Fearless? Or Just Plain Dumb?


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Fearless, by Chris Thomasson

What do you think? Is this a good thing about 4e?


Being less likely to be wiped out by one bad role is a good thing, especially if you can have fun trying to be daring. Sure, there can be consequences, but they wont necessarily have you dropping out of the session for the night or rolling up a new character.


I am leaning towards dumb.

The language selected gets insulting again, and the premise returns to "your game sucks, this is why you should be playing 4th Edition."

I can't even really comment on the rest of the content - because I couldn't read any of it. I kept having to wipe Chris Thomasson's spit out of my eyes because the games I play are pathetic to him.

Oh well.

So much for the Halfling article being a sign of better taste from the articles.


I'm kind of curious as to how you got the idea that Chris is saying, "your game sucks." The message that I got from the article is that its easier to do heroic stunts, or at least to try to, without worrying about death being one facet of failure.
I remember in the adventure Three Faces of Evil, where the tiefling rogue kept trying to use Tumble to run along the walls over the bad guys' heads (a cinematic interpretation of the Tumble usage), only to fail, get hit by like three guys, fall off of the ledge, and land in this inky black pool.
Now, this ended up happening a LOT, where she would try something daring, fail, and get removed from the battle. Granted, it wasnt as severe as actual character death (I've always tried to avoid a one-die-death), but it still sucks to try to do something cool and end up floored for the remainder of the encounter.
Once that happens enough, it kind of trains the character to do stuff like just move and make normal attacks over and over again, since if you miss...well, you miss.

Really, this just sounds like a guy telling me about the fun times he had during his game.


Here is how I see it...

One of the things mentioned by Monte Cook shortly after 3.0, he would have liked to go back and redo the save or die spells. So 3.5 should have fixed this but in haste to sell more books did not get it right. So 4th edition addresses the problem. I will reserve my enthusiasm after viewing all the new books. Eberron gave us action points to help avoid being taken out by such spells or critical hits. So if after reading this article, I find that the only change is standardizing action points I will be very dissapointed.

The job of everyone at WotC right now is to sell 4th edition. Chris is only trying to do his job. It was the same when previous editions came out, so really nothing new here. I plan to paitiently wait out the hoopla while watching Varisia unfold in the pages of Pathfinder.

One reason players become irked by the notion of FOOLISH acts is because the performing player expects the DM or some game mechanic to save him, instead of thinking of a good way, and more plausible way out of the situation.

I think foolishness varies with the threat posed to a character. Risking oneself with little chance of sucess and little danger is foolish. Risking oneself with little chance of sucess when faced with a life or death situation is necessary. Risking oneself with little chance of sucess to save another's life is bravery.

Dark Archive

I vote plain dumb. Seriously he's saying your decisions don't matter because the things that kill you happen on the turn of team monster, so if you get pasted it's probably your DM being a tool or rolling really well rather than anything you rolled or did. It seems like the system is pointless, why not just go full narrative and forget the pretense of rolling dice?
Ignore the rules of the game and go nuts because there's little if no consequences. Remember any amount of negative hit points will go away on its own almost a third of the time.
So bust out those cool powerz and kick in those doors kids, because you don't need tactics of any sort anymore. Great for inexperienced 10 year olds, annoying for those who actually know what they're doing.


Alex Draconis wrote:

I vote plain dumb. Seriously he's saying your decisions don't matter because the things that kill you happen on the turn of team monster, so if you get pasted it's probably your DM being a tool or rolling really well rather than anything you rolled or did. It seems like the system is pointless, why not just go full narrative and forget the pretense of rolling dice?

Ignore the rules of the game and go nuts because there's little if no consequences. Remember any amount of negative hit points will go away on its own almost a third of the time.
So bust out those cool powerz and kick in those doors kids, because you don't need tactics of any sort anymore. Great for inexperienced 10 year olds, annoying for those who actually know what they're doing.

I totally agree! I would also like to add that WOTC could have had the courtesy to publish the core books without the cinematic superhero play and saved it for the splatbooks. Make the 3 core books serious and not a joke. Give the splatbooks to the children so everybody gets a decent piece of the pie.


I'm pretty turned off by it. Big ol' Plain Dumb from me.

I don't particularly see rock solid math behind guys getting hit with Finger of Death or going screaming off a 40' track in a minecar and coming out okay (or really not just getting reduced to ten different textures of dead meat). In fact that seems really really lame. You could get the same effect in third edition by just dropping all the save or die DCs to a 5! Wow! Look how heroic I am! Yay! It sounds like the kind of game you could sleepwalk through and come out fine.

That's the opposite of awesome action. No longer having to fear rolling a one and actually failing at something doesn't sound like a benefit either. It makes it sound like once your saves or skills get high enough they pretty much just always work no matter what. That sounds like barrels of fun. What's worse, the story he regaled us with didn't even sound exciting or cool. It sounded kinda' immature and nerdy.

Blergh.

Not impressed at all.


It does sound like further evidence that its a cinematic, anime action kind of game. Obviously, it should be possible to be killed or hosed over if you do something really dangerous and fail. Still, more 'hosed over' and less 'killed' isn't a bad thing. If 'killed' falls off the edge of the table, that's bad.

I'm not really impressed by the lvl 4s killing a lvl 11 solo monster, but we don't know what circumstantial advantages they had..

Mostly, I don't think this tells us much of anything about the game that's really solid.

Dark Archive

Bad. I agree with Alex Draconis.
Characters are facing danger to survive and get closer to their goal, not trying to pull out some flashy stunt for the cheering crowd.

It seems that the tactical approach/planning/awareness is taken out of the game, in favor of a more "what's just really really cool in this moment?" kind of atmosphere.
Not in my game. I can fudge results any way I like to give a more cinematic or gritty feeling without having the need of hard-coding anything in the rules. I understand it all can be brought down to a matter of tastes (once again, that new market 4E's geared for), but it's not what I like in my games.
A character can not only be a hero, he/she can even act on a whim or a gut feeling or do something horribly dangerous just because and survive, but it would be the exception and not the rule.

Also, this is very, very true.

Baramay wrote:

One reason players become irked by the notion of FOOLISH acts is because the performing player expects the DM or some game mechanic to save him, instead of thinking of a good way, and more plausible way out of the situation.

I think foolishness varies with the threat posed to a character. Risking oneself with little chance of sucess and little danger is foolish. Risking oneself with little chance of sucess when faced with a life or death situation is necessary. Risking oneself with little chance of sucess to save another's life is bravery.


I think D&D just plummetted into the dark ages of it's 30+ history.


Abject lameness.


That's not the style of play I enjoy, so a "lame" vote from me.

However, I can see that there are some people that will like that style of play, so more power to 'em. (Hint: please don't ask me to play in your game if this is your style.)

The Exchange

As someone that loves the West End edition of Star Wars and the non d20 7th Sea I think this is great.

D&D was never good at portraying gritty realism nor was it bold enough to play an action hero. It was always stuck it that strange middle ground where low level characters were so fragile that they could be killed by a pissed off house cat and high level characters could survive a 50 foot fall and hop up to fight and win a big melee with a dragon.

If this article is any indication D&D has come off the fence and is solidly in the PC-as-hero camp. To me that is a very good thing.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Just another point for the "4E is not D&D" team.

The rate this is going, a late game comeback is not going to happen. This isn't going to be a Giants v. Patriots Superbowl. More like a hunter with a bazooka shooting fish in a barrel.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I don't think it's "lame", and I don't think it's "rad". I think it's a choice.

And Exalted outsells Tribe 8.

I remember a book by Robert Plamondon, Through Dungeons Deeply, published in 1982, in which the author explains his characters' methold of opening chests:

  • First, lasso the chest and pull it out of the room in which it was found.
  • Second, tip it onto its front side, and open the bottom with a crowbar.
  • Without touching any of it, scoop the treasure into new bags.
  • At home, after the adventure, wash and then heat all the coinage to get rid of any contact poisons.

The book goes into much more extensive detail, but all this paranoid mundane trivia was exciting, was "fun". And was an in-character reaction to deadly dangers. If you don't want to face the dangers of a poor save, go out of your way to avoid having to make those rolls.

It contrasts sharply with going along for the ride in a run-away mine car plummetting to its doom.

I'm imagining the 4th Edition "Tomb of Horrors", where reckless endangerment is, if not rewarded, then certainly indulged.

Dark Archive

Chris Mortika wrote:
I'm imagining the 4th Edition "Tomb of Horrors", where reckless endangerment is, if not rewarded, then certainly indulged.

[joke]

So in 4E we'll see the "Horrible Tomb of Recklessness" or "The Tomb of Reckless Horrors". Mmmmhh.
The title doesn't buy me much...

[/joke]


I've gotta say, not a big fan of this article. Now I've played a character with a lower Wisdom than the author's character, and he did some DUMB things. However, about as often as his brilliant plans worked they also blew up in his face and that of his party.

I think a part of what we're seeing here is a designer's response to this type of character - the no-holds barred free character who is just living by the seat of his pants and not thinking everything through. While this is great, it's wholly possible that the system isn't as much a part of that as the character itself is.

I don't think there's quite so much venom as some people are reading into this article either. More along the lines of a very excited gamer saying "Oh my God! You haven't tried *THIS* yet!?"

Still, if this is indicative of most 4th edition play, I too will feel a bit put off by it. Here's hoping he's just over-excited...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's what bothers me:

Aside from the fact that the play style he is going on about is not mine, the rules don't really seem to be being followed in the article. The guys are having darkmantles turned to splats on their shields for no reason. The DM is handing out helper spirits to the PCs that turn Hintmode on so that they get through the dungeon easier. They are taking turns on two wheels in their minecart despite the almost certain lack of any rules for doing that.

It's all DM handwaving. The DM is telling an awesome story and I'm sure it was fun to be in that room, but they aren't testing the actual game. They are testing the storytelling prowess of the dude who happens to be in the DM chair.

I'm surprised they'd have the cojones to publish an article like this without worrying about being fired. It's their actual job to playtest the actual rules, not futz around playing magic tea party and telling people the new rules set is great because they're not using it. It's like putting down that instead of doing your actual job, you just goofed off and didn't get any real work done.

-Frank

Liberty's Edge

Whenever I read posts about this style of play since last August, I've always had this picture of a 4E adventurer thoughtlessly plowing down a hallway with huge pillows tied to every limb and torso, gleeflully running into traps, giving the finger to beholders and touching every spell trap there is. Because save or die is gone, he'll never run away in fear, and the system is designed to be so safe there's narly a fear of failure anymore. Because, golly gee willickers, failing isn't fun.

-DM Jeff


How would I put this?...

PC's as heroes? Standard
No arbitrary deaths? Great (though I considered there to be few of those in the first place. Every have a game where someone falls far enough to hit terminal velocity and live? Yeah me too.)
Rules to cut down on DM fiat? Great it will help the ... uh... less successful DMs.

No risk/reward ratio now only reward ratio? Bad
PC's as uber heroes (AKA super heroes)? Really Bad
Not being concerned with doing something "not smart" in a dangerous situation? Bad

Really I have been hearing so much how players can't die anymore that I would like to know what it takes to kill a PC. No really what does it take?

Note: I did not consider save or die effects arbitrary. I would, as a DM, never throw them at players until they started throwing them at monsters and NPCs. The reasoning is that they should now have those effects in their "tactical awareness" and be prepared to deal with them.


I'm not impressed. It looks like it won't be my style of play and their examples really seemed one sided. I mean come on Temple of Doom cart ride. That equates to me a night of good rolling, where is all the other times he gets the crap beat out of him being normal game nights. He still wins in the end because he is a hero but the adventures feels more cinematic when your "hot" (rolling well).

D&D has always had the right feel for me. Maybe that's because its the first RPG I ever played, maybe its because I usually DM and I adjust as I see fit. At low levels the characters are just trying to learn who they are and what they are capable of. Should they be able to run up walls and do back flips over their foes, no. I don't take up a new hobbie, say archery, and expect to hit the bullseye right out the gate. At mid levels the players start to feel their strengths and know where they are headed in their career. It's about direction and decisions. At high levels they have the power to make big changes in their surroundings and it becomes about seeing the big picture. I personally don't want a game without that development. When I want to feel like a powerful hero right out the the gate I'll play some Superhero game.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

ArchLich wrote:
Really I have been hearing so much how players can't die anymore that I would like to know what it takes to kill a PC. No really what does it take?

Rocks fall, everybody roll for half damage. Damn, you all saved. Ok, this bad game continues.


Bryon_Kershaw wrote:


I think a part of what we're seeing here is a designer's response to this type of character ... it's wholly possible that the system isn't as much a part of that as the character itself is.

...

Still, if this is indicative of most 4th edition play, I too will feel a bit put off by it. Here's hoping he's just over-excited...

Yes I hope he was just on a rush high from a well DMed game.


Antioch wrote:
I'm kind of curious as to how you got the idea that Chris is saying, "your game sucks."

I'm sorry Antioch. I could have answered your query shortly after you posted it, but I wanted to give others a chance before I started hogging up all the "thread real estate."

Let's see... Where should I start...

Chris Thomasson wrote:

Well, over the past few months, I've learned to shake off the ghosts of previous editions. I'm still brazen to the point of foolishness, but now I don't have to metagame and shirk away from certain tasks that I knew carried far more risk in previous editions.

<snip>
Quite simply, the math behind the game is so rock solid that I've been encouraged to play my character as a genuine, action movie, one-liner quoting hero.

Really? So... If I have ever been in a game like what Chris Thomasson describes, we were playing it wrong and we really need 4th Edition to do it right? Nevermind if I actually want that or not.

And, as some have alluded to, I may be reading more into this than I should. And almost certainly more than was intended. But here is an example of how it could have been done differently:

"Have you ever wanted to recreate the minecart scene from Temple of Doom in your D&D game? Well, so have I!" <Add in the comment about every game should have it, if you want> "Recently, I had the chance to try it."
<blah, blah, blah, fill in story here>
"It was a blast! And so we wanted to incorporate that sense of fun in 4th Edition. We went to great lengths to make sure that this style of play was supported by the rules, as seamlessly and effortlessly as possible."

See the difference? No mention of older editions at all, and yet still produces that 4th Edition "sell" that Chris Thomasson was going for.

What I don't want to see in 4th Edition marketing:

**Fade in to Chris Thomasson sitting on a toilet made of all the earlier editions of D&D. Chris reaches for 3.5 to wipe with.**
**Cut to close up while we hear the toilet flushing.**
"Are you tired of your games stinking?"
**Product placement - Chris holds up the 4th Edition PHB to fill the frame along with his close up.**
"Then try new 4th Edition. It'll have your games coming out smelling like a rose!"
**Cheesy smile that glints in the lighting.**
**Fade out.**

If you want to be excited about 4th Edition - Hell, even if you have to be excited about 4th Edition because it is your job - then fine. Sell me 4th Edition. Pour as much pancake syrup over it as you can. Drown it in as much butter as you want. Sell me 4th Edition. I can take it. But do it by selling 4th Edition, not by casting prior editions in a negative light.

I could go on, and further cut up this article. But I will spare all of you.

Let's just say I really want less political ad style attacks, and more 4th Edition highlights.

Dark Archive

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Rocks fall, everybody roll for half damage. Damn, you all saved. Ok, this bad game continues.

I'm sure you meant to say: "Rocks fall, damn, I rolled a 1 for the rocks to hit all your Reflex Defenses. OK, this bad game continues."

:)


This doesnt have to do with the "risk taking" part of the article...But I was curious about this part...

It talks about if Darkmantles attack someone on a mine cart going 30 miles per hour. If you use your shield they just splat on the shields like bugs.

Is there some rule about shield bash damage if you are moving fast in the 4th edition PHB? I really doubt it.
So is the DM just house-ruling or arbitrarily deciding that a shield bash causes another 3d6 damage due to moving at high speeds?
Or is the DM just narrating his exciting story with no diece rolls?

DM: As you speed along Darkmantls dropp off from the cavern celing and swoop down to eat your head.
PCs: We are going so fast we just hold up shields to protect ourselves as we speed by.
DM: Ooh good idea guys! The Darkmantles just spatter like bugs on a windshield? Extra XP for thinking on your toes.
PCs: YES! High Five!

I have no probelm with making things up on the fly or the DM just shooting from the hip for the sake of a cool fast-paced story.....
But arent these guys supposed to be playtesting the new game's mechanics?

Dark Archive

DM Jeff wrote:
Because save or die is gone, he'll never run away in fear, and the system is designed to be so safe there's narly a fear of failure anymore. Because, golly gee willickers, failing isn't fun.

I'm reminded of a quote;

"Everybody's special, Dash."
"Which is another way of saying, 'no one is.'"

Your hero just got less 'special,' because the rules now protect him from anything going wrong. No more gritting your teeth as you roll the die that will end the combat, one way or the other, and end up being talked about, for good or ill, for years to come.

Frank Trollman wrote:
It's all DM handwaving. The DM is telling an awesome story and I'm sure it was fun to be in that room, but they aren't testing the actual game. They are testing the storytelling prowess of the dude who happens to be in the DM chair.

I've noted before from their design commentary, and this just reinforces the notion, that it seems like the designers are having one hell of a time with this game. Unfortunately, it feels very much like it is being designed *for them,* and that it will be much, much harder to run for the rest of us, who are not professional game-designers / storytellers by trade. So much of what they exult about is a combination of rules-less fluff and really fussy technical-sounding round-by-round stat adjustment (the Warlord gives me this plus this round, and this option the next round, and then something else on round three...) of the sort that would slow the game way the hell down for those of us who did not *write that rule* and don't every every single option memorized.


Maybe the game will be everything they say. In which case the might as well blow the marketing budget in Vegas as they will have pure gold rolling in.

Or maybe not.

Edit: More smart assed then I was intending but point made... I think.


Disenchanter wrote:

**Fade in to Chris Thomasson sitting on a toilet made of all the earlier editions of D&D. Chris reaches for 3.5 to wipe with.**

**Cut to close up while we hear the toilet flushing.**
"Are you tired of your games stinking?"
**Product placement - Chris holds up the 4th Edition PHB to fill the frame along with his close up.**
"Then try new 4th Edition. It'll have your games coming out smelling like a rose!"
**Cheesy smile that glints in the lighting.**
**Fade out.**

HAHAHA!! Now my coworkers think Im nuts for laughing at nothing (I'm supposed to be doing my booring job).

Now I'm genuinely upset this isnt a real commercial. :)


I really don't like the idea that stupidity is rewarded. This will be D+D for people who like to rock over everything, and not D+D for people who enjoy a more cautious playstyle. For old school gamers, this is the worst thing that could ever possibly happen, because the reward for being a moron is no longer death.

So now, people don't care about how SMART your character is anymore. They only care about how COOL it is.

I'm really not loving their marketing techniques one iota.


Balabanto wrote:

For old school gamers, this is the worst thing that could ever possibly happen, because the reward for being a moron is no longer death.

So now, people don't care about how SMART your character is anymore. They only care about how COOL it is.

Very well put.


Hrm. Having read the article, I didn't really get the hate for old edition vibe you got, Dis, but then I haven't been picking up on it in any of the previews really. Your suggested way of writing these previews sounds ... stilted. They can't refer back to older editions, or if they do, only in a positive light?

As for the rest of the thread, I guess I'm dumb, or maybe a baby, for thinking this all sounded pretty fun. I've never found the creep through a dungeon, examining each 5' by 5' square for traps as we go to be a fun style of play. Death shouldn't be arbitrary and meaningless (at least IMO).

As an example that comes readily to mine, recently my wife's character set off a wail of the banshee trap when she opened up an urn. Another player, rolling a 1, dropped dead instantly. Was this really fun for anyone at the table? Not really. Afterwards they just lined all the urns up and broke them from a distance so that the wail was out of range. Was this really a satisfying solution either? I didn't think so. Perhaps the problem here is more the way traps work in 3E than any other feature of the system, but I'm hoping 4E will reduce events like this in my games.

All just my two cents of course! :)


crosswiredmind wrote:

...and high level characters could survive a 50 foot fall and hop up to fight and win a big melee with a dragon.

Chris Thomasson wrote:
In previous editions, I never would have considered taking this risk. I would have been afraid that my fragile character, especially at 4th level, would never have survived the jump or 40-foot drop off the top of the raised tracks. Instead, "the only thing missing," my character Deimos gleefully shouted to Mat Smith's character Garrot, "is fire! We need some explosions!"

So wait a minute...D&D is currently a bad system because a high level character can easily survive a 50 foot fall, but in his article Chris Thomasson clearly states he isn't worried in the least that his 4th level character might not survive a 40 foot fall. But 4E, at least according to you, will obviously be a much, much better system? You're not making any sense.


Jason Grubiak wrote:
I have no probelm with making things up on the fly or the DM just shooting from the hip for the sake of a cool fast-paced story.....But arent these guys supposed to be playtesting the new game's mechanics?

I'm afraid they may actually be testing the games "mechanics", otherwise known as "make it up as you go along (as long as it sounds kewl)". :(


I think these guys are drunk when they sit down to play! Is this game being developed by 10 year olds? Mine is 15 and she is going to absolutely hate this, it's childish. Why does the game suddenly have to be about winning?


EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
I think these guys are drunk when they sit down to play! Is this game being developed by 10 year olds? Mine is 15 and she is going to absolutely hate this, it's childish. Why does the game suddenly have to be about winning?

Why such negativity and name calling? We all play for the same reason ... to have fun! If the type of fun you believe 4E is designed for is not to your taste, you don't have to malign all of those whose taste it is to!

From what I hear the game doesn't sound childish to me. Heck, it sounds like what its supposed to be, DnD. But I suppose my outlook is rosier than many others on this board.

Dark Archive

Some thoughts:

First, in my book it is called roleplaying to know in the metagame that this scroll holds a devious trap but to grab it nonetheless because my PC is greedy and stupid.
In my book it is called bad roleplaying to play the hero only if I know in metagame that I will have a high survival rate doing heroic things.
It is part of the fun playing such a PC to run open eyed into dangers the Player sees a mile away!

My advice to Chris: Do NOT play a stupid PC or hero PC if you can not play a stupid or hero PC!

edit: I lost quite a few PCs this way: a curious halfling rogue, a stalward honourbound Paladin and a reckless Evoker. As Player I KNEW that the actions were bound to kill them, but I did them nonetheless. And know what? It was fun to do it!

Second, it seems to me, that 4th edition has an inbuild metagame rule: Whatever you do, it will not kill you!
But if there is no risk, what is the reward? I mean, is it fun to disable a Trap it you know in metagame that if you botch it you will survive and the fighter can kick the door in later anyway.

Third, it seems to me, that we are also partly back in 1st edition where ist was handier for a Fighter to jump down 100ft and take the damage instead on climbing down. To me heroic actions are heroic because not every PC can do them.
Sure, a Indiana Jones ride is cool, but the mentioned 40ft jump should be hard IMO. Otherwise we have wuxia style gaming where every Player tries to outdo the other with "heroic" actions.
Is that what 4th edition wants?

This shows me again, that 4th will certainly a good game with stunning mechanics.
But 4th edition will not be the game where I will DM!

Liberty's Edge

EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
I think these guys are drunk when they sit down to play! Is this game being developed by 10 year olds? Mine is 15 and she is going to absolutely hate this, it's childish. Why does the game suddenly have to be about winning?

BEcaaaauuuuuuuse! [jumps up and down with sarcasm meter on full] Because winning is fun fun fun and failure is not fun and if we make games that are fun people will buy more of our stuff to have more fun and the more fun they have the more they will spend to have fun and fun fun fun fun fun. /sarcasm

Rats, I just got annoyed. No more 4e threads for me today, back to work!

-DM Jeff


Tharen the Damned wrote:

Second, it seems to me, that 4th edition has an inbuild metagame rule: Whatever you do, it will not kill you!

But if there is no risk, what is the reward? I mean, is it fun to disable a Trap it you know in metagame that if you botch it you will survive and the fighter can kick the door in later anyway.

Yeah, it does sound as if this is the case. This sort of thing leads me to lose interest really quick. This kind of thing taken to the extreme is the revolving door of the afterlife you get in games like WoW. Once I found myself running back to my body for the umpteenth time to finish a fight that I just lost...the flavor of the game just went flat for me.


I generally like the article, but it seems a little sloppily written to me. The first half of the article offers some tantalizing hints about evening out some of the "oops, you're dead" factor of previous editions but instead of the second half offering some actual crunch to back up that assertion, he seems to just go on about some creative stuff his DM did. I suppose that's why it's an editorial instead of an actual article.

Still, I don't mind if 4th edition offers less "oops, you're dead." I've definitely been at tables where there was a lot of "you go first--no you" going on, and I think some of this fabled 4th edition math could help. Stuff like evening out the gap between the good saves and the bad ones, so that a fort save effect hitting the wizard wasn't an auto-kill. It's probably not a bad idea to work on effects where a successful save = nothing happens and a failed one = you're dead, as highlighted in the Order of the Stick cleric battle.

Besides, unless you play some sort of illegal hardcore D&D, the reward for stupidity is never death. It's character death, which in almost every edition is only moderately, and at higher levels is less painful than losing your favorite sword.

Any risk in D&D is a matter of perception. Saying that there doesn't seem to be any real risk in what we've heard in 4th edition seems to me kind of like saying that the Indiana Jones movies weren't thrilling because you know that Indiana is the hero of the story and he's going to come out okay in the end. I think there's always going to be some element of risk in D&D. Toning down the ridiculously lethal things to a level where you can actually try the stuff in the Indiana Jones movies is okay with me.


David Marks wrote:
From what I hear the game doesn't sound childish to me. Heck, it sounds like what its supposed to be, DnD. But I suppose my outlook is rosier than many others on this board.

Even though many of us don't agree wtih the changes, if you're enjoying the changes you're seeing, then, yes, 4E is the game for you, and that's fine.

It will probably be a good, solid game that thousands of people enjoy. Just not to our taste - that's all.

The Exchange

Wasteland Knight wrote:

So wait a minute...D&D is currently a bad system because a high level character can easily survive a 50 foot fall, but in his article Chris Thomasson clearly states he isn't worried in the least that his 4th level character might not survive a 40 foot fall. But 4E, at least according to you, will obviously be a much, much better system? You're not making any sense.

If 4E makes risk normalized at all levels then they will have truly accomplished something meaningful. With arbitrary death set aside and death is no longer a 1 away then the real risk taking becomes the heroic stance against evil. Reckless play can be penalized by the GM. To me fear of failure is always more powerful than fear of PC death.

Liberty's Edge

Wasteland Knight wrote:
Jason Grubiak wrote:
I have no probelm with making things up on the fly or the DM just shooting from the hip for the sake of a cool fast-paced story.....But arent these guys supposed to be playtesting the new game's mechanics?
I'm afraid they may actually be testing the games "mechanics", otherwise known as "make it up as you go along (as long as it sounds kewl)". :(

I agree; I can do this deal myself pretty much.

Anyway's, isn't that what action points were supposed to be for? Does anyone else remember the promise of a more cinematic, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants game?


David Marks wrote:
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
I think these guys are drunk when they sit down to play! Is this game being developed by 10 year olds? Mine is 15 and she is going to absolutely hate this, it's childish. Why does the game suddenly have to be about winning?

Why such negativity and name calling? We all play for the same reason ... to have fun! If the type of fun you believe 4E is designed for is not to your taste, you don't have to malign all of those whose taste it is to!

From what I hear the game doesn't sound childish to me. Heck, it sounds like what its supposed to be, DnD. But I suppose my outlook is rosier than many others on this board.

My apologize David as it certainly wasn't directed at you. I sincerely hope you do enjoy the game. Nothing wrong with that. I was making a point of saying that this is a game for those wanting to "do all for no risk" "No risk, all venture gained" type of play. I read the article. To me, this is an absolute eye balling rolling game session and that aspect I will not apologize for. If I was 10 years old, yes the game might be fun for even me. I suspect you are older and if this style of play is enjoyable for you, I would not take that away from you. Is getting everything enjoyable for free fun to me? No. Why the negativity? I'm sorry if you don't understand. I have no idea how long you have played, time and money invested into the game, or your preferred style of play, so anything I say would be taken the wrong way. I will say this though....there is nothing wrong with seeing the rosier way and sometimes I wish I could do that.


Disenchanter, I think its more along the lines of "this is more viable to do now", not that you can never, EVER do that in 3rd Edition (and that if you do it that way now, you're wrong).
I think you are reading more into it that you should be. From what I'm reading, he's not saying that that play style is the ONLY play style you can do in 4th Edition, he's just saying that the rules are more supportive of that play style than in 3rd Edition, which from my experience is true.


Alex Draconis wrote:

I vote plain dumb. Seriously he's saying your decisions don't matter because the things that kill you happen on the turn of team monster, so if you get pasted it's probably your DM being a tool or rolling really well rather than anything you rolled or did. It seems like the system is pointless, why not just go full narrative and forget the pretense of rolling dice?

Ignore the rules of the game and go nuts because there's little if no consequences. Remember any amount of negative hit points will go away on its own almost a third of the time.
So bust out those cool powerz and kick in those doors kids, because you don't need tactics of any sort anymore. Great for inexperienced 10 year olds, annoying for those who actually know what they're doing.

Without knowing the full extent of the rules, I cant say anything about what kind of tactics are involved.

I DO know that death still can and does happen, however, because its happened to the designers themselves on numerous occasions.

Scarab Sages

I wouldn't call it dumb, but fearless seems a bit much. In my reading, it looked like Chris was really happy with the new edition, and whether he says that honestly (I think he does) and to keep his job (factors in their somewhere too) is known certainly only to him and is subjective to the rest of us.

As for the save thing, I'm not overly happy with the Save-as-AC idea. I've always thought there is a chance of failure to anything, and while 3.5 doesn't iron that our perfectly, I think the rules are solid and didn't really need to be changed. As it is, though, the edition seems to be working itself out to be a fair addition to the edition line-up. Whether I'm willing or not to buy more than one book for each core book is something I'll have to look out for when the books come out, but it'll be a while before I'll really hit 4e hard.

That being said, I've gotten requests from my group to keep using 3.5, and I probably will. There is something to be said for the longevity of the editions. There are still people out there who play 1st and 2nd editions, and who will probably never convert up to 3.x or 4e.

Still, I'll be curious to see how things work out, and whatever happens, I know that Wizards is doing its job, good or not, under the umbrella of a corporation with little care for any individual's happiness, so I can't be completely steamed at them 24/7.

--SAS


Tharen the Damned wrote:

Some thoughts:

First, in my book it is called roleplaying to know in the metagame that this scroll holds a devious trap but to grab it nonetheless because my PC is greedy and stupid.
In my book it is called bad roleplaying to play the hero only if I know in metagame that I will have a high survival rate doing heroic things.
It is part of the fun playing such a PC to run open eyed into dangers the Player sees a mile away!

My advice to Chris: Do NOT play a stupid PC or hero PC if you can not play a stupid or hero PC!

edit: I lost quite a few PCs this way: a curious halfling rogue, a stalward honourbound Paladin and a reckless Evoker. As Player I KNEW that the actions were bound to kill them, but I did them nonetheless. And know what? It was fun to do it!

Second, it seems to me, that 4th edition has an inbuild metagame rule: Whatever you do, it will not kill you!
But if there is no risk, what is the reward? I mean, is it fun to disable a Trap it you know in metagame that if you botch it you will survive and the fighter can kick the door in later anyway.

Third, it seems to me, that we are also partly back in 1st edition where ist was handier for a Fighter to jump down 100ft and take the damage instead on climbing down. To me heroic actions are heroic because not every PC can do them.
Sure, a Indiana Jones ride is cool, but the mentioned 40ft jump should be hard IMO. Otherwise we have wuxia style gaming where every Player tries to outdo the other with "heroic" actions.
Is that what 4th edition wants?

This shows me again, that 4th will certainly a good game with stunning mechanics.
But 4th edition will not be the game where I will DM!

I think a more accurate statement is that "no matter what you do, you wont die from ONE roll". This might actually encourage players to touch strange glyphs, or try to open a door, or whatever without fear that some bizarre trap is going to instantly kill them.

This kind of thing exists in Age of Worms in the adventure "The Champion's Belt". Its some ridiculous box that forces a really high Will save, lest you become trapped inside and slowly killed.
Many players arent daring because they DONT want to lose a treasured character. Even at later levels when you can raise dead people, its still bad because you fall behind in levels (which makes doing daring things harder, not to mention just doing your routine JOB).

1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Fearless? Or Just Plain Dumb? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.