit it. I already know why you are here.

To counter your false accusations of sockpuppetry?

There really was more on-topic conversation in this thread before you showed up.

How many Dustin Hoffmans have we got here?

It's a fucking Rain Man convention.

I think we should introduce the [Rain Man] tag for certain threads to warn the innocent.

Guys, seriously. If you have anything to disagree with any of the points I've been making, please do so (as other people have been doing). That's called "participating in a discussion".


But if the real problem is you have some kind of problem with me being here, (or other related mental issue) and you just can't help but attack on sight.. then I guess you can seek some kind of therapy or counseling. But you are off the topic at that point.  That's called "you are a troubled individual".

Personally I don't think anything in 4E that has been mentioned has been particularly "innovative" (a spell you can use every round!), except when you look at the aggregate of community, tools, techniques, and playability. The innovation is the intersection of all of those things.  Nobody else has that and that's why 4E continue to rule like a medieval overlord to this day.

But eventually someone will figure this out. Suck it, haters!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361635Guys, seriously. If you have anything to disagree with any of the points I've been making, please do so (as other people have been doing). That's called "participating in a discussion".

Why don't you go ahead and make a point so we can see if we disagree or not?  Whining in your panties about the meanies not letting you shine is entertaining and all, but you really should present an opinion that isn't just another unsubtle marketing piece on why you are cool for playing the latest edition, or why the sockpuppet you weren't very good at disguising suddenly dropped off your talking points.  You will get extra points for not confusing Chainmail with a role playing game.

Executive summary:  Start "participating in a discussion" in good faith, and people will stop pointing out your douchebaggery.

Quote from: One Horse Town;361634How many Dustin Hoffmans have we got here?

It's a fucking Rain Man convention.

I think we should introduce the [Rain Man] tag for certain threads to warn the innocent.

Maybe a little smiliey of an Assburger.

Quote from: Werekoala;361638Maybe a little smiliey of an Assburger.

Sadly, Brett won't let us. :(

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361626I notice you guys are unable to address the topic! Are you to here to fight for conformity and stamp out dissent or actually to talk about games?

Quote from: StormBringer;361627See?  Comedy fucking gold.

Yup, absolutely comedy gold.  

Abby is the new CavScout of this place.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361573Don't worry...you'll be fine as long as your palm flower hasn't turned black.

I'll be fine no matter what.

Quote from: jibbajibba;361574No I agree that people have played monopoly don't get me wrong. But how often do you play monopoly? Once a year ? Twice a year? Does the number of units sold actually equate to any ammount of real play. Has an aunt ever given you a set of Delux Monopoly as a great birthday gift and you never even opened the box cos you have a perfectly good set already?  How many sets of Monopoly are like those DVD sets of 'Great Superhero Movies' or 'SciFi Classics' that your sister/cousin/neice gets you for Christmass that you never even take out of the celophane becuase you have seen all the movies already a dozen times and you already have DVDs of the ones you want to rewatch?
I really do have 5 scrabble sets. 2 I have used once 1 not at all. When you play games people get you games as gifts but they don't check out the Fantasy Flight Catalogue online they go to WH Smiths or Toys R Us (Arguably another good case for box sets perhaps...) and those games are priced right they don;t cost £50 a pop

In a way I agree with you. They do make good gifts, for all the reasons you state. I don't think many people get as many copies of games as you do, and when I was still married we played "family" games quite often. They work with a wide variety of age groups and are fun for everyone, and they are above all, familiar. The Monopoly my mother used to crush me with is the same game I've played with my ex, and friends, and one day my son. It's the same one I played with my grandmother when I was young myself. I think that's the point being made.

Quote from: One Horse Town;361639Sadly, Brett won't let us. :(

Just for the record, "assburgers" is what I hear in my mind when people mention that not-disorder, and I'm immediately transported into an Opus-centric "Bloom County" universe where he is mishearing everything in a conversation (vis "Prayer pimples for hairy fishnuts?"). This is no doubt an indication of some type of mental disorder in itself.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361578Actually it's only like 4 borderline retarded guys on a single website that give me a hard time, but I notice they seem to have a hard time with a lot of people. So it's not just me.

Anyhow, the DM in question here, was teaching new players, so I think that nuance might have been lost. When you teach a new player the easiest thing you can teach is the rules.

Certainly it would have been easier to say "It doesn't actually have any effect because all it does is create purple light.." but if you can show "this power is normally used on creatures- see the creature keyword?" that is just as valid. Equally valid is saying "it needs the fire keyword.." but it's easier to show something that is there than something that isn't.

Really, it's all just a huge corner case. I just love the moments when I see you guys argue with spittle-flecked vehemence about something and then suddenly reverse yourselves and argue the exact opposite.

Firstly, I don't really agree that pointing out the "creature" bit is better to explain the limits of the power because it sets a precedent that will be a point of confusion for true newbies later on.

Also, none of that changes the fact that you inaccurately characterized someone else's argument.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361635But if the real problem is you have some kind of problem with me being here...

I have a problem with how you behave here, Ophelia.  Lot's of people do -- that's what made your earlier remark so funny.  And that's why I mock you every time you start maundering about how 4e haters stalk you, just like 3e haters used to stalk you.  Because it's you, dickless, not your game. :)

Quote from: One Horse Town;361634How many Dustin Hoffmans have we got here?

It's a fucking Rain Man convention.

I'm an excellent driver, Dan.

!i!

AM was a fairly tolerable, even decently contributive, poster in the 3E days.

If I accept your premise as correct, that he muttered about 3E haters in those days as he does go on about here, then I humbly suggest he not return for another three years or so, when his persecution complex once again returns to tolerable levels.

Simple solutions to complex problems. Thats my motto.

Well. After:

KNEEL BEFORE ZOD

Which, as you all well know is only a distant second to

"Entertain Me, Motherfuckers"


Yes, this thread IS all about me, why do you ask?

I may have asked this before, but who would you rather be Batman or Tarzan, and why?

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361618Because you shifted your argument for the sake of argument alone?

No. What you perceive as my "shifting my argument" is just your inability to read and follow a thread.

Seanchia

Quote from: Sigmund;361656Firstly, I don't really agree that pointing out the "creature" bit is better to explain the limits of the power because it sets a precedent that will be a point of confusion for true newbies later on.

The folks in this demo either a) already know how to play or b) are never going to play again after they finish the demo. Perkins isn't setting any kind of precedent.

Seanchai

it's Batman for you then? I'm more inclined towards Tarzan, myself.

Quote from: Sigmund;361149In a way I agree with ya, and in a way I don't. When I talk about being able to use magic more often in 4e it's not the at-will magic missiles I'm referring to. I liked that I could use Mage Hand and Prestidigitation to do "magic stuff" all the time. Chill my drink in the pub, pull a chair over to myself with my mind, pass someone the salt by pointing at it... that stuff is fun.

What I don't like about that is that from this point of view a 1st level wizard and a 30th level wizard can do exactly the same things. I admit, I'm not 100% sure, I'm not a big 4e expert, maybe there are feats and PP/ED that add options to those non-combat "at will" maybe there are other cantrips you can pick up in other source-books, but from what I remember those "cantrips" make no difference between the level of the caster. I liked it better in previous edition, if a experienced wizard wanted a permanent mage hand, for example, he could make one, researching a new spell with a 24 hour duration (or day/level), or crafting a magic item that allow him to cast the spell "at will", or a number of other ways, this make the ability to use mage hand or prestidigitation or other low level spells any time you need/want it, much more satisfying to my eyes that having an ability that remain the same for 30 levels because it is something you someway earned for yourself.

FWIW, I don't think any other cantrips have been introduced..

... yet. (good thing or bad thing? You could easily introduce new ones I guess).

The essentials line is still 4E and is (reportedly) going to have a lot of new stuff. What I suspect is certain builds are going to go away entirely. I don't see the ranged archer build for the ranger lasting much longer now that the marauder and hunter builds appeared in MP2.

Quote from: Seanchai;361687The folks in this demo either a) already know how to play or b) are never going to play again after they finish the demo. Perkins isn't setting any kind of precedent.

Seanchai

The thing Windjammer pointed out was pretty convincing. It seems unlikely the player in the example knew that Darkfire couldn't do fire, but then the DM would have to go back and explain what Faerie fire is, and then explain why you don't need to get combat advantage or negate invisibility against an unconcealed door. Just saying it doesn't work is perhaps too quick. Explaining a rules in rules terms seems like a fine way to proceed.

Quote from: Aos;361690it's Batman for you then? I'm more inclined towards Tarzan, myself.

Batman. He has TiVo.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361698The thing Windjammer pointed out was pretty convincing. It seems unlikely the player in the example knew that Darkfire couldn't do fire, but then the DM would have to go back and explain what Faerie fire is, and then explain why you don't need to get combat advantage or negate invisibility against an unconcealed door. Just saying it doesn't work is perhaps too quick. Explaining a rules in rules terms seems like a fine way to proceed.

Really? Would you have done it this way? That suprises me I thought you were a better DM.

 I would just have said  'Ah Fareie Fire does not produce heat it is like most faerie magic based on glamour and illusion. It just creates a halo of flame like light around the target." That would have taken me um 15 - 20 seconds to explain. The player would feel like they had a good understanding of why the spell didn't work that went beyond written text on a card and put the effect in a larger context and I certainly wouldn't have asked the guy to pass me the card so I could rules lawyer their arse and patronise them. Like I said ...its a dog on a bike...

And Batman is all guilt and angst whilst Tarzan gets to work on his tan and all the monkey sex he can handle.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361709Batman. He has TiVo.

True, but Tarzan has a monkey and a tree house.

Quote from: Aos;361711True, but Tarzan has a monkey and a tree house.

Yeah, but Batman's got the neat leather outfit and the toys that come with it. How's that for SM?

Quote from: Seanchai;361684No. What you perceive as my "shifting my argument" is just your inability to read and follow a thread.

Your crotch stinks.

!i!

Quote from: Seanchai;361687The folks in this demo either a) already know how to play or b) are never going to play again after they finish the demo. Perkins isn't setting any kind of precedent.

Seanchai

If they already knew how to play, then they would most likely know that Darkfire wouldn't be the in-game tool to use in burning a door, and if they're not new I'm not sure how you can know they would never play again. Plus, it might not be just the people in the video who misinterpret what the guy says.

Quote from: Just Another User;361695What I don't like about that is that from this point of view a 1st level wizard and a 30th level wizard can do exactly the same things. I admit, I'm not 100% sure, I'm not a big 4e expert, maybe there are feats and PP/ED that add options to those non-combat "at will" maybe there are other cantrips you can pick up in other source-books, but from what I remember those "cantrips" make no difference between the level of the caster. I liked it better in previous edition, if a experienced wizard wanted a permanent mage hand, for example, he could make one, researching a new spell with a 24 hour duration (or day/level), or crafting a magic item that allow him to cast the spell "at will", or a number of other ways, this make the ability to use mage hand or prestidigitation or other low level spells any time you need/want it, much more satisfying to my eyes that having an ability that remain the same for 30 levels because it is something you someway earned for yourself.

I think I understand what you're saying, although I still don't agree. A 1st level wizard and a 30th level wizard are not even remotely the same whether they could use mage hand at-will from 1st level or not.

Quote from: jeff37923;361443EDIT: I can't get up enough energy to hate 4E because it is just a game that fails to scratch my gaming itch.

By way of analogy:

Male Friend 1:  "Wow, she's hot. I wanna fuck her.  Don't you?"

Male Friend 2:  "Wait...that's a woman?"

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361461There's no way 4e *isn't* a roleplaying game (which anyone who has played it, even skeptically, can tell you). The real issue has always been "It's not according to tradition!"

That about sums it up.

Quote from: Benoist;361712Yeah, but Batman's got the neat leather outfit and the toys that come with it. How's that for SM?

The problem with leather outfits is that-

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361713Your crotch stinks.

!i!

Tarzan goes commando under the leopard skin, which leaves him rainforest fresh, and instantly ready for ape pussy.

Oh, like wearing uncured leopard skin over your junk won't kick up a smell. :rolleyes:

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361728Oh, like wearing uncured leopard skin over your junk won't kick up a smell. :rolleyes:

!i!

The objective being "ape pussy" (or any simian orifice, really), it wouldn't matter.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;361729The objective being "ape pussy" (or any simian orifice, really), it wouldn't matter.

Regards,
David R

Like Batman wearing his leather pants and shit worries about the place his dick will end up shaking...

Quote from: Aos;361721ape pussy.

Why do I suddenly crave banana bread?

For those of you that don't know "banana bread" is a popular slang term; the literal translation is "chimp with a yeast infection."

Quote from: Aos;361741For those of you that don't know "banana bread" is a popular slang term; the literal translation is "chimp with a yeast infection."

My pants just got tighter.

:o

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361728Oh, like wearing uncured leopard skin over your junk won't kick up a smell. :rolleyes:

!i!

How do you think Tarzan was able to get Jane? It was the leopard scented man funk...

Pheromones mixed with aged crotch-cheese.  The ladies can't resist it!

Quote from: StormBringer;361754Pheromones mixed with aged crotch-cheese.  The ladies can't resist it!

...and they say there is no romance left in the world.

:D

Quote from: jibbajibba;361710Really? Would you have done it this way? That suprises me I thought you were a better DM.

 I would just have said  'Ah Fareie Fire does not produce heat it is like most faerie magic based on glamour and illusion. It just creates a halo of flame like light around the target." That would have taken me um 15 - 20 seconds to explain. The player would feel like they had a good understanding of why the spell didn't work that went beyond written text on a card and put the effect in a larger context and I certainly wouldn't have asked the guy to pass me the card so I could rules lawyer their arse and patronise them. Like I said ...its a dog on a bike...

This isn't really a matter of DMing, it's about teaching (and specifically teaching non-gamer adults). When they start out, it isn't about the fiction, and the fanciful imaginings.. That only happens once you get a certain amount of context. Instead, you have to start at teaching the rules simply as rules.

Read your explanation right there again, but imagine not having 30 years of context and then try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is hoping to learn the game, on camera, and trying to be funny at the same time (this is a professional funny guy after all).  He doesn't want to look dumb, but now most likely he ends up with at least two more questions he likely keeps to himself ("why the heck would I ever want to use this power?" and "well, how am I ever going to know what powers do what just based on the title..")

Now, I'm not sure that I would have brought up the 'Creature" line of Darkfire myself if I were in that situation, but a rules question does deserve a rules answer, especially when you are working with a new player.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361763This isn't really a matter of DMing, it's about teaching (and specifically teaching non-gamer adults). When they start out, it isn't about the fiction, and the fanciful imaginings.. That only happens once you get a certain amount of context. Instead, you have to start at teaching the rules simply as rules.

...

Now, I'm not sure that I would have brought up the 'Creature" line of Darkfire myself if I were in that situation, but a rules question does deserve a rules answer, especially when you are working with a new player.

 By way of context. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdFClW2WVmI#t=7m21s)

I wouldn't generalize it in the way you did. Personally, with new players about the only thing I tell them is the opening line in the 4E PHB (or nearly enough): "In this game, you can attempt anything you can imagine." So I start to translate their actions into rules for them. The part of playing a character is key, and rules take a back seat. Then, during the session, or even only in the second and third, I encourage players to play the rules and learn about them.

Session 1 (me): "You want to push the guy into the wall? then please roll me a d20" and I work out the actual mechanics for the player behind the screen, as it were.

Session 2 or 3 (me): "You want to do a Bullrush maneuver? Because this is how it works: ...".

Session 4 (player): "I want to bullrush this guy."

That's actually the recommended procedure for introducing new players in the 3.5 DMG. The Dungeon Mastering for Dummies book (3E version) uses the same advice, but expands on it brilliantly - as in, what are the bits of rules (in the d20 system) a DM ought to introduce to newbs rather early, what can take a back seat for quite soem time, and so on.

The problem in the video is basically this:

Session 1 (player, holds up a card with maneuver information which he's barely glanced at): "It says bullrush here. It'd like to use that on that door."

My actual response would be exactly like the one Perkins gave: "Read the card. You can't bullrush an object, let alone a door in a wall."

But here's the catch: I'd communicate from the get-go this to the player: "Either tell me what you want your character to do, and let me do the rules bit for you (erstwhile). Or tell me what rules bit you want to use; if you do that, be aware that I'm going to clarify and correct stuff from time to time - that's only natural when you start out in this game."

(http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee219/Speaker1066/opus_the_penguin_300.gif)

Assburgers?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361698Just saying it doesn't work is perhaps too quick.

For a promotional video? Naw. His goal isn't to teach the Robot Chicken gents how to play. Nor was he making a video that shows people how to play. Explaining the rules isn't the point - showing Robot Chicken fans what D&D is like in general is.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;361714If they already knew how to play, then they would most likely know that Darkfire wouldn't be the in-game tool to use in burning a door, and if they're not new I'm not sure how you can know they would never play again.

From what I recall from the intro, two or three of them had experience with D&D, ranging from playing in a weekly game to having tried it a bit. The others didn't.

The video is a marketing tool. As I'm sure you're aware, when a celebrity holds up product [blank] and endorses it, that doesn't mean they actually use or are interested in using [blank.] They're just doing a commercial.

The writers who don't currently play D&D clearly know it exists and work with people who do play. If they were interested in trying it before shooting the video, I'm sure they would have had ample opportunity. They were at the table to shoot a commercial - once that's done, I'm sure they'll go on with their lives.

Quote from: Sigmund;361714Plus, it might not be just the people in the video who misinterpret what the guy says.

That's a fine point. But this isn't a how-to video, it's a promotional video. I doubt anyone who doesn't know how to play but whose interest in sparked from the video will remember the example to be confused by it. It's the folks who already know about the game who are experiencing nerdrage.

Seanchai

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361763This isn't really a matter of DMing, it's about teaching (and specifically teaching non-gamer adults). When they start out, it isn't about the fiction, and the fanciful imaginings.. That only happens once you get a certain amount of context. Instead, you have to start at teaching the rules simply as rules.

I disagree. I'll say that, at best for your argument, it depends on the particular adults and particular game we're talking about. Explaining the decision from the rules' point of view certainly will clear up some issues down the road and will appeal to people who are inclined to look at a game situation from a rules/logical metagame point of view to begin with, but most people I've introduced to the game are not interested in that aspect in the first place.

What they want is precisely to be sucked into the adventure, the fantasy action, the fiction, no matter how you want to call it. The make-believe. Explaining that Dark Fire creates an illusory halo of pseudo-flames isn't rocket science, and it helps the new players understand that it's about the make-believe, not the rules.

(let me point out that an adult gamer I introduced to the game is standing right next to me as I write this).

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;361547It was how he handled it and how he made the decision.
He made the decision based on combat-centric rules minutia of it targeting a creature. If Perkins had said "darkfire doesn't produce any heat", I don't think anyone would have had an issue with it..

This is an example of the TRPG definition at work.  

In this case, the designer didn't look at the spell as existing in a particular setting, with a particular set of physics/cosmology, etc.  If he did, and said as Slaad suggested that "darkfire doesn't produce heat" then all answers to questions about melting, etc. would flow naturally from that ruling, which would have defined a physics element of the settings that use 4e rules.

What the designer did, was look at the rules, find how that spell could be used against a single creature and made a ruling based on that, for the purposes of game balance.  Completely different set of goals behind the game design.

Such a Tactical RPG design move, can rub Immersive RPGers the wrong way, as they don't agree with the core design principles behind the decision.

Is 4E a role-playing game?  Of course it is.  It just happens to be one that doesn't care too much for Immersion, preferring mechanical balance as the primary focus of the rules.

Of course 4E takes the additional step of extending mechanical balance to things like encounters, treasure awarded, etc... usually things that are 100% within the GM's purview and basically tries to make the rules for the GM as mechanically balanced as the rules of the game itself.  That's what typically is the straw that breaks the camel's back and causes the anti-4e sentiments.  

A lot of people can't define what they don't like about 4e, and it boils down to "it isn't a rpg", "it isn't D&D" etc. and why it feels that way to them is the degree to which 4e is willing to ignore or sacrifice immersion or the GM's traditional role for the sake of rules balance.

I consider myself an Immersive Roleplayer.  Could I run 4e?  Sure.  I'd ignore everything about the set encounters and treasure, get rid of the do-it-yourself magic item creation, go over the classes and powers tuning, redescribing, adding or eliminating and eventually I'd get something that made sense to me logically within my chosen setting.  Would it be anywhere near as balanced as 4e? No.  It would probably have a hole or two that a munchkin could drive a freight train through, but that's what I'm there for, not to slavishly follow the rules as written but to interpret the rules when they don't make sense.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361763This isn't really a matter of DMing, it's about teaching (and specifically teaching non-gamer adults). When they start out, it isn't about the fiction, and the fanciful imaginings.. That only happens once you get a certain amount of context. Instead, you have to start at teaching the rules simply as rules.

Read your explanation right there again, but imagine not having 30 years of context and then try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is hoping to learn the game, on camera, and trying to be funny at the same time (this is a professional funny guy after all).  He doesn't want to look dumb, but now most likely he ends up with at least two more questions he likely keeps to himself ("why the heck would I ever want to use this power?" and "well, how am I ever going to know what powers do what just based on the title..")

Now, I'm not sure that I would have brought up the 'Creature" line of Darkfire myself if I were in that situation, but a rules question does deserve a rules answer, especially when you are working with a new player.

Well my explanation assumes they know what faries are and have an inkling of a classical knowledge of illusion and glamour but I could assess the subject and pitch it differently f2f. I think the real issue for me would be that the effect shouldn't be limited to creatures.
As a player I would want to use the effect on a mirror to bluff some , npc that I had some powerful divination spell or on a door to freak out my pursuers that I was travelling to another plane and they shouldn't follow me or on a sword so that I could sell it as an enchanted Drow blade to a likely looking merchant.
I guess its an immersion thing. In fact in combat couldn't I cast it on a dummy to draw enemy bow fire ? Does it cast enough light to allow me to read a scroll  or pick a lock? How about casting it on a set of dice if I thought my opponent was cheating and swapping the dice on me or on the pea in a shell game? That could be a very useful utility effect.... If you give the players a bit of scope.

Quote from: Seanchai;361800From what I recall from the intro, two or three of them had experience with D&D, ranging from playing in a weekly game to having tried it a bit. The others didn't.

The video is a marketing tool. As I'm sure you're aware, when a celebrity holds up product [blank] and endorses it, that doesn't mean they actually use or are interested in using [blank.] They're just doing a commercial.

The writers who don't currently play D&D clearly know it exists and work with people who do play. If they were interested in trying it before shooting the video, I'm sure they would have had ample opportunity. They were at the table to shoot a commercial - once that's done, I'm sure they'll go on with their lives.



That's a fine point. But this isn't a how-to video, it's a promotional video. I doubt anyone who doesn't know how to play but whose interest in sparked from the video will remember the example to be confused by it. It's the folks who already know about the game who are experiencing nerdrage.

Seanchai

Not having seen the video, I can't really argue the point further, but if what you say is true then I'll have to agree with you.

Quote from: RPGPundit;360705I can think of a couple. For starters, the idea that magic users have a basic attack spell they can cast an unlimited number of times. I think that's basically a good idea, it supplants the uncomfortable notion of magic users having to rely on sub-par weapons, without actually increasing the Magic-user's power in any meaningful way.

Another element I think is a good idea is the idea, in principle, of ritual magic. I'm not sure that the particular execution of rituals as presented in 4e is great, but the idea that wizards should be able to, if given enough time (much more than can be done in the middle of a battle), cast (certain kinds of) spells without using up their spell slots, is a fundamentally good one.

RPGPundit

Both can be good ideas for appropriate settings.

It's worth pointing out that these are not concepts that 4e came up with, but extensions/variations of ideas fleshed out in 3e/OGL territory in the first place (Relics & Rituals, the Warlock, Monte Cook's design thoughts on magic users and finally the the Book of Experimental Might come to mind).

I think the idea of powers as game units that translate in terms of rules balance across the board, from class to class, is a good one. I find the implementation to be poor at the very least, but the idea itself is interesting.

Another good idea is the concept of rests, short and extended. That's interesting because it helps tailor recovery to the specs of a particular gaming group, if you're a bit liberal with the rules and reinterpret them to fit the campaign, and also helps give more dimensions to the game's bean-counting than just "once per day/after sleeping for X hours I can do this or that".

I think 4e is shock-full of good ideas, really (I'd mention second wind as well on that front, which, like all the others, while not appropriate for all gaming groups, is a very interesting option for the game). The particular implementation, however, is so narrow, framed, so limited in scope, and with a design focus so divorced from what I actually appreciate in role-playing, that they ultimately are drowned in mediocrity, from my POV.

If anything, the design concepts of 4e should have been stripped of most of their current specifics, offering more choices of interpretations and particular implementations on the parts of DMs and their groups out there, and entitled "Unearthed Arcana, vol. 2" or some such. That would have made for a great 3rd edition title. As a full game itself, well, it blows, in my opinion.

Quote from: Benoist;361848I think the idea of powers as game units that translate in terms of rules balance across the board, from class to class, is a good one. I find the implementation to be poor at the very least, but the idea itself is interesting.

At times I wonder whether balancing powers can be done in a more flexible system, such as a point buy type system without any formal classes.  In such a point buy system, something like a ranger's "twin strike" power along with a barbarian's "rage points" would be ripe for abuse by muchkin powergamers.

Quote from: Benoist;361848Another good idea is the concept of rests, short and extended. That's interesting because it helps tailor recovery to the specs of a particular gaming group, if you're a bit liberal with the rules and reinterpret them to fit the campaign, and also helps give more dimensions to the game's bean-counting than just "once per day/after sleeping for X hours I can do this or that".

In practice this can also be abused very easily, with the "15 minute day".  In my previous 4E games, it was typical for the players to go back to town or set up camp and sit around for the rest of the day, when they have used up all their daily powers.  This was typically after one or two encounters.

What ends up happening, is that daily powers functionally become "encounter" powers in practice.  It completely defeats the purpose of daily powers.

Quote from: ggroy;361855At times I wonder whether balancing powers can be done in a more flexible system, such as a point buy type system without any formal classes.  In such a point buy system, something like a ranger's "twin strike" power along with a barbarian's "rage points" would be ripe for abuse by muchkin powergamers.

It'd be a system clearly not appropriate for gamers squeezing every single advantage they can out of the rules, since by nature it'd be very easy to abuse. But it would be great for some more free-form gaming groups with a good spirit of cooperation around the game table, for sure.

Quote from: ggroy;361857In practice this can also be abused very easily, with the "15 minute day".  In my previous 4E games, it was typical for the players to go back to town or set up camp and sit around for the rest of the day, when they have used up all their daily powers.  This was typically after one or two encounters.

What ends up happening, is that daily powers functionally become "encounter" powers in practice.  It completely defeats the purpose of daily powers.

That's where you come down to the idea that no rules' so-called "fixes" can ever fix the players' behaviors themselves. In other words, if the problem is with the players thinking in terms of rules and metagame issues, instead of acting in-character and pressing on even if they just used their daily, then you're screwed unless you address the issue at the game table itself.

Trusting some rule to fix a behavioral issue at the game table is doomed to fail from the very start, since the premise is flawed itself from the outset. What's interesting is that there are so many gaming groups out there who wait for the next game or edition to address their own particular issues. Makes me think of Einstein's famous quote: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Indeed.

Quote from: Benoist;361862That's where you come down to the idea that no rules' so-called "fixes" can ever fix the players' behaviors themselves. In other words, if the problem is with the players thinking in terms of rules and metagame issues, instead of acting in-character and pressing on even if they just used their daily, then you're screwed unless you address the issue at the game table itself.

The only fix I tried which eliminated the "15 minute day", was making the daily powers into encounter powers and also making the encounter powers into additional at-will powers.  I did this in my 2nd and 3rd last gaming sessions for my 4E game, before it finally ended.  The game was slowly falling apart anyways, and I for the most part cared less and less about strictly following the rules as written.

Quote from: ggroy;361865The only fix I tried which eliminated the "15 minute day", was making the daily powers into encounter powers and also making the encounter powers into additional at-will powers.

I never did understand how putting ALL character classes on a magic-user-like limit of how often they could do things was going to eliminate  the 15-minute day problem for groups that suffered from it. I figured that limiting everyone would just make everyone want to pack it in for the day after using up their "good" power slots (instead of just the mage types).

Quote from: RandallS;361873I never did understand how putting ALL character classes on a magic-user-like limit of how often they could do things was going to eliminate  the 15-minute day problem for groups that suffered from it. I figured that limiting everyone would just make everyone want to pack it in for the day after using up their "good" power slots (instead of just the mage types).

Eliminating the "15 minute day" probably wasn't on their priority list.

Quote from: RandallS;361873I never did understand how putting ALL character classes on a magic-user-like limit of how often they could do things was going to eliminate  the 15-minute day problem for groups that suffered from it. I figured that limiting everyone would just make everyone want to pack it in for the day after using up their "good" power slots (instead of just the mage types).

Same.  I've had groups start to hesitate because they blew all their good stuff on the first few encounters in an area.  

Or even worse, they carelessly blow all their powers early, and then the ensuing fights, because of their higher difficulty (but because they're still so balanced so they won't kill the party!) end up dragging.  There are some house rules dealing with this, but despite the simplicity of building an encounter BtB, I find it's actually fairly difficult (at least for someone who only plays 4e once in a while, like me) to put together an encounter that feels satisfying and doesn't turn into a grind fest -- your party either has to know exactly when to use their powers and not roll poorly, or you have to know which encounter builds can potentially lead to problem combats where things will drag.

QuoteEliminating the "15 minute day" probably wasn't on their priority list.

I thought they said it was?

Quote from: Peregrin;361878I thought they said it was?

No idea offhand.

Quote from: ggroy;361879No idea offhand.

Addressing the issue of the "15 mn adventure day" was a concern brought up in the previews leading up to 4e's release. The idea was to explain why some things had been changed the way they were - I seem to remember that in this instance, it was to explain why Vancian casting was removed altogether, in favor of the current power system.

Quote from: Benoist;361880Addressing the issue of the "15 mn adventure day" was a concern brought up in the previews leading up to 4e's release. The idea was to explain why some things had been changed the way they were - I seem to remember that in this instance, it was to explain why Vancian casting was removed altogether, in favor of the current power system.

Backfired to the n-th degree.

Quote from: ggroy;361883Backfired to the n-th degree.

It's not as bad as 3.x could be, especially because of encounter powers -- those help keep things moving.  No one is ever useless.  It's just a matter of whether the party wants to be working at optimal levels or average levels.  

If you have smart players who know when the best time to use a daily, and who make sure that they don't blow all of them, they won't run into those drawn out and/or possible TPK situations in the tougher fights (or the want to rest too often).  Dailies really help finish things up and can sometimes mean the difference between finishing a combat in a half-hour or an hour-and-a-half.

For a system focused on combat, I find that powers are acceptable.  Not my personal choice, but they work ok when utilized properly.

wow we used up our daily powers on a bunch of mooks and now can't finish the main battle.I have GMed 4th edition and have had several grueling long battles. the hit point inflation was not the best move the wizards staff had made.

Well, the powers are not the issue with the 15 minute adventuring day, really. Powers are just attacks. So you might have an attack that does (as an example) 3d10 instead of 1d10, and you can pull that off only once per adventure session. Resting doesn't matter at that point because even if you rest and recharge it.. it's still just a single attack.

The real issue is healing surges.

From my experience, most characters have around 8 surges (some have much more.., I have a gnoll swordmage that has 14) and most medium-competent parties can manage a battle with only losing 2-3 surges, but sometimes it will take more.

So yes, a medium-to-low competent party can fight about three major battles before needing an extended rest, but usually can fight a little more with a good healer, and there are tricks that highly competent parties can use to keep a party on it's feet without causing them to spend surges (astral seal, certain bardic powers, etc.. )

Living Realms adventures typically have at least 3 battles, (and almost no opportunity for an extended rest- I can only think of a couple that even entertain the possibility) but can also have much more. Complete newbies- even middle school kids-- usually have no problem staying alive for the duration.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361895Well, the powers are not the issue with the 15 minute adventuring day, really. Powers are just attacks. So you might have an attack that does (as an example) 3d10 instead of 1d10, and you can pull that off only once per adventure session. Resting doesn't matter at that point because even if you rest and recharge it.. it's still just a single attack.

Some daily powers can be sustained from round to round, such as flaming sphere of the wizard.

I really liked the "Ritual" spells, since they required a feat that opened up some options for characters that were mere hedge wizards, but could say be sneaky or fight well. They also didn't eat into the "combat" spells that were needed under the new rules.

Quote from: ggroy;361896Some daily powers can be sustained from round to round, such as flaming sphere of the wizard.

Well, it's true that there's a huge variety and massive diversity (my invoker character's daily is truly spectacular at least in my mind--- it's a dire malediction that damages both my target and myself, until one of us makes a saving throw.. and sometimes it continues to damage me even after the enemy has shaken off the effect; such is the power of the gods) but the real point is: if you have players  that somehow need to use their daily in every battle, (or can't manage a battle without a daily) you have a problem somewhere- either with poorly set up/overmatched encounters, players who don't understand how to battle, or something similar.

A daily is also like a moment of glory- you want to save it for your most memorable or dramatic moment in the story.

Also, they often have specific triggers or circumstances. Out of my 4 most active characters, my Warlord has only used his daily a single time (and he's 4th level). It's a "Fearless Rescue" ; the trigger is a party member has to be dropped to 0 hit points by an enemy (and it's best if there are enemies between him and the fallen ally). He can cross the battlefield to attack the enemy that just took down his friend, and for each opportunity attack he suffers he adds a little bit to the healing he does when he reaches his fallen companion.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361915Also, they often have specific triggers or circumstances. Out of my 4 most active characters, my Warlord has only used his daily a single time (and he's 4th level). It's a "Fearless Rescue" ; the trigger is a party member has to be dropped to 0 hit points by an enemy (and it's best if there are enemies between him and the fallen ally). He can cross the battlefield to attack the enemy that just took down his friend, and for each opportunity attack he suffers he adds a little bit to the healing he does when he reaches his fallen companion.

Ha! One of my players has that power....now his favorite part of the game is when I drop someone.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361915but the real point is: if you have players  that somehow need to use their daily in every battle, (or can't manage a battle without a daily) you have a problem somewhere- either with poorly set up/overmatched encounters, players who don't understand how to battle, or something similar.

Reading that, I wonder why Wotc Ever came up with the idea (in 4E DMG 2, page 55 and following)) that a series of encounters could benefit from having a story point where people recharge their daily's. Was it because gamers couldn't cope with the recharge pace of daily's, or was it because they simply felt it made for a poor play experience (even taking competent play into consideration?

Never forget that 4E, as initially planned, didn't come with daily's at all, and that the only reason they included it had nothing to do with design but all to do with "let's not divorce the game too radically from earlier editions".

well you should listen to the Ron Edwards interview on the the walking eye podcast. he talks about how one of his forge buddys helped design 4E. that what is wrong with 4E.

http://www.thewalkingeye.com/

Quote from: Windjammer;361918Reading that, I wonder why Wotc Ever came up with the idea (in 4E DMG 2, page 55 and following)) that a series of encounters could benefit from having a story point where people recharge their daily's. Was it because gamers couldn't cope with the recharge pace of daily's, or was it because they simply felt it made for a poor play experience (even taking competent play into consideration?

Never forget that 4E, as initially planned, didn't come with daily's at all, and that the only reason they included it had nothing to do with design but all to do with "let's not divorce the game too radically from earlier editions".

I have no idea who can't cope with what. In general, 4E players (ranging from the newest of the new to older players) seem to do just fine, but I have seen my fair share (here if nowhere else) of people having hard time coping with various things.

An option to recharge dailies at a story point rather than at an extended rest is really sort of an advanced DM tip, not the rule.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361942I have no idea who can't cope with what. In general, 4E players (ranging from the newest of the new to older players) seem to do just fine, but I have seen my fair share (here if nowhere else) of people having hard time coping with various things.

As in, the way you have trouble coping with a simple question?

QuoteAn option to recharge dailies at a story point rather than at an extended rest is really sort of an advanced DM tip, not the rule.

A tip that is presumably correcting a deficiency pointed out by some number of players.

Allow me to put the question into context:
It is widely held that new editions to the rules are made because of a certain number of players have an issue with a certain mechanic.  The designers judge how widespread the issue within the player base, and updates or changes the mechanic to reflect 'how people are actually playing'.  This can be extended to 'patch' upgrades as well, meaning a follow on to a core book.  In this case, the DMG2.  Taking this view, the designers will rarely, if ever, institute a change on their own recognizance, deferring in almost all cases to customer feedback.  

The primary conclusion we can draw in this specific instance is that, even as a guideline, it was included because a certain percentage of players brought it up as a problem, and this number appeared to be large enough for WotC to take notice and address the issue.  The issue appears to be a problem with the recharge rate of dailies, or perhaps the recharge rate coupled with the perception that the dailies are not significantly more powerful than encounter powers, or some combination of these and some other reasons.  This contradicts your statement that "4E players ... seem to do just fine".  Of course, this wasn't strictly necessary, since extrapolating conclusions about a general population from a sub-set of that data is incorrect to begin with.

The other conclusion that can be drawn is that the designers simply addressed a problem that didn't really exist and that no one was complaining about.  While possible, I find this unlikely.  However, it highlights a situation where this could be an isolated incident of such a tendency, but the better odds are that it is the standard(ish) operating procedure.  In other words, the designers have a habit of fixing things that aren't broken.

In a sense, this brings us back around to the original question posted by this thread:  innovations.  Certainly, innovations are more than just clever fixes to existing problems, but many are simply that.  So we have something of a contradiction on our hands.  Depending on the degree to which the designers fixed things that weren't broken, how many of these changes were really necessary?  How many are really innovative, in that light?

So, which is it?  Are they in the habit of fixing things that aren't broken, and only made changes for the sake of change, or are they offering a fix for something that didn't work well (and by extension, wasn't well planned) in the first place?  In regards to the second question, don't forget that the skill challenge system was mathematically broken when it was rolled out, despite assurances that it was thoroughly tested - according to most accounts - by a mathematician.

DMG 2 is about offering additional techniques, not "fixing mistakes".

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361996DMG 2 is about offering additional techniques, not "fixing mistakes".

Of course.  They offered this wholly unbidden, then.

http://www.motel6.com/