Will you be moving to 4th Edition D&D?

[Lawgiver]

the winds are blowing...

[Vicente]

My group and myself will be moving to 4e. We have been in 3e since it came out and we were thinking about moving to Pathfinder or 4e, but in the end we like more what we see in 4e.

We will end our current 3e campaign soon (2-3 months) and start a new 4e game in parallel to see if the good impressions we have got by reading it are moved to the play or not.

[Thelandrin]

Nope. At least, not to play any D&D parties or campaigns my group has going currently. We might play D&D 4th Edition as a Slightly Multiplayer Offline game though if we get bored.

[epicsoul]

Not a chance.

[hazard]

4e made just for the profit of Hasbro. It have no regard to D&D tradition and players. System is bad because it copy the computer games (games make money so lets copy them) and lose Roll playing flavor. All most every roll depend of 1/2 of a level so it makes other statistic almost irrelevant.

so....

[DanMcSorley]

Right now, I play 3e, risus, wushu, Mutants and Masterminds, 1PG,
occasionally Call of Cthulhu and Mongoose Conan.

I`d like to play Exalted and Cartoon Action Hour, and maybe Alternity,
Mongoose Traveller, and a few others, but I haven`t put a game
together for those yet.

Will I play 4e? Sure, if somebody in my face-to-face group wants to
play or I find a game online. I`m sure it will be as fun as all these
other great games. It`s always great to have games to play.

--
Daniel McSorley

[Kalset]

I am going to give it a try, I am not very impressed with the game so far...but I havn't tried to run or play a session yet. so I will wait to see how it feels during play before making a final call.

[Beruin]

I can't really see me moving for the foreseeable future. For once, I'm not really convinced I like 4e very much and I also don't see very much in it that hasn't been available before as an option at least, or, as someone on Enworld remarked, 'everyone's a swordsage now'.

However, I already use a lot of house rules and material from 3rd party publishers and I'll certainly browse 4e for ideas - this might eventually lead to switching to it.

Some things I'll definitely don't touch (and didn't in 3e) - no buying of magic items IMC.
Heck, what are magic item descriptions doing in the PHB?

[Vicente]

DanMcSorley: Alternity is a great game :)

Beruin: magic items are in the PHB to have everything related to players in the same book. The DMG is about tips and things related to the DM.

[Lee]

Not any time soon. Two kids and busy career has sucked away a lot of time
to learn and play games, and my wife & I have been trying to pare away the
number of games we play. We`re currently involved in a 3.5 Shackled City game,
that`s in its fifth year (real-life-time), and is oozing to it`s dramatic
conclusion about 2010. After that, we`ll see.

Lee.

[AndrewTall]

Will I be moving to 4e, or to a heavily modified version thereof, or moving at all? Given my lack of free time I'll be dragged along whichever way the PBEM winds blow I guess, as long as the group I'm in sees mechanics as background and fun/story as foremost I'll be happy...

[geeman]

I won`t be moving over to 4e... but I`ll happily take what I like
from it and leave the rest.

Gary

[cccpxepoj]

hack i just learned(mastered) 3.5 edition and still remember 2E, and the 4E is out.
I still have not seen all the rules, but who knows maybe one day i switch, but it will not be soon.

[kolathador]

hell, my party has not even made it 3e, and we are all happier that way!

[Vallariel]

4e just isn't the way I want to play D&D. I'm good with 3.5!

[Green Knight]

I may try out the 4ed rules in my Epic BR P&P campaign. It looks like the rules are well-designed, so I'll give it a try. But for the time being, I'll generally stick with v.3.5

[Rey]

My party generally sticks with 2E and a few 3E rules, it's not excluded that we'll browse through 4E and apply something from it. But for the time being, no full derailing to 4E will be happening. Time and obligations have consumed us all.

[ShadowMoon]

4th Edition sounds and smells as bad as MMORPG, so NO, I wont trade RPG for computer based hack and slash action...

D&D4E = WoW

><;


EDIT: I'll remain with my realism based heavily modified D&D3.5 (d20R), and beloved mature Alternity, thank You...
^^;

PS: I hate u WotC, you capitalistic piece of ****!!!

[irdeggman]

I said eventually maybe - but most likely I won't untill I run out of other options.

I am not sold on Pathfinder as a replacement yet.

I don't like the PC game "feel" of 4th ed and I really hate the WotC Marketing strategy.

Something I found on EnWorld that some may find interesting:

JD Wiker’s (Alternity and Star Wars RPGs author/co-auther) blog on 4th ed.




http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/57390.html (http://jediwiker.livejournal.com/57390.html)

[Lawgiver]

We don't play often enough to justify the cost of the transition at this point. I plan to evaluate the system at GenCon and try it out, but it would have to blow my socks off to get me to convert. I simply don't have the time, money, or ambition to convince my group to convert when what we have works for what we need.

[bbeau22]

My group is thinking about transitioning simply because we have such little time to play. If this new system does streamline playing we could get a lot more value out of a 4 hour session than not.

Again nothing yet ... right now we are just reading the rules. We will play with the new rules a few times as seperate adventures to test out. If it does speed things up then we would probably shift.

-BB

[Vicente]

One nice article about what video game designers can learn from 4e DnD design:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3693/the_adventurers_guide_to_thievery.php

Pretty interesting given the whole 4e is paper-WoW posts :p

[Kalset]

I have been reading more and more about 4e and discussing with my friends what we think about the changes from 2e, 3.x3, and now 4e. I don’t want to be a doom caller or naysayer, but does anyone else feel that the marketing for 4e was aimed at recovering some of the players lost to MMORPG’s such as World of Warcraft and to bring in a younger crowd that enjoy the computer/console RPG’s? I haven’t seen a very good response locally, or even an interest in playing pencil and paper RPG’s versus computer/consol base games within the past few years. The gamers I do encounter are typically 25+ age bracket…leaning towards the mid 30’s, and granted this may be a local theme but with such a poor showing from the younger crowds at several of the 4e demos, does it mean that Dungeons and Dragons may be slowly dying? Those of us that remain faithful will continue to play and perhaps teach other kids (our own or others) to play but with out bringing in newer players…how much longevity does the non-computer style of gaming have left?

[ericthecleric]

…how much longevity does the non-computer style of gaming have left?

I was thinking about this the other day. It will continue as long as their miniatures continue to sell profitably. The books provide relatively little profit, but are a "gateway" to buying miniatures (although the last time I actually bought some, it was the '80s!). When the miniatures aren't so profitable for WotC- regardless of what edition is "officially" current then- then you'll have to worry.

...But on the other hand, maybe a (relatively) small-print company would buy it, like Paizo.

So the short version is, yes, the market overall is possibly declining, but you don't have to worry for a good long while yet. We'll have to wait and see.

Personally, I don't like the new game. To me, it's not (A)D&D 4th-edition, it's D&D Miniatures version 2. (Yes, I have looked at the rules!)

To me, it doesn't seem compatible with the BR setting. The Points of Light concept doesn't fit into Cerilia, except perhaps in the Giantdowns and Vos areas. And if the designers think that Damage Reduction and the 5x table is too complicated, what on earth would they think of people running domains? (That last point is rhetorical.)

And what's also strange to me is the way that neither TSR or WotC have ever really tried a large push for expanding the market before, by advertising in related hobby magazines, only in RPG magazines. Nor did they seem before to make much effort recruiting fans of games like Balders Gate and Planescape into P&P RPG fans.

Note: For anyone who does like the game, good for you! I really hope you enjoy it. It's just not my cup of tea.

[Rowan]

Is the market really declining? I thought it had been growing steadily and significantly since 3e. It was dying out under 2e.

D&D is a gateway RPG. It's still by far the largest and most well known. Many of those who truly get into gaming then move on to other systems, many of them preferring more sophisticated or "realistic" systems. D&D is in this way a feeder for all of the smaller RPG companies, which the OGL also really helped expand. True, d20 third party competition is so prolific and fierce that it's virtually impossible for any but the established lines to make a profit, but the established third party lines are probably more successful because if it, again using it as a feeder for their proprietary systems (Mongoose, Malhavoc, Fantasy Flight, Eden Studios, etc).

Whatever your disagreements from a marketing and design standpoint, I would be surprised to see (and welcome the information if you have it) that Wizards and its revisions and promotion of D&D have not greatly expanded the tabletop RPG market, in addition to being the ancestor of essentially all computer RPGs.

So I don't fear for the future of gaming at all. If anything, I think 4e will bring a lot more people into the genre. Those who have stuck around a lot and/or are purists are likely to be so jaded and opinionated as to find and support their own D&D concoctions or non-D&D game systems anyway.

I do think, though, that something like the Virtual Tabletop will become pretty common. I want a projector to use it and forego buying minis. It will also allow me to reconnect better with old friends and geographically-displaced parties.

[irdeggman]

I have been reading more and more about 4e and discussing with my friends what we think about the changes from 2e, 3.x3, and now 4e. I don’t want to be a doom caller or naysayer, but does anyone else feel that the marketing for 4e was aimed at recovering some of the players lost to MMORPG’s such as World of Warcraft and to bring in a younger crowd that enjoy the computer/console RPG’s? I haven’t seen a very good response locally, or even an interest in playing pencil and paper RPG’s versus computer/consol base games within the past few years. The gamers I do encounter are typically 25+ age bracket…leaning towards the mid 30’s, and granted this may be a local theme but with such a poor showing from the younger crowds at several of the 4e demos, does it mean that Dungeons and Dragons may be slowly dying? Those of us that remain faithful will continue to play and perhaps teach other kids (our own or others) to play but with out bringing in newer players…how much longevity does the non-computer style of gaming have left?

I think you have pretty much summed up what appears to be the issue(s) here and the targeted market.

[ericthecleric]

...I would be surprised to see (and welcome the information if you have it) that Wizards and its revisions and promotion of D&D have not greatly expanded the tabletop RPG market...

I seem to remember something in Dragon a couple of years ago, or somewhere else, saying that the peak for D&D was in the early-mid '80s. I figure that that's the number of people playing.

There was a decline until 3.X came out, and then numbers went up- but still not near the 80's figures, and have probably been dropping a bit since then. Sales figures might have increased in total, however, although I don't know. With the introduction of 4E, numbers will no doubt increase again- but to their 80's figures, and for the long term- who knows?

[Vicente]

I'm with Rowan in that the market has been increasing since 3e. The d20 and OGL gave a lot of new air to the RPG market, created a lot of new companies and in general activated the RPG industry.

Wizards have said that 3e sold out the first days, 3.5 sold out the first days too and it was a larger print than 3e, and 4e has sold out and it was a larger print than 3.5e. While they have published no figures, the fact that the 4e gift set has reached the top 10 bestsellers on Amazon (I think it reached as high as the 3rd position, but not sure) is something that tells the game has started pretty well.

On other games I wouldn't worry much either, for example Whitewolf was bought by CCP so they aren't going to lack money any time soon (although probably they are concentrated on their WoD MMORPG right now).

[Lee]

I wouldn`t worry too much about the "shrinking" or "aging" RPG world. I`m
also involved in board-wargaming and model railroading, and both of those
hobbies have survived contractions, and will again. I just turned 40, and I`m
usually one of the youngest around at meetings of both. I suspect manufacturers
are quietly afraid of what will happen when the baby-boomers die off, as
that`s a major element of their customer base.

Lee.

P.S. I`ve been having some 1st/2nd ed. nostalgia recently, but I doubt I
could scrape up a party. Sigh.

[Kalset]

I had contributed the growth of 3.x D&D in part to how the open gaming license was handled, making it possible for smaller publishers and even some of the ex-TSR staff to distribute gaming materials under a different company. I haven’t seen or read if anything similar will occur with 4e. Does anyone know or has WoTc made any announcements concerning the open gaming license?

As for what you said Lee, I agree, a 1st/2nd edition game would be fun. It would be a challenge to find the time and players for a game.

[kgauck]

The Points of Light concept doesn't fit into Cerilia

The official population figures totally suggest a points of light approach. Many of us felt that just didn't make sense after several thousand years of occupation, so a more historical population density is assumed. But if one goes by the official populations, points of light is how it works all over.

[Vicente]

ENWorld has posted that Wizards will post about the Gaming System License (GSL) today. But so far the OGL will die during this summer and the new GSL won't allow the same freedom as the OGL (publishers can't have the same material for the 2 editions, etc etc).

So it seems Wizards is going to be much more closed this time :( (I hope I'm mistaken here)

[Beruin]

I guess pen-and-paper rpgs will be around at least as long as no-one is able to develop an AI that really can replace a DM - the tabletop gaming experience is imho far superior to - and very different from - anything MMORPGs or computer games can offer, not even speaking of its more social nature, i.e. meeting with friends.

The one big advantage, apart from flashy graphics, that computer games offer is the easy access - you can play alone, anytime you want, just fire up your computer.

I guess one reason that many of us are sceptic about moving to 4e is that as BR fans we're all more or less simulationists, in the sense that we prefer a believable world that feels realistic to easy to use, streamlined rules. We're willing to accept 'clunkier' rules as long as these help us capture a greater resemblance of 'realism'.




Beruin: magic items are in the PHB to have everything related to players in the same book. The DMG is about tips and things related to the DM.

But this also takes a sense of mystery away from the game, making magic items into superior but rather mundane equipment. No, thanks.

[Vicente]

All of the people on these forums will die old and venerable and we won't be close to develop an AI that can act as a person, I can tell you that.

[geeman]

At 02:34 PM 6/13/2008, Vicente wrote:

>All of the people on these forums will die old and venerable and we
>won`t be close to develop an AI that can act as a person, I can tell you that.

Isn`t that exactly what an artificial intelligence might say?

Seriously, though, I would anticipate a kind of integration. What I
call "Pen & Paper" nowadays is really "Dice & Laptop." I keep very
few things in paper format, and I Iike having a powered up computer
so I can show graphics, text, etc. during play. I imagine that as we
get monitors that take the form of an actual tabletop that process
will continue, and people get more PDAs some form of hybrid is really
what will happen. I`ve played several sessions of RPGs over the
Internet and it`s worked perfectly well, so "distance gaming" is very
likely, especially since people`s schedules seem to be more and more complex.

In the long run, though, I have to say I don`t much care for the
direction that 4e has gone. I don`t really want an RPG that mimics
computer game concepts. If I want to play a computer game I have
several that I prefer to 4e`s mechanics, gaming environment and
dynamics. So as a general theme, I think the WotC folks have gone a
bit off the rails. Plus, the computer environment is so temporal
that they seem to be diving into a very competitive market in which
they are already the dinosaurs. They have to figure out how to
market their product in a way that gets people to forget about the
last 30 years of nerdiness in gaming....

Gary

[Vicente]

At 02:34 PM 6/13/2008, Vicente wrote:

>All of the people on these forums will die old and venerable and we
>won`t be close to develop an AI that can act as a person, I can tell you that.

Isn`t that exactly what an artificial intelligence might say?


Probably an AI would have said something like "Could you say the same sentence in another way?" :p We don't have any NLP (Natural Language Processing) technique capable of understanding what Beruin said, the context of his sentence, etc etc and then articulate all that knowledge into a more or less coherent answer :( Actually chatting bots are no more than simple pattern matching algorithms.

Integration between electronic devices and RPGs is a very nice aid for a lot of situations. Laptops, PDAs,... are only a start: in some years we will be able to play on places like a Surface (Microsoft Surface, cool gadget) or similar devices where certain types of interactions and presentations will be really easy and natural.

In fact something like a Surface would be amazing for playing (if you don't mind losing paper, pencils and things like that).

[Thelandrin]

Well, wasn't the idea with the OGL that it still retains legal force and can be continued to be used to produce 3.x books indefinitely?

[kgauck]

Part 4 of the OGL reads:


In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, world-wide, royalty free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use the Open Game Content.

Key word: perpetual.

We'll have an OGL in 4e as well, they just will tighten up the license so you can't publish the game yourself in some other version. After all with www.d20srd.org out there, who needed to buy the PHB?

[Thelandrin]

Well, you still needed it for totalling experience and actually levelling your character if you were new to the system, but still :)

[Elton Robb]

the winds are blowing...

Absolutely the wrong way for my group. They aren't in love with it, so I won't see much use out of the game. Apparently, most people that I know and don't know, have given it the stamp of Complexity. I was surprised!

D&D had become, officially, more complex than Rolemaster. And D&D always has been more complex than Feng Shui (which was incredibly simple to begin with!). But as I said, my group isn't in love with it at all so I don't think I'll be moving.

[Elton Robb]

ENWorld has posted that Wizards will post about the Gaming System License (GSL) today. But so far the OGL will die during this summer and the new GSL won't allow the same freedom as the OGL (publishers can't have the same material for the 2 editions, etc etc).

So it seems Wizards is going to be much more closed this time :( (I hope I'm mistaken here)

That is a major reason why I won't go to 4e. The GSL was created to make Hasbro's Lawyers happy.

[Vicente]

Key word: perpetual.

We'll have an OGL in 4e as well, they just will tighten up the license so you can't publish the game yourself in some other version. After all with www.d20srd.org out there, who needed to buy the PHB?

Yeah, you are right, it is the d20 STL what is disappearing.

[kgauck]

I'm not sure there is a benefit to having both the OGL and the STL. STL people got to use trademarked terms in their products, but they were required to rely on the core books. Was the use of trademarked terms useful to anyone? If there is a value to seeing Dungeon Master instead of game master, I suppose you could argue that, but I'm fine with whatever term they use (narrator, guide, games coordinator). That's just not where I find value.

[Elton Robb]

One thing is for sure. WotC could have marketed 4e a lot better. I wasn't very excited about 4e, and I'm not excited about it now. My players are definitely turned off by it, even with a cursory look. One of my players is militantly against the changes. She doesn't like 3.5x; and now she doesn't like 4e altogether.

With your core group against playing it, it seems a waste to buy the game and just have it sit on a full shelf. WotC could have done a lot of things that could be better, because their RPG R&D department put their careers on the line to make this happen. And although the sales at Amazon are good indicators, I wish WotC would have marketed the changes a lot better.

I wish I HAD A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THE GAME WAS LIKE BEFORE IT WAS RELEASED!

[Gheal]

When I read PH 3.0 first time, I had some reservations about all-to-easy level advancements, but most of my thoughts about this book were: "Godd idea! Not bad. We already use this rule! Much simpler, than 2E.". This week I read first time PH from 4E (it happens at my friend's house, so I read about 2 hours only). Sadly, but most of my reactions (at least, printable ones :)) were : "Bug. Dragon's mating rampage. Illogical. No samurai. No anarchists. Bug." etc.
I found only 2 good ideas for now - concept of Feywild (our group already use similar concept) and skill challenges (new idea for me).
All what I read was developed for dungeon crawl/dungeon delve/miniature game. Much worse, as my friend noted to me, and I agree with him, this system can't be used for classical settings. No Oerth, no Faerun, no Aebrinus. Lots of near-magical powers stuffed into all classes. And then "once per encounter" thing. :eek: Many of us played our PC's participating in great battles, siege assaults, enemy camp infiltrations. And now your PC have power to shoot and step back to recharge his mystical connection with his deity.
So far our group had no intentions to jump on 4E. When I'll buy my own PH, I will analyze this system at Wizards' message board. Probably, as my parting gift - I have no desire to buy other books from 4E.

Gheal
P. S. Sorry for my clumsy English.

[Lee]

In a message dated 6/14/2008 2:57:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Gheal wrote:

When I read PH 3.0 first time, I had some reservations about all-to-easy
level advancements, but most of my thoughts about this book were: "Godd idea!
Not bad. We already use this rule! Much simpler, than 2E.". This week I read
first time PH from 4E (it happens at my friend`s house, so I read about 2 hours
only). Sadly, but most of my reactions (at least, printable ones :)) were :
"Bug. Dragon`s mating rampage. Illogical. No samurai. No anarchists. Bug."
etc.

I found only 2 good ideas for now - concept of Feywild (our group already
use similar concept) and skill challenges (new idea for me).


So far, only 1 person in our group of 6 has even the PHB. I suspect as the
books become more available to my group, we will house-rule a few things into
our 3.5 games. I hear some of the DMG`s concepts sound intriguing. As you
can see, I haven`t read them for myself, nor judged them at all. Given how
jammed our summer is, and how hard we are trying to shove our way to a
conclusion to the Shackled City, 4e won`t be an issue for us for a while, like next
calendar year at the earliest.

Lee.

[sumodawg]

Please, a moment of silence, as the death bell tolls, for the passing of Dungeons and Dragons.

[Lawgiver]

The gamers I do encounter are typically 25+ age bracket…leaning towards the mid 30’s, and granted this may be a local theme but with such a poor showing from the younger crowds at several of the 4e demos, does it mean that Dungeons and Dragons may be slowly dying? Those of us that remain faithful will continue to play and perhaps teach other kids (our own or others) to play but with out bringing in newer players…how much longevity does the non-computer style of gaming have left?

RPGs have plenty of life left in them. In fact, I may be crazy, but I predict a fairly large upturn on tabletop gaming within 5-10 years. Why?
1. Those of us that made up the peak of the gaming industry in the 80s in the 25-35 age bracket will begin to hit a greater level of income and begin to have greater purchasing power.
2. Said bracket will be passed the age of younger children and have more free time for friends/other pursuits.
3. Our children will begin to hit the age of engaging in more serious roleplaying and will help to bridge the gap to the generation of gamers between us. That said, don't be surprised when the powers that be claim the success for the resurge in interest and attempt to attribute it to the 4e product line.
4. Miniatures will continue to increase in cost due to rising metal and plastic prices making tabletop games more appealing.

Just some thoughts.

[kgauck]

2. Said bracket will be passed the age of younger children and have more free time for friends/other pursuits.

Also, those children-not-so-young are entering the age where RPG's start being of interest. Not quite the first generation to be brought up at the gaming table, but a more numerous cohort (see reason 1).

[Bialaska]

I think my own gaming group will eventually transition to 4e.

I have read the PHB and to me it was a disappointment, though I believe this was as much because I expected a similar experience to when 3.0 came out. Back then it was all positive, I can't find a single negative thing about the transisition from 2e to 3e, since 2e was just one huge crappy pile of cowdung.

From 3e to 4e it's different. 3e has many great concepts, which I most can agree to. Great diversity and rather simple rules. 4e also got a lot of interesting ideas, but they move away from some of the stuff that made 3e great. Those who felt 3e (3.0 or 3.5 or whatever) was a good system will be greatly disappointed in 4e.

I have no doubt I'll most likely enjoy 4e (since I tend to enjoy all types of RP), but I'll definitely miss the diversity that one could find within 3e.

[Lawgiver]

Also, those children-not-so-young are entering the age where RPG's start being of interest. Not quite the first generation to be brought up at the gaming table, but a more numerous cohort (see reason 1).

Agreed. Thanks for the clarification.

[epicsoul]

Interesting. Our little poll here has different results from most other groups I have seen, where the flame wars are being fought hard.

So far, a lot of the forums I see have the 3e/4e split around 40%/40%, with the other 20% undecided or willing to experiment. Someone said earlier it was because BR players are more likely to want simulation - even at the expense of clunky rules.

However, I think part of it is also that 4e really doesn't fit well with BR design philosophy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most of the campaign worlds designed under 1e or 2e will have a great difficulty converting to this new system. Never having played Eberron, I am not sure if it would have the same difficulty.

Rather than attacking 4e, defending 3e, or even 2e and 1e (and perhaps igniting the same flame wars I see on other forums), I will simply say what has been stated before, many times, even by WoTC: That 4e is a completely new game.

Considering that BR is my favoured campaign world, I don't see how - or why - I would want to convert to a completely new game. Or, if I did, why I would choose 4e over say... Rolemaster, or GURPS, or something else.

Jumping from 2e to 3e wasn't too difficult - before I had discovered BR.net, I had my own home-brew rules that, in some cases, were remarkably similar - and only took a few days to write up. However, the jump from 3e to 4e is another thing entirely. The amount of work is daunting - MAYBE with a full 4e conversion as done by this site, I could consider it - but that is at least 12 months or more away, no doubt.

Further, as some astute folks who know me on here will attest, that would be a departure from the flavour of what I view as BR (which is, of course, a bit different from the rest of your views...) as much as 3e was a departure from 2e in how things were done.

So, to reiterate what I said earlier: there is NO CHANCE that I will be moving to 4e.

[Vicente]

However, I think part of it is also that 4e really doesn't fit well with BR design philosophy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most of the campaign worlds designed under 1e or 2e will have a great difficulty converting to this new system. Never having played Eberron, I am not sure if it would have the same difficulty.

Apparently Eberron is much a better fit for 4e than Forgotten Realms (or so Wizards say). Take into account that official settings advance forward with new editions (not only in DnD, it happens with most games, for example Battletech). To add all the changes into FR they moved the setting 100 years forward and have to add a catastrophic event (the Spellplague).



Jumping from 2e to 3e wasn't too difficult - before I had discovered BR.net, I had my own home-brew rules that, in some cases, were remarkably similar - and only took a few days to write up. However, the jump from 3e to 4e is another thing entirely. The amount of work is daunting - MAYBE with a full 4e conversion as done by this site, I could consider it - but that is at least 12 months or more away, no doubt.


Seen how long did the 3e conversion took (and that is not finished), I would say 12 months is a very optimistic length ;) Doing things over internet is usually pretty hard even for simple ones.

[ManusNigrum]

When 3.o came out I was pissed off. Mostly because I couldn't reconcile some of the concepts in the game. Wizards can Scribe Scrolls at 1st level? WTF? Add to that the fact that I was unable to play a good deal over the past few years and a lot of the stories people were telling me about things that they did in games sounded horribly gumby-ish and power gamery to me. I had heard stories of people killing off entire cities of mind flayers, summoning armies of demons, and leaving trails of fire in their wakes as they ran screaming across the battlefield.

To make matters worse I would ask about the game and the only thing that anyone could ever seem to grant me was information on mechanics. No one could ever seem to give me anything about the story line itself. Upon examining the modules I could find I discovered that for the most part, 3.x was centered around tactical play and had little to do with story, furthermore I found that the play balance was wildly skewed favoring balance scheme that was focused towards the player characters instead of a realistic balance of what the enemy should or would have to accomplish their goals. There were no wandering monsters, no death traps and every adventure seemed to be extremely linear.



I thought to myself, "Alas, what has become of my beloved D&D?"

Many years into 3.5 I bought a couple of the books and started sitting down thinking about the game. I decided that the game wasn't so bad so I set out creating a new version of the Verbobonc (A city in the Greyhawk world for the uninitiated) campaign I had always envisioned but had never had a chance to run. I finally start the game, about six months ago only to discover that 4e is getting ready to come out.

After a few quick checks, before I even get a chance to buy the game I already am pissed off. Player can BUY magic items striaght out of the players handbook? WTF???

The problem that I realized was that it isn't a matter of mechanics that s the problem, it's really more of a problem of feel. How many of you have sat down and read over an RPG core book only to say, this is stupid, I'm gonna do it differently?

Well, here's my prediction about 4th ed. rules. They're gonna be flawed. They're gonna be flawed in the same manner that 3.x was flawed and they're gonna be flawed in the same manner that the 1st and 2nd ed were.

I am going to buy the 4th ed rules, if for no other reason then to see how the game has changed. Maybe I'll play them, maybe I won't. One of the groups I play with runs a 2nd ed ShadowRun game thats been pretty consistent for several (15) years now and ShodowRun is on what, 4th edition as well I believe. Just because new rules come out doesn't mean you have to buy them and newer isn't always better.

In the end a friend of mine that didn't really do much 1st or 2nd ed gaming told me that he was really disappointed in it and he had just bought the rules. I said that I wasn't too concerned with it as long as they didn't pull another revision stunt like they did with 3.0 and then going, "Oops, we fucked up, sorry about that but we've improved the system. Here, buy the books". He dejectedly at the floor and said, "That's gonna happen, I can see it already, there's gonna be a 4.2 and a 4.4 and a 4.5... It's already written into the rules, there's to many mistakes in it"

For one, I am going to buy them, if for no other reason then to be able to translate all of the new stuff into 3.5 which I had hastily dropped several hundred dollars into all at once. I'm not saying that there is no way that I am going to play the new rules, but just because D&D means a lot to me. If for no other reason it pops into my mind as being the first real RPG and I love to be able to see the evolution of the game.

Keep playing

[BromBlackforge]

I'll agree that 4E is a different game, and I think that's the best way to treat it. One of my friends said he's going to treat 4E as a board game, and maybe he's onto something. I haven't had much opportunity to play 4E yet, but from what experience I do have, it seems like character choices are much more constrained, options are more limited. I am having a hard time imagining being able to create my current 3.5E Birthright character under the 4E rules.

I can see playing 4E, but at this point, I don't foresee completely leaving 3.5. And for that reason, I hope that the 3.5 Birthright rules remain on this site, even after the 4E version is up.

[Mojczak]

You must be kidding right? Will I indulge myself in mass consumer thinking by going to buy another set of books? I say NO, I bought the first prints of new 3rd edition when I was about 12 years old, when they got out with 3.5, considering their stupid failed game testing was nothing more than a scam to get more money I dediced that NEVER would hasbro, especially hasbro, take some of my money, after they had raped my beloved D&D and tried to make it profit oriented. As things goes, the game loose everytime a bit more of its essence to become completely bureaucratic. I say to wizards: give me back TSR, Last Unicorn Games, Alternity and use your ill-earned money to buy a wish spell to ressucitate Gary Gygax.

[Panics]

For myself and my group, I think we will stick with 3.5 but house rule some 4e concept, like the "second wind" or "surges per day" which would bring a cleric more combat active. Secondly, I may use the spellpoint options of the Unearthed Arcana. Many of the options of this book are now official of 4e anywayz.

Personnally, I found the book disturbing. I mean, its full of mini-table describing each power and you have pages by pages of those, very hallucinating when you're tired a bit ! And I don't tell you how my eyes de-focusted while looking at the Monster Manual !! Monsters are not alive. Only stats and stats and stats and stats. No ecology, no breathing, no living. Hack and slash only.

[Rowan]

General question:

Why are so many people concerned about 4e and what it allegedly does to the story?

Role-playing has always required that YOU make the story. Setting books help you out by reducing the amount of work you need to do if you like the story they are laying out. Rule books help you out by creating a rules set for the difficult-to-adjudicate things--primarily combat. It's no wonder, then, that nearly all rules for all RPG systems have to do with combat. 4e is only different in that it was designed to be more balanced, have a different feel, and run faster and more intuitively.

Now that I have my books and have played one mini-session out, I can say that I very much like most of what they've done. It's a vast improvement over previous editions. Still not the best system, certainly not the best simulationist system (Shards of the Stone or the Unisystem were the best at those in my experience). But more playable and useful, particularly for the time-strapped gamer.

While people are making predictions, I will add another of mine: that most of the various nay-saying predictions (of 4.2e, death of DnD, etc) will not come true at all :)

I will also predict that the Skill Challenge/Encounter and Trap Encounter systems will be revolutionary to gaming--unless too few see their potential. I think these systems offer something to the rules outside of combat that I've never seen before in any of two dozen systems that I am aware of. They have the potential to be developed in detail as much as combat has developed, so that non-combat interactions will become more exciting and easier to run and more common than ever before.

With Skill Challenges/Encounters and the new Trap system, 4e broke new ground in non-combat role-playing that with the solidity of a frying pan flies in the face of those who refuse to see 4e as anything other than a hack-and-slash MMORPG. A frying pan full of eggs. On the face. ;)


(BTW, I agree with the assessment that the lack of monster description and ecology is very disappointing. I believe that Wizards intends to cover all of that stuff in the online Dragon Magazine, but while it's nice to have a handy reference book like the MM for table combat, it would also be handy to have a nice storybook for reference describing the monsters and their ecology in less detail than Draconomicon stuff, but even more than the old MMs). Then it would be nice to expand on that in setting books to explain setting-specific differences (for instance, the origin stories of the various races are likely to be different, just as how the monsters came about and fit into the world would be different depending on the setting).)

[epicsoul]

General question:

Why are so many people concerned about 4e and what it allegedly does to the story?

Role-playing has always required that YOU make the story. Setting books help you out by reducing the amount of work you need to do if you like the story they are laying out. Rule books help you out by creating a rules set for the difficult-to-adjudicate things--primarily combat. It's no wonder, then, that nearly all rules for all RPG systems have to do with combat. 4e is only different in that it was designed to be more balanced, have a different feel, and run faster and more intuitively.

Now that I have my books and have played one mini-session out, I can say that I very much like most of what they've done. It's a vast improvement over previous editions. Still not the best system, certainly not the best simulationist system (Shards of the Stone or the Unisystem were the best at those in my experience). But more playable and useful, particularly for the time-strapped gamer.

While people are making predictions, I will add another of mine: that most of the various nay-saying predictions (of 4.2e, death of DnD, etc) will not come true at all :)

I will also predict that the Skill Challenge/Encounter and Trap Encounter systems will be revolutionary to gaming--unless too few see their potential. I think these systems offer something to the rules outside of combat that I've never seen before in any of two dozen systems that I am aware of. They have the potential to be developed in detail as much as combat has developed, so that non-combat interactions will become more exciting and easier to run and more common than ever before.

With Skill Challenges/Encounters and the new Trap system, 4e broke new ground in non-combat role-playing that with the solidity of a frying pan flies in the face of those who refuse to see 4e as anything other than a hack-and-slash MMORPG. A frying pan full of eggs. On the face. ;)


(BTW, I agree with the assessment that the lack of monster description and ecology is very disappointing. I believe that Wizards intends to cover all of that stuff in the online Dragon Magazine, but while it's nice to have a handy reference book like the MM for table combat, it would also be handy to have a nice storybook for reference describing the monsters and their ecology in less detail than Draconomicon stuff, but even more than the old MMs). Then it would be nice to expand on that in setting books to explain setting-specific differences (for instance, the origin stories of the various races are likely to be different, just as how the monsters came about and fit into the world would be different depending on the setting).)

Here's how it affects story:

The level of magic, for one. The fact that any wizard can now use magic missile - constantly - along with the abundance of magic items - them being in the PHB - means that the style of classic fantasy is dead. THAT is story.

That any class can now use magic rituals - easily.

Yes, you can change the magic items - somewhat - but you would have to edit the wizard class out entirely almost, along with changing the magic ritual rules, just to make it work.

To run a low magic setting is now basically impossible with the current rules set. 3e was a step towards abolishing that, and 4e hammered the nail in the coffin.

The healing surge rule does much the same. By changing the very nature of healing and the relationship of the classes thereby, you alter the very dynamics of how the classes and character interact. That changes the story.

The addition and reduction of races from the core book. This also changes the story and setting. Admittedly, this can be easily changed - IF you are the DM. As a player, however, you are stuck with what the DM does - and the DM will often, especially if new, stick with what is in the core books.

And that means if I wanna play, I have to play in a campaign world now where elves just aren't special enough. Somebody will have to play a freakin' dragon-born or some race descended from demons.

What ever happened to classic fantasy? How can it be reconciled with 4e without gutting the system? You can't use the core books to do it, that's for sure.

[Vicente]

Here's how it affects story:
The level of magic, for one. The fact that any wizard can now use magic missile - constantly - along with the abundance of magic items - them being in the PHB - means that the style of classic fantasy is dead. THAT is story.


The magic missile thing is a design change. That "Magic Missile" in 2e was called "Sling" and in 3e it was called "Light Crossbow".

And what's the problem with magic items in the PHB? It has been done to allow an easier organization, but there's nothing that breaks the setting here (as if players couldn't read the DMG or couldn't be DM themselves!).



That any class can now use magic rituals - easily.


Just rule that only Arcane or Divine classes can use them, easy too.



To run a low magic setting is now basically impossible with the current rules set. 3e was a step towards abolishing that, and 4e hammered the nail in the coffin.


Do you really want to compare the destruction and havok a 2e wizard can produce compared to their 4e counterpart? Have you checked the damage of the 2e Meteor Swarm against the 4e Meteor Swarm? (easy example, but you have lots like that one, I mentioned FB on another thread and it's equally true).

[epicsoul]

The magic missile thing is a design change. That "Magic Missile" in 2e was called "Sling" and in 3e it was called "Light Crossbow".

And what's the problem with magic items in the PHB? It has been done to allow an easier organization, but there's nothing that breaks the setting here (as if players couldn't read the DMG or couldn't be DM themselves!).



Just rule that only Arcane or Divine classes can use them, easy too.



Do you really want to compare the destruction and havok a 2e wizard can produce compared to their 4e counterpart? Have you checked the damage of the 2e Meteor Swarm against the 4e Meteor Swarm? (easy example, but you have lots like that one, I mentioned FB on another thread and it's equally true).

No, see, you miss my point.

The fact is, I can change these in my campaign I am running, sure. But that assumes I am the DM, not a player.

However, if I am playing, I have to swallow these changes, which are the core. It has changed the story for me if I want to play, because I can't assume that the DM will want to edit or houserule this stuff themself. Most DMs are much more likely to go with the core book - and thus, the vast majority will accept these changes, meaning that I can't play in a world that I will like any longer.

Arguments about 2e or 3e mages can be set aside here because that's not what I am arguing about. I am simply saying that the way these systems are handled out of the core DOES change how a story will be run.

[kgauck]

I agree that criticisms of 4e generally are both unfounded, and rather silly. Its a fine looking game system, and very elegant. That said, its design does foster a certain style of play, and the storytelling model isn't it. You can role play with any game system, and I think we have seen examples of role playing with games not at all designed for role playing (like Monopoly),


With Skill Challenges/Encounters and the new Trap system, 4e broke new ground in non-combat role-playing

This strikes me as a profound overstatement. Both because I was playing with skill challenges (or as I think they were called in 3.5, extended skill tests) a lot in 3.5 (or maybe it was d20 stuff from 3rd party folks) and because it gets so little text in 4e. Sure we who are already big fans of extended skill tests, will find it easier to explain to new players (because someone else did the explaining) but its not new or revolutionary. The Medieval Players Handbook was full of extended skill challenges. Its rules on debate, how an artist crafted a masterpiece, and the plain old vanilla crafting rules all had different uses of an extended skill test. Experience was already supposed to be matched against challenges, and challenges were defined, so that it was already possible to figure out quite nicely how much experience to grant for a skill challenge.

I think the skill challenges are good, because they take something that was already possible and explain it clearly and in the heart of the core rules, but if a revolution occurred it was under 3e. All 4e did was make it more straightforward.

[kgauck]

Here's how it affects story:

The level of magic, for one. The fact that any wizard can now use magic missile - constantly - along with the abundance of magic items - them being in the PHB - means that the style of classic fantasy is dead. THAT is story.

I was already doing this in my game, I just saw a large number of spell storage devices, like scrolls and potions, which made spells per day a tedious bookkeeping chore, because it was effectively defeated by spell storage. This was basically true in 2e, but no quite so elegantly. the 4e magic system is a definite improvement because it gets rid of the constant business of manufacturing scrolls, plus it does a very nice job of working the wand and staff of the wizard into the core use of all spells. I had long been seeking a reason wizards and druids carried staves (or wands) but had not found anything as satisfying.

This level of at-will magic does not actually increase the amount of magic, if you allowed potions and scrolls to be used, since they were already abundant enough to produce the same ends.


That any class can now use magic rituals - easily.

Easy enough to make "Blooded" a requirement of the ritual magic feats.


To run a low magic setting is now basically impossible with the current rules set. 3e was a step towards abolishing that, and 4e hammered the nail in the coffin.

Why was 2e so easy to run as low magic? I was once in some guy's game where as 1st level characters we found a spelljammer boat and crossed the continent. I thought it was much easier to run a low magic campaign in 3rd edition. It provides (present tense) everything I need to run the campaign exactly as I like.


The healing surge rule does much the same. By changing the very nature of healing and the relationship of the classes thereby, you alter the very dynamics of how the classes and character interact. That changes the story.

Again, not if you view hp's mostly as a measure of fatigue more than anything else. As I preferred a less fantastic feel, clerics didn't go around healing injuries, they restored morale, and reduced exhaustion with their ability to inspire commitment. I used a wounds/vitality system. Wounds required mostly normal healing (cure spells reduced a single wound point per die) while vitality would come and go. Well the 4e system works much like the wounds vitality system, but simpler. They don't bother to track wounds seperatly but otherwise its exactly the same. The old rule gave you 1 vitality point per level per hour, this system makes it a function of player choices rather than simple accounting of time. Much more player driven.


What ever happened to classic fantasy? How can it be reconciled with 4e without gutting the system? You can't use the core books to do it, that's for sure.

You couldn't use the core books to play BR ever. Not in 2e or any other time. If you have a notion that is special, whether its Tolkien, or Arthurian, or the other stuff lurking around behind 1st edition (the Grey Mouser, Conan, &c) you had to make adjustments to the core rules even to do that stuff. Getting that special feel always required a DM committed to setting. 4e is no different in this respect.

[Rowan]

Kgauck, I will concede that extended skill challenges arose in 3e--barely (even less text devoted to them than 4e). It took a third party supplement or independent tinkering to do much with them. But I think what you said agrees with my primary point that 4e has institutionalized them, made them easier to explain and carry out, and made experience point awards easier and more standardized for them. What I'd like to see now is fleshing them out more; it may again take third parties and trial and error to figure out how to make them as detailed and satisfying as combat, but the mechanic is now solidly there. Storytellers just need to learn how to incorporate and describe a skill challenge in as much exciting detail as combat.


I agree with you also in your responses to Epicsoul, but would point out a few more things. 4e does state that wizards are very rare, and it even suggests that all the PC classes are much rarer than 3e and 2e. It's all a matter of how a DM wants to play it. Fallcrest, the detailed DMG town, has only 3 wizards, I think, likely low level, in an area with a population over 2000. That's about one in a thousand. FR since 2e would have had a whole freaking wizard college, and that was the most supported and "default" setting for D&D in reality since mid way through 2e.

Again, as Kgauck explained with hp, it's all about how you describe things in 4e. In fact, with the limited amount of description they give, it lends itself even more to player and DM interpretation and description of rule mechanics.

For example, since it takes a feat to even gain access to rituals, in addition to needing the skills necessary to cast them, it is easy to explain (aside from limiting rituals further, which is easy to do) that the character who has taken such feats and gained such skills has had to learn all this by esoteric studies. They've dabbled in magic, much like multiclassing.

As for classic fantasy, it really all does depend on the chosen setting. I agree in that I don't particularly favor the new races, but even the books say they are rare. Its easy enough to just disallow them. Same with any classes you don't like. Same with making magic items rarer--which the core books also give easy variants for how to limit or increase magic items. I would have still kept them in the DMG, but it's no big deal in my eyes which core book they go in other than stylistic and referential preference.

As for magic missiles and "classic fantasy," I can't remember a classic fantasy story that didn't have spellcasters casting whatever spells they needed whenever they needed them. In fact, the old "vancian" magic system always felt extremely artificial and limiting and very antithetical to perhaps ALL "classic" fantasy stories. Vancian magic was designed to try to keep play balance, not to mimic stories, because it surely did not. As far as I know, the whole concept of "memorizing" a spell or multiple of the same spell that would then vanish from memory after casting had absolutely no precedent before D&D--that was never "classic" fantasy. Knowing and being able to cast any spells you know was, whether rituals were required to do so or you could just spit them out.

[Vicente]

No, see, you miss my point.

The fact is, I can change these in my campaign I am running, sure. But that assumes I am the DM, not a player.

However, if I am playing, I have to swallow these changes, which are the core. It has changed the story for me if I want to play, because I can't assume that the DM will want to edit or houserule this stuff themself. Most DMs are much more likely to go with the core book - and thus, the vast majority will accept these changes, meaning that I can't play in a world that I will like any longer.

Arguments about 2e or 3e mages can be set aside here because that's not what I am arguing about. I am simply saying that the way these systems are handled out of the core DOES change how a story will be run.

At least in my group is not the DM (most times myself) the one who rules how things will work, but it's more a common agreement from the whole group (DM + players): what will be house ruled, what we like, we don't like,... It's useless to make your players play a game they don't like!

And I disagree completely the rules tell you anything related to the story and how to tell, live, feel and play it. If you feel like that, it's not the problem of the books: I never run more than 1 combat in a game session (4 hours) and I don't intend to change that with 4e, 5e or any other edition/game.

[epicsoul]

At least in my group is not the DM (most times myself) the one who rules how things will work, but it's more a common agreement from the whole group (DM + players): what will be house ruled, what we like, we don't like,... It's useless to make your players play a game they don't like!

And I disagree completely the rules tell you anything related to the story and how to tell, live, feel and play it. If you feel like that, it's not the problem of the books: I never run more than 1 combat in a game session (4 hours) and I don't intend to change that with 4e, 5e or any other edition/game.

And again... it's not about the combat. Did I mention combat at all? No.

I said about the level of magic, the surges, and others.

I also didn't mention BR, actually, when referring to a low magic setting, though it is true that is how I run it.

As for Vancian magic, I won't argue that it did not entirely fit with classic fantasy. However, even with 3e, the amount of magic items that were implicit - the fact that feats were all that is required plus a master-crafted item, to create most items, made wizards into magic item and scroll factories.

Something that I despised then. 4e simply completes this problem.

Okay. Anyways, I don't think I want Br.net to degenerate into a flame war either. So, I throw my hands up and say:

Whatever. I am not playing 4e. It doesn't match my style, and everything that it is good about it, is already in my game anyways. (extended skill challenges were taken from White Wolf into my game about 10 years ago... when 2e was still being played by my group).

I haven't used vancian magic without modification for a long time anyways - preferring 2e spells & magic with a twist.

I have actually restarted a 2e campaign now, with a little material taken from 3e. That's it, I'm done.

It just means that I won't be able to play in any new groups, I will only be able to DM. That sucks, but there you go.

[jdpb1]

Hell no!

It's only Savage Worlds BR for my group!

Joe

[Kalset]

Last night my regular group play tested The Keep on the Shadowfel for 4e. The game ran very smoothly, I only had one issue with the system that continued to bother me during the game. To anyone that has played miniature games, such as Warhammer 40K, Warhammer fantasy, Mageknight, Starwars, or any of the other Clicky-teck games; I started to notice that the players would fall into the same pattern of attacks and retreats and were focusing on movement very closely. Years ago I stopped using the micro-management of movement rules, and went to a more story based description of combat. Yes, on occasion we used mini's (or coke cans) to represent characters and monsters for reference to location but our group hated how movement was conducted. There were many battles where the short legged characters never made it into close quarters before the fight was over. What I am attempting to express it that the new abilities basically force you to use the movement rules to enjoy the benefit of the ability.

Most of the group agreed that it didn't feel like D&D but more like Mage-knight or the starwars mini's game. The game was fun but it wasn't the Dungeon's and Dragons of old. We will continue to play 4e and see how it evolves and our understanding increases but when we want a good old dungeon crawl...more than likely we will be using 3.x to play it out.

[kgauck]

So many of the powers rely on moving another character across the battlemap, or putting a character into a condition based on position, the decision tree of combat seems fundamentally different from 3.x. That's for sure. Of course, D&D emerged from minatures, and the chainmail rules, but a lot of water has flowed under the bridge between Chainmail and late 2nd edition, when world building and story had both had their place as king of the hill.

Its certainly a different enough game that it deserves its own edition.

[BrennanHawkwood]

I have played several sessions with 4e now and while I can say it is a pretty well made, smooth game, I am still in the camp of it just not being the game I was looking for as a successor for DnD. I doubt I personally will actively pursue any of the books beyond the first 3 nor will I convert any of my existing on-and-off campaigns to it. On the other hand, I have no objects to playing it if it anyone in our group comes with an idea and wants to run it.

[Gheal]

I've played 3 sessions with 4E, only, but this system doesn't strike me as very smooth. 4E is well-made, but bug-infested, so to say. This is pretty understandable, as it is entirely new system, without much use of previous D&D editions. But I was even more troubled with "estimated combat parameters" of new combat rules.
All combat rules are heavily oriented on battlegrid sheet - great accent on movement, no combat options for distances more than 45 squares, heavy use of difficult terrain. Field of battle for armies are mostly fields, not rough hills with thick forest.
Many combat opions were blindly acquired from WoW, even illogical ones, even invented for "aggro-building" mechanics. Marks/challenges/whatever, idea of aggroing tanks, as one of main combat roles, idea of "damage on miss".
Idea of at-will ranged attacks. I was against this even for warlocks in 3E. Imagine wizard and castle wall. Every round wizard casts magic missile. 10-hour workshift means 6000 magic missiles per day. Archers went blank and begins to retire - arrows must be crafted and carried, at least. Why build walls, when one mage in hiding can pierce hole in this wall given enough time? Such engines of destruction are incongruent with my feel of heroic fantasy.
I may be wrong, but my group have no intentions to use 4E in ongoing campaigns. I like chess, but RPG is differnt sort of game.

[kgauck]

Idea of at-will ranged attacks. I was against this even for warlocks in 3E. Imagine wizard and castle wall. Every round wizard casts magic missile. 10-hour workshift means 6000 magic missiles per day. Archers went blank and begins to retire - arrows must be crafted and carried, at least. Why build walls, when one mage in hiding can pierce hole in this wall given enough time? Such engines of destruction are incongruent with my feel of heroic fantasy.

Magic missile has a range of 20, like a sling, and is about as effective. If one can imagine someone defeating a castle with a sling, then I suppose the same is possible with a magic missile. We don't have rules for castles, and they've tried to do away with the added complexity of attacking objects. The section on damage to objects is very vague (which is fine if you just want a DM to make a call and move on) but its clear in the final paragraph (on pg 66 of the DMG) that its up to the DM to decide when an object is resistant or immune to certain kinds of damage.

In 3e this was worked out in great detail, using hardness, and assigning a hardness to every object. Regular masonry had a hardness of 8, and magic missile did 1d4+1 damage and so could never damage masonry. Since magic missile is an immaterial force weapon, and a sling is basically a material force weapon, as far as the damage they do to stone, I'd say they are pretty much the same. Neither one, even with unlimited combat applications is going to damage a castle wall (or a stone house for that matter). Given unlimited, undisturbed applications, maybe you could eventually make a hole, but its like cutting a tree down with a hammer.

4e's approach is not to attempt to anticipate everything a players might have his character do and make a rule for it. If that means somewhere a DM allows a wizard with a magic missile (or a guy with a sling) to breach a castle wall, then so be it. 4e doesn't mandate that kind of silly outcome and gives plenty of latitude to DM's to achieve more sensible outcomes.

[Gheal]

Magic missile has a range of 20, like a sling, and is about as effective. /.../ The section on damage to objects is very vague (which is fine if you just want a DM to make a call and move on) but its clear in the final paragraph (on pg 66 of the DMG) that its up to the DM to decide when an object is resistant or immune to certain kinds of damage.

In 3e this was worked out in great detail, using hardness, and assigning a hardness to every object. Regular masonry had a hardness of 8, and magic missile did 1d4+1 damage and so could never damage masonry. Since magic missile is an immaterial force weapon, and a sling is basically a material force weapon, as far as the damage they do to stone, I'd say they are pretty much the same. Neither one, even with unlimited combat applications is going to damage a castle wall (or a stone house for that matter). Given unlimited, undisturbed applications, maybe you could eventually make a hole, but its like cutting a tree down with a hammer.

4e's approach is not to attempt to anticipate everything a players might have his character do and make a rule for it. If that means somewhere a DM allows a wizard with a magic missile (or a guy with a sling) to breach a castle wall, then so be it. 4e doesn't mandate that kind of silly outcome and gives plenty of latitude to DM's to achieve more sensible outcomes.

4E: Eldritch blast (Warlock1, Cha 16, implement +1) 1d10+4 arcane damage. Magic missile (Wiz1, Int16, implement+1) 2d4+4 force damage. Fighter with Str16 and Battleaxe+1 - 1d10+4 slashing damage. All people must be equal :)
Wooden bridges, drawbridges on chains, weak points in stone structures all are susceptible to weird kinds of damage. Giving someone unlimited resources to affect something from range and without cost (battleaxe can wear or break, eldritch blast can not) is great source for game world unbalancing, IMO. 3E was much more "real" in these aspects.

[bbeau22]

4E: Eldritch blast (Warlock1, Cha 16, implement +1) 1d10+4 arcane damage. Magic missile (Wiz1, Int16, implement+1) 2d4+4 force damage. Fighter with Str16 and Battleaxe+1 - 1d10+4 slashing damage. All people must be equal :)
Wooden bridges, drawbridges on chains, weak points in stone structures all are susceptible to weird kinds of damage. Giving someone unlimited resources to affect something from range and without cost (battleaxe can wear or break, eldritch blast can not) is great source for game world unbalancing, IMO. 3E was much more "real" in these aspects.

Isn't Eldritch blast in third edition? Better yet Locks in third edition could change eldrich blast into a fireball like blast .... and do it at will.

Also didn't they start implementing feats that let you give up a high level spell slot to cast a low level spell for free at will?

Hmmm now that you mention it, a magical battleaxe would never wear down correct? Make it out of adamantite and it would bypass most hardness.

My point is that 3rd edition was already going in this direction.

-BB

[kgauck]

IMO. 3E was much more "real" in these aspects.

No doubt! You'll get no argument that in terms of realism, 3.5 is a simulationist game, and 4e is a caricature. But, I would add, are their rules in 4e for an axe wearing out? I don't think so, so in the same cartoon world that gives you unlimited magic missiles, you also get the untarnished mundane axe.

But as far as spellcasting goes, I really prefer 4e to 3.x. Then again I prefer almost anything to the standard vancian system.

What I definitely don't like is making characters interchangeable in terms of damage or combat effectiveness. From a Birthright perspective, where combat can be but merely one tool in your bag of tricks, balancing the classes on combat seems particularly off kilter.

[Mojczak]

Never, on my soul, will I change for 4th edition. I begun with 1st at 6 with my father's group, was glad to discover 2nd at 9, was horrified with 3rd edition and both angered and relived with 3.5. I hate wizards for buying of tsr and making this profit-oriented by mass-producing instead of mass-quality work and just repeatedly producing the same material with different rules. I want Ideas and aventures, not die roles and sheet filling all the time, differently. D&D is loosing its edge, as producer for the line are sitting on the trademark's laurels instead of producing new interesting stuff. They are afraid to loose money... poor thing.

[kgauck]

Loosing money is death to a business. Never wish it on any gaming enterprise.

I played boxed D&D (where elf and dwarf were a class) and the experience tables went up to 5th level; and everything in between. I think all editions prior to 3rd are sad. I had fun with them in the same way I had fun with computer games with geometric lines for objects (like asteroids) largely because what I was used to was worse than what I had. Now that I've gotten used to 3rd edition, I wouldn't go back to 2nd unless the group were optimal because the limitation of 2e, its weird mechanics, and its lack of depth would be a constant frustration.

4e would be a good edition for a game that's mostly about fighting. I wouldn't run it, but I would play it.

Wizard's problem isn't that they have no new ideas. Its almost that they have too many ideas. The most successful business has one really good idea and sticks to it. That's a fox vs the hedgehog question. Wizards is probabaly a little too much fox and might be in need of a little more hedgehog. They probabaly see 4e as their one big idea. We'll see how things work for them.

Popularity is generally a good indication of a good product. People know best what product that want. I'm not going to second guess their buying decisions.

[mujeresliebres]

I've read some reviews of 4e, and honestly I'm just not enthused enough to switch.

Here's my logic. I've only been tabletop gaming for 2 years. But I'd played the Baldurs Gate series, Planescape torment etc. on my computer. So I feel that I have a general understanding how 2e worked, and I have to say it was confusing and weird. Everyone I know who has played both at a table says that 2e was just getting bogged down by too many conflicting rules across too many settings. So they release 3e which is buggy of course, and people are bitter about 3.5 and having to buy new books. But everyone I know thinks that in general they were both really good functioning systems. With 3.5 being the preferred system to play in.

That said 4e is in essence trying to replace a system that is not broken. If they're so worried about making money, why aren't they updating an old or coming out with a couple of new campaign settings? The gamers I know would be more than willing to try a new campaign setting, but no one I know wants to buy 4e.

I'm fine if something is simplified to make it better, but it does seem to me like the game is being dumbed down to match how computer games work. The once per encounter magic strikes me as very WoW oriented. And to me, some of the best evidence that the game is being distanced from traditional fantasy is that bards have been removed as a core class. Now maybe I'm just a dork who likes playing social characters and singing when I feel like it, but bards to me are classic roleplaying (not rollplaying). It seems that with the emphasis placed on miniatures, equalizing classes by combat, and numerous encounter based abilities, the aspects of storytelling, acting out a character, etc. are diminished.

I was discussing this earlier with a friend who flat out said one of his biggest problems was the fact that the feel had changed from generic fantasy into something much more oriented around a particular setting. To quote him, "well sure, tieflings existed already and are fine, but they're something the D&D people made up; might as well make aboleths a core PC race, or mongrelmen... I want it to be more adapatable to any fantasy setting and not just the D&D setting." Considering the number of homebrew settings I play in 3.5 is definitely a better fit than 4e for us.

Ack all stop rambling now. But yeah no 4e for me.

[Odinsman01]

My group and i are never moving to 4th ed. Doesn't feel like d&d to us and to be honest 2 of them wanted to return to 2nd ed. 3.0/3.5 had lots of kinks but it all worked out in the end. 4th ed. just felt alot like warhammer quest or another one of those combat oriented games. It really stresses the combat instead of t he role-playing aspect of d&d. Maybe we'll try the new 5th or 6th ed. when they come out;)

[fbaker4]

http://www.myth-weavers.com/games.php?gameid=2493

I'm looking for players for a Birthright game using 4e mechanics. It's going to be better than you think...

[Rowan]

Question for all who would like to answer: How many of you have played other RPG systems, and what were they?

This is related just in that my appreciation for good rules sets--as well as my experience in explaining whatever rules are given in terms of whatever reality I want to present--vastly increased when I expanded my horizons to other games systems. I can appreciate the beauty of a well-made system, and this enhanced my acceptance of 4e. That's not to say 4e is perfect (far from it), or that 4e is suited to all types of games (no systems are), or that it's the best system out there right now (it's not). There are many improvements over earlier editions, though.

As for my answer to the above, I have played primarily D&D 2e-4e, Witchcraft, Armageddon, Mage, Vampire, Inquisitor, Werewolf, Hunter, Star Wars. I have also played some fringe games like Alternity and Highlander, and some systems of my own design and that of my friends.

Another question that someone might help me with: in 4e, has Wizards revealed the structure behind crafting at will, encounter, daily, and ritual powers? The structure that would help you determine what level such a power should be?

I know the DMG tables for damage and difficulty are a good guide, but I wasn't sure if they had given more concrete guidelines.

[epicsoul]

Question for all who would like to answer: How many of you have played other RPG systems, and what were they?

This is related just in that my appreciation for good rules sets--as well as my experience in explaining whatever rules are given in terms of whatever reality I want to present--vastly increased when I expanded my horizons to other games systems. I can appreciate the beauty of a well-made system, and this enhanced my acceptance of 4e. That's not to say 4e is perfect (far from it), or that 4e is suited to all types of games (no systems are), or that it's the best system out there right now (it's not). There are many improvements over earlier editions, though.

As for my answer to the above, I have played primarily D&D 2e-4e, Witchcraft, Armageddon, Mage, Vampire, Inquisitor, Werewolf, Hunter, Star Wars. I have also played some fringe games like Alternity and Highlander, and some systems of my own design and that of my friends.



.... I have played all the editions of D&D, from the red/purple boxes to 1e AD&D, through Skills & Powers 2e and up to 4e, Palladium system (multiple genres), GURPS (multiple genres), White Wolf WoD and NWoD, Exalted, Alternity, Aberrant, Shadowrun, Mechwarrior, Call of Cthulhu, Traveller, In Nomine, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, the Primal Order, Rolemaster, Harnmaster, Hackmaster - off the top of my head, not including any "fringe" games (yes, I tried the Aliens role-playing game) or games we tried to make up (the RPG set in the Terminator universe roleplaying game that we made up after T2 came out comes to mind as a horrendous flop). I am sure there are more RPGs that we played, or that are in my gaming collection, if I went through my archives.

Other than some of the encounter rules in the 4e DMG, I don't find anything much in it to be an improvement, as I stated previously. That's my analysis compared to these other systems and previous editions. I guess that's why I don't appreciate what the game is now...

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that 4e is a crappy system, compared to some of those games - having had characters DIE in CHARACTER CREATION (like I did in the Star Fleet Roleplaying game (the Fasa one, not the TFG version) and in Traveller, anything can be an improvement.

[Rowan]

Oh yeah, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu, In Nomine, and Exalted. Just once, though.

Check out Eden Studios' Witchcraft and Armageddon. Their Unisystem is pretty good and customizable.

[fbaker4]

Question for all who would like to answer: How many of you have played other RPG systems, and what were they?

This is related just in that my appreciation for good rules sets--as well as my experience in explaining whatever rules are given in terms of whatever reality I want to present--vastly increased when I expanded my horizons to other games systems. I can appreciate the beauty of a well-made system, and this enhanced my acceptance of 4e. That's not to say 4e is perfect (far from it), or that 4e is suited to all types of games (no systems are), or that it's the best system out there right now (it's not). There are many improvements over earlier editions, though.

I've played all the D&D's, and the various other TSRs like the Spy one, Star Frontiers, & Boot Hill. Star Wars d6 & d20. I've played Rolemaster & MERP & Cyberspace, GURPS 1-2-3, Shadowrun 1-2-3, Ars Magica 2-3-4-5, CoC 1-2-3-4, Feng Shui, free ones like Risus, Window, and Sherpa; MegaTraveller, Traveller, & Striker, and probably 10 more I can't remember off the top of my head.

The crux of the issue is the story. All these game are designed to provide some framework to a story. The GM & the players have to be committed to the story. If you are all committed to the story, then the mechanics are fluid. It's only when the story falters that the mechanics back up one view vs. another. I'm using 4e to run a pbem now, and so far it's working great. Is it the same as original 2nd ed? As 3rd or 3.5?

Yes. Because the story hasn't changed.

[kgauck]

I played D&D from the boxed set to present. TSR's Top Secret, and then to Victory Games' James Bond RPG, which remains one of the best game designs ever. It was both a great design as well as spot on for the genre. Everything was skills, combat, social, and technical actions. Attributes were a base modifier. There was also this great concept, Areas of Knowledge, which included things like Art History, Connoisseurship, and Military Organizations so that you could determine in a binary way whether you could attempt something.

Say I had a high disguise and a high electrical engineering skill. I have the AoK Art History, but not Military Organizations. That means I could effectively pass myself off as an art historian or museum expert, then disable the museum security system and presumably steal some art. But I could not pass myself off as an officer in the Russian Navy, and sabotage the new weapons system or similar things.

In Birthright, having an area of knowledge of Anuire, would allow you to apply skills to Anuire, but not elsewhere. But what is also true, you don't need to keep sinking skills into a knowledge of Anuire. It makes characters very versatile, which is very fitting for James Bond.

Next in line (chronologically) is a WWII military combat game which had a combat system that was pretty complicated, but simulated WWII style weapons and tactics pretty well. I don't recall the name of it, because another guy in our group owned the books. Then Twilight 2000, which I liked a lot. Another good skills system which had the added interesting feature of when you used skills, you could make a check to see if you improved in them. Experience was very organic that way.

Some GURPS, and then everything seemed to be point buy and classless. Based mostly on James Bond, but to a lesser extent on Twilight 2000, I was a big advocate of point buy classless systems.

Skip ahead a decade. Birthright comes out. I join a group, and after the first session, the guy who had the Birthright stuff sold it to me, and I took over as DM.

The last game system I really got into was the ICON system for Star Trek. I had dabbled a bit with FASA, but we mostly played Starfleet Battles, not the FASA roleplaying. ICON was a great system for Star Trek. Again all skills, versatile characters because they had a system where you could buy a skill in a general area, like Shipboard Systems, or the specific duty station you used a lot. So one character might be the ship expert with a very high general knowledge, while another character, say a doctor, might have a minimal rating in Shipboard System, but have a very high rank in the one system they use all the time. I got the Decipher books, made by the same team after Wizards bought Last Unicorn, but I never actually played it.

I houseruled 2e a lot, but came to embrace the class system and D&D for fantasy, and for Birthright. Sure there were nice things about classless point buy systems, but I think D&D did a better job with iconic fantasy characters. Then 3rd edition came out and I really haven't played other systems since, though I have obtained books and materials for other systems, like the Ars Magical rules. By the time we got to 3.5, I was able to eliminate houserules almost entirely in favor of official variants.

[kgauck]

Is it the same as original 2nd ed? As 3rd or 3.5?

Yes. Because the story hasn't changed.

That's nice, but it really only makes sense for role players who are story driven. Story, setting, characters who like role playing, and the ability to create dramatic tension are entirely system independent.

I loved, loved, the James Bond RPG and LUG's Star Trek RPG. But, I'd really rather not play BR with those systems, because what characters could do was too broad. Characters for point buy systems in particular and James Bond and Star Trek in particular are omni-competent. The reason I embraced D&D again for BR was a question of how characters interact with their environment. My preference for 3.5 over 2e or 4e has everything to do with simulating a medieval environment in which characters are limited in what they can accomplish, and nothing to do with story, or character, or drama.

The story may be the same, and as far as you're concerned that may be all that matters, but give the rest of us some credit for appreciating some other part of the gaming experience as well.

[fbaker4]

The story may be the same, and as far as you're concerned that may be all that matters, but give the rest of us some credit for appreciating some other part of the gaming experience as well.

Sure, as long as you give me some credit for appreciating the mechanics as well. I never said, meant or implied that one could play an equivalent game of BR with the TW2k, Traveller, or Car Wars rules. But 4e isn't Sport powerplants, recoilless rifles, and solid tires. The core remains highly similar, even if some of the details don't mesh perfectly...And some elements don't mesh at all; we're all clear on that. But if we, collectively, as gamers and enthusiasts of BR can flex 3.5 to fit, I bet we can flex 4e to fit if we want to. Obviously, there are reasons not to. But there were with the 2nd -> 3.x as well.

I'm a strategic simulationist at heart, I like Panzerblitz as much as I like CoC, and I like CoC a lot. I still play the board games of Diplomacy & A3R on line. But in keeping with my persona, I like trying new things. 4e is new, I think it's flexible enough to try a game, so I'm starting one. I will admit, it was slower finding players than I'd hoped...but as long as the players are interested a BR story, then the mechanics are largely the same as 3.x.

[irdeggman]

Question for all who would like to answer: How many of you have played other RPG systems, and what were they?


All iterations of D&D.

Alternity

Traveller (the original version)

D20 Modern

Star Wars (West End through WotC revised rules - didn't play sage but have it)

Deadlands (original and d20 versions)

Villians and Vigilantes

Mutants and Masterminds

Hmm what else was there?

[kgauck]

I never said, meant or implied that one could play an equivalent game of BR with the TW2k, Traveller, or Car Wars rules.

Actually, that's my point, and I'm happy to claim it. As long as all one is concerned with only story, any mechanic works, including Car Wars.

I took this statement at face value:

Is it the same as original 2nd ed? As 3rd or 3.5? Yes. Because the story hasn't changed.

But if you feel that the following better reflects the totality of your position, that's fine.

But if we, collectively, as gamers and enthusiasts of BR can flex 3.5 to fit, I bet we can flex 4e to fit if we want to.

[AndrewTall]

Hmm, many many games. Ones that lasted other than various incarnations of D&D were BESM, Earthdawn, Rifts, FengShui, Car Wars (long ago but apparently coming to a cinema nearby soon...) various off the shelf games with mechanics we twisted so far to try and remove bugs that they broke (the hero game where improving a stat to an even number made critical fumbles far more likely in a system where fumbles were fatal leaps to mind), games that lasted a few sessions (hero-system, trinity, paranoia, various white wolf, a whole bunch whose names I don't recall, probably for the best), etc.

My favorite system at low levels is probably earthdawn, certainly it has the best magic system I've seen, but the system shatters at mid-level with modifier stacking bugs. D&D 2 and 3e are best for low-mid level play but break at high level (you take the army on the left...) Feng Shui is always fun but is best in small doses, something doubly true for Paranoia, BESM's system is...buggy, rifts is not for those worried about balance but great for munchkin's, white wolf just OD's on dice, hero-system has the best character generation ever but we couldn't figure out how to play it effectively (just say no to 4 hour combat scenes).

From a story perspective, with a DM who is good at winging it and players who trust them to be fair (or at least funny) the system is fairly unimportant - but it never goes away. If I can't build the PC I see in my minds eye, or the story-needs make them mechanically impotent compared to other PC's, then as a player I'm going to suffer in a long game.

4e irritates me b/c it is pure combat (is is role or roll playing?) the ability the ability to simulate a world is absent, etc - I'll wait for someone to design the rest of the system and then look at it in the round...

[fbaker4]

Actually, that's my point, and I'm happy to claim it. As long as all one is concerned with only story, any mechanic works, including Car Wars.\

lol. You're a Tiger...I want to play a birthright game when you GM using Car Wars rules! Bootlegger Reverse! Spear 1000 Napalm Mines! Improved Body Armor! Take that, Manslayer!

[kgauck]

More developed BR conversions that I have done include Kingmaker (I had to buy a copy on e-Bay), Illuminati, Machiavelli, and Monopoly.

When I tried Machiavelli in Anuire, I also realized Risk could be played on a BR map too.

I have started a BR mod for the computer game EUIII, but I'm spending too much time on the wiki to advance that project at present.

Diplomacy and Machiavelli are already established PBeM games, so setting up one of those with a map of Anuire would be pretty easy.

I think combining Machiavelli and Kingmaker in some region of Cerilia would be fun.

http://home.mchsi.com/~gauck/Noble_Card.jpg

[fbaker4]

I have started a BR mod for the computer game EUIII, but I'm spending too much time on the wiki to advance that project at present.

Diplomacy and Machiavelli are already established PBeM games, so setting up one of those with a map of Anuire would be pretty easy.

I think combining Machiavelli and Kingmaker in some region of Cerilia would be fun.
]

Hey - those are good ideas; I'm a big Paradox guy myself, and if you like EUIII, have you tried Crusader Kings? Hold the phone, it's stunning. I put in my application a few months back with the Paradox development team to get the source code for CK & EUII - one of the things I want to do with it is have a BR version of CK. Maybe we can compare notes? And if you liked those, did you ever try the old Sierra-On-Line version of Birthright? It had some great elements, though the AI was pathetic.

[kgauck]

Wow, the source code! I was just making a map of Cerilia with Japar and Anduria rounding out the world (I wanted a full world, little colonization) with plans to change the tags and modifiers for religion.

I've enjoyed Paradox games since the original EU and Hearts of Iron (which I bought unaware that it was Paradox). Since then I've gotten all those varieties and play EU with Magna Mundi. Since then I've added Victoria and Rome, and the very early version of the Engine based on the Hundred Years War, but never got Crusader Kings.

So far I have a partially developed territorial map. If the maps are the same size, that would be useful.

[fbaker4]

Dude, have all 4 paradox mainstays; and if you like HoI (I just finished a mammoth HoI2DD game I started in May), I can't express enough how much you need CK. I - ... I - ... I really, really, mean it.

ANyway, back on topic.

4e is way more betterer! An' my dragonborn warlok scion of Andu is gonna eldrich your cheezy Law Holding (2) till it crumbles...just as soon as I kik the Spider's butt.

[Rowan]

Wow, there's a lot of experience on these boards! A good bit of overlap, but also a good amount of diversity.

Unfortunately my time is more limited than in my hs and college days, so I fear I can't take a look at all these systems you guys recommend.

What I find, though, is that a lot of ideas from other systems can be adapted across systems. In any case, you can usually learn from other systems.

I have been working on a BR conversion for a while now, with a few goals in mind:
1. Improving the simulationist aspect;
2. Streamlining gameplay, particularly for PBEMs;
3. Scalability (traditional domain level to intra-domain, or up to faction and nation level--so 3-5 players could easily play out the drama of Anuire, or the five tribal regions could be played); and
4. World-building and world-running mechanics adaptable to any D&D setting as a DM aid.

It'll be 4e compatible and take some cues from that, but I'm not focusing much on the adventure level, so 3.5e v. 4e won't matter that much. I'm getting close to having a reviewable outline of the mechanics (without much flavor explanation, yet). I'd like to benefit from your collective experience and critique, however, so I'll put it up when I have it ready.

Aside from that, though, from what I've hearing, some of the best systems you guys have put forward are:
1. James Bond RPG
2. Earthdawn (for magic)
3. Paradox
4. Machiavelli

I don't have experience with any of those. The Areas of Knowledge are a case of convergent evolution--I was recently applying a similar concept as an extension of the Character Backgrounds mentioned on another thread here. It's helpful to hear about how they worked in the Bond system. Any other winning ideas worthy of brief explanation from these systems?

As for systems we'd like to promote the most, I'll plug Eden Studios' Witchcraft & Armageddon (the Unisystem), since no one else here seems to have seen it yet. My brother loves Engle (a German product).

[Vicente]

Question for all who would like to answer: How many of you have played other RPG systems, and what were they?

I have mostly played DnD (2e, 3e and now 4e), Alternity, MERP, Rolemaster, CoC and Paranoia. But I have also played from time to time (as a break from those games): Kult, Trail of Cthulhu, Shadowrun (2e-3e), Mechwarrior (2e-3e), Star Wars (WEG and d20), d20 Modern, Talislanta, Warhammer Fantasy RPG, Reign, Stormbringer, James Bond, Superheroes Inc, Ert, EXO and Fanhunter (the last 3 are Spanish RPGs).

Never played WW stuff (I tried Vampire one, but I didn't like it). As for rulesets, probably the one I like the most is the one from Alternity, a pitty the game died so fast (although AlternityRPG.net goes on :)

Regards,

Vicente

P.D.: as for systems Rowan, Paradox is a software company ;) It makes very complex historical real time strategy games (they got famous with Europa Universalis and after that they have done remakes of the same idea in different ages changing and improving mechanics here and there).

They aimed for a niche marked and they did it pretty well, but it would be really hard to translate such complex games to book/tabletop (although they are a great source of ideas).

[Lee]

In a message dated 8/19/2008 10:28:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET writes:

Rowan wrote:
Question for all who would like to answer: How many of you have played other
RPG systems, and what were they?


Twilight:2000 (1st and 2nd ed.), Star Trek RPG (FASA, 1st & 2nd ed.), Star
Wars (WEG/d6, 2nd ed.), Space:1889, Traveller, MegaTraveller, Rolemaster,
Elric, Top Secret (not S.I.), Recon, Star Frontiers, Serenity RPG, GURPS 3rd ed.
Probably a few more, but my crew are mostly D&D fans, and I`m more of a
wargamer than an RPGer. I`ve done Basic, Advanced 1e, 2e, 3.0 and 3.5 D&D.
Result? Lately, I`ve been feeling nostalgic for 1st/2d ed. AD&D, with
maybe some 3.5 mechanics house-ruled in. One of my friends was a 4e
playtester, and he`s not at all eager to switch over. We`re all "older" gamers, with
kids and thus rather limited gaming time.

Lee.



**************It`s only a deal if it`s where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)

[RCB]

Hello all. New to these forums. I figured I would throw in on this subject.

I have played 2nd D&D (as well as the basic D&D they offered as well, more or less same stuff) and 3rd (3.5), Palladiums Systems (Rifts, Heroes Unlimited, Nightbane, etc...), Twilight 2000, WW, Gurps (actually the first system I ever played), Mechwarrior, Carwars (can't remember what the RPG side of it was called), Villains and Vigilantes, Tunnels and Trolls (which I really liked), Runequest (also a big fan of), Star Wars (WEG and D20, the D6 by the way is fantastic and still one of my favorites especially for modern and sci-fi... class based systems suck when you get into those genres), Alternity, Call of Cthulu, Gamma World, Amber and a few others to be sure, but can't really remember names. (been gaming for about 19 years, since I was 13... to show my age)

As far as wargames... way too many. Battletech, Warhammer, 40k, Pretty much all the Games Workshop stuff, Warzone (fantastic system, too bad it disappeared), Newer Mechwarrior, Carwars, etc...

I don't think I will move onto 4th. I don't like the online games forcing class roles. It robs too much from RP and turns the game into even more number crunching. Personally I think I and my group will be moving more the other direction. Less class roles where there is more flexibility. If I wanted to play and MMO then I would. I know I can house rule plenty of things, but for that matter, I can keep using what there already is. There are some other aspects that I don't care for from a fantasy world ecological view, such as mindless undead not being "evil" or rather not beings of malevolence. It just doesn't fit with the ethos of the world I want to play in typically.

[AndrewTall]

Aside from that, though, from what I've hearing, some of the best systems you guys have put forward are:
1. James Bond RPG
2. Earthdawn (for magic)
3. Paradox
4. Machiavelli


The earthdawn magic system at first glance looks vancian - there are no spell points, there are lots of 'spells' many of which will be familiar to veteran gamers by different names - all the basics are covered. However PC's don't have spell slots, with game balance coming from the nuber of spell slots your character has. Instead spells have a set number of 'threads'. The more powerful the spell, the larger the number of threads and the difficulty to weave them. (PC's have a skill called 'thread-weaving' that you improve as you go up levels).

So a mage could cast a low power spell every round, or spend several rounds winding up to the big hit, etc - different spellcaster types have different spells available and at low level it mostly works fine.

A spell caster can keep a certain number of spells to hand in a 'spell matrix' - other spells can be known but only these can be cast safely, to dump the old spell and put a new spell in the matrix generally needs a cut scene but can be done on the fly albeit at some risk. This encourages planning (particularly as some spells are very hard to stick in a matrix) but allows some flexibility.

The system has the usual bugs with spells at the wrong level, etc - but it is easy to customise around the basic concept.

Another aspect is 'blood magic' - the wearer of a given item can boost various abilities by a set amount, but takes damage for doing so - it gives non spell-casters some magic, but is inherently limited, basically 'you can get +6 steps to damage, but you will take 3 damage to do so - good luck hitting'. Blood magic is somewhat hazardous if a PC overdoes it, similar to radiation boosts in other systems.

The 'real' magic items are mostly designed to grow with the character, when you first get an item you can only access the most basic functionality, as you recreate its heroic legend / otherwise unlock it - generally at a cost of time, xp and possibly health - more and more functions of the item are unlocked or existing powers get stronger. This is over-done a little but is basically designed to give DM's plot hooks and the like'.


The skill system is also fairly nice, you have certain class skills, and can also get non-combat style skills, you 'buy' skill levels with xp gained from adventuring, with higher levels costing an increasing amount - so you can be very good at 1 or 2 skills, or have basic familiarity with many.

Overall it's quite a nice system, second to D&D in my heart - but a fond second.

[Elton Robb]

I've looked at Atlantis: Second Age (the Omni System). And I must say I like it's magic system a lot better. Although it works for the Omni System. Basically, you describe what you want your spell to do, hammer out some mechanics, and cast it. It's a lot like Ars Magica's spell casting system (which is good for 2nd edition, may I add).

[hastur hyades]

Question for all who would like to answer: How many of you have played other RPG systems, and what were they?

This is related just in that my appreciation for good rules sets--as well as my experience in explaining whatever rules are given in terms of whatever reality I want to present--vastly increased when I expanded my horizons to other games systems. I can appreciate the beauty of a well-made system, and this enhanced my acceptance of 4e. That's not to say 4e is perfect (far from it), or that 4e is suited to all types of games (no systems are), or that it's the best system out there right now (it's not). There are many improvements over earlier editions, though.

As for my answer to the above, I have played primarily D&D 2e-4e, Witchcraft, Armageddon, Mage, Vampire, Inquisitor, Werewolf, Hunter, Star Wars. I have also played some fringe games like Alternity and Highlander, and some systems of my own design and that of my friends.

Another question that someone might help me with: in 4e, has Wizards revealed the structure behind crafting at will, encounter, daily, and ritual powers? The structure that would help you determine what level such a power should be?

I know the DMG tables for damage and difficulty are a good guide, but I wasn't sure if they had given more concrete guidelines.

I've played:

All editions of D&D
Rolemaster, MERP, HARP, and Spacemaster
Runequest
Stormbringer
Powers and Perils (oy vay)
Swordbearer
True20
Traveller
Alternity
Traveller 2300
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
Skyrealms of Jorune
Cyberpunk
Paranoia (not my favorite, but that may have been boring GM)
James Bond RPG
Top Secret
Gamma World
Mutants and Masterminds
Champions
Marvel Superheroes
Call of Cthulhu
CHILL
TOON
Vampire the Masquerade (meh)
Mage the Ascension (so much cooler than vampire imho)
Amber Diceless (while not a big fan of diceless I do love Amber)

As for what I think is a good fit for Birthright, I often thought I'd like to try and make a Runequest or other BRP version. I can never seem to find the time to actually do it, though.

[Agelmore]

I prefer to move to Pathfinder than 4e

[rjurikwinds]

Yeah, eventually I'll go and switch to 4ed... but maybe by then they'll be on 5ed! I've got a 6 year old kids who are only startiing to read and adding dices is still alot of work - but she loves looking at the books; rolling dices, and figurines... She's going to need a few years still. I might go to 4th edition just for her. My other guys? We only play every 6 months and that's still going to be 2ed; we don't havve time (or energy) to switch.

[dundjinnmasta]

I would be all about some Pathfinder if I didn't absolutely despise 3.x and Pathfinder is still too grounded on the 3.x system. All they did was take a bunch of the 4E concepts, a bunch of the SRD classes that were underpowered compared to the supplement classes, and a nifty setting then mixed it all up with a big batch of power-increase so everything would be on par with the supplements and added a dash of their own fluff to them. I mean come on? The barbarian rage ability works exactly like the Warrior Rage from WoW.

I've heard the 4E = WoW before but no one has pointed out that little tidbit above.

[darkon]

I've heard the 4E = WoW before but no one has pointed out that little tidbit above.

Not exactly true. I mean 4ed is more MMORPG oriented (not just WOW).

[dundjinnmasta]

It is more action-oriented. I've never connected 4E with an MMO but I have connected them with action fantasy movies like Lord of the Rings or fantasy books where the characters don't just "swing sword over and over again" but normally have nifty abilities they can use to overcome their enemies in combat.

I get the whole 4E = MMO thing but it just isn't true. 4E = a suite of more dramatic/dynamic actions then "I swing my sword". 4E is more wargamey then 3.x was but that is because 3.x started a trend that made it more wargamey then 2E. If you google and research the 3.x release you can find that the EXACT same things were said about 3.x "This makes D&D to much like Everquest!".

[darkon]

there are several points to consider to reach the argument that 4ed -> MMORPGs.

1. Powers: It is clear that powers tend to emulate the dynamic battles in RPGs. Every class has special "spell-like abilities", called powers, just like in MMORPGs.

2. Skills: Obvious reduction on the number of skills, as well as their complexity. Most skill descriptions are battle oriented (just read through the descriptions).

3. Descriptions in general: Just look at the descriptions in the powers, as well as any other mechanic of the game. It is significantly poorer when compared to the descriptions in 3ed or even better 2ed. This reveals a turn to dynamic action - strategy games just like MMORPGs.

Regarding your last argument, 3.x definitely was a significant step towards MMORPGs. If you remember 2ed, you can see the difference. Just read the descriptions of the spells in both editions, and you will get a clear idea. The RP element has been trimmed, to underline the mechanics & strategy elements. The change is even more obvious in 4th.

[kgauck]

The core difference between a pure RPG and the MMORPG is that most of the real work is imaginary. The RPG is about rolling a set of dice and describing the outcome. D&D never involved "swing sword over and over again". Its long d20 distributioin to hit and its additional die of damage was always supposed to represent different results and it was the DM's job to describe what the player did and what the opponent did.

Mechanizing that function so that the DM is no longer a play by play commentator using his imagination, gives the player more choices, but it takes a degree of imagination, a degree of role play, out of the game and makes it a different kind of game.

Now D&D's origin is the Chainmail rules, so this move to tactical wargames is not a heresy. But by the same token, its not everyone's cup of tea. I've seen D&D go from just "D&D" before it was even 1st edition, to late 2nd edition when role playing really exploded. It became about the character, and the story, and the dramatic situation.

I know full well that in the right hands a good mechanic is useful to doing all of that can be a good role playing tool. I also know, and suspect many 4e skeptics have seen the same thing, that mechanics like those in 4e can encourage a style of play that is more about out of character, character as game object play. That's the core of the MMORPG criticism, those kinds of games are more character as game object. I make my character go here, do this, use this power, make that maneuver, and so on. A lot of role players try hard to go beyond that style of play because they find character as subject, inhabiting the character to be interesting.

Deciding from an open decision tree - I can try anything - rather than I can select from this menu of options. In an MMORPG, you really only can choose from the menu of options. computer software can't handle player innovation. Of course at the gaming table good players can think like RPG players and use the whole range of possibilities, but I think we're kidding ourselves if we don't admit that 4e will encourage the pick from this menu style of play.

That, in my opinion is what the MMORPG criticism is about - character as object and limited menus of actions. I'll assume that everyone on this list doesn't limit themselves this way, and plays or runs a good game. But the game itself doesn't help you do that, and encourages a style of play that is required by computer software and not required at a gaming table.

[dundjinnmasta]

You couldn't be further from the mark. But let us rewind to another point...

'I attack the goblin' is nothing but I swing my sword. A good MANY players or DMs aren't going to go out of their way to give a good description of the action, why? Because I can describe something super cool and then blam, rolled a 1. What a waste. This is probably common in tabletop but what makes it worse is when it is common in a text-based atmosphere when all everyone has the ability and I would hope the imagination to type a decent attack description. If you have a group of people that play that way then GREAT and that is awesome for you but I doubt alot of people have that kind of play experience. And I would like to add that description or not the lack of options for anything but spellcasters in 3.x was outrageous. "I swing my sword", "Okay, you hit, describe your action." (But remember, it is just a normal hit so don't get to outrageous!) vs "I summon the power of magic to cast quickened fireball and then follow it up with Ice storm! Eat Fire Ice, fiends!" (Do we need alot more description because I am sure the quickened fireball and Ice storm will take alot more space then the sword swing and be cooler as well as having more creative control over the cosmetics). I even tried to encounter a creature play-style by offering to-hit bonuses if someone came up with a descriptive action and it got used maybe a half-dozen times in the three years I used it.

4E was created because enough people complained about it. It was one of the reasons that they tested 'Sword-magic/fighter-magic' with Tome of Battle. WOTC didn't create the majority of 4E concepts, the gamers did. The biggest complaints about 3.x that I seen repeated over and over again was balance, skill points, and spellcasters vs non-spellcasters. Look at what was the biggest focuses for 4E: Balance a crossed all classes, a simpler but still decent skill system, and the playing field has been leveled between spellcasters and non-spellcasters.

Now I can grant that everyone has a different play experience but when I play 4E I don't feel like I am playing an MMO as I said I feel like I am playing out an action scene in a movie or in a book. I am interacting with the rest of my group while we perform our actions and all of our characters look cool doing it.

Now we will get into some of the deeper and maybe overlooked mechanics. 4E has built in support for Stunting which is really the first time for D&D as before it was up to the DM to decide off the cuff or use fiat on it. Stunting isn't anymore powerful then using powers but it isn't necessarily weaker.

You don't have to guess what your players know about a certain monster anymore as the skills are set up to cover what to roll and then the Monster Manual actually gives the DC for information.

The role-playing skills such as Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, etc still remain in the game. (Even if I wish they didn't as alot of people use them as rp crutches but alot of people praise them for getting away from the DM fiat thing).

The Skill Challenge system can be used for alot of non-combat encounters and don't require combat at all, but heck you can include a Skill Challenge in the middle of a combat too. Example being the final battle of the pdf updated Keep of the Shadowfell. Skill Challenges may not be new but it is the first time they were put in the core rules and thus the first time they are being introduced to alot of people. Also the skill challenge rules have room for innovation as well and aren't strictly hard-coded to just skills.

Of course, I just pointed out a bunch of stuff but people have their opinions of the matter. "Discussions" on the internet is not about convince the other person of your opinion but about convince the other readers so I wanted to get the opposing view point out there.

[darkon]

And I would like to add that description or not the lack of options for anything but spellcasters in 3.x was outrageous. "I swing my sword", "Okay, you hit, describe your action." (But remember, it is just a normal hit so don't get to outrageous!) vs "I summon the power of magic to cast quickened fireball and then follow it up with Ice storm! Eat Fire Ice, fiends!" (Do we need alot more description because I am sure the quickened fireball and Ice storm will take alot more space then the sword swing and be cooler as well as having more creative control over the cosmetics). I even tried to encounter a creature play-style by offering to-hit bonuses if someone came up with a descriptive action and it got used maybe a half-dozen times in the three years I used it.


Just a quick sidenote:

Spellcasters are supposed to be much more "flushy" than the fighters. They are rare characters (especially in BR), with far more chances of shaping the future than warriors. How many warriors have you seen playing a major role in fantasy settings? I can grant you that Aragorn was a great fighter (or ranger or whatever, it does not matter, just pick a warrior based class), but was he able to astound and cause the same excitement as Gandalf did?

Spells are "supernatural" or trained abilities that are tremendously exotic. They draw power from arcane/divine sources as old as the worlds are supposed to be. They cannot be equivalent (not so much in terms of game mechanics, but mostly in terms of effect) to an efficient thrust of a blade followed by a dancing maneuver executed by the most skilled swordsman.

That is what bothers me most about 4th edition. The unreasonable classification of every action, every ability, every spell, as a power, under the same rules and under quite similar effects. There was no reason to do that, apart to provide a more "user-friendly" line of products for those who are used to this type of rules, namely the MMORGP players.

BTW, just to avoid any type of confusion, I am an avid MMORPG player, who however believes that tabletop RPG has nothing to do and should not have to do anything with this type of gaming presented by MMORPGs. I enjoy the discussion though :)

[kgauck]

When the criticism of 4e as MMORPG was first made, I was not sympathetic to that argument. Yeah there were similarities, but it did seem like it was more of a disparagement than an analysis. However, a lot of people have made the observation, and dundjinnmasta has repeatedly tried to defend 4e against that description. However, his defenses have convinced me that the comparison of 4e to MMORPG's is really a sound and strong analogy.

My own conclusions were posted previously.

I like MMORPG's. Enjoyed Star Wars Galaxies, looking forward to the Star Trek MMORPG. When I first started playing them I thought the mechanics were cool and thought about how they could be used in D&D. So, obviously I don't think the analogy is a disparagement, though I certainly understand how the style of play of MMORPG's differs from one specific kind of RPG style - the story-drama-actor constellation of preferences.

Me, I'm a simulationist. I want a coherent setting where the number of blacksmiths make sense given population density and other activities in the setting. The conflict between the gamist assumptions of of 4e, which dundjinnmasta has expressed very well, and the story/character people who have having a lot of disappointment in 4e is one in which I am mostly an outsider looking in.

However on the narrow question of "is 4e like an MMOPRG" I think the answer is clearly yes. dundjinnmasta can deny the similarity, but he really makes the case that it is very strongly.

He says he doesn't feel like he's playing a MMO when he plays 4e, he feels like he's in an action movie. But the model all computer game designers looked to when they started making graphics intensive character based games was the movies. MMO's themselves are intended to be cinematic, because the visual component is the same. But further, when looking to capture that cinematic feel for a table top RPG, its hard not to travel the same mechanical ground that MMO's have been treading for years now. Pretending that 4e can feel like an action movie, but like like a MMO is frankly just not persuasive. 4e and MMO's both try and capture the same cinematic experience and do it in more or less the same way.

Unfortunatly much of dundjinnmasta's recent reply was a non sequiter to the argument on the table. Some of these other arguments haven't been criticized at all, so their invocation is a straw man, and others have not be criticized as part of the MMO analogy, but are made on entirely other grounds. Balance, skills, and so on are being made from simulationist grounds.

I would find it more compelling if dundjinnmasta defended the 4e as MMO as a good thing on gamist grounds than denying that the analogy is valid while simultaneously making the case for it.

[Birthright-L]

IMO, 4e definitely looks more like a computer version of D&D than
previous editions... but I don`t think that`s really a criticism. I
have no problem with using computer game mechanics in a P&P game
where that is practical and sensible. There`s plenty of stuff for
BRers to emulate from various computer games like Civ, and wouldn`t
we all love to see a really good computer version of Birthright? I
enjoyed BR:tGA, with all its faults, so I can`t say that I think the
negative observation of 4e as deriving its mechanics from computer
game standards really makes a whole lot of sense.

That said, I don`t much think 4e is very good for BR because the
computer games that it is most similar to aren`t really ones that
lend themselves to a BR style of play. Again, not really a
criticism: just an observation of the respective systems. It`s no
more critical to describe 4e as a computer game-like than it is to
insult a metric socket wrench for not using Imperial measurements.

THAT said, I`m not really a metric guy in this particular case, and
I`m not going to 4e just because I don`t want to replace the
metaphorical lug nuts on my metaphorical vehicle at present. If I
were going to swap to another vehicle (say, an Eberron sedan or
Forgotten Realms 4x4) then I could see using 4e, but for Birthright
I`ll stick to other homebrewed systems.

Gary

[Rowan]

I enjoy 4e immensely, finding it superior to all previous editions of D&D, but it still has its faults, faults that I'm noticing more and more the longer I play it--just as I noticed the faults of 2e and 3e the more I played them.

I do agree with the WotC argument, however, that the "internal consistency" of the math of 4e is a major advancement over previous systems. They've admitted that D&D never had it before, and they tried to back their way into mathematical consistency in 3e and, in many instances, failed.

The internal consistency makes it easier to balance, adjudicate, and house rule 4e. It also proves more fair and reliable to the players. Yes, the proliferation of PC powers and feats is running the risk of making them all too similar, but I think it's still fun for the players, particularly if they like swapping out powers and feats frequently to enjoy the breadth of the options. I am also toying with stressing the area where the different classes really achieve their identity--the Class Features. Given that consistency I've spoken of, this should be fairly easy.

I also find that WotC is generating more innovation now than it has in a long time. One of those innovations I greatly appreciate that I saw recently was a section (I think in the DMG) on improvised actions. Now that we have a consistent array of damage expressions and DCs by level, figuring out and even encouraging improvised actions is easier for me as a DM.

Let me delve into this deeper, since while it may seem elementary to some of you, it was an epiphany to me.

4e stresses the non-"fleshy" composition of hit points more, and even institutionalizes this more with the concept of healing surges. This makes it easier to justify high damage for improvised actions and not just good extra effects or better skill challenge successes. The DMG section I read even recommended encouraging improvised actions (like dropping chandeliers, pole-vault kicking enemies into fires, etc) by allowing them to be slightly more powerful than Powers of the character's level.

This I like, and must explore more, because my preference in gaming is to have characters come up with elaborate things on the fly that they want to do--the problem is building a system to encourage and support that or to help the GM adjudicate it fairly. White Wolf and some other publishers have had some success with such free-form gaming, but I have had various problems with most of those other systems, as well.

So now I'm going to be revisiting my GMing of 4e with an eye towards encouraging all those improvised actions more highly, using the quick resolution tools 4e gives me to adjudicate them rapidly and fairly.

Given the internal consistency of 4e and other DM tips 4e gives (such as how it stresses and makes recommendations for terrain and other combat and skill challenge complexities), the fellas at WotC are helping me improve the creativity and role-playing of my game more than anyone else has in a good while. So I won't begrudge them their money, or creating a game system that is inherently designed to allow for much expansion and proliferation of its rules material.

[Elton Robb]

Well, again I said I won't be going to 4e. I'm going back to Rolemaster. 4e, I just realized, isn't the RPG I really wanted. I may have talked the big talk, and said some things on the WotC forums in favor of Cinematic play; but I realized that Dungeons and Dragons wasn't about cinematics. It's about delving in dungeons and fighting dragons.

I already have a game for cinematic play, it's called Feng Shui and it replicates the genre for roleplaying cinematics perfectly. You can't do D&D with Feng Shui since D&D had a style and a flair of its own (personally, I call it D&D play). What Kenneth Gauck has been discussing with the Dunjinnmasta is principally the heart of what 4e was designed for. 4e was designed to do what it is designed, but something had to give: and that was the feel of Dungeons and Dragons. It was sacrificed for cinematic style playing.

Dunjinnmasta says his group can play and do cool stuff. Cool stuff? That's not the D&D I remember fondly. The images that formed D&D for me was a fighter going into a ruin with a snake over it (very Conan like). To me, D&D was about danger and adventure, not doing cool stuff to wow your comrades.

Going back to Rolemaster was a hard choice to make. But ultimately it was the best one since Rolemaster supports a style of play that can have the Dungeons and Dragons I remember with a mix of realism (it supports any style of play, really). And if I want to go back to the D&D the way it should be, I can play an earlier edition. But for me, Rolemaster provides something 4e couldn't:

Three dimensional characters.

[dundjinnmasta]

Three Dimensional Characters, huh. What exactly does that mean again? Because I am pretty sure any character that is more then numbers on a character sheet that a player has breathed life into with personality, descriptions, and a background is a three dimensional character. I doubt you will convince anyone that has spent weeks agonzing over their backgrounds in a Play-by-Post 4E game that they aren't making a three dimensional character.

I am sure Conan did cool stuff in all the books and the movies that had more of an effect beyond 'Conan swings his sword'. I will eventually have to read them or rewatch them and let you know.

I have no problem with people that say 4E isn't for them but to come out and say things like "I am going to play Rolemaster because you can't make a three dimensional character in 4E" is completely false and simply put insulting to those 4E people that work hard on bringing their characters to life beyond the character sheet.

I will never understand the MMO connection, ever. Sorry but it just isn't in me. What makes it play like an MMO? Powers? Well, "Spells" existed in other editions including 'Fighter Spells' with Tome of Battle. I have heard that the "cooldown" timers of the At-Will, Encounter, and Daily system is like that but all editions had At Will Spell-like Abilities and Per Day abilities, do they play like an MMO? 3.x was blasted when it first released that it was an MMO on tabletop and there was no point in playing it because they could just play Everquest.

Why don't you go ahead and tell me what exactly makes 4E play like an MMO.

[darkon]

Three Dimensional Characters, huh. What exactly does that mean again? Because I am pretty sure any character that is more then numbers on a character sheet that a player has breathed life into with personality, descriptions, and a background is a three dimensional character. I doubt you will convince anyone that has spent weeks agonzing over their backgrounds in a Play-by-Post 4E game that they aren't making a three dimensional character.

I am sure Conan did cool stuff in all the books and the movies that had more of an effect beyond 'Conan swings his sword'. I will eventually have to read them or rewatch them and let you know.

I have no problem with people that say 4E isn't for them but to come out and say things like "I am going to play Rolemaster because you can't make a three dimensional character in 4E" is completely false and simply put insulting to those 4E people that work hard on bringing their characters to life beyond the character sheet.

I will never understand the MMO connection, ever. Sorry but it just isn't in me. What makes it play like an MMO? Powers? Well, "Spells" existed in other editions including 'Fighter Spells' with Tome of Battle. I have heard that the "cooldown" timers of the At-Will, Encounter, and Daily system is like that but all editions had At Will Spell-like Abilities and Per Day abilities, do they play like an MMO? 3.x was blasted when it first released that it was an MMO on tabletop and there was no point in playing it because they could just play Everquest.

Why don't you go ahead and tell me what exactly makes 4E play like an MMO.

I think you are taking things too personal or serious. If you read through KGauck's post or mine or even others', you will see several reasons supporting the analogy of 4ed with MMORPG. If this is hard to understand, or maybe if I am not able to persuade you, I can understand. But please do not ask questions, when answers have already been provided, not once, but many times.

For example: " 3.x was blasted when it first released that it was an MMO on tabletop and there was no point in playing it because they could just play Everquest."
And that proves that 4ed is not MMORPG oriented exactly how??? In fact 3.x is more "MMORPG friendly" than 2nd edition. It was somewhere between what 2nd edition represented (for me a more storytelling friendly and relaxed game set), and the total MMORPG character of 4ed. I can only see this argument working in favor of those relating 4ed with MMORPGs.

Regarding your argument about at will powers, and spell like powers that where cast once every a specified period in 2ed: These where not a common case. The game was not filled with those abilities, and it was very rare for PCs to have them (eg. the drow abilities of dancing lights). That is why they "added" in the diversity of the game. If those are common, and everything "works that way", then you have nothing else than a bunch of similar characters.

"Three - dimensional characters": I wish to give my own explanation, and please Elton feel free to correct me if I am far off the mark. What I understand when I think about this term, is characters whose actions are something more than an execution of a power. This is where the admittedly fuzzy set of rules of 2ed came handy. Players relied more on their guts, imagined moves and actions that could create desirable effects and after they presented them to their DMs long of arguments spanning over several hours started about the description, the surroundings, the morale of the enemy, etc. Nowadays is simply "I use this power, attacker on higher ground, the others are 3 squares far, blah blah: +10 to attack". Simplifying and reducing the complexity or even the "fuzziness" of the game rules may make the game more fair, but is a potential story killer, and believe me, it does not help creating unique characters. I do not play D&D for fairness, nor for equal opportunities between players to be the best of the village, or the town, or the world. These are aspirations held high in MMORPGs (that is why PVP is so successful after all), and as explained above in 4ed as well. I personally play D&D for the thrill of roleplaying, and storytelling.

I also do not believe that you cannot make "3d" or "interesting" or "vivid" characters in 4ed. It all comes down to the player. While I was DMing 2ed I have seen several players who created characters that are mere copies of archetypes, uninteresting, bland, just filling a position in the party. I have also seen very interesting and colorful characters in 4ed, created by players with ingenuity and love for the game. I am merely arguing that 4ed, with its strict, accurate, well thought of set of rules, usually gives lazy people a supporting hand, and covers their weaknesses in roleplaying. Do not forget that the game is called RPG for a reason. It does not necessarily demand a set of rules to be played "in its purest form :)", because logic and mutual understanding prevails, and when it does not, there was this magic ruling: "DM's rule" to stop needless arguments and bickering. Otherwise it turns out to be strategy, or MMORPG.

Finally it is, as it always has been a matter of what you want of the game. However there are some facts that are objective, and the sooner someone realizes them, the better his gaming experience will be.

[Vicente]

I think you are taking things too personal or serious. If you read through KGauck's post or mine or even others', you will see several reasons supporting the analogy of 4ed with MMORPG. If this is hard to understand, or maybe if I am not able to persuade you, I can understand. But please do not ask questions, when answers have already been provided, not once, but many times.


I'm siding with dundjinnmasta in this 4e != Fantasy MMORPG. Someone who defends the equality usually has not played MMORPGs a lot or 4e a lot.



Regarding your argument about at will powers, and spell like powers that where cast once every a specified period in 2ed: These where not a common case. The game was not filled with those abilities, and it was very rare for PCs to have them (eg. the drow abilities of dancing lights).


AD&D 2e already had abilities that could be used X times/Y unit of time, that's nothing new in DnD. 4e has changed minutes, hours and days and has given them more "abstract" time unit so they work better with different play styles. Their only mistake (and I think Mike Mearls has posted in WoTC forums that he houserules that) are dailies, that should be "important moments" instead.

So this allows the DM to know the resources the players have and it doesn't matter if your game is fast paced (dungeon delve) or slow paced (a diplomacy/travel heavy game). Under 2e and 3e in the second type of game your characters always had all their resources at their disposal (the famous 15 minutes work day).



That is why they "added" in the diversity of the game. If those are common, and everything "works that way", then you have nothing else than a bunch of similar characters.


This would be like saying that an Evoker, and Illusionist and a Cleric are similar just because the 3 of them cast spells.

Before PHB 2 this argument was used a lot against 4e, but after that book WoTC proved that using the same framework (powers and roles) they can create very different play experiences and with an extra advantage over 2e/3e: without powercreep.



"Three - dimensional characters": I wish to give my own explanation, and please Elton feel free to correct me if I am far off the mark. What I understand when I think about this term, is characters whose actions are something more than an execution of a power. This is where the admittedly fuzzy set of rules of 2ed came handy. Players relied more on their guts, imagined moves and actions that could create desirable effects and after they presented them to their DMs long of arguments spanning over several hours started about the description, the surroundings, the morale of the enemy, etc. Nowadays is simply "I use this power, attacker on higher ground, the others are 3 squares far, blah blah: +10 to attack". Simplifying and reducing the complexity or even the "fuzziness" of the game rules may make the game more fair, but is a potential story killer, and believe me, it does not help creating unique characters. I do not play D&D for fairness, nor for equal opportunities between players to be the best of the village, or the town, or the world. These are aspirations held high in MMORPGs (that is why PVP is so successful after all), and as explained above in 4ed as well. I personally play D&D for the thrill of roleplaying, and storytelling.


Under this assumption that the only thing you can do in 4e is use powers, we could say that in 2e and 3e (as a warrior) the only thing you could do is move your sword around and do basic attacks. But now, magically, it seems in 2e and 3e you could just use nice descriptions to change your actions and get different modifiers or results but in 4e, for a strange reason, even if the DMG encourages that, you can't? Sorry, that argument fails: you can do that in 4e as you could in 2e and 3e. The nice thing about powers is that players that doesn't have such imagination or aren't so good at thinking fast on the fly can keep doing cool things instead of boring basic attacks.

That goes also with the game balance, and that's a matter of personal likes and dislikes: a lot of people don't like when session after session one character does always all the work and the rest are just extras. 4e tries to correct that, but as some people dislike it, probably some groups enjoy it...



I am merely arguing that 4ed, with its strict, accurate, well thought of set of rules, usually gives lazy people a supporting hand, and covers their weaknesses in roleplaying. Do not forget that the game is called RPG for a reason. It does not necessarily demand a set of rules to be played "in its purest form :)", because logic and mutual understanding prevails, and when it does not, there was this magic ruling: "DM's rule" to stop needless arguments and bickering. Otherwise it turns out to be strategy, or MMORPG.


And it's a bad thing that lazy/not so talented people (for example, one of my players is really shy) can enjoy more easily the game and feel more often that they are in the spotlight?

Also, this is a little OT, but you said that something some posts ago about Wizards > Fighters in fantasy, citing Gandalf and Aragorn. But do you realize that in the future, when a lot of people have seen the LoTR movies and not read the books, the clever/important guy is going to be Aragorn? (because in the movies Gandalf is just a senile old man that goes around saying nonsenses while Aragorn does all the work).

[Vicente]

Otherwise it turns out to be strategy, or MMORPG.


I missed this point (and it's a little off-topic), but it clearly shows the "don't know much about MMORPGs" I was referring earlier.

Talking about the most important MMORPG out there (WoW), encounters and fights aren't strategic by design. Why? Because if they were strategic and you had to think, you wouldn't be able to grind them.

That's why fights are heavily scripted and they play equally once and again, why aggro rules are clearly set on stone and enemies always behave the same way, because if they were a little more intelligent (not much, just like a FPS bot or something similar), players wouldn't be able to grind them and kill them a gazillion times to get their drops.

[Thelandrin]

I don't think anyone is claiming that 4th Ed is an MMORPG and nothing else. What Kenneth and others are saying is that 4th Ed is more like than one than ever before, something which I tend to agree with.

I like several of the concepts in 4th Ed, especially clear guidelines on skill contests and the transparent classification of monster types, but I really hate the character creation, which is far too samey, too regulated and with too little choce.

[Elton Robb]

Three Dimensional Characters, huh. What exactly does that mean again? Because I am pretty sure any character that is more then numbers on a character sheet that a player has breathed life into with personality, descriptions, and a background is a three dimensional character. I doubt you will convince anyone that has spent weeks agonzing over their backgrounds in a Play-by-Post 4E game that they aren't making a three dimensional character.

I am sure Conan did cool stuff in all the books and the movies that had more of an effect beyond 'Conan swings his sword'. I will eventually have to read them or rewatch them and let you know.

I have no problem with people that say 4E isn't for them but to come out and say things like "I am going to play Rolemaster because you can't make a three dimensional character in 4E" is completely false and simply put insulting to those 4E people that work hard on bringing their characters to life beyond the character sheet.

I will never understand the MMO connection, ever. Sorry but it just isn't in me. What makes it play like an MMO? Powers? Well, "Spells" existed in other editions including 'Fighter Spells' with Tome of Battle. I have heard that the "cooldown" timers of the At-Will, Encounter, and Daily system is like that but all editions had At Will Spell-like Abilities and Per Day abilities, do they play like an MMO? 3.x was blasted when it first released that it was an MMO on tabletop and there was no point in playing it because they could just play Everquest.

Why don't you go ahead and tell me what exactly makes 4E play like an MMO.

Uh, I never made the argument that 4e plays like an MMO, you did. You felt like you were in an action movie. Well, that's how I feel too. But like I said, I already have my Action movie RPG: Feng Shui.


Three Dimensional Characters, huh. What exactly does that mean again? Because I am pretty sure any character that is more then numbers on a character sheet that a player has breathed life into with personality, descriptions, and a background is a three dimensional character. I doubt you will convince anyone that has spent weeks agonzing over their backgrounds in a Play-by-Post 4E game that they aren't making a three dimensional character.

Oh, I'm sure. But in Rolemaster, you have skills to back up your claim. Lots of them. But to get back to Cinematics for a moment -- 4e doesn't satisfy this role for me because I already explained that I have Feng Shui.

To compare the two is to compare movies. 4e as cinematic sounds orchestrated and choreographed. Watch the trailer for the Adventures of Robin Hood movie and you know what I mean. The Adventures of Robin Hood is what D&D 4e is to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imCBZQU8DEs

And like I said, I have Feng Shui to fill that role. And in Feng Shui, I can do cool stuff to wow my comrades. :)

Rolemaster on the other hand . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQW2f2sr_o

[kgauck]

Under this assumption that the only thing you can do in 4e is use powers, we could say that in 2e and 3e (as a warrior) the only thing you could do is move your sword around and do basic attacks.

Here is the core argument. When you had nothing to do but a basic attack, to have any fun you had to use your imagination. Other games who didn't want to play such a spare game went away and you were left with like minded individuals who found their joy elsewhere. These are the same people who used to intentionally make bad characters because it was more interesting.

Now I will be the first to tell you that selecting a game that is intentionally deficient in good mechanics because its a good selecting tool for people who want to let loose their imaginations is in no way a criticism of games with good mechanics.

As a gamist product, a game with balance, solid mechanics, robust in play, hard to break, more to do, its a great product. There is no reason people who prefer story/character can't have a great time with 4e. However, there are several things to consider as well.

It attracts a different style of play. Sure that's a good thing, if you are thinking about the health of the hobby, need players to form a game group, or have failed to get players to stick with your game because these hooks were missing. But if you want to play a specific kind of game where people do things for totally character drive reasons, and take no notion of game mechanics, its no surprise that such people pine for the days of 2e, where there were no mechanics for much outside of combat and traps.

In my last BR campaign, a guy played a blind druid. D&D isn't a point buy system. He got no advantage to compensate for being blind. He carried no weight in combat, and was something of a liability in any dangerous situation. The player simply wanted to play a blind character. Most people who would do that are the ones saying nice things about 2e and unhappy with 4e. The people still who still fondly recall 2e are expressing a sign or signal that they play a certain kind of game where blind druids and penniless hermits and exiled thieves who start the game with death sentences in three realms are common fare. These are players who sometimes as for major liabilities just because it would be cool to play. They want to play dragon born because they want the social stigma, the alienation, the nihilistic loneliness, and feel cheated when the game gives them new abilities. They wanted to play suffering, not a new kind of cool.

Go to the DMG, page 8 and 9, re-read the descriptions of Actor and Storyteller, dial them up to eleven, consider that they regard the "be sure they don't" materials as badges of gaming virtue, they tolerate the Explorer and Thinker types as long as they have good backstories, justify their actions in good in-character and story terms, and expect them to role play a lot and appreciate their indulgences. They are hostile to the Power-gamer the Slayer, and the Watcher.

4e wasn't made for them. 4e thinks you engage a storyteller by "including at least a little plot in every adventure". The kind of people who are posting here against 4e and praising 2e think that story and character is the purpose of the game not something you toss in once in a while.

You can eat for nutrition, you can eat because its a social activity, and you can eat because you really like food. Forming a single eating community from all three kinds of people is going to difficult. If you can imagine the social activity eaters saying that chicken wings, chips and salsa are fine fare, and the nutritional and gormand types scoffing, I think you'll understand my point. Everyone may think their food is the best and should appeal to everyone, but that's not true. The nutrition guy who bakes a seven grain chip has to expect that the other guys won'e appreciate it just because its better than a fried, sweetened corn chip.

You can't expect that repeating the virtues of 4e are going to persuade the actors and storytellers. Look at the games they are interested in. Some of the new games they are making as so unbalanced that the only way you can play them is by using character and story constraints, because these games don't include balanced mechanics.

[Elton Robb]

4E was created because enough people complained about it. It was one of the reasons that they tested 'Sword-magic/fighter-magic' with Tome of Battle. WOTC didn't create the majority of 4E concepts, the gamers did. The biggest complaints about 3.x that I seen repeated over and over again was balance, skill points, and spellcasters vs non-spellcasters. Look at what was the biggest focuses for 4E: Balance a crossed all classes, a simpler but still decent skill system, and the playing field has been leveled between spellcasters and non-spellcasters.

Now I can grant that everyone has a different play experience but when I play 4E I don't feel like I am playing an MMO as I said I feel like I am playing out an action scene in a movie or in a book. I am interacting with the rest of my group while we perform our actions and all of our characters look cool doing it.

I had an epiphany while reading this:

4e is all about Mary Sue. It really is. No wonder it is so gamist in retrospect, the characters you pay in 4e are, essentially, Mary Sues.

[Vicente]

Here is the core argument. When you had nothing to do but a basic attack, to have any fun you had to use your imagination.

My main problem with that argument is: why given more options people seem unable to keep using their imagination?

[Elton Robb]

My main problem with that argument is: why given more options people seem unable to keep using their imagination?

I think they are lazy. They are just lazy. RPGs are always about using your imagination. That's the most important component in the game. Take that away, and your playing a strategy game.

A CRPG is designed differently. When I play, oh WoW and Oblivion, they play differently. The action is all crunched down into computer mechanics, but there is no roleplaying. You just kill stuff. Often in graphic detail. In WoW, there is roleplaying, but the gamists tend to crowd you out.

When I play WoW, going down into dungeons, I have to state what role I fufill. Tank, Damage, or [scratches head, it's been a while]. No one actually asks me what role I actually want to play -- A dashing rogue with derring-do, a hardened knight that gave up war to be a monk, or a simple explorer looking for treasure, or a paladin who wants to defeat evil.

I heard in 4e tournment play, they ask you what "role" your playing in the group: Tank, Controller, Leader, or whatever. They don't ask you what "role" you're actually playing. When they ask me that, as a player I think: "I'm playing a dashing rogue with rapier in hand and cutting wit in the other." As a DM, I think, "Okay, I'm creating a world where the actors can do anything they want in it. -- Everyone, we are playing in Atlantis."

[kgauck]

4e is all about Mary Sue. It really is. No wonder it is so gamist in
retrospect, the characters you pay in 4e are, essentially, Mary Sues.

I don't that's true, I think it reflects the natural hostility of an actor/storyteller like yourself to slayers and power-gamers.

Consider what Vicente said

That goes also with the game balance, and that's a matter of personal likes and dislikes: a lot of people don't like when session after session one character does always all the work and the rest are just extras. 4e tries to correct that, but as some people dislike it, probably some groups enjoy it...

A power-gamer and a slayer want to indulge in their character as object, build a en effective character who can do cool things, power up on schedule, and claim some time at the gaming table by virtue of the right power selections.

A storyteller/actor wants to indulge in their character as subject, exploring the personal struggle, their anti-hero situation, relating their interesting and well wrought creation with the interesting creations of fellow players and DM.

Just as an actor/storyteller can look at the power-gamer and slayer and cry "Mary Sue!" They power-gamer and slayer can complain about the actor/storyteller who talks to every NPC about his backstory, his personal pathos, and expects the party to accommodate his character whether that means "protect me, I'm weak" or "stand back, I'm an envoy of the gods".

Elton, you would have just as much fun playing 4e as any other system. You just need to play with players for whom the game is about character and story, that's what brings them to the table. The idea that during the last game session all that happened was that everyone sat around discussing their backstory and personal motivations would make any game system irrelevant.

Look at what the DMG says about how you cause problems. A lot of the criticism of 2e and 3e was how its deficiencies were frustrating to power-gamers and slayers, and tended to let actors and storytellers suck up the limelight because they could fill in the gaps with their own character's story and personality. Sometimes games were supposed to be constrained by story and character and were wildly unbalanced without those limits. The 2nd edition paladin is a case in point. Mechanical benefits were balanced to role playing limitations. Fine if everyone is an actor who wants to follow the code of Haelyn. Not so good if people aren't interested in the code and want to play the mechanics.

[darkon]

I missed this point (and it's a little off-topic), but it clearly shows the "don't know much about MMORPGs" I was referring earlier.

Talking about the most important MMORPG out there (WoW), encounters and fights aren't strategic by design. Why? Because if they were strategic and you had to think, you wouldn't be able to grind them.

That's why fights are heavily scripted and they play equally once and again, why aggro rules are clearly set on stone and enemies always behave the same way, because if they were a little more intelligent (not much, just like a FPS bot or something similar), players wouldn't be able to grind them and kill them a gazillion times to get their drops.

Yes, you are right. The fact that they are NOT strategic, allows you to grind them. I mean it is not that grinding has to do with repetitively following a certain strategy, in order to finish your opponents. Not even that in especially in certain battles, such as instances, each player has a very specific role. NOT that guides have been written over the web, explaining in great details the STRATEGY you should follow to finish off a battle.

You are a nice one to talk about who knows about MMORPGs :). Obviously you play and probably design your own games :)

[kgauck]

My main problem with that argument is: why given more options people seem unable to keep using their imagination?

Its not that is a one to one relationship. Is more that if a player like Elton sets the bar really high on who can be imaginative, but ignoring game options and focusing elsewhere, like story and character, he gets imaginative people who focus on story and character.

On the other hand, if you focus on the mechanics, you get both very imaginative people who focus on character and story, and unimaginative people who just want to kill things, loot their corpses, and power up.

More options isn't the problem. Shifting the game to something more like 4e means adding new players. Good for the hobby, but more people playing who aren't by necessity interested in imaginative play. Its easier to play for other reasons if more reasons to play the game are added.

This ultimately comes down to the problems of success. A thing that attracts a lot of new people, means people in addition to the kind who were already here. The last time I DM's there was a guy who advertised he could break any ruleset. That's not what I'm interested in. Fine he's king of the power-gamers. As a simulationist DM, I want explorers, actors and story tellers who will run around the world I have created in great detail having fun interacting with it. Done. End of game concept. If someone comes along and wants to build the most powerful characters, characters so powerful I will regret it later, we are simply playing two different games with the game system.

4e would actually help a DM keep that kind of player under control. No doubt there. But the point the story/character people are making is that why do I want this guy at the table in the first place? If the purpose of gaming is character and story, what does this guy with no back story, no personality, just a will to min-max, going to add?

[Rowan]

Look at what the DMG says about how you cause problems. A lot of the criticism of 2e and 3e was how its deficiencies were frustrating to power-gamers and slayers, and tended to let actors and storytellers suck up the limelight because they could fill in the gaps with their own character's story and personality. Sometimes games were supposed to be constrained by story and character and were wildly unbalanced without those limits.
Actually, I thought 2e and 3e played to the power games more because it was inherently imbalanced and, as WotC people explained as they were designing 4e, those editions were designed in such a way that there was a very strong reward for "mastering" the rules of the game.

I do get what you're saying about the limited imagination thing, but I only think that applies to power gamers and slayers. I have a couple of those, people who just lack imagination and have difficulty following a story. These folks LOVE 4e because it gives them more stuff to do with less of the "hardship" of having to be creative. That's good, as I see it, because it helps them integrate better with the more imaginative types.

If I were in a group of mature, immersive roleplayers, it wouldn't matter what system we used; I agree with you on that. But the other great advantage of 4e is the DM support, where it helps me, in my limited time, craft a great game for the Slayers, while spending most of the time that I have devising the story that makes the game fun for me and my other players.

[darkon]

And it's a bad thing that lazy/not so talented people (for example, one of my players is really shy) can enjoy more easily the game and feel more often that they are in the spotlight?

Also, this is a little OT, but you said that something some posts ago about Wizards > Fighters in fantasy, citing Gandalf and Aragorn. But do you realize that in the future, when a lot of people have seen the LoTR movies and not read the books, the clever/important guy is going to be Aragorn? (because in the movies Gandalf is just a senile old man that goes around saying nonsenses while Aragorn does all the work).

Yes it is a bad thing that lazy people can enjoy the game, IF the game indulges them.


I never said Wizards > Fighters, or whateven ">" means. I never said that Galdalf is more clever or important that Aragorn, for two reasons:

1) The importance of a character is defined by the scenario/story and his action, not by his class

2) Also whether a character is clever or not, is not just a matter of class

When you are referring to my arguments, please cite them properly. What I said had to do with magic versus martial combat, and why they should not be equivalent in terms of effects, descriptions, and finally mechanics. Something like "spells should not be treated under the same mechanics as martial combat abilities". I do not care about what type of dice you finally use for damage.

"because in the movies Gandalf is just a senile old man that goes around saying nonsenses while Aragorn does all the work". obviously we watched a different movie, under the same title.

[kgauck]

No one actually asks me what role I actually want to play -- A dashing rogue with derring-do, a hardened knight that gave up war to be a monk, or a simple explorer looking for treasure, or a paladin who wants to defeat evil.

You're the kind of player who wants to build his character as if he were a fighter, or in 3e, actually start as a 1st level fighter, dressed as a monk with a quaterstaff and no armor, and then start leveling as a priest of Nesirie.

When you look at 4e, the advise for a battle cleric actually says make Strength your primary score. Even though you want to make a devoted cleric, you end up with a hybrid. The game actually prevents you from buidling the kind of "I gave up my old skills to forge a new path" style of play. The 2e dual classed character where you actually had to avoid using your old skills or sacrifice xp.

Its getting harder and harder to build a bad character, which I know is a favorite of the actor.

[Elton Robb]

You're the kind of player who wants to build his character as if he were a fighter, or in 3e, actually start as a 1st level fighter, dressed as a monk with a quaterstaff and no armor, and then start leveling as a priest of Nesirie.

When you look at 4e, the advise for a battle cleric actually says make Strength your primary score. Even though you want to make a devoted cleric, you end up with a hybrid. The game actually prevents you from buidling the kind of "I gave up my old skills to forge a new path" style of play. The 2e dual classed character where you actually had to avoid using your old skills or sacrifice xp.

Its getting harder and harder to build a bad character, which I know is a favorite of the actor.

Yeah. The problem is, the word "role" invokes a different meaning for me. To the gamist, its an external -- tactical role. A Wizard and a sorcerer are controllers, they control combat. A gamist sees the word "role" and all things tactical comes into his mind. IN this way, Dungeons and Dragons 4e is more like football, baseball, or soccer. Strategy is everything in those games: each player has a role to play -- Halfback, fullback, quarterback, rusher.

In terms of roleplaying, role means to me is internal and character (I'm a theatre geek). Dashing rogue with wit and style; A blind druid who has a strong connection to the mystical. 4e is missing that aspect about a Roleplaying game to me. When I roleplay, I want to sit down and experience a different world or role. The tactical stuff doesn't hold my attention unless I'm playing a strategist in game.

("Its great you talk about great quests to guide a campaign, like slaying a dragon, but don't we need a dragon ecology, a dragon demographics, what is the NPC population of potential dragon slayers to whom PC's must go to learn skills and tips."-- Actor vs. Simulationist argument.)

Slayers and Power Gamers aside, I do believe I want a D&D game where I can go in and -- when I asked what my role is -- I can say, "I want to play a dashing rogue with a rose in hand, a rapier in the other, and a ready wit to fall from my tongue." And it will be valid.

[kgauck]

My first Birthright character was a arcane healer. I had just picked up the Necromancer's Guide and wanted to create a white to gray necromancer who was patterned on someone like Michael Servetus. A renaissance guy who exhumed corpses to study medicine. I wanted someone who could be a renaissance medical doctor, with all the scholarship and learning that implied, but also capable of real healing. So a wizard with a specialty in necromancy and the antaomist kit.

While its certainly possible to build this character in 4e, using a lot of cold powers as supposed necromatic chill powers and restoration rituals, its not the same character, and compared to 3.0, which actually made it easier to make a Michael Servetus by dipping into a level of cleric, I can't get that same "there's my physician" from 4e.

I should put him on the wiki. He's an interesting guy.

[dundjinnmasta]

Uh, I never made the argument that 4e plays like an MMO, you did. You felt like you were in an action movie. Well, that's how I feel too. But like I said, I already have my Action movie RPG: Feng Shui.



Sorry. That was my mistake I was responding to you about the three dimensional character thing and then the MMO thing from someone else and I forgot to put in something to seperate them.

[Vicente]

Yes, you are right. The fact that they are NOT strategic, allows you to grind them.

That's crystal clear. If the monster had a little of intelligence in choosing targets then each combat would be different and it would have some strategy.

But WoW has a lot of other details like that one that reafirm its non-strategic gameplay: aggro rules, no harsh penalties when dying (so who cares if you do the idiot or not), no collisions between players (so you can't use melee players to block attackers from spellcasters and position and crowding doesn't matter),...

But don't take this as bashing to WoW: while I dislike the mechanics myself, if I was to do a MMORPG I would just clone it because it's what people like (given WoW subscription numbers).



I mean it is not that grinding has to do with repetitively following a certain strategy, in order to finish your opponents. Not even that in especially in certain battles, such as instances, each player has a very specific role. NOT that guides have been written over the web, explaining in great details the STRATEGY you should follow to finish off a battle.


It has the same strategy as cooking an omelette: you get a recipe, you learn it by heart and just follow the steps mindless or thinking very little. That's not strategy for me.



You are a nice one to talk about who knows about MMORPGs :). Obviously you play and probably design your own games :)


How did you guess it?



Yes it is a bad thing that lazy people can enjoy the game, IF the game indulges them.


Then we are never going to agree here it seems. For me a game is played to have fun, and as a DM I see that as my work. If a player has fun and he is lazy, that's his call, not mine, as long as he is having fun I'm satisfied. The people from Gnome Stew put this to words better than myself:

http://www.gnomestew.com/intro-to-game-mastering/introduction-to-game-mastering-part-1-the-most-important-rule



I never said Wizards > Fighters, or whateven ">" means. I never said that Galdalf is more clever or important that Aragorn, for two reasons:

1) The importance of a character is defined by the scenario/story and his action, not by his class

2) Also whether a character is clever or not, is not just a matter of class

When you are referring to my arguments, please cite them properly. What I said had to do with magic versus martial combat, and why they should not be equivalent in terms of effects, descriptions, and finally mechanics. Something like "spells should not be treated under the same mechanics as martial combat abilities". I do not care about what type of dice you finally use for damage.

"because in the movies Gandalf is just a senile old man that goes around saying nonsenses while Aragorn does all the work". obviously we watched a different movie, under the same title.


Sorry for citing you badly. But I completely disagree with LoTR argument: Gandalf doesn't "cause more excitement or astounds" because he is a Wizard or cast spells: Gandalf creates those feelings because he is the only one with a plan to save Middle Earth from the mess it is. Gandalf could be an innkeeper and he would continue to be awesome because he knows what has to be done.

And that's why I dislike the films, because Gandalf is not the guy with the plan: he is not the one saying "Helms Deep is the only hope for Rohan" (he even argues with Aragorn about that!) or "we have to distract Sauron to gain time for Frodo and Sam". Or that's what I remember when I last saw them a long time ago.

But let's return to the point, it seems your argument was:



Spells are "supernatural" or trained abilities that are tremendously exotic. They draw power from arcane/divine sources as old as the worlds are supposed to be. They cannot be equivalent (not so much in terms of game mechanics, but mostly in terms of effect) to an efficient thrust of a blade followed by a dancing maneuver executed by the most skilled swordsman.


In 4e arcane and martial powers (for example) have different effects, that's why there's not a martial controller (yet): because no one has found a good effect that justifies the area damage or status changes that are associated with controllers.

So what's the problem for characters following a similar game mechanic if they can have different game results?

[dundjinnmasta]

You can't expect that repeating the virtues of 4e are going to persuade the actors and storytellers. Look at the games they are interested in. Some of the new games they are making as so unbalanced that the only way you can play them is by using character and story constraints, because these games don't include balanced mechanics.


I don't expect to persuade the actors and storytellers that have decided the game is not for them (unless maybe their 4E group play-style was not for them). I am trying to counter the preceived negativity of it with positive reinforcement for those that haven't tried the system out and I got sick of seeing the same things passed off as negativity aspects that I preceived as misconceptions by people that had never even played 4E. If I convince just one bystander that maybe they should try the game out before drawing an opinion on it then I've accomplished what I am trying to do.

[darkon]

That's crystal clear. If the monster had a little of intelligence in choosing targets then each combat would be different and it would have some strategy.

It has the same strategy as cooking an omelette: you get a recipe, you learn it by heart and just follow the steps mindless or thinking very little. That's not strategy for me.



Ok thanks, for clarifying that this is your perception on strategy. Unfortunately, this is not the case for everyone else. I refer you to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy




How did you guess it?



I am a divination wizard. Oh wait, there is no such thing, since wizards are now defined as controllers, according to their roles in battle. My existence is a paradigm... "POUF!!"




Then we are never going to agree here it seems. For me a game is played to have fun, and as a DM I see that as my work. If a player has fun and he is lazy, that's his call, not mine, as long as he is having fun I'm satisfied. The people from Gnome Stew put this to words better than myself:

http://www.gnomestew.com/intro-to-game-mastering/introduction-to-game-mastering-part-1-the-most-important-rule



Having fun is an important element for me, but I have higher expectations from the group of people I usually play with.



Sorry for citing you badly.


No problem.



But I completely disagree with LoTR argument: Gandalf doesn't "cause more excitement or astounds" because he is a Wizard or cast spells: Gandalf creates those feelings because he is the only one with a plan to save Middle Earth from the mess it is. Gandalf could be an innkeeper and he would continue to be awesome because he knows what has to be done.


True, but this Gandalf archetype usually defines wizards everywhere. Especially because of their spells, they have versatility that extends beyond battle, delves into mysteries of the world. I am sorry, but I cannot get this mystical feeling from 4ed.



And that's why I dislike the films, because Gandalf is not the guy with the plan: he is not the one saying "Helms Deep is the only hope for Rohan" (he even argues with Aragorn about that!) or "we have to distract Sauron to gain time for Frodo and Sam". Or that's what I remember when I last saw them a long time ago.


I remember differently, but I cannot actually argue here. My memory sometimes fails me, and this could easily be the case.




In 4e arcane and martial powers (for example) have different effects, that's why there's not a martial controller (yet): because no one has found a good effect that justifies the area damage or status changes that are associated with controllers.

So what's the problem for characters following a similar game mechanic if they can have different game results?

None. I am disappointed with the design though. Many of my arguments focus on wizards because I believe that their system simply sucks. I cannot find the versatility the wizards had in the previous editions, since they actually "killed" it. All powers are combat oriented (just like in MMORPG), since the WOTC policy is to create an action favored game. I strongly disagree with this approach. MMORPGs are far better in terms of action, since there is the visual element that cannot be substituted. IMO RPG should stick to its genre. It is supposed to be a storytelling/roleplaying game after all.

[dundjinnmasta]

If it was truely ment to be a storytelling/roleplaying game then hack and slash would not exist. And since it does that just proves that a RPG is about playing a role in a game whether you are the dashing rogue with a rose in hand, a rapier in the other, and a ready wit to fall from my tongue or the low-intelligence fighter that just wants to get up close and personal with some monsters for some good time bashing while socially interacting with your friends, these are all valid concepts for a character and it just so happens that they serve different roles in a balanced party (striker and defender).




I've never played in the RPGA in any edition so I can't really tell you how they work or what was asked about your character in any of the editions but from what I heard the play-style hasn't really changed that much. If you run a module of any-type the module is built under the base-assumption that you are going to need certain roles to be filled (2e/3.x Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard vs 4E Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller).

[Vicente]

Ok thanks, for clarifying that this is your perception on strategy. Unfortunately, this is not the case for everyone else. I refer you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy


Wikipedia seems to agree with me:

"In game theory, a strategy refers to one of the options that a player can choose."

There's no strategy in WoW becase you can't choose. You have to do like a monkey a sucession of fixed keystrokes and that's the end of the story. You could choose if the monsters weren't scripted and reacted to their environment (which, by the way, is far more similar to how a DnD battle works).



I am a divination wizard. Oh wait, there is no such thing, since wizards are now defined as controllers, according to their roles in battle. My existence is a paradigm... "POUF!!"


You are a wizard, last time I checked you had access to rituals, which have a fair share of divinations.

Next two quotes go together.



True, but this Gandalf archetype usually defines wizards everywhere. Especially because of their spells, they have versatility that extends beyond battle, delves into mysteries of the world. I am sorry, but I cannot get this mystical feeling from 4ed.




None. I am disappointed with the design though. Many of my arguments focus on wizards because I believe that their system simply sucks. I cannot find the versatility the wizards had in the previous editions, since they actually "killed" it.


These arguments were pretty common when 4e was released: first because the wizard is probably the worst done class in the PHB (Arcane Power has improved them a lot with illusions and summonings) and second because wizards weren't the cooler kids in the block anymore.

What you call versatility is called by a lot of other people (myself included) "broken": Wizards could do too many things, taking over the roles of the rest of the party members and overshadowing them. They were badly designed for a game and that's how WoTC tried to fix the problem (maybe Wizards were representing right an idea, but as a game mechanic they were a big problem).

And even with the "nerf" they got (or the power up other classes got), they continue having some extra versatility (rituals, two dailies,...).

[Elton Robb]

If it was truely ment to be a storytelling/roleplaying game then hack and slash would not exist. And since it does that just proves that a RPG is about playing a role in a game whether you are the dashing rogue with a rose in hand, a rapier in the other, and a ready wit to fall from my tongue or the low-intelligence fighter that just wants to get up close and personal with some monsters for some good time bashing while socially interacting with your friends, these are all valid concepts for a character and it just so happens that they serve different roles in a balanced party (striker and defender).

What about a rogue who is craven? Someone who hides from combat when it happens? Is he still a "Striker?" The craven rogue won't think so . . his role in the party is "coward." How about a blind druid? What about a wizard with no tongue? (My wizard's tongue was cut out after casting a fireball in the middle of the town square to stop a few fleeing hobgoblins who were stealing from a magic shop). IS he still a controller even though he can't cast any magic?

How about a fighter that fights without armor? He relies on his dexterity and quickness to attack and defend. Is he still a defender?

[dundjinnmasta]

I have no love for power-gamers but I also have no love for people that would neuter themselves so badly they become luggage for the party. This is no different in 4E then in 3.X as you still are not filling the role in either game but that being said...

What about a rogue who is craven? Someone who hides from combat when it happens? Is he still a "Striker?" The craven rogue won't think so . . his role in the party is "coward."

If he won't supply any support to the party then I guess not but rogues have ranged abilities or can sneak around these could be seen as his cowardly way of avoiding enemies while still getting in some good hits, but I assume this is NOT the type of rogue you are talking about and are indeed talking about someone who won't be in combat, period. Which is no different in 4E as in 3.x... in either group I would like vote to have the character ejected from the party for being useless and I don't even have to do it out of character because I could be playing a character that dislikes worthless baggage that he has to go out of his way to defend while defending the other fleshy parts (Wizards) from the enemy.

How about a blind druid?

He would still be a controller and would just have to follow the rules for being Blinded as presented in the PHB, permanantly.

What about a wizard with no tongue? (My wizard's tongue was cut out after casting a fireball in the middle of the town square to stop a few fleeing hobgoblins who were stealing from a magic shop). IS he still a controller even though he can't cast any magic?

I don't see how this character could be fun to play and would likely result in me requesting a brand new character. You can't do any type of socializing in character beyond writing and hand-waving but alas whatever floats the boat. I don't believe that 4E retains the same basic formula as 3.x where most spells must have verbal components. It could be left to the DM and player to decide though it would probably be a grand quest for the Wizard to discover an alternate means of spellcasting without speech: Runes, maybe? I always did like Rune-magic... but that is just me, it could vary group to group include a DM deciding that the Wizard doesn't even need to speak for casting because it is the focus of the mind and the gestures to invoke it.

How about a fighter that fights without armor? He relies on his dexterity and quickness to attack and defend. Is he still a defender?

Yes. He uses dexterity and quickness to attack and defend. His task is to hold the frontlines and keep monsters away from the fleshy-parts. Actually the Combat Challenge would be even cooler imaginatively with finesse then with the brute strength appoach.

[Vicente]

What about a rogue who is craven? Someone who hides from combat when it happens? Is he still a "Striker?" The craven rogue won't think so . . his role in the party is "coward." How about a blind druid? What about a wizard with no tongue? (My wizard's tongue was cut out after casting a fireball in the middle of the town square to stop a few fleeing hobgoblins who were stealing from a magic shop). IS he still a controller even though he can't cast any magic?

How about a fighter that fights without armor? He relies on his dexterity and quickness to attack and defend. Is he still a defender?

Roles already existed in DnD before 4e, this edition only gave them names. They don't have any mechanic effect (there's no "protect against strikers" or "detect leader" or things like that). They are just a simple way for explaining a player in what type of situations a character works better. But they don't require or force the player to be or behave in one way or another.

[AndrewTall]

I have no love for power-gamers but I also have no love for people that would neuter themselves so badly they become luggage for the party. This is no different in 4E then in 3.X as you still are not filling the role in either game but that being said...

Luggage for the party??? What ever happened to 'friends'? what happened to 'we brave happy few' that dare where 'respectable' types fear to tread? This is a very '1st league' approach to gaming and leagues away from the 'friendly match' that I look for in a game.

In an earthdawn campaign a friend played a windling swashbuckler called Sir Frithkin (think pixie with delusions of grandeur). In pure mechanic terms I guess you could call him 'luggage', he didn't whomp out my troll sky-raider's damage, and couldn't lob Grafnab's spells either - but by god he had heart. Years on I remember very very few of other characters in the game (just 2 others in 3 years during which I played at least 3 characters) - but Sir Frithkin still shines - Don Quixote with a sting he may have been, but he was a superb character and great fun to play with - frankly I look back at a game and think 'we had fun doing X' - I don't think back and go wow about scoring orc targets # 206 - 234, Theran captain A, B or C, etc - those are just numbers that came, went and were forgotten, Sir Frithkin was a person that was fun to be around.

To be blunt, under many DM's, if the player had played another tank/striker/etc, we'd just have fought 6 opponents not 5 and so on - and the PC would still have added nothing to the party's chances of 'winning' any given combat. 'Good' characters are basically bland marshmallows, you churn the fight / social event / etc and grind your way through the situation, 'bad' characters which can trip up, do silly things, etc, that make them people and not paragons are inherently better from a story telling point of view - who is more interesting, Lancelot or Galahad?

I'm not as extreme as Elton, a character who is crippled as opposed to flawed would be a pain for me to play, and I see these two types of 'bad' characters as completely different in playability - but I'm not interested in playing the paragon either, frankly, why would a paragon work with others? Particularly anyone less than perfect?

For me I'll be honest, I know 1e and 2e well, assimilated the bits of 3e I liked, and avoided those I didn't (battle-maps, high level play, prestige bloat), 4e is another system to learn, and one which has horrifying bloat potential... Why change system without any significant improvement in the areas I care about and reduction in the quality of the skills system that I used heavily in 3e albeit with mods?

4e seems like a fine system for combat, I'll accept the experts saying its better than earlier Eds as I don't have the experience to say otherwise, but it is very deliberately a different game - not merely an evolution, which is where much of the issues from grognard's like me come from - we look for the '4th edition of DnD' and get the 1st edition of a totally new game, albeit with one with deceptively similar nomenculture - unsurprisingly we feel aggrieved and look for flaws.:(

Primarily my gripes are because of the underlying philosophy that seems to have taken my least favourite aspects of 3e and supercharged them - I may have got a bad experience at gencon UK, but I'm struggling to see how 4e encourages people away from combat and towards role playing, formation of backstory, creation of effective ecologies and worlds, etc - I'm perfectly content that you can add all that in 4e, but the system encourages combat gamers to feel at home and so in turn encourages combat play which in turn drives me out. I've never walked away from a table before 4e at Gencon but came away from the event literally grieving at the play that was going on around me - 'what's your character's name' - 'I don't know, who cares?'.

[darkon]

Wikipedia seems to agree with me:

"In game theory, a strategy refers to one of the options that a player can choose."

There's no strategy in WoW becase you can't choose. You have to do like a monkey a sucession of fixed keystrokes and that's the end of the story. You could choose if the monsters weren't scripted and reacted to their environment (which, by the way, is far more similar to how a DnD battle works).



Yes you can. There are several options, not all of them optimal. The fact that you automatically choose the optimal does not mean you have no option.
Also there are many strategy guides over the web on instances, pvp, etc. The fact that you mimic others' suggestions does not mean that there is no strategic element in the game. Whether you follow your guild's suggestions on how to play the instance or not is entirely up to you.



You are a wizard, last time I checked you had access to rituals, which have a fair share of divinations.


Not even close to what 2ed entailed..


These arguments were pretty common when 4e was released: first because the wizard is probably the worst done class in the PHB (Arcane Power has improved them a lot with illusions and summonings) and second because wizards weren't the cooler kids in the block anymore.

What you call versatility is called by a lot of other people (myself included) "broken": Wizards could do too many things, taking over the roles of the rest of the party members and overshadowing them. They were badly designed for a game and that's how WoTC tried to fix the problem (maybe Wizards were representing right an idea, but as a game mechanic they were a big problem).

And even with the "nerf" they got (or the power up other classes got), they continue having some extra versatility (rituals, two dailies,...).

Personally I am not interested in balance, and whether type of characters overpower others. If you are interested in these aspects of the game, then you should play 4ed, according to WOTC. However I have seen maxed characters in 2ed being outplayed by cunning but "weak" characters, just because there is a difference in the level of roleplaying. A friend of mine was actually very good at this, always coming with weak (in mechanics) characters, but very interesting and hilarious, that overshadowed almost everyone. (Eg. once he played a female Rjurik Fighter, who had a charisma of 16 (I believe) and strength of 10, and her dream was to become a command Rjurik warriors in battle. He / She managed to do it using a cunning combination of charm (bordering slutiness sometimes), and skill in combat that had nothing to do with mechanics (i.e. Using your environment in your advantage, etc.). Needless to say, my Rjurik fighter with Str 16 and a tighmaevril weapon always felt one step behind, a mere follower :). It did not bother me, in fact it pleased me to be a part of the story that was unfolding.) That is my inderstanding of the game. Rules are just to expedite things, and the more lax and fuzzy they are, the more people tend to work on the non-math aspects of their characters.

[kgauck]

The rules don't force you to, but its clear reading dundjinnmasta's post how social pressure can be applied in that direction. Naming things makes them real. There was a time when one had very little expectation about what kind of character someone else might bring to the table. Over time assumptions about what a party should look like have hardened.

I hate to think what my players might have done when they realized during my second long term BR campaign that they built their party "wrong". In fact in general, many of the Cerilan parties will often fail to produce a "proper" party.

My Taelshore players had a Rjurik noble who acted like a defender. In 4e he might have been a warlord and so been a leader; an Anuirean knight who was sometimes a defender (on foot) and sometimes a striker (mounted); a Rjurik ranger who was clearly a striker; a Rjurk skald who was sometimes a weak striker and sometimes a leader; and a druid who could be a controller in some circumstances and a leader in others. Their powers were not limited to a single function, and they didn't think in those terms so didn't try and optimize as such. They acted like the characters they were.

Likewise Brecht parties. Often absent defenders and full of strikers. Leader and controllers optional.

When all of us thought about combat on the Taelshore we thought about sword, axe, spear, and bow. These are the categories that organized Rjurik combat. Imposing something else is artificial and out of character. I'd rather have players thinking about their characters they way their character's would.

If a Brecht party consisted of a pair of swashbucklers, a guild thief, and a priestes of Eloéle, all strikers, assembled, I should think it well represents the fighting style of the Brecht.

[dundjinnmasta]

Luggage for the party??? What ever happened to 'friends'? what happened to 'we brave happy few' that dare where 'respectable' types fear to tread? This is a very '1st league' approach to gaming and leagues away from the 'friendly match' that I look for in a game.

In an earthdawn campaign a friend played a windling swashbuckler called Sir Frithkin (think pixie with delusions of grandeur). In pure mechanic terms I guess you could call him 'luggage', he didn't whomp out my troll sky-raider's damage, and couldn't lob Grafnab's spells either - but by god he had heart. Years on I remember very very few of other characters in the game (just 2 others in 3 years during which I played at least 3 characters) - but Sir Frithkin still shines - Don Quixote with a sting he may have been, but he was a superb character and great fun to play with - frankly I look back at a game and think 'we had fun doing X' - I don't think back and go wow about scoring orc targets # 206 - 234, Theran captain A, B or C, etc - those are just numbers that came, went and were forgotten, Sir Frithkin was a person that was fun to be around.


I am not talking about a subpar character. I am talking about a character that is so neuter that it can't do anyhting that it is ment to do. A halfling fighter is a subpar character but if you are playing a Half-Orc Fighter that has NO ARMS then it becomes a moot point, what the heck is he doing in the party instead of somewhere safe. Someone said to me today while I was discussing this argument with them...

"So.. you're completely useless in all practical matters.... why are heroic adventurers carting you along?"

Most adventurers aren't previous companions unless the group built a backstory of them together. No most of them are strangers meeting for the first time so why would they bring along a stranger that is pretty much a cripple that they will have to defend in the thick of a fight which is likely to get one or all of them killed when the cripple would be safer back at town.



I may have got a bad experience at gencon UK, but I'm struggling to see how 4e encourages people away from combat and towards role playing, formation of backstory, creation of effective ecologies and worlds, etc - I'm perfectly content that you can add all that in 4e, but the system encourages combat gamers to feel at home and so in turn encourages combat play which in turn drives me out. I've never walked away from a table before 4e at Gencon but came away from the event literally grieving at the play that was going on around me - 'what's your character's name' - 'I don't know, who cares?'.


That is a horrible experience and if I had experienced then I would likely have not played 4E either. Which would have been unfortunate because I wouldn't be playing anything at all if that had been the case because I quit gaming because I couldn't stomach 3.x and none of the other ones were interesting me for what I wanted.

[dundjinnmasta]

Alot of stuff...


You are just taking my words out of context. I am not talking about balancing a party and social pressure forcing you to do so. I am talking about how I don't see the point in useless characters that add nothing to an adventuring party and if I was an adventurer running around in a fantasy world I wouldn't want to cart around extra baggage.

If the DM puts you and a grand quest but then saddles you with the obvious luggage NPC that put you on it how many groups are going to give a collective sigh about having to defend their patronage now during every dangerous situation?

Why do adventurers get hired to do grand things or even the small things? Because the NPC doesn't have the skills or abilities to do it. Maybe because he is a BLIND DRUID or a WIZARD with NO TONGUE.
These people aren't ment to be on the front-lines with adventurers and become liabilities to the party. As an adventurer I certainly would want to stick them someplace where they are better served then making me worrying about them.

[Elton Robb]

If it was truely ment to be a storytelling/roleplaying game then hack and slash would not exist. And since it does that just proves that a RPG is about playing a role in a game whether you are the dashing rogue with a rose in hand, a rapier in the other, and a ready wit to fall from my tongue or the low-intelligence fighter that just wants to get up close and personal with some monsters for some good time bashing while socially interacting with your friends, these are all valid concepts for a character and it just so happens that they serve different roles in a balanced party (striker and defender).




I've never played in the RPGA in any edition so I can't really tell you how they work or what was asked about your character in any of the editions but from what I heard the play-style hasn't really changed that much. If you run a module of any-type the module is built under the base-assumption that you are going to need certain roles to be filled (2e/3.x Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard vs 4E Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller).


I have no love for power-gamers but I also have no love for people that would neuter themselves so badly they become luggage for the party. This is no different in 4E then in 3.X as you still are not filling the role in either game but that being said...

That's power gaming thinking. That is also unsupporting of the player at hand. If a player character has no tongue, or is a craven coward not supporting your friend in his time of crisis (having a fear of dying or having no way to speak) speaks largely as unsupport.

I mean, here is a group of young people going out exploring a ruin. Something bad happens, and one of them runs away to save himself, afraid that he might die. It's a legitimate character choice.

Playing a rogue who is a craven coward is a legitimate character choice. He has a fear of getting into combat and dying, so he runs away. Or he might have a fear of actually spilling blood, so he runs away from that too.

The Fighter who fights dexterity based isn't a defender, but a striker. For he has studied a martial art called Classic Fencing. Unlike his defender buddies who use their arming swords, broad swords, long swords as staves, hammers, and well . . .SWORDS . . . And also wrestling with the enemy (in full armor); this fighter has studied the Art of Self Defence by using the rapier as a piercing weapon. He dances with the enemy, parrying there, parrying here, until he buries his blade through the pelvis and out one of the glutes. Causing a major bleeding wound.

[Vicente]

Yes you can. There are several options, not all of them optimal.


Then sadly they aren't options. And end on the WoW talk for me, this is not related to DnD anymore...



Not even close to what 2ed entailed..


Yes, wizards have less options, we agree on that point. For you is worse, for me is better.



Personally I am not interested in balance, and whether type of characters overpower others. If you are interested in these aspects of the game, then you should play 4ed, according to WOTC.


As far as I remember (and felt), 3e tried this too (but didn't succeed at all). 4e just seems to be doing it better. Also, generally a balanced design is a good thing to achieve in a game if you want a fun game and a game where all the play-territory is explored (let it be a RPG, board game or computer game, and let it be by symmetrical or asymmetrical balance).



However I have seen maxed characters in 2ed being outplayed by cunning but "weak" characters, just because there is a difference in the level of roleplaying. A friend of mine was actually very good at this, always coming with weak (in mechanics) characters, but very interesting and hilarious, that overshadowed almost everyone. (Eg. once he played a female Rjurik Fighter, who had a charisma of 16 (I believe) and strength of 10, and her dream was to become a command Rjurik warriors in battle. He / She managed to do it using a cunning combination of charm (bordering slutiness sometimes), and skill in combat that had nothing to do with mechanics (i.e. Using your environment in your advantage, etc.). Needless to say, my Rjurik fighter with Str 16 and a tighmaevril weapon always felt one step behind, a mere follower :). It did not bother me, in fact it pleased me to be a part of the story that was unfolding.) That is my inderstanding of the game. Rules are just to expedite things, and the more lax and fuzzy they are, the more people tend to work on the non-math aspects of their characters.


In 2e and 3e, given equally cunning players, a spellcaster will always outplay a non-spellcaster because it has a ton of extra options at his disposal, so he can create far more effects with his creativity. To compare game mechanincs you have to use the same player, you can't just put a dumb wizard against a clever fighter and say there's no problem.

[Vicente]

That's power gaming thinking. That is also unsupporting of the player at hand. If a player character has no tongue, or is a craven coward not supporting your friend in his time of crisis (having a fear of dying or having no way to speak) speaks largely as unsupport.

I mean, here is a group of young people going out exploring a ruin. Something bad happens, and one of them runs away to save himself, afraid that he might die. It's a legitimate character choice.


To talk so much about supporting, I find surprising your rogue takes such an unsopporting action for his party. He fears dying, so he puts his live first and abandon the rest of the group to their fate instead of trying to overcome his fear with his friends and support them for the common wellfare.

Yep, great asset we have here with your rogue, I don't know why my character would like to adventure with a guy he can't rely on because honestly, if he is going to run when things go bad then my character may prefer to be alone just all the time or search people he knows will support him.

No powergaming at all, just two sides of the same coin. My character wouldn't be happy about that running rogue, specially the first time it happens and more specially if other guy who decided to stay died and there's enough evidence that the rogue could have helped to avoid it.

[Vicente]

The Fighter who fights dexterity based isn't a defender, but a striker.

Or maybe he is a rogue but has not realized yet! :P

[dundjinnmasta]

The Fighter who fights dexterity based isn't a defender, but a striker. For he has studied a martial art called Classic Fencing. Unlike his defender buddies who use their arming swords, broad swords, long swords as staves, hammers, and well . . .SWORDS . . . And also wrestling with the enemy (in full armor); this fighter has studied the Art of Self Defence by using the rapier as a piercing weapon. He dances with the enemy, parrying there, parrying here, until he buries his blade through the pelvis and out one of the glutes. Causing a major bleeding wound.


Striker and Defender are terms used to describe a role.

Most Defenders are the up-close and personal type that stay in the face of their opponent and keep them to busy to look for the weak-targets. If your dexterity fighter is this type then he is a Defender despite his mobility.

Striker is someone that may or may not move aroud the battle field but the classes that support strikers are normally the highest damage dealers but they aren't really ment to stand toe-to-toe with their opponents. They fall back behind the defenders and then move into position for another devestating strike. If your dexterity fighter is this type then he would be better served using the Rogue class or possibility the Two-Weapon Ranger Class (Rapier, Main-gauche?).

Defender and Striker also have class features and damage outputs more suited for their roles. Strikers have things like Sneak Attack or the Hunter's Quarry which deals additional damage to their slightly higher damaging attacks. While Defenders have abilities to keep opponents from moving to softer-targets like Combat Challenge.

The dashing swashbuckler twists away from the opponent as he tries to rush by him and extends his blade forward as it slides into the opponent, the shock of the blade causing the enemy to stop. "I don't think so, friend. Your fight is with me." - Dexterious Fighter using Combat Challenge aka a Defender role.

[Vicente]

The rules don't force you to, but its clear reading dundjinnmasta's post how social pressure can be applied in that direction. Naming things makes them real. There was a time when one had very little expectation about what kind of character someone else might bring to the table. Over time assumptions about what a party should look like have hardened.


Well, I can somewhat agree the assumption a party should have a fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard is a little more "soft" in 2e/3e than the assumption a party has to have a defender, leader, striker and controller.



I hate to think what my players might have done when they realized during my second long term BR campaign that they built their party "wrong". In fact in general, many of the Cerilan parties will often fail to produce a "proper" party.


But that's not such a problem, or better said it's the same problem as not building an optimized character. If your players have non-optimized characters, you as a DM will try to compensate for that fact as Andrew said. Same happens if your party is not balanced: if your party has no clerics, throwing your party to very hard combat encounter after combat encounter is going to be a problem soon.



My Taelshore players had a Rjurik noble who acted like a defender. In 4e he might have been a warlord and so been a leader; an Anuirean knight who was sometimes a defender (on foot) and sometimes a striker (mounted); a Rjurik ranger who was clearly a striker; a Rjurk skald who was sometimes a weak striker and sometimes a leader; and a druid who could be a controller in some circumstances and a leader in others. Their powers were not limited to a single function, and they didn't think in those terms so didn't try and optimize as such. They acted like the characters they were.


That's the same in 4e, most classes aren't a pure thing (clerics for example have several very good area powers, given them some controller power). And that gets more common in PHB2 where most classes are clearly stated as having hybrid roles.

For example, the PHB2 Druid:

"Role: Controller. stuff. You might lean toward either leader or striker as your secondary role."

That's pretty close to how you expressed yourself about your own druid.



When all of us thought about combat on the Taelshore we thought about sword, axe, spear, and bow. These are the categories that organized Rjurik combat. Imposing something else is artificial and out of character. I'd rather have players thinking about their characters they way their character's would.

If a Brecht party consisted of a pair of swashbucklers, a guild thief, and a priestes of Eloéle, all strikers, assembled, I should think it well represents the fighting style of the Brecht.


Honestly, I don't understand what you are trying to say here :(

[darkon]

I am not talking about a subpar character. I am talking about a character that is so neuter that it can't do anyhting that it is ment to do. A halfling fighter is a subpar character but if you are playing a Half-Orc Fighter that has NO ARMS then it becomes a moot point, what the heck is he doing in the party instead of somewhere safe. Someone said to me today while I was discussing this argument with them...

"So.. you're completely useless in all practical matters.... why are heroic adventurers carting you along?"

Most adventurers aren't previous companions unless the group built a backstory of them together. No most of them are strangers meeting for the first time so why would they bring along a stranger that is pretty much a cripple that they will have to defend in the thick of a fight which is likely to get one or all of them killed when the cripple would be safer back at town.



Several reasons to carry the "cripple" along:

1. Because a close relative of your character was a cripple too, and you want to give him a chance.
2. Because he has struck a sensitive chord in the Barbarian's heart, and nobody wants to mess with the barbarian.
3. Maybe because the CN character you play finds it amusing to defy reasoning and social norms. He takes the cripple with him, in order to amuse himself, and get on everyone's nerves.
4. Because your character has been considered inadequate in his early years of training, and, defying probabilities, he managed to be a decent <insert class here>. He wants to give the other one a chance.
5. Because he has a funny voice, and reminds you of the always out of tune "bard" of your village.

All these are good In Character reasons to bring him along the party. None of these is the optimal of course. This is because RPG is a game of roleplaying and not maximizing / powergaming. Sometimes it is good to make suboptimal and "unreasonable" choices, as long as there is a reason to do so.

[Sorontar]

Characters that have deficiencies have to be played well, regardless of the system. My druid has Dexterity 8. I decided that this was due to arthritis in his fingers. That doesn't mean that he can't be a druid or use his fingers. It just means that that the skills he picks up aren't going to involve a lot of intricate handwork, e.g. carving, sewing, guitar playing, lock picking etc. He also is hopeless at climbing. I work these things into the story as I decide the actions for my character.

An armless Half-Orc fighter would probably develop some new manner of attack. Perhaps they would favour charging and bumping the opponent then striking them with spiked boots/kneepads. Who knows.

A halfling fighter cannot be regarded as "handicapped" by their size. There are many encounters where being small has offensive and defensive advantages. They might be the best tactician in the team. They may have other skills and knowledge that the party lacks. Perhaps they are a noble so they can get the party through doors. In Birthright, they have SW skills.

A good character is one that is played well, regardless of how it is constructed.

Sorontar

[kgauck]

Why do adventurers get hired to do grand things or even the small things? Because the NPC doesn't have the skills or abilities to do it.
For starters, this is a style of play I reject. Adventurers don't get hired. NPC's are not feeble. Adventurers are nobles with the means and ability to go out into the world seeking adventure. It is not a profession of exceptional nobodies who are outside of the social networks of Cerilia. On the contrary they are the ultimate insiders. Everyone knows who they are (everyone who matters).


Most adventurers aren't previous companions unless the group built a backstory of them together. No most of them are strangers meeting for the first time so why would they bring along a stranger that is pretty much a cripple that they will have to defend in the thick of a fight which is likely to get one or all of them killed when the cripple would be safer back at town.

Adventurers are exclusively previous companions. Nobles with their many connections and large households do not suddenly take up with strangers when they decide to confront dangers. Even foreign characters are well known and familiar, having spent years with their companions.


A halfling fighter is a subpar character

This statement casts doubt on your good sense.


Someone said to me today while I was discussing this argument with them...

"So.. you're completely useless in all practical matters.... why are heroic adventurers carting you along?"

I don't think you know what practical matters look like. Assuming practical matters look like physical combat would be a profound mistake. Optimization in my campaign involves four skills, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Knowledge (Shadow World), and Survival. The party needs other skills, but if you can't do at least some of these, you're completely useless in all practical matters. Blind Druid? Put him down for three out of four of these skills. Plus, in a shadow world context, it was his companions who were blind.

A blind druid would do a lot better over all than a pure fighter optimized for combat. Whole sessions went by without combat.

[Vicente]

Characters that have deficiencies have to be played well, regardless of the system.


Characters without deficiencies played well are "better". There's no way to argue against that. A character is on one side mechanics and on another side player "skill/cunning/whatever". The nice thing is that you compensate one thing with the other, but if you have both is better than if you only have one of them.

Nevertheless I don't agree with the "I need to have deficiencies to have a more interesting character", that's a plain excuse in my book. If you want to have a deficiency, perfect, but you can have really interesting characters without a glaring mechanical problem.



An armless Half-Orc fighter would probably develop some new manner of attack. Perhaps they would favour charging and bumping the opponent then striking them with spiked boots/kneepads. Who knows.


An armless half-orc fighter is useless, no matter how much you try to spin it. Combat is a task with a lot of movement involved and arms are mandatory to maintain balance. While I may believe someone can create balls of fire, believing that someone who is unable to control his own balance can fight is just too much (at least for me).



A good character is one that is played well, regardless of how it is constructed.


That's a good played character. If it's useless in everything it may be an interesting character to talk and so on, but if he can't do anything right that's not a good (in a general sense) character.

[Vicente]

For starters, this is a style of play I reject. Adventurers don't get hired. NPC's are not feeble. Adventurers are nobles with the means and ability to go out into the world seeking adventure. It is not a profession of exceptional nobodies who are outside of the social networks of Cerilia. On the contrary they are the ultimate insiders. Everyone knows who they are (everyone who matters).


Why? It's pretty common in our real world to land a job being unknown just because you are the right person in the right place at the right time. That happens a lot.



Adventurers are exclusively previous companions. Nobles with their many connections and large households do not suddenly take up with strangers when they decide to confront dangers. Even foreign characters are well known and familiar, having spent years with their companions.


That's a totally personal way of forming groups. I think playing with people who aren't connected and get forced together because of circunstances (Star Wars, LoTR,...) and then form bonds between themselves is a pretty common play style.



This statement casts doubt on your good sense.


Mechanically he is right, halflings aren't designed to be fighters, the books are pretty clear about it.

In 2e halflings don't have 18/something scores and it's maximum fighter level is the lowest of all races (9).

In 3e their stats are not suited for a fighter and their favored class is Rogue. A ranged fighter is more viable for them, but it continues to be subpar.

And in 4e the same, their stats are not suited for a fighter.



I don't think you know what practical matters look like. Assuming practical matters look like physical combat would be a profound mistake. Optimization in my campaign involves four skills, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Knowledge (Shadow World), and Survival. The party needs other skills, but if you can't do at least some of these, you're completely useless in all practical matters.


No one of those skills is a class skill for a fighter.



A blind druid would do a lot better over all than a pure fighter optimized for combat. Whole sessions went by without combat.


It's pretty hard to optimize a class designed for combat for something else. Fighters have a very short skill list, very few skill points and they need a lot of feats to work as fighters.

[Elton Robb]

It's pretty hard to optimize a class designed for combat for something else. Fighters have a very short skill list, very few skill points and they need a lot of feats to work as fighters.

Not in Rolemaster. :)

[Elton Robb]

Striker and Defender are terms used to describe a role.

That is the core of my problem with 4e. D&D 4e isn't about Roleplaying in an imaginary world, it's about roleplaying Football.


Most Defenders are the up-close and personal type that stay in the face of their opponent and keep them to busy to look for the weak-targets. If your dexterity fighter is this type then he is a Defender despite his mobility.

Striker is someone that may or may not move aroud the battle field but the classes that support strikers are normally the highest damage dealers but they aren't really ment to stand toe-to-toe with their opponents. They fall back behind the defenders and then move into position for another devestating strike. If your dexterity fighter is this type then he would be better served using the Rogue class or possibility the Two-Weapon Ranger Class (Rapier, Main-gauche?).

Defender and Striker also have class features and damage outputs more suited for their roles. Strikers have things like Sneak Attack or the Hunter's Quarry which deals additional damage to their slightly higher damaging attacks. While Defenders have abilities to keep opponents from moving to softer-targets like Combat Challenge.

The dashing swashbuckler twists away from the opponent as he tries to rush by him and extends his blade forward as it slides into the opponent, the shock of the blade causing the enemy to stop. "I don't think so, friend. Your fight is with me." - Dexterious Fighter using Combat Challenge aka a Defender role.

Rangers are wilderness types, rogues are sneaky types. In Rolemaster, rangers are wilderness types who cast spells, rogues combine the proclivities of a thief with the proclivities of a fighter. ;)

A fighter studies martial arts.

[Vicente]

Not in Rolemaster. :)

Veeery long time since I last checked my Rolemaster books to talk about its advantages and disadvantages as a game system (appart from the Tablemaster pun :p). The last thing I read from ICE was HARP and I didn't like it at all :(

[Elton Robb]

Veeery long time since I last checked my Rolemaster books to talk about its advantages and disadvantages as a game system (appart from the Tablemaster pun :p). The last thing I read from ICE was HARP and I didn't like it at all :(

you just named one of it's strengths. :)

I can name hundreds more. :D

[irdeggman]

An armless half-orc fighter is useless, no matter how much you try to spin it. Combat is a task with a lot of movement involved and arms are mandatory to maintain balance. While I may believe someone can create balls of fire, believing that someone who is unable to control his own balance can fight is just too much (at least for me).


Not with improved unarmed strike.

Heck there were several Prestige Classes that made advantages of things considered to be disadvantageous.

What was it Drunken Brawler? or Eye of Kuumarsh (ignore my spelling please)

[Vicente]

Not with improved unarmed strike.

Heck there were several Prestige Classes that made advantages of things considered to be disadvantageous.

What was it Drunken Brawler? or Eye of Kuumarsh (ignore my spelling please)

Having no arms is far more than a disadvantage. The half-orc problems are two sided:

- He is physically unable to make complicated movements as he has no way to maintain his own balance.

- He is such a strange thing in the world, that if he was to fight, he would need to develop the fighting style but himself (and re-learn everything he used to know) because I doubt there are many people trained in the art of fighting without having arms :p

[Vicente]

you just named one of it's strengths. :)

I can name hundreds more. :D

For me tables are its biggest disadvantage :)

[AndrewTall]

I am not talking about a subpar character. I am talking about a character that is so neuter that it can't do anyhting that it is ment to do. A halfling fighter is a subpar character but if you are playing a Half-Orc Fighter that has NO ARMS then it becomes a moot point, what the heck is he doing in the party instead of somewhere safe. Someone said to me today while I was discussing this argument with them...

"So.. you're completely useless in all practical matters.... why are heroic adventurers carting you along?"

Most adventurers aren't previous companions unless the group built a backstory of them together. No most of them are strangers meeting for the first time so why would they bring along a stranger that is pretty much a cripple that they will have to defend in the thick of a fight which is likely to get one or all of them killed when the cripple would be safer back at town.

I can see your point, but disagree in some areas. What happens when your group consists of 'the hero' types and 'the side kicks' - the bard who tags along to see true heroes in action - the heroes who exult in the fame that his songs bring them? The knight and his portly squire? The approach you describe, which I have played and enjoyed in the past, is the equivalent of an elite military unit, everyone exceptional in their role, everyone necessary for the completion of the mission - but its not the only way to play - frankly, in BR the PC's might well not see themselves as adventurers in the first place, and possibly not even as heroes.

In a BR 'world' as opposed to just a 'game' your purpose of adventuring may be to teach your craven cousin to gain a backbone, so he can make a useful marriage match without bringing shame on the family - he's subpar, but he's also the point. You also get a lot of issues outside of combat that make carrying 'weak' characters make a lot of sense - the pure fighter quite possibly is the real 'weak' character, because outside of their one area where they utterly dominate they can't do anything. When you add in domain play, and the storylines and so on behind it as regular game features, combat takes a smaller amount of time meaning that ties to the gameworld and so on become much more important which can change which characters are 'strong' drastically.

But I'd agree that a character with no arms is stuffed, blind I can handle, there are lots of ways to say that they can interact effectively, but without arms and hands mere survival becomes very difficult, 'I need to go to the mens' room, can someone come with me to help' just doesn't cut the heroic mustard in my view. :( As for no tongue, what do they do at the table, write notes? My groups tried that or variants a few times, it just doesn't work, certainly not for people who talk as much as me...

[Elton Robb]

For my tables are its biggest disadvantage :)

Ah, then ICE's adventure game is more your cup of tea.

[Elton Robb]

For my tables are its biggest disadvantage :)



In a BR 'world' as opposed to just a 'game' your purpose of adventuring may be to teach your craven cousin to gain a backbone, so he can make a useful marriage match without bringing shame on the family - he's subpar, but he's also the point. You also get a lot of issues outside of combat that make carrying 'weak' characters make a lot of sense - the pure fighter quite possibly is the real 'weak' character, because outside of their one area where they utterly dominate they can't do anything. When you add in domain play, and the storylines and so on behind it as regular game features, combat takes a smaller amount of time meaning that ties to the gameworld and so on become much more important which can change which characters are 'strong' drastically.


Yes. You see, the whole point of playing such a character who is disadvantaged -- Craven coward, having a lame leg, old, tongueless, blind, or small -- is to provide roleplaying opportunities for the other players. A subpar character shines when the other players use him for a roleplaying opportunity.

The type of characters that Dundjinnmasta wants to play with shines in a Military game. They are an elite unit of crack commandos out to do the general's will in taking out this or that. But what if you take them out of their arena and put them in a situation that calls for diplomacy and intrigue?

[kgauck]

Why? It's pretty common in our real world to land a job being unknown just because you are the right person in the right place at the right time. That happens a lot.
First we live in the modern world in which the liberal project to emphasize the individual is achieved. People are not known by their kin groups or their associates as they were in traditional societies. Second, even under these conditions most hires are made from referrals and friends of current employees: insiders.

Then consider that a medieval society is hostile to strangers. That people are known by their kin groups and social networks, not by their individual achievements. And then it becomes obvious that the fact that some people get hired by strangers in the real world is a meaningless fact with no bearing on the game world. Much like the average commute distance has no bearing in a predominantly agricultural, medieval society.


That's a totally personal way of forming groups. I think playing with people who aren't connected and get forced together because of circunstances (Star Wars, LoTR,...) and then form bonds between themselves is a pretty common play style.

This is a modern trope. Older stories about groups who take on adventures are either groups of friends and family, or on rare occasions collections of several heroes in the middle of their career who are known to one another by reputation, achievement, and previous encounters for a single mission.

One of my central purposes of even playing role playing games is to take on the role play in pre-modern societies. I live in a modern society. Going elsewhere, where things are different, is a part of the escapism of gaming. Simply recreating the modern world in funny costumes is not interesting to me.


Mechanically he is right, halflings aren't designed to be fighters, the books are pretty clear about it.

This is power-gaming. I have no problem that you, Vicente, or dundjinnmasta, are very much in the middle of the power-gaming world view. But this kind of mechanical optimization is something I am not interested in. Who can get to 18 in Str is not an important question to me, because no one in my games gets to 18 in Str. The highest possible stat in the elite array is 15. Getting to 18 would require a level 12 character who never stopped to increase that 13 in say Con or Dex. I've seen 18 in Int, Wis, and Cha, the more important attributes, but never Str.

90% of what makes a character formidable is their class, not their race or even (though they are more important) their attributes. Class level doubles the power of a character every couple of levels. Having a halfling or human or dwarf underneath all of that, is very much a noodling at the margins. Important only to people trying to squeeze that last +1 out of a build because they single-mindedly focus on one thing. I don't reward that style of design by feeding those characters the one thing all the time.


In 3e their stats are not suited for a fighter and their favored class is Rogue. A ranged fighter is more viable for them, but it continues to be subpar.

If you really think this makes any sense, you and I are simply playing different games. A halfling has the same elite array as anyone else, and whether they go with a 13 Str and 13 Dex, or a 10 Str and 17 Dex, or something else, these characters make fine fighters.


And in 4e the same, their stats are not suited for a fighter.

If this were true, I would consider it a flaw of 4e. Every race of people will produce warriors, soldiers, and physical combatants.

Referring to my declaration that the core skills in my campaign are something like Diplomacy, Gather Information, Knowledge (Shadow World) and Survival,

No one of those skills is a class skill for a fighter.

Fighter is not a viable class for PC's in my campaign. It makes a nice dipping class for people who want to toughen up on combat, but I advise no more than 4 levels in Fighter. Too few skills for normal play, too much emphasis on combat, which sometimes never happens in a session. The game I run is about politics, intrigue, and statecraft. The Shadow World is an always present supernatural parallel to contend with. Characters should be designed to deal with those things.

I have written several powers for 4e that would constitute the cool powers for my campaign. They look like this:

Etymologiea Caulnorum Utility 2
You have studied and mastered the teaching of the book Etymologiea Caulnorum. You understand the origin and meaning of words and their rhetorical use in argument.
Encounter * Logic
Standard Action Debate
Target one opponent
Attack thesis skill or rebuttal skill vs thesis or rebuttal skill
Hit standard and you or an ally receive a debate surge

Duenia Isagoge Utility 2
You have studied and mastered the teaching of the book Duenia Isagoge. You know and understand this classic logic primer used by the old Imperial Temple and its successors.
At-Will * Logic
Minor Action Debate
Effect: You gain a +2 logic bonus to any argument attack

Questioneas Naturales Utility 2
You have studied and applied the teaching of the book Questioneas Naturales. You understand and have utilized the natural science lessons of this textbook in wilderness locations.
At-Will * Logic
Minor Action Debate
Attack Nature or Dungeoneering vs any appropriate thesis or rebuttal
Effect: damage die improved one step

Logica Vetus Utility 6
You have studied and mastered the teaching of the book Logical Vetus. You know and understand this profound work of logic, the reply of Halmied Alameata to several Avanian scholars.
At-Will * Logic
Minor Action Debate
Target one opponent
Effect: You gain a +3 logic bonus to any argument attack and your damage die is improved one step.

Secretum Ruornilia Utility 6
You have studied and mastered the cryptic teachings of the book Secretum Ruornilia. You know and understand the hidden wisdom of this book.
Encounter * Logic
Standard Action Debate
Target one opponent
Attack Arcana or Religion vs any appropriate thesis or rebuttal
Hit standard and you and your allies receive a debate surge

Ecclesiastica Imperium Utility 6
You have studied and mastered the teaching of the book Ecclesiastica Imperium. You know and understand the historical and religious development of the Imperial Temple.
At-Will * Logic
Minor Action Debate
Effect: You may attack or reply to any Religion argument with the History skill.

Tirestean Dialogues Utility 10
+4 logic bonus any argument attack, damage die improved one step

Posterior Analyticea Utility 12
+5 logic bonus to any argument attack, damage die improved two steps

Quanun Utility 12
Attack Heal or Religion vs any appropriate thesis or rebuttal (disease, medicine, healing)
+8 logic bonus to any argument attack relating to disease, medicine, or healing; damage die improved two steps

[Rowan]

Kgauck, do you have any more of those non-combat powers?

As I've said before, I think that's the future of skill challenges--and it would fit right along with WotC's business model of developing a system that can continue to churn out new material (new non-combat powers). We must remember, after all, that a company must make money; I don't begrudge them the "bloat" as long as it is quality material.

Kenneth, do you require your players to take those powers in place of combat powers? I wouldn't. I'd let it be parallel.


____

On divination, as was mentioned before, I think there's quite a great array of such powers in the Rituals in 4e (as supplemented beyond the PH). In fact, I really think Rituals fixed a lot of things, but the concept needs to be taken further and not cost as much. I've made adjustments to it to those effects. One of the great advantages of it for me is that Rituals FEEL a lot more like magic to me--and they're not limited to spell slots, nor are they even limited to character class. A fighter can easily dabble in ritual magic, if he so wishes.

____

As for flawed and crippled characters, I think it's REALLY important that the entire party and DM agree on such character concepts and talk about how they'll fit into the game. Such a character simply will not work in a group that whose PLAYERS will resent such a lack of team-playing. I don't begrudge such resentment at all, because it is very well-founded: the deficient character is NOT a team player, they're not contributing equally, so why should they be respected?

Story can MAKE such a character worthwhile, but the other players need to be fully on board and okay with it. They can even play a PC who has a problem with the rogue's cravenness, but as long as the player himself actually enjoys that tension, you're okay.

I think that if you bring a deficient character into a group that has not unanimously accepted it, you SHOULD be ostracized, because you're showing a lack of respect for the other players.

That said, I think deficient characters work very well as secondary characters. I have played many games where the characters have multiple PCs. In fact, we're expanding the concept in my current group to include bringing on "Cameo Characters" (character concepts that people would like to play, but not invest in and spend as much time playing as their primary character--yet they'll fit into the story and get some fun play time), Secondary Characters (longer-term characters, but often of lower or higher level, again not getting as much face time as the primary), and Mission Characters (often NPCs they get to play for a short time during appropriate parts of the story).


___

As for parties that don't fill all roles, I find 4e giving greater variety with which to fill roles (aside from 2e and 3e's strong tendency for: oh, you guys have got the fighter, mage, and rogue covered? I guess I'll be the cleric). I also find 4e actively encouraging different party make-ups, just acknowledging and discussing what they'll be better at and what they'll not be as good at. No harm in discussing the impacts it will have on the game.

I've played many parties that don't fit all roles, and my current game, where everyone has two characters of the same level, mix and match party composition as the story dictates, or, if they have the choice, based on what will work best for the mission.

I've always wanted to play an all-ranger, all-rogue, or all-paladin party, btw. Just haven't found a group of other players interested in that yet :).

___

As for encouraging character concepts, I took the Fantasy Flight Games "Midnight" setting's "Heroic Paths" and turned them into "Idiomatic Paths" in 3e. They converted over even more wonderfully to complement the characters' "idioms" (inspired by Monty Python) in 4e. Basically, they fill in those odd, very character-concept driven abilities at various levels, measured against feats, powers, skills, or other appropriate comparisons in 4e for balance.

I could give examples, but I'd have to look up my text on them. To give you an idea, we've got a charming halfling who can beguile with words; a rogue whose suspicious nature both helps and hinders on and off the battlefield; and a conflicted half-doppelganger psuedo-paladin whose shifty heritage helps in his battles in the underworld, but is at odds with his attempted ascetic fervor.

[Vicente]

First we live in the modern world in which the liberal project to emphasize the individual is achieved. People are not known by their kin groups or their associates as they were in traditional societies. Second, even under these conditions most hires are made from referrals and friends of current employees: insiders.

Then consider that a medieval society is hostile to strangers. That people are known by their kin groups and social networks, not by their individual achievements. And then it becomes obvious that the fact that some people get hired by strangers in the real world is a meaningless fact with no bearing on the game world. Much like the average commute distance has no bearing in a predominantly agricultural, medieval society.

This is a modern trope. Older stories about groups who take on adventures are either groups of friends and family, or on rare occasions collections of several heroes in the middle of their career who are known to one another by reputation, achievement, and previous encounters for a single mission.

One of my central purposes of even playing role playing games is to take on the role play in pre-modern societies. I live in a modern society. Going elsewhere, where things are different, is a part of the escapism of gaming. Simply recreating the modern world in funny costumes is not interesting to me.


I can understand this, but in my oppinion this argument has the flaw that you can't paralelize so much how we lived in our medieval times to a world where there are dragons, magic and all those types of bizarre stuff going on. There are enough fundamental changes in the basics of the world that both "modern tropes" could be common even if they weren't in our normal history.

But I can understand your reasoning and why you like it more, it's just that I don't see it more true than the other point of view because sadly we don't have anything to compare with.



This is power-gaming. I have no problem that you, Vicente, or dundjinnmasta, are very much in the middle of the power-gaming world view. But this kind of mechanical optimization is something I am not interested in. Who can get to 18 in Str is not an important question to me, because no one in my games gets to 18 in Str. The highest possible stat in the elite array is 15. Getting to 18 would require a level 12 character who never stopped to increase that 13 in say Con or Dex. I've seen 18 in Int, Wis, and Cha, the more important attributes, but never Str.


This has nothing to do with powergaming Kenneth, we were talking about mechanics and they are pretty clear that halflings aren't going to produce the best mechanically possible fighter. Second, I can't discuss about your rules and games because I don't know them, I can only talk about the core books, because they are the middle ground.



90% of what makes a character formidable is their class, not their race or even (though they are more important) their attributes. Class level doubles the power of a character every couple of levels. Having a halfling or human or dwarf underneath all of that, is very much a noodling at the margins. Important only to people trying to squeeze that last +1 out of a build because they single-mindedly focus on one thing. I don't reward that style of design by feeding those characters the one thing all the time.


Agreed it's a small difference, but we never said they are inviable characters, we said they were supbar (not the best possible) characters.



If you really think this makes any sense, you and I are simply playing different games. A halfling has the same elite array as anyone else, and whether they go with a 13 Str and 13 Dex, or a 10 Str and 17 Dex, or something else, these characters make fine fighters.


In 3e halflings have -2 Str (subpar melee fighters) and as small guys they can't use a composite longbow (subpar archers). Of course they can be fighters, but they aren't the best ones.



If this were true, I would consider it a flaw of 4e. Every race of people will produce warriors, soldiers, and physical combatants.


I don't see it as a flaw: every race produces warriors, but they don't have to be of the same quality.



Fighter is not a viable class for PC's in my campaign. It makes a nice dipping class for people who want to toughen up on combat, but I advise no more than 4 levels in Fighter. Too few skills for normal play, too much emphasis on combat, which sometimes never happens in a session. The game I run is about politics, intrigue, and statecraft. The Shadow World is an always present supernatural parallel to contend with. Characters should be designed to deal with those things.


Having to optimize for a DM style it's a kind of powergaming.



I have written several powers for 4e that would constitute the cool powers for my campaign. They look like this:

Etymologiea Caulnorum Utility 2
You have studied and mastered the teaching of the book Etymologiea Caulnorum. You understand the origin and meaning of words and their rhetorical use in argument.
Encounter * Logic
Standard Action Debate
Target one opponent
Attack thesis skill or rebuttal skill vs thesis or rebuttal skill
Hit standard and you or an ally receive a debate surge

Duenia Isagoge Utility 2
You have studied and mastered the teaching of the book Duenia Isagoge. You know and understand this classic logic primer used by the old Imperial Temple and its successors.
At-Will * Logic
Minor Action Debate
Effect: You gain a +2 logic bonus to any argument attack

Questioneas Naturales Utility 2
You have studied and applied the teaching of the book Questioneas Naturales. You understand and have utilized the natural science lessons of this textbook in wilderness locations.
At-Will * Logic
Minor Action Debate
Attack Nature or Dungeoneering vs any appropriate thesis or rebuttal
Effect: damage die improved one step

Logica Vetus Utility 6
You have studied and mastered the teaching of the book Logical Vetus. You know and understand this profound work of logic, the reply of Halmied Alameata to several Avanian scholars.
At-Will * Logic
Minor Action Debate
Target one opponent
Effect: You gain a +3 logic bonus to any argument attack and your damage die is improved one step.

Secretum Ruornilia Utility 6
You have studied and mastered the cryptic teachings of the book Secretum Ruornilia. You know and understand the hidden wisdom of this book.
Encounter * Logic
Standard Action Debate
Target one opponent
Attack Arcana or Religion vs any appropriate thesis or rebuttal
Hit standard and you and your allies receive a debate surge

Ecclesiastica Imperium Utility 6
You have studied and mastered the teaching of the book Ecclesiastica Imperium. You know and understand the historical and religious development of the Imperial Temple.
At-Will * Logic
Minor Action Debate
Effect: You may attack or reply to any Religion argument with the History skill.

Tirestean Dialogues Utility 10
+4 logic bonus any argument attack, damage die improved one step

Posterior Analyticea Utility 12
+5 logic bonus to any argument attack, damage die improved two steps

Quanun Utility 12
Attack Heal or Religion vs any appropriate thesis or rebuttal (disease, medicine, healing)
+8 logic bonus to any argument attack relating to disease, medicine, or healing; damage die improved two steps


Pretty nice argument powers, totally agreed.

[vota dc]

90% of what makes a character formidable is their class, not their race or even (though they are more important) their attributes. Class level doubles the power of a character every couple of levels. Having a halfling or human or dwarf underneath all of that, is very much a noodling at the margins. Important only to people trying to squeeze that last +1 out of a build because they single-mindedly focus on one thing. I don't reward that style of design by feeding those characters the one thing all the time.


True.In fact the oldest version of D&D haven't race at all:non human race are considered as class.

[kgauck]

Kgauck, do you have any more of those non-combat powers?

Kenneth, do you require your players to take those powers in place of combat powers? I wouldn't. I'd let it be parallel.

I'm working on some Rjurik wisdom. These were more Anuirean. These are all utility powers, so all the combat effects in at-will, encounter, and daily slots are untouched. And if a character wants a standard PHB utility instead, that's fine too.


As for flawed and crippled characters, I think it's REALLY important that the entire party and DM agree on such character concepts and talk about how they'll fit into the game.

Absolutely, characters need to fit the game that's being played. No one in their right mind would make a character with a hostility to elves to the table if the other players are playing gheallie Sidhe. Likewise if everyone is doing one thing, part of good play is playing something compatible with that.

One kind of thing actors like to do is play dissension in the ranks. That works well in cases where everyone knows what's going on, is able to play that, and willing to do it. It can be fun in a Spock-McCoy style of arguing that doesn't ultimately make the team ineffective. But if you can't meet those conditions, players want to do it, are able to do it (some may want to try, but end up with hard feelings), and it doesn't end up getting in the way of other party goals (at least no more than its worth to the party as an opportunity cost).

While characters might fight or be at odds, the players should be on the same page, if not necessarily in total agreement.


(aside from 2e and 3e's strong tendency for: oh, you guys have got the fighter, mage, and rogue covered? I guess I'll be the cleric). I also find 4e actively encouraging different party make-ups, just acknowledging and discussing what they'll be better at and what they'll not be as good at. No harm in discussing the impacts it will have on the game.


Though, the core books make a lot of in-explicit assumptions in these discussions. For instance BR is a setting where magic is more rare, and making opponents mostly from the fighter-rogue side of things means that players can also build parties that reflect those same class choices without being a problem. Admittedly in a high fantasy world where NPC's and monsters use a lot of magic or fantastic powers that aren't countered simply with with reflexes or armor, you need to think about ways to add that magical side.

I just don't find the core books a good baseline for a Birthright scenario.

[Elton Robb]

Though, the core books make a lot of in-explicit assumptions in these discussions. For instance BR is a setting where magic is more rare, and making opponents mostly from the fighter-rogue side of things means that players can also build parties that reflect those same class choices without being a problem. Admittedly in a high fantasy world where NPC's and monsters use a lot of magic or fantastic powers that aren't countered simply with with reflexes or armor, you need to think about ways to add that magical side.

I just don't find the core books a good baseline for a Birthright scenario.

Birthright is a different animal when it comes to D&D.

[Thelandrin]

The Middle Ages posts have been split off from this thread. Please discuss the title topic!

[AndrewTall]

In terms of the title, as I've gaily gamboled off topic, I should confess that DM's passionate defense has got me thinking about my knee-jerk reaction - I'll finish reading the DMG, particularly the stuff on skill challenges as even if I don't switch, that's no reason not to import. It sounds like PHB2 address some of the issues I have with PHB1 so I may get that too...