|
Precursor: I raise a valid question in this post, but it is meant to be ridiculous as well.
I found a new reason to not buy 4th Edition - I don't want to render my collection of dice obselete.
Is it just me or does it seem that more and more 4th Edition material eliminates the need for dice rolls in the game?
Minions - deal flat damage
Classes - receive flat hp (to my knowledge)
Criticals - all dice are maximized, no confirmation roll
Saving Throws - might as well be a coin flip
I get that all of this is supposed to speed up game play, but where is the fun quirky randomness?
What happens to the dice retailers without hordes of mouth-foaming dice-obsessed geeks buying their third set of blue-and-gold-pearlescent "because my other set is for DMing, and the other one doesn't roll so good".
Will the release of 5th Edition (not a typo) celebrate the final demise of the ultimate dicing hobby by burning truckloads of plastic and metal polyhedrons in an orgy of predetermined lunacy?
DM: [sullenly does not roll any dice]
DM: "The dice take 10 points of fire damage, no save."
Nitpick! You need to roll for saving throws because some abilities or monsters get a bonus to their saves.
I get that all of this is supposed to speed up game play, but where is the fun quirky randomness?
I don't know the answer, but I think it's fair to say that a lot of players don't like "quirky randomness."
A lot of players (and maybe most players, though my group and I are not among them) don't like dying abruptly. Quirky randomness causes abrupt deaths.
I suppose this is part of 4e's problem with many long-time players. Having played D&D since well before computer games were widespread, I'm quite accustomed to the effects of the dice -- death can come at any time, and be lurking around any corner. Not only am I used to it, I prefer that style of play.
But the greater (and arguably more realistic) risk of sudden death competes poorly against computer games.
To each their own :)
As pointed out, the Saving Throw is much more than a coin flip, precisely because it can be modified in 5% increments via various abilities.
Anyhoo, let me tell you. I've tried playing "DnD" without dice, and it was very strange, and not as good, IMO. (Not to derail this thread, but anyone else ever tried TSR's old SAGA system for Dragonlance post-Chaos Gem? Man was that strange!)
Most of the situations you list I think come from some solid game design angles. Minions deal flat damage because there are so many of them, rolling damage for each would add up over time. Since they do so little anyway, and since you don't want them very swingy since there are so many of them, even if you rolled they'd likely have tiny ranges.
Classes get a fixed HP rate in order to A) give DMs a better sense of how strong a character of Class X and Level Y is actually going to be, regardless of HP rolls; and B) avoid characters in the party from having wildly disparate HP totals, beyond what even their Classes should provide. I've been in groups where the highest level Fighter had as many HP as the Wizard in the group, simply from shoddily consistent rolls. If you ARE the Wizard and roll bad consistently, you're almost absolutely hosed. One player in my group who has notoriously bad rolls (for everything!) almost always takesn average HP when leveling up.
As for Crits, I think 4E wanted to get away from having characters killed/disabled based on the result of one roll. Limiting the damage of crits this way strongly limits the chance of that happening. In a similar trend, notice that the Beholder's petrification ray now takes two or three failed saves before a character is completely stoned.
As one of those guys who have a giant bag of dice that he rotates through (including a few cracked die that I keep around "as an example of those who cross me"!) you'll stop me from rolling dice when you pry them from my (roll 1d6, see table A) hands!
Table A
1- grasping
2- cold
3- dead
4- vanilla
5- quite hot
6- flaming
Cheers! :)
I don't know the answer, but I think it's fair to say that a lot of players don't like "quirky randomness."
(...) I suppose this is part of 4e's problem with many long-time players. Having played D&D since well before computer games were widespread, I'm quite accustomed to the effects of the dice -- death can come at any time, and be lurking around any corner. Not only am I used to it, I prefer that style of play.
PCs deaths are actually great role-playing events and opportunities (for victims and spectators) to take the game into new directions (by emotional role-playing, creation of new characters, giving NPC ammunition for the DM... and more).
The majority of players I know actually welcome quirky randomness as something that moves things around and opens new horizons at the game table.
I don't doubt that there are many players who dislike that kind of randomness, but I bet this is a vocal minority rather than a majority. Just my two cents.
PCs deaths are actually great role-playing events and opportunities (for victims and spectators) to take the game into new directions (by emotional role-playing, creation of new characters, giving NPC ammunition for the DM... and more).
The majority of players I know actually welcome quirky randomness as something that moves things around and opens new horizons at the game table.
I don't doubt that there are many players who dislike that kind of randomness, but I bet this is a vocal minority rather than a majority. Just my two cents.
PC deaths can still happen. I haven't read anything that says player characters are immortal and invulnerable in 4th Edition D&D. Where did you read that?
I don't know one player I have had that welcomed a quirky random roll killing their character they had devoted so much time and emotional energy into - whether by sheer leveling and empowering, or by developing their personality, backstory, etc...
In fact, I think well-placed character deaths (perhaps even decided upon by the player - i.e. sacrificing oneself knowingly to save the world and whatnot) is much better roleplaying events and opportunities than - "oh s~*~, that random Orc thug who has no tie to the story but just wanted a few coppers off you just scored a crit on you and killed you".
Let's have our PCs die for epic and heroic reasons, not random quirkiness.
P
Is it just me or does it seem that more and more 4th Edition material eliminates the need for dice rolls in the game?Minions - deal flat damage
Classes - receive flat hp (to my knowledge)
Criticals - all dice are maximized, no confirmation roll
Saving Throws - might as well be a coin flip
things that still need a roll:
Attacks
Damage
Skill checks
Your dice are safe
PCs deaths are actually great role-playing events and opportunities (for victims and spectators) to take the game into new directions (by emotional role-playing, creation of new characters, giving NPC ammunition for the DM... and more).
This is the most common statement made by proponents of randomized death. I would prefer that a NPC dies and I get to avenge them as opposed to my character dying and I end up just making a carbon copy because I wanted to play a tiefling warlock.
The majority of players I know actually welcome quirky randomness as something that moves things around and opens new horizons at the game table.
The majority of players I know dislike randomized death, as it mitigates the effectiveness of their choices and unfairly punishes them for no reason. I'm sorry that I used a CR 3 monster and you made a single bad roll that resulted in you being instantly killed! The lesson here is...I dunno, dont roll badly next time?
This is common knowledge if you take a game design course: dont randomly punish players. They should suffer from bad decisions, but it should rarely, if ever, just result in instant loss.
I don't doubt that there are many players who dislike that kind of randomness, but I bet this is a vocal minority rather than a majority. Just my two cents.
Actually, since the designers went with this change, I think its more accurate to say that the minority are those who like the ability to randomly drop dead.
PC deaths can still happen. I haven't read anything that says player characters are immortal and invulnerable in 4th Edition D&D. Where did you read that?
I could have had this happen last night, actually, during my KotS game. The halfling rogue was downed by a gnome skulk and if I was feeling particularly evil, I would have just had the slinger and skulk both peg his body with bolts and stones until I got him to -13 before continuing on with the fight.
From a logical standpoint, they both probably figured that he was down for the time and to focus on the people carving their way through pig farmers and dragon-dogs.
I don't know one player I have had that welcomed a quirky random roll killing their character they had devoted so much time and emotional energy into - whether by sheer leveling and empowering, or by developing their personality, backstory, etc...
This is why I really dont like randomized death. There are ways to keep the danger level in a game without offing someone just to prove your point. I always plays characters that I want to play, and if I want to roll a dragonborn warlord and she dies, you can bet that I'm going to jump back in with another dragonborn warlord.
After all, thats part of the draw of RPGs: getting to play something that you want.
In fact, I think well-placed character deaths (perhaps even decided upon by the player - i.e. sacrificing oneself knowingly to save the world and whatnot) is much better roleplaying events and opportunities than - "oh s*~@, that random Orc thug who has no tie to the story but just wanted a few coppers off you just scored a crit on you and killed you".
Let's have our PCs die for epic and heroic reasons, not random quirkiness.
I agree more with this sentiment, and thats something that is made much more possible in 4th Edition. If a fight was going south, a paladin would have time to use Divine Challenge to get a dragon to remain fixed on him while the rest of the party fled.
You could also do this kind of ending with an epic destiny, allowing the player to have gone through a fulfilling storyline before closing the book.
P
Is it just me or does it seem that more and more 4th Edition material eliminates the need for dice rolls in the game?Minions - deal flat damage
Classes - receive flat hp (to my knowledge)
Criticals - all dice are maximized, no confirmation roll
Saving Throws - might as well be a coin flip
things that still need a roll:
Attacks
Damage
Skill checksYour dice are safe
Dont forget saving throws and Initiative. Basically, the same stuff in 3rd Edition.
Randomness favors monsters. This is established: Monsters don't live long enough to flatten out the probability distribution.
However, the game is designed so that the PCs are more powerful than monsters. Without randomness, their victory is a foregone conclusion. Things aren't exciting if you can't lose.
Randomness favors monsters. This is established: Monsters don't live long enough to flatten out the probability distribution.
However, the game is designed so that the PCs are more powerful than monsters. Without randomness, their victory is a foregone conclusion. Things aren't exciting if you can't lose.
By definition, dice rolling is random. There is still randomness. Things are still exciting.
The difference is, now that randomness might not be enough to just kill you outright. You might be hurt and have to rethink your strategy, and sure enough, stubborn players who continue to march toward death after seeing they are outmatched will die sure enough. But, at least players have a chance to adapt their tactics.
The idea is that the quirky randomness (like crits of old) which might kill a PC outright and totally interrupt the flow of the story, are out in favor of a randomness that might hamper the PCs but keep the story trucking along.
PC death is still viable as far as I've read. Seems like it just might mean more when a PC dies in 4th Edition compared to editions of old. It's actually significant when they die and not a random occurrence.
PCs deaths are actually great role-playing events and opportunities (for victims and spectators) to take the game into new directions (by emotional role-playing, creation of new characters, giving NPC ammunition for the DM... and more).
This is the most common statement made by proponents of randomized death. I would prefer that a NPC dies and I get to avenge them as opposed to my character dying and I end up just making a carbon copy because I wanted to play a tiefling warlock.
The thing is, an NPC dying doesn't come anywhere close to a PC's death in terms of emotional involvement from the players around the table, at least IME.
As for the carbon copy thing: if a player is so stubborn as to want to play the same character with a different name, there's nothing stopping him/her from doing that, but that's precisely how you miss the opportunity presented by a character's death.
The majority of players I know actually welcome quirky randomness as something that moves things around and opens new horizons at the game table.
The majority of players I know dislike randomized death, as it mitigates the effectiveness of their choices and unfairly punishes them for no reason. I'm sorry that I used a CR 3 monster and you made a single bad roll that resulted in you being instantly killed! The lesson here is...I dunno, dont roll badly next time?
This is common knowledge if you take a game design course: dont randomly punish players. They should suffer from bad decisions, but it should rarely, if ever, just result in instant loss.
Random death happens. Not everything makes sense in real life, you know? The ability to re-create this kind of believable unpredictability is one of the ways we can differentiate lame fiction from good fiction, by the way.
Furthermore, in many random death scenarios happening in a RPG session, you can actually trace back strategic mistakes on the players' part. There are always lessons to be learned, like for instance not putting yourself in a situation where chance becomes a sine qua non condition for success.
I don't doubt that there are many players who dislike that kind of randomness, but I bet this is a vocal minority rather than a majority. Just my two cents.
Actually, since the designers went with this change, I think its more accurate to say that the minority are those who like the ability to randomly drop dead.
Yeah, that's why so many people are oh-so-happy with 4E right now, because the designers "know what's best for us", right? Right... I'm going to wait till I have a look through the final product before passing judgment on that one.
You don't have any proof of your statement, and I don't have any proof to back mine. Let's just agree to disagree on this.
The thing is, an NPC dying doesn't come anywhere close to a PC's death in terms of emotional involvement from the players around the table, at least IME.
As for the carbon copy thing: if a player is so stubborn as to want to play the same character with a different name, there's nothing stopping him/her from doing that, but that's precisely how you miss the opportunity presented by a character's death.
That depends entirely on the emotional investment made into the NPC in the first place. Also, a player is not “stubborn” by playing a character that she wanted to play in the first place. I’m really looking forward to a tiefling warlock in terms of narrative potential, but also because of what the race/class can do.
Part of the reason I like playing wizards is the notion that I could eventually unleash fireballs and other area-effect attacks. If that character dies, well…I’m probably going to “give it another shot” and try to get to that point again. There isn’t anything wrong with that, especially if it’s a random death that happened for no real reason.
Random death happens. Not everything makes sense in real life, you know? The ability to re-create this kind of believable unpredictability is one of the ways we can differentiate lame fiction from good fiction, by the way.
Furthermore, in many random death scenarios happening in a RPG session, you can actually trace back strategic mistakes on the players' part. There are always lessons to be learned, like for instance not putting yourself in a situation where chance becomes a sine qua non condition for success.
Ah, but D&D isn’t real life, and isn’t a reality simulator. If you want the game to be “realistic” there are plenty of other things that you need to tackle first before you should worry about whether a monster can instantly kill you with a death gaze is “realistic”.
I disagree, though I would be curious to see the proof about "many random scenarios being trackable". Kinda goes against the notion that they are random. Random death pretty much occurs from save-or-die effects. A cockatrice bite attack, basilisk gaze, medusa gaze, death slaad’s implosion spell, bodak’s gaze…the list goes on. Unless the party actually knows that they are going to be fighting a certain monster, they really can’t prepare for the fact that a cockatrice might leap out of the bushes and peck one of them. Or a medusa. Or that a death slaad might just target one of them with an insta-kill spell.
Do you expect players to walk around with magic items that make them impervious to various SoD effects or death ward magic?
Yeah, that's why so many people are oh-so-happy with 4E right now, because the designers "know what's best for us", right? Right... I'm going to wait till I have a look through the final product before passing judgment on that one.
You don't have any proof of your statement, and I don't have any proof to back mine. Let's just agree to disagree on this.
Many people are happy with 4th Edition, either from what they have heard or actually experienced thus far. Talented game designers know what sorts of elements that in general make for a good play experience.
One thing is that the choices a player makes should have an impact on the game in some fashion, whether it’s the character or the outcome of the game, but those choices shouldn’t immediately lead to destruction: a player should have some chance to realize that a bad choice was made at the start and be able to alter it. This is why PH2 had rules on retraining skills and feats.
They aren’t going to know what’s best for everyone, but I never said that they did. They just know what most people are going to like.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
This thread strikes me as funny. FLGS is taking 30% off their 3.x WOTC books. I pick up Dragons of Faerun, City of Stormreach (finishing my Wberron collection) and a set of WotC dice.
FLGS owner: Oh, I forgot to take 30% off of the dice. WOTC is coming out with new dice.
My Friend: They're coming out with new dice? What other dice do they have?
FLGS Owner: Well they have the d30.
Me: What, they didn't tell you? 4th edition is a d21 system. :-)
As to random character death... Maybe it's the 'old school' thought of mine, but I've always thought it takes effort to die in B4.xE (Before 4.x Era) You have to burn through all your HP, or wander into a death effect, or a petrification effect, etc. Most of those were reversable, and you had the saves and protections. 4.x just seems to take more effort.
4e does bring back a old friend though. The d12!!!
...As to random character death... Maybe it's the 'old school' thought of mine, but I've always thought it takes effort to die in B4.xE (Before 4.x Era) You have to burn through all your HP, or wander into a death effect, or a petrification effect, etc. Most of those were reversable, and you had the saves and protections. 4.x just seems to take more effort.
I dunno Matt. In 3E (admittedly, high level 3E) instant death effects are pretty ubiquitous. Heck, at the really high levels you get the area affect instant death attacks that will wipe your whole party if everyone rolls poorly.
Thinking of SC, I remember a Dragon with a Disintegrate breath weapon, Wail of the Banshee traps, and MANY NPC casters packing Fingers of Death, Power Word Kills, Implosions, Destructions, Disintegrates, and many other SoD spells. Once you're past, say 12th level, the 3E world gets VERY dangerous.
Cheers! :)
For many characters, you actually roll more dice - instead of a caster who might spend an entire combat never rolling a die for his attacks, he gets to roll not only attacks instead of them making saving throws, but instead of dice-fun-removing save or dies, he gets to roll damage.
Instead of melee types who tend to only roll 1 or 2 damage dice for their attacks, they'll commonly roll 2 to 7 dice. A 5W high level daily with a greatsword does 10d6 damage, for instance.
As for crits maximizing, that is primarily for the DM's benefit. A player who really likes rolling dice should use a high crit weapon... preferably a vicious high crit weapon. A +6 vicious high crit greataxe does 9d12 extra damage on a crit!
A 5W high level daily...Thus forever casting me as a grognard, I have no idea what the heck that means.
nW is the 4E abbreviation used for all powers performed with a weapon. It means 5 x the Weapon's damage. So, a greatsword would be 10d6, a longsword 5d8.
Cheers! :)
I don't doubt that there are many players who dislike that kind of randomness, but I bet this is a vocal minority rather than a majority. Just my two cents.
Actually, since the designers went with this change, I think its more accurate to say that the minority are those who like the ability to randomly drop dead.
I think Antioch is right -- IMO WotC is correctly reading the preferences of most players.
I also think the tone of Antioch's response leaves a lot to be desired. The language sounds like a harsh criticism of the older system and people who prefer it.
I, for one, like the ability to randomly drop dead :)
4e does bring back a old friend though. The d12!!!
3.5 had a couple of weapons (and the Barbarian's hit points) that kept the d12 alive -- barely :)
Rule # 1: There are no rules, just guidelines. Rule # 2: Cheat anyway.
You're my hero... especially the cheating part :)
As a DM who rolls in the open, it's pretty tough to fudge the dice, especially after a few rounds of combat have let the party calculate some of the more basic stats of a monster, like its Attack Bonus, AC, and Saves. And indeed, plenty of things are crazily lethal.
Death is an important part of the story, even random deaths that serve no other purpose than "bad luck strikes all". But when you've seen a good player sidelined for a whole session or more because his character got dropped by an unlucky 1, and when you know that player is driving almost an hour to come to your game, well let's just say I'm very glad SoD spells are largely gone.
Like your rules say, the game is meant to be fun. I'm all for anything that helps maximize it thusly.
Cheers! :)
a player is not “stubborn” by playing a character that she wanted to play in the first place.
Certainly, but that's not what I'm saying here. You were speaking of a carbon copy of a character, not about playing the same class for a second character. There are dozens and dozens of ways in which you can play two different characters that would have the same tactical roles as far as combat is concerned. This is not playing a "carbon copy" of a character, to me.
Ah, but D&D isn’t real life, and isn’t a reality simulator.
Sure, but I'm not talking about "real life RPG" here. I'm talking about believability, suspension of disbelief, which is part of the interest/fun of playing an RPG in the first place. I'm speaking of the possibility of instant/random death making the game more believable and thus more fun to me.
You don't have to pull strawmen to disagree, you know? It's perfectly fine if you prefer your characters to die more sparsely, with deaths that wouldn't depend on a single decision or die roll. We just have two different levels of suspension of disbelief as far as death in a RPG is concerned.
I would be curious to see the proof about "many random scenarios being trackable". Kinda goes against the notion that they are random. Random death pretty much occurs from save-or-die effects.
This is probably a misunderstanding here, but that's not what I'm talking about either, here. When I say that random-death scenarios can in many cases be "traceable", I'm speaking of decisions of the players, of choices they made that have nothing to do with the rules per se. In other words, in many cases a player can avoid situations where SoD and instant deaths happen by being smart and make some cautious choices in the first place. Instant death still happens though. If it didn't happen, the game could potentially become a question of counting points and "using the rules right". That's a clear difference in feel for me between say AD&D and 4E, to me.
Also, do not forget that we're talking about a game where you can resurrect dead characters. Especially at mid-high levels, where most SoD effects pop up - that's obviously not a coincidence.
One thing is that the choices a player makes should have an impact on the game in some fashion, whether it’s the character or the outcome of the game, but those choices shouldn’t immediately lead to destruction: a player should have some chance to realize that a bad choice was made at the start and be able to alter it.
I think we're touching our real difference of opinion here. I don't think one has to provide chances to realize the choice was a bad choice after it was made, because part of the smarts of the game is to make right choices with the elements provided at some point or another.
I would much prefer adventures where you can smell, hear, see clues of what type of encounter is ahead of the PCs, and let the PCs make assumptions and prepare for this or that eventuality without the certainty of any outcome rather than just having the choice, then give the possibility to make another one just because "that's fair". It just makes any choice irrelevant to me: doesn't matter what you choose to do, you can always go back and do it differently. Not the way I like to play the game.
That's something that bothers me with 4E throughout, by the way, because this seems to be an underlying theme of the design, with things like, to give another example, "no sub-optimal choices" in character building. If there are no suboptimal choices, in the end, what I choose is just cosmetic. It doesn't really matter, because the outcome is always "balanced". Not the way I like to think of game mechanics.
And again, it's perfectly fine if you disagree. Just don't try to reformulate/caricature my opinions to make them say something you can ridicule, please.
|
Being one who owns every type of die known to the geometry world (Yes I bought d5's and d7's, and d30's, d100'd (my favorite)) I do see here that rolling die has been reduced, but in defense of saving throws, it is balanced. Think of a 1st level character with a +2 fort save. They roll against a DC 12 and its a 10 or higher. Now lets blast ahead to a 15th level character having a +19 fort save rolling against a poison DC of 30. Its a 9 or higher, so actually the St system saves time, die rolls, and is exactly the same as 3.0/3,5
|
I just wanted to chime in on the 'random death' thing.
I have almost never had a PC die from a Save or Die spell in my campaigns. Most of the deaths are a mistake the Player made. A dwarf climbing the pit walls to fiddle with the trapdoor hinges while the cleric above triggers the trap again (a 15'x35'stone trapdoor smashing a dwarf into a wall is kinda lethal, but especially after a combat that took the dwarf to less than 1/2 hp and he neglected to heal up before acting, a CLW before he climbed would've been enough to save him but with a 6 intelligence whadda ya expect!). A halfling warlock letting a Bar-Igura get close enough to grab him and teleport back to the Bar-Igura leader......alone (Oh, it was ugly!).
Most of my random deaths aren't random, they are Players making bad mistakes. Even the save or die ones had warnings. They could've cast spells to protect from the save or die but they ignored clues that I left about what was coming up. Piles of humanoid shaped dust kinda clues you in that something is disintegrating people.
Most of my players have another character concept that they want to play and if they die they are usually happy to try out the new concept or if they didn't reach the goal for their PC that they had in mind then they either start a similar concept with a different personality or get reincarnated/raised/resurrected. If a Player likes a PC enough I will give them a way to get the PC back. They may have to run an NPC or backup character for a session or 2, but I figure out a way to get things rolling if needed.
I like my D&D to have some Lethality. 4E just isn't very lethal to me. Sure there are exceptions but I feel like they made dieing more 'idiot-proof' and slapped a 'in the name of fun' label on the decision.
My 2.
Sorry, dice use isn't on my 4.0 hate list.
Oddly enough, sudden death is less of a problem because non-evil ghosts are hardwired into the new system. I may buy the new books just to reverse engeneer that into 3.5.
At least the first module is very lethal. 1st level monsters having 30+HP is lethal enough. I like the use of mooks (referring to the Wicked adventures) 1 hit and dead minions, but this module is a TPK. Interesting to see what a level 15 or 20 creature has when level 4 brutes have 300+HP.
It is written by Mearls, that's probably why. He has a reputation of being something of a player-killer (as DM). On the WotC boards, some call him Gygax on steroids. :)