Christopher DeGraffenreid's page

Well if you liked Monte Cooks D20 WoD then perhaps you can adopt that one.

I would love it if pathfinder could do an optional non-vancian magical system like McWOD's system which is quite good. The vancian magic system was always one of the things I liked least in D&D through all of its incarnations.

I'm getting more and more interested in Pathfinder daily (oddly enough this increasing interest is mirrored by an ever increading disinterest in 4e and WoTC's offerings overall).

I personally find the "Christmas Tree Effect" to be one of the most pernicious problems of 3.5e. The over reliance on magical items sorely limits the type of game a DM/GM can run. Its hard to run a gritty/lower magic campaign when denying PCs magic items will just about guarantee their failure.

I'm hoping that Pathfinder will have a workaround that allows fans of both high and low magic games to play the system without having to look elsewhere. The broader the number of playstyles supported, the better.

Also if i was going to play in some game, and dude was like yeah your just like the wizard except you have to hop threw more hoops or use your kewl powers less and i ask why and all he got is an awkward smile and " It destroys my suspension of disbelief " I honestly hope the players walk out on him. Its long drawn out arguments like this that make me glad wizzards had the nuts to go out find the fun and hammer it into their game system as much as possible. Is everyone's fun the same? I dunnno but I find it increasingly hard to think that our fun could be so different and that we were playing the same damn game.

You can use you KEWL powers IMC, but there will be an attempt at versimilitude. I might even make some modifications so that your kewl non-magical powers intuitively make sense within the context of the campaign I am running and the setting I am using.

I have worked this way through AD&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, True20, Rolemaster, and Conan D20 for over 20yrs with a crew of rabidly loyal players who know that what I do is for the long term viability and long term enjoyability of the campaign/setting. Just because the current D&D Flavor of the Month comes along with some new and shinies I don't see a reason to fundamentally alter the style of my campaign or DM/GMing style.

No one has ever walked out on me.

Erian_7 I too have a problem with the limitations of spellcasters whose powers are now simply powers as well. Its not that I want or need spellcasters to be all-powerful but 4e magic is IMO far, far too limited. In my campaigns I like seeing a player able to have a large number of utility, non combat focused, spells to allow for creativity. Wizards as magical artillary alone, with other forms of magic like enchantment/charm being relegated to psionicists is IMO a bad design decision.

I thought the game used to be balanced by a wizards having a limited number of spells per day (either via a Vancian system or a spell point variant) while fighters, rangers and rogues could use their abilities without limit. IME this is a better balance, a balnce spread over the course of an adventure and not a class crippling balance that must be adhered to for each and every encounter.

We'll see if future supplements address this issue.

JohnSnow wrote:

The game rules are a useful, simulative abstraction within the context of playing a game and constructing a narrative. At the point at which you decide they represent the "physics of the game world," you're on the verge of creating a game that has Order of the Stick style silliness. - JohnSnow

Hey Nahault, here's my new sig. Just to show you that I am reconsidering my position a bit and choosing a quote that far more accurately reflects my current stand on a variety of issus. Just to keep you informed:

Removing the 'unfun' is something you do with a scalpel, not a shotgun. Every impedence to success can't be removed, nor should it conflict with the, restrictions a GM places on his world. -WayneLigon

I'll be sure to keep you informed of any other sig changes so as to give you the opportunity to take a cheap shot if you feel the need. I'm thoughtful that way.

Here is something that may work for those, like myself, who see arbitrary/inexplicable 1/day non-magical powers. This is a workaround partly of my own but inspired by another poster on ENWORLD.

Maybe accessing martial/non-magical dailies on a natural 20 plus maybe a lowering of the number per X number of levels. Maybe this could improve by -1 per six character levels to reflect increased skill and/or inner power depending on the daily in question. At 6th level a 19+, at 12th level 18+, at 18th level 17+, at 24th level 16+ and finally at 30th level a roll of 15+.

This could work quite nicely I think. I have no if this would unbalance things, but I like the look of it. I can't believe I didn't consider this option.

This might be a compromise that works for some. This isn't making me a 4e booster but I am open minded.

Too bad Enworld is down, since you posted the exact same thing there I could just have copied the same answer I gave you to here.

At least you removed your sig this time, so the post is less funny now.

(FYI: The OP posted this on Enworld, but he had a quoted sig that chastised simulationists GMs for not understanding the use of abstraction in DND, and how concepts should not be taken literally. Most people just told him to read his own sig.).

As I said in my OP I am not a hard core simulationist, but there is a limit. I didn't quote that sig in reference to anything I personally find egregious to versimilitude. Plus the more I examine myriad abstractions, the more I am coming to see them, or their excessive use, as lazy from a game design standpoint (lazy because there isn't even an effort to make sense of these things in the context of the game outside of pure gamism). IME too many abstractions ruin suspension of disbelief.

For those who wish to be nitpicky, I will clarify my position on my sig or with the dawn of 4e's hyperabstraction I might just change it altogether.

As an aside, there is nothing wrong with creating a post in two very different forums. Many do not read both and I want the broadest snapshot of opinions on the issue.

Well, the Barbarian's rage depends on accessing deep innter reserves of psychic ie. mental/emotional power that would drain him/her greatly after its use. The rage ability of the barbarian is based on the historical berserker and not just an issue of getting angry. Historically speaking, berserkers were a terrible sight of frothing madness...this is what the barbarian is based on. Thus rage is sensibly limited to a certain number of times per day to reflect the difficulty of tapping one's deep reserves.

Ok, onto daily exploits:

Here's a smattering of daily powers.

Brute Strike Fighter Attack 1
You shatter armor and bone with a ringing blow.

Comeback Strike Fighter Attack 1
A timely strike against a hated foe invigorates you, giving you the
strength and resolve to fight on.

Crack the Shell Fighter Attack 5
You break through your enemy’s armor and deal a painful bleeding
wound.

Dizzying Blow Fighter Attack 5
You crack your foe upside the head.

Thicket of Blades Fighter Attack 9
You sting and hinder nearby foes with a savage flurry of strikes
aimed at their legs.

Dragon’s Fangs Fighter Attack 15
You strike twice in rapid succession.

There are more from other classes of course but these will serve as an example.

Such exploits are nothing like a barbarian's rage ability because they aren't based on the character's inner fury/chi/etc. but instead are based on circumstances of the battle such as an opening appearing in an enemies defenses or an enemy making a fatal mistake allowing the fighter to take advantage of the situation. None of these exploits are explainable, in regards to versimilitude, in the same manner as a barbarian's rage.

At level 5 mysteriously ONE opening will appear in your enemies defenses that will allow you to bash them upside the head. Unfortunately such an opening will appear only once every 24hrs thus say the gods of battle.

or

You draw upon great inner reserves of power to cause an enemies defenses to fall so you can wack him upside the head. So draining is the effort involved in wacking someone upside the head that you are phsically and emotionally drained for 24hrs.

Either is exceptionally silly.

Can anyone actually tell me that these abilites are anything like a barbarian's rage when one looks at the fundamental assumptions regarding the circumstances involved in using such abilities?

Allow me to vent this and then share your opinion if you wish.

I detest, I hate with the fiery fury of 1000 suns, 1/day non-magical powers because there is NO rationale whatsoever than can explain how a warrior, ranger or rogue wouldn't be able to use a certain ability more than one per day. I can see perhaps allowing for telling a player that a certain opening needed by his fighter would likely only happen once per encounter...and that is a bit of a stretch IMO depending upon the length of the encounter. But once per day is insane. So non-magical abilities have a recharge time. At least with magic I am able to create a reason why that makes sense within the mytaphysics of the setting or game system.

But once per day no matter how many encounters take place? My players (D&D players for 20+yrs each) thought that the very idea was ridiculous and destructive to the suspension of disbelief. None of us are hard core simulationists, but for god's sake we like to immerse ourselves in the setting and the events of the campaign so a bit of versimilitude is helpful (the more the better).

As a DM, this is way, way too gamist for me. I'm sorry, but the idea of daily non-magical exploits or whatnot is bordering on CRPG territory or boardgame territory where there isn't even an attempt at maintaining the illusion of the "reality" of events in the game.

Teiran wrote:

What will be enough? I'll get a book for swordslingers, a book for rogues, a book for wizards, and a book for clerics. With core rulebooks, now I'm up to about $280 in books!

Eeeek!!!

So, I see you have unwittingly stumbled upon WoTC's master plan. The planned incompleteness of the initial release of 4e was so that you would feel that you need to buy the various other core books to patch the holes.

Great business model actually though I personally detest the idea of needing to buy some $300 of books to get everything that used to be in $120 worth of books. 3.5 was ultimately filled with splatbooks, however you didn't feel that the game was incomplete without buying them all. With 4e, there will be an apparent need for them all. This is primarily because rabit fans NEED the OFFICIAL version of everything. Its always been this way.

Its a brave new world for D&D....gods preserve us.

I have to say, it kind of bugs me when someone says "well can't you just call a spear a lance" or "well I never liked mounted knights anyway." Its not that folks don't have a right to their opinion, but I think such comments are dismissive of a concern that reflects a broader point.

Lances are a staple of one of the most ancient medieval tropes, the mounted knight, which has existed from the birth of the paladin and cavalier classes in the game. What the lack of lances represents more broadly, is the overall sense of incompleteness that IMO permeates 4e.

With the missing core classes, classic monsters, limited paragon paths, limited epic paths, limited skills, etc. 4e seems unfinished in a way that I cannot say that 2e/3e or 3.5e was when these versions were released. Combat is exhaustively covered but it seems that many other things were given a lot less love.

Damn, I am begining to miss Gary Gygax's list of obscure polearms from the 1e Unearthed Arcana. IMO what is missing from 4e is what is missing from Las Vegas. Like Vegas, 4e is bright and shiny with lots of toys and constant excitement but like Vegas, 4e is missing an undefinable something, something I would call soul. This "soul" doesn't rely on glitz and glamour but unstead upon a depth and a quality of personality.

4e is all of the shine and none of the soul of D&D. Maybe in a few years, 4e will find itself and have the depth of prior editions. However, I am not holding out much hope because IMO D&D 3 had more of a sense of completeness and fullness right out of the gate. Part of this is WoTC's marketing strategy of dribbling out content over the years via multiple core books. IMO the secret to making this work is to not have the customer feel cheated by this lack of completeness and in this regard I believe WoTC failed. Unfortunately.

I think there is a bit of poisoning the well going on in regard to my question. "The OP is biased or silly" ergo the question itself is invalid. IMO the question is valid.

I am actually stunned to see that folks have sold off their 3.5e books en mass on ebay or just tossed them out with the unveiling of a new system of D&D. There are only 3 books available so far for Christ's sake. Did 3.5e suck that badly or is there so much brand loyalty that no matter what 4e looked like it is defacto a better product because it is the newest shiny thing created by WoTC? That is the gist of my OP.

I don't have a horse in this race so to speak because I gave up on 3.5e after getting into True20 and Runequest (though I am still a friend of the 3.5e variant Conan) because these systems allow me to more easily tell the stories I wish to tell and provide mechanics closer to my sensibilities as a DM. I am going to give Pathfinder a chance and may use the system if Eric and Company can make high level campaigning less (far less) of a DM's nightmare.

At first, my reaction to Paizo's choice to stick with 3.5e in the form of Pathfinder was rather negative because I really liked the previews WoTC was sharing with us prior to 4e's release. With 4e's release (and it noxious GSL)I have made a 180 degree turn around and am 1000% behind Paizo's decision and hope that others like Green Ronin and Mongoose keep 3.5 alive in some form or create for themselves some excellent open license games. Green Ronin's Song of Ice and Fire RPG looks promising and I hope that 3rd party publishers don't feel the need to dump their OGL games even if they choose to produce some 4e materials.

I am not immune to kneejerk loyalty or antipathy myself. I am instinctively counterculture and find that I would be inclined to tell WoTC to piss off even if I liked the 4e mechanics (which I do not) just on the merits of the GSL.

I am not claiming to be superior in my opinions, just someone who is curious as to the motivation of 4e fans as to their choices in regards to abandoning 3.5e. If 3.5e was so bad, why didn't those who find 3.5e so broken check out True20, Runequest, Elric, Conan, etc. a year or two ago?

I suspect that brand loyalty is at the root of such decisions. IN other words, if WoTC doesn't create it, it isn't worth looking at. This is IMO a preposterous position, but position that I have seen in a few gamers I know.

Personally, I'm a very big fan of "interaction" campaigns. You know, the ones where you can spend your whole game night on meeting and interacting with the NPC's or eachother. Most of the great rpg moments I recall involve high emotions. For example, my namesake character in a campaign was assigned to work with a Scout NPC to protect the prince. Said NPC kept flirting with me, through we were great friends. A few months later in campaign, he died in a great showdown with an Orc Cheiftain during a war skirmish while I helped defend the castle. ( btw resurrection magic don't work in the campaign ). My DM had my superior inform me of his passing, and then the King of the land explained that the NPC was a runaway prince, that was getting together a marriage for us. Then the DM described the scence when I visited his body... ... I had to excuse myself and leave the room in real life.

Love and lust are strong motivators. My rpg group has made a habit of making disclaimers and ratings at the start of a campaign. That way, those that are uncomfortable can choose not to be apart of it. Because of my own preference for making the game "as real as possible" I welcome all emotions and strive to invoke them in my own campaign. I've found the BoEF to be a great guide, and a few of the players have read some of it for a guideline to their alignment's and race's view on sex and love.

They also understand the consequences. Most of the PC's have gotten some sweet affection, and I roll to determine effects. (our half drow is now a soon to be daddy ).

All sex aside though, the BoEF has some great spells (not to mention a fairly good arcane prestige class) that should not be shunned based on the fact that they come from a spoofy material. (touch me not, and magic probe... great spells.) Though I'm a big fan of lust and innuendo, the flirting can get detailed but the actual act is a "fade to black" and roll the dice. Personally, I couldn't be a part of a campaign that didn't welcome all the emotions a person (or humaniod ) can have. To me, that's a slight cripple on the players experience and creativity.

Combat is great. Storyline is awesome... but watching your players become their PCs through their shared emotions... that's unforgettable.

(written by a female fan of hot chicks in armor)

QFT

You are the female version of me...weird. :)

I have successfully transformed a number of hack n' slashers to immersion role-players via the way in which I manage the emotional and interpersonal elements of my campaign.

Hello,

I'm relatively new here though I have been lurking for awhile.

I want to pose a question:

Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?

Let me say upfront that I know WoTC owns the IP called D&D and can create a game similar to chutes and ladders and call it D&D as such is their legal right.

My point isn't the legalese of what D&D is or even a discussion of whether or not 4e is really D&D or not in the sense of its feel and play. There are threads for that.

What I am curious about is the phenomena of brand loyalty in the way that there actually are people compelled through emotional reasons to support their favorite brand despite the failings of the brand. For example, there actually are people who will not drive a brand new top of the line Ford truck but will drive a lesser quality Chevy truck because it is a Chevy. For most, emotion plays a far greater factor in one's choices than objective realities.

So this thread is about brand loyalty and not about edition warfare.

4e is about as different from 3.5 D&D as 3.5e was from 2e. The differences have been written about ad nauseum so will not be reiterated here. Due to the many differences between 4e and any edition that has come before, many have IMO justifiably asked "Is 4e D&D?" If D&D, as some have indicated, rather simplistically I might add, "If the game has dungeons and dragons in it and the whole point of the game is killing things and taking their stuff, then its D&D," then I would argue that MERP, True20, Conan, Runequest, Pathfinder, etc. are all D&D as well.

My thesis is that (and I am not attempting to insult anyone here) if any other company such as Paizo, Green Ronin, Mongoose, Goodman Games, Troll Lord Games, etc. created a game with the full panapoly of 4e's new mechanics very, very few people would be dumping 3.5 D&D to play this new system. Oh some may indeed swipe some mechanics for their 3.5 D&D game but for the most part 3.5e would still be king of the hill, not just in sales, but in perception of quality.

I truly believe that the vast majority of D&D players would shrug their shoulders and think, "Cool new game system witrh some nice mechanics but I'll stick with D&D." A relatively small number of gamers would jump onto the new system with both feet having grown tired of 3.5e but we wouldn't be seeing mass sell offs of 3.5e materials on ebay just to play this new game.

Forgetting for a moment IP laws and whatnot. Does anyone really believed that if WoTC stuck with 3.5e that this new game, if created by any other company, would be anything more that another fantasy RPing game amongst the myriad high quality options that already exist? 4e fans, would you have dumped 3.5e wholesale after a couple sessions of this new game if it were created by Green Ronin and called something other than D&D?

Would the dumping of magical schools, gnomes, high elves (now eladrin), half orcs be hailed as more D&D than D&D if Paizo did it first?

Would the greater emphasis on miniatures, the inclusion of Tieflings and Dragonborn as core races, the adoption of MMORPG terms such as striker and controller, the removal of the vast majority of arcane and divine spells, be hailed as more D&D than D&D if Green Ronin did it first?

Would healing surges, at will, per encounter and per day powers, and residuum be more D&D than D&D if Mongoose Publishing did it first?

Chris