|
No he touches the force cage with a rod of absorption or he teleports out. What was found with the arena was that the three quarters of a million gp worth of magical gear was a lot better at stopping the ill effects of magic mind blank, spell storing, freedom of movement, stuff that gives extra saves etc. then it was at stopping you from just being whacked by a magic sword for an obscene amount of damage.
Well, at that level of silliness the fight is determined by the highest initiative result.
A good & patient DM (if he/she thinks it is desirable) is still going to be able to get something more than just killing things out of players; I cannot deny that. I'm just wondering what situation such a DM may have to work with at the start?
I still think 4e gives some awesome tools to help roleplay your combat encounters. I know nothing about the social encounters someone described earlier (no books here either) but I consider the "powers" themselves to be almost like cue cards to the player or DM to help them describe the scene as it's happening.
Some players (mine, fer instance), are perfectly content to announce that they're using such and such power to move the goblin three squares that-a-way. However, it's not much of a stretch to take the time to explain the actions that are actually going into this. You don't even have to make up a scenario, the game has already told you that the goblin is being moved 15', all you have to do is say how it happens.
When the kobold warriors "marked" the warlord, I took the time to describe how the creature licked the blood off his sword and eyed the warlord hungrily for more. When the warlord used a maneuver to swap places with the shaman, he took advantage of a really high damage roll to describe how he impaled the kobold with his spear and physically lifted him up and hoisted him over his head.
No doubt you could do the same stuff in any previous edition of D&D, but it's actually easier in 4e because you've got those cue cards giving you the bare bones of your actions.
It's possible that, as we become more used to the rules and the mechanics become more transparent the roleplay will start to come through, but I fear roleplaying in this edition may suffer thanks to WotC's own ad campaign that set up a preconception in the eyes of players who come to the game not even expecting to roleplay.
House rule the raise dead stuff out of the game and then notch up the lethality. A couple of deaths or near deaths will likely yank them out of this mind set. There is a significant danger that you'll turtle them however.
Another example:
A recent outing at a local gaming store and I overheard a few gamers (and one RPGA DM to boot) talking about taking this feat and that (in 3.5 D&D)...so I popped a question (actually one leads to another), "shouldn't some feat require roleplay or a sort of quest to obtain instead of opening up the rulebook and choosing it? Or the character can learn it from a retired beggar who once is a mighty warrior?" What I got was a few shocked looks and open mouth?My next question (after a few exchanges of opinions) was "can a character be allowed to perish if it lends to good roleplaying and the player is duly rewarded thereafter with another character with more abilities or something? I got another set of aghasted looks...sigh
Odd. I DM a gamist version of D&D and play in a story based one. I'm very surprised that these players felt that they could not be allowed to die. If your playing a gamist version of the D&D one of the 'benefits' is that the game can get very nasty. Death can lurk around every corner and their is no requirement for death to be 'heroic' or anything else.
In the game I play in the DM pretty much never kills a player without their permission and its always drama filled or tragic or emotionally powerful in some form. You just don't kill characters by drowning them in Otyugh excrement while the other players laugh at your misfortune in a story based game, does not happen.
In a gamist system - well lets just say as a DM I'd not hesitate to allow a character to die like that, though I suspect most players would figure a way out pretty easily since I really have to play by the rules if I'm playing a high mortality gamist game (I won't have players for very long if I'm just on some kind of DM ego trip, the players vs. the DM requires that the players trust the DM to play fair even if he is an a~$!$!~).
Roleplaying comes from what we do with what we have.
Absolutely.
I do not see it as cause and effect.
I think it can be. Less experienced players are going to be more prone to follow examples set. I think (though many do not) that 4e is more focused on combat tasks, and will lead such players to a more combat-oriented, wargame-style game.
I also think WotC knows this -- this style will more successfully suck in WoW players (and the like). Roleplaying hasn't been eliminated or even limited, but I think it's less in-you-face in 4e.
Even if I'm right, so what? If players have fun, WotC did their job and players got their money's worth.
Two more cents.
From what I've seen, it may be (and I don't want to speak for anyone here) that its not that 4th limits or discourages role playing, but for what 4e puts the emphasis on, and what it reinforces, it may not promote roleplaying the same things that 3.5 does.
4th edition does indeed encourage players and DMs to skip to the most dramatic parts of a story. That doesn't mean that it doesn't encourage them to tell a story, but that the story should be told in a few large dramatic scenes, instead of building it with a lot of less dramatic scenes that eventually lead to larger scenes that may eventually build to the large dramatic scene.
It may or may not be the case, but the former may create bolder, more dramatic specific memories, while the latter may create fewer dramatic exploits but cause the players and DMs to be more emotionally attached to a given campaign and group of characters. Neither one is particularly right or wrong, but they lean toward different campaign styles.
Using the Lord of the Rings as an example, 3.5 is more like the novels. The PCs do a lot of things that aren't directly important to the plot, or at least they may not seemed to be so, but it establishes the world and the characters and implies a certain history. It builds slowly in spots, but to those that love the books, the details are what makes the special.
Now, the movies cut out scenes like Tom Bombadil from the narrative, and even though they tell a good story, and a story that is recognizable as being very similar to the novels, a lot of the details don't go into the movies. Despite this, there are still dramatic, non combat scenes in the movies, but they tend to be plot critical moments, like the Council of Rivendell and Aragorn's calling upon the cursed spirits.
4th edition has much more of an action movie pacing to it, and the rules speak to that and reinforce that, while 3.5 is based a bit more in the fantasy novel kind of pacing that has shaped D&D for a long time. Its a departure, and its a change in what needs to be roleplayed, but it isn't eliminating roleplay, so much as jumping to the most dramatic parts.
So 4th Edition D&D is D&D without Tom Bombadil, if that makes any sense.
So 4th Edition D&D is D&D without Tom Bombadil, if that makes any sense.
Harry Potter without Albus Dumbledore.
No he touches the force cage with a rod of absorption or he teleports out. What was found with the arena was that the three quarters of a million gp worth of magical gear was a lot better at stopping the ill effects of magic mind blank, spell storing, freedom of movement, stuff that gives extra saves etc. then it was at stopping you from just being whacked by a magic sword for an obscene amount of damage.Well, at that level of silliness the fight is determined by the highest initiative result.
What level of silliness? in 3.5 20th level characters have a ton of magic items, its part of the core assumption. You just can't reasonably compare a fight between a 20th level fighter and a 20th level wizard and not include all their magical gear.
Still this really benefits the fighter over the mage. You can search high and low through the magic items but there really is not much thats going to let you simply stop a really powerful creature with a ton of hps - essentially any magic item that could just stop a 20th level fighter could just stop nearly any monster in the game. Hence you just don't really find this stuff for obvous play balance reasons. The reverse is true with stuff that counters magic. The books are simply chalk full of ways to save your hide from the dangerous magic.
Anyway on to initiative and the importance of winning it. That was our thought initially too. Everyone was recommending ways for the fighter to raise his initiative because it was felt that this was the only hope the fighter had.
When the fighter won initiative and won the fight in the first three matches the wizard player blamed the initiative and the last three matches where all fought with with wizard automatically winning initiative. Note that this actually meant that the fighter had just 'lost' a significant element of his build because the fighter player was not restated and did not get to trade in the magic items and feats that gave him a great initiative. Everyone was somewhat surprised when he then went on to win the next three fights as well. In the end it just seemed to come down to hps and the fact that you can - with enough magic items make it so that your very unlikely to fail a save or be truly shut down by magic. There's always a way out of almost all magical nerfing but there really is nothing that consistently protects you from being walloped by swords and arrows. You can slow the fighter down for a round or two with stuff like wind wall on contingency if some one shoots arrows at you but it just won't last. The fighter will get through the defences eventually and the mage pretty much dies the second time he takes a big hit. The fighter is much more resistant.
Now there is the factor that this was an arena. If it had not been the mage player could probably have won by teleporting to the other side of the continent, use scrying magic to find the fighter, wait until he's sleeping, buff up and teleport into the fighters room in the inn or wherever. I'm sure the mage wins in that sort of circumstance.
3.5 is more like the novels.
Excellent analogy. I got the exact same feel of "3.5 as novel/4e as film" and tried to explain that to my players. That's actually how the whole "4e as MMO" discussion got started because a couple players had decided a while back that it was an MMO model and I couldn't convince them otherwise.
If anything, though, this really does encompass my biggest beef with 4e. Honestly, I prefer the "novel" approach to the "film" approach because I *like* all those aspects of the character, setting and story which don't directly apply to the Plot.
|
|
From what I've seen, it may be (and I don't want to speak for anyone here) that its not that 4th limits or discourages role playing, but for what 4e puts the emphasis on, and what it reinforces, it may not promote roleplaying the same things that 3.5 does.
Not sure i agree but I will read on to see what you mean.
4th edition does indeed encourage players and DMs to skip to the most dramatic parts of a story. That doesn't mean that it doesn't encourage them to tell a story, but that the story should be told in a few large dramatic scenes, instead of building it with a lot of less dramatic scenes that eventually lead to larger scenes that may eventually build to the large dramatic scene.
You lost me. I do not see that formula anywhere in 4e. In fact the first 4e Adventure Path in Dungeon is going to be one chapter per month for 18 months. Heck - even H1 builds to a climax and that is just the first of a three part series to get the players from 1st to 10th.
It may or may not be the case, but the former may create bolder, more dramatic specific memories, while the latter may create fewer dramatic exploits but cause the players and DMs to be more emotionally attached to a given campaign and group of characters. Neither one is particularly right or wrong, but they lean toward different campaign styles.
I agree with that analysis I just don't see where 4e codifies the condensed campaign.
Using the Lord of the Rings as an example, 3.5 is more like the novels. ... 4th edition has much more of an action movie pacing to it, and the rules speak to that and reinforce that, while 3.5 is based a bit more in the fantasy novel kind of pacing that has shaped D&D for a long time. Its a departure, and its a change in what needs to be roleplayed, but it isn't eliminating roleplay, so much as jumping to the most dramatic parts.
Again - I just do not see this at all. Are the mechanics of 4e somehow geared toward rapid character advancement? Not really. Is the power curve from 1st to 20th in 3.5 shallow when compared to the 1st to 30th curve in 4e? Not really. In fact a 30th level character in 4e seems to be on par with a 20th level character in 3e.
So 4th Edition D&D is D&D without Tom Bombadil, if that makes any sense.
But there is nothing inherent to 4e that would make that true. In the same vein, there is nothing in 3e to prevent that from happening.
So I go back to the first point that you made - where and how does 4e discourage roleplaying?
Are the mechanics of 4e somehow geared toward rapid character advancement? Not really.
Advancement is faster now. In 3.5 it was about 14.3 encounters per level; it's fewer in 4e.
Is the power curve from 1st to 20th in 3.5 shallow when compared to the 1st to 30th curve in 4e? Not really.
How do you know? The mechanics are sufficiently different that you can't pit a character from each version against each other to see who wins.
In fact a 30th level character in 4e seems to be on par with a 20th level character in 3e.
I don't think WotC would agree. Many of the epic-level feats and powers are very much in sync with 3.5's Epic Level Handbook, and very clearly deliberately so.
You lost me. I do not see that formula anywhere in 4e. In fact the first 4e Adventure Path in Dungeon is going to be one chapter per month for 18 months. Heck - even H1 builds to a climax and that is just the first of a three part series to get the players from 1st to 10th.
I . . . didn't . . . say . . . that . . . 4th Edition . . . discourages roleplaying . . . not anywhere in my post. In fact, I was making the opposite point entirely. My entire point, which I apparently spectacularly failed to convey, is that there are different events that can be roleplayed, and that 4th edition tends to lean towards encouraging important scenes that have a lot of drama rather than more mundane scenes.
No, indeed, there are not rules that tell you what scenes to roleplay, and what scenes to skip, but there are indeed statements that give examples of scenes that the DM may, if he wants to, skip in order to keep the pacing moving toward the more dramatic scenes.
3.5 encourages a more "everyday" kind of roleplaying by having skills for trades skills and professions, for example, and for specifically not mentioning that certain scenes should be skipped over. Having a skill for making horseshoes doesn't cause you to roleplay, but the fact that a given skill exists means that it occurs to someone as a potential back ground, especially if they are new to this sort of game.
Keep in mind, no where in my post did I imply that one was better than the other. I enjoy fantasy novels and action movies. My point is that if one or the other appeals to you as a DM, you will likely gravitate toward that system.
Honestly, I prefer the "novel" approach to the "film" approach because I *like* all those aspects of the character, setting and story which don't directly apply to the Plot.
I think the 'novel vs film' perspective has some merit.
4e, like an action film, tries to minimize non-dramatic content -- but this is where character development takes place. 4e doesn't forbid non-dramatic scenes, but certainly discourages it, and thus indirectly discourages character development.
I don't believe that 4E limits roleplaying because I think that springs from the players, the DM, and the synergy generated between them. Others have gone into much greater detail on this so I won't beat that dead horse.
What I wanted to post, though, was that there is one thing that 4E does limit: deep "simulation".
Now, don't throw anything at me for bringing up the "s" word. Let me explain what I mean: 4E does not worry about small levels of detail the same way that 3E did. Skills have been streamlined, equipment tables reduced, combat options (not directly tied to a Power) virtually eliminated. The game concentrates on the "high points" of gaming and does enough to get you from point A to point B with as little hassle as possible.
Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Depends upon the player. I know that, for me and my group, those little details are things we trot out from time to time but not something we want to worry about. They're tedious, boring, and make me want to smother something with a pillow. I happen to love 4E for its ability to gloss over the minutiae if you choose. Others love that level of detail. They love the fact that they know exactly how many levels of Fighter a Drider has to get the needed BAB they're after (where as I just always wrote in the BAB I wanted and didn't care where it came from--Inherent Because-I-Said-So Bonuses). They want to know what the cooking skill of their PC is. There's nothing wrong with that at all. 4E just doesn't deliver that level of detail; hence why some are turned off by it, I think.
So I don't think it's a good or bad thing (good for me, bad for others) but 4E doesn't encourage a high level of realistic detail. It's not trying to simulate the minutiae. It's simulating the pivotal events of a campaign and not the day-to-day. Roleplaying is equal, IMO, unless you're trying to roleplay those small-scale events, in which case there aren't many mechanical options in place to help you along. Roleplaying pivotal events is right up its alley and, frankly, where the game excels.
Does any of this make sense? Looks like a big jumble now that I wrote it, heh.
Does any of this make sense? Looks like a big jumble now that I wrote it,...
Nope, that's pretty much the conclusion I was trying to get at as well. My group probably falls on the other side of the fence than yours, but yeah, the point is, its more a matter of preference than the quest for the "one true game system."
Does any of this make sense? Looks like a big jumble now that I wrote it,...
Nope, that's pretty much the conclusion I was trying to get at as well. My group probably falls on the other side of the fence than yours, but yeah, the point is, its more a matter of preference than the quest for the "one true game system."
I agree on all counts.
Cool. I ramble so it's hard to tell sometimes. :)
I Dmd the first part of KotS last night using the full rules and was pretty surprised how much RP went on given that
a. everyone was new to the rules
b. the module is pretty dungeon crawley
c. most were running 2 pcs
d. they were pregens
They pretty quickly went out of bounds of the prepped adventure and got into some interesting interactions that was a lot of fun.
But most importantly the rules had little to do with the RP, I had them roll some checks now and then (including some fake checks, because I am a mean DM) but I made up the difficulties on the fly (along the lines of 'is this something that would be hard?' and 'is this particularly imaginative/awesome?'). Anyone who says this game kills RP must have a very limited imagination or not given it much of a try, in my small opinion.
But I am the type who thinks having fun and yukking it up is more enjoyable than psychoanalyzing my characters feelings about their mother so maybe I am not a real roleplayer in some folks eyes.
|
|
Advancement is faster now. In 3.5 it was about 14.3 encounters per level; it's fewer in 4e.
Advancement is only as fast as the GM allows. Page 121 in the DMG covers this and clearly lays out how to speed up or slow down the level progression.
Is the power curve from 1st to 20th in 3.5 shallow when compared to the 1st to 30th curve in 4e? Not really.How do you know? The mechanics are sufficiently different that you can't pit a character from each version against each other to see who wins.
I wasn't thinking in those terms. I was looking at the number of powers, feats, etc. and trying to see the difference between a 1st level character and a 30th level character. It seemed to me that the difference is less than the difference between a 1st and 20th level character in 3e. I could be wrong but that is how it looks to me.
In fact a 30th level character in 4e seems to be on par with a 20th level character in 3e.I don't think WotC would agree. Many of the epic-level feats and powers are very much in sync with 3.5's Epic Level Handbook, and very clearly deliberately so.
You could very well be correct given the whole demi-god thing but it just seems to me that they toned down the epic nature of the epic tier compared to 3e.
I'm lonely. Will you be my friend?
|
|
I . . . didn't . . . say . . . that . . . 4th Edition . . . discourages roleplaying . . . not anywhere in my post. In fact, I was making the opposite point entirely.
My apologies for the misunderstanding. I understand your point though I do not agree entirely about the pace issue ...
No, indeed, there are not rules that tell you what scenes to roleplay, and what scenes to skip, but there are indeed statements that give examples of scenes that the DM may, if he wants to, skip in order to keep the pacing moving toward the more dramatic scenes.
I have read the section in question and out of context it would seem to be a dictate rather than a suggestion. In fact that section on "fun" is al about tailoring the pace and style of the game to the tastes of the players. It speaks just as much about those players that prefer more roleplaying and ways to pace the game to suit their style.
There is nothing in 4e that will prevent the game from being run more like a novel and less like a film.
3.5 encourages a more "everyday" kind of roleplaying by having skills for trades skills and professions, for example, and for specifically not mentioning that certain scenes should be skipped over. Having a skill for making horseshoes doesn't cause you to roleplay, but the fact that a given skill exists means that it occurs to someone as a potential back ground, especially if they are new to this sort of game.
I have played 3e since the day it came out. I have played in home brewed worlds, home campaigns in established worlds, and in several RPGA living campaigns. I never used, nor did anyone in my presence ever use, a craft or profession skill. I agree that they can and do contribute in some campaigns out there somewhere. I can also see their value in fleshing out a characters background but I do not find their absence to be at all troubling. I find it better to encourage players to write up a back story rather than rely on a game mechanic for flavor.
Keep in mind, no where in my post did I imply that one was better than the other. I enjoy fantasy novels and action movies. My point is that if one or the other appeals to you as a DM, you will likely gravitate toward that system.
But my point is that I do not see anything about 4e that forces it to be played strictly at a cinematic pace. The amount of roleplaying and the level of detail in the plot and setting are all determined by the GM and the players. The system can be adapted to whatever pace they want to take.
I'm lonely. Will you be my friend?
How can you be lonely on these boards?!?
from a long-time dead-horse-beater
... and where does 4e take any of that away?
Okay, you know what? Never mind.
I'm lonely. Will you be my friend?
Dammit, lookit what yu made muh do!!
Advancement is faster now. In 3.5 it was about 14.3 encounters per level; it's fewer in 4e.
Technically that was 13.3, but in reality its not true. If your playing say Paizo's stuff it actually is closer to around 10 encounters per level. I think it says something that the first WotC AP is meant to cover 18 modules and not 12. I suspect thats at least in part becuase they don't think they can easily get PCs to 30th level in less. Though I suppose they might instead just be deliberately slowing the pace with lots of RP encounters and such.
Is the power curve from 1st to 20th in 3.5 shallow when compared to the 1st to 30th curve in 4e? Not really.
How do you know? The mechanics are sufficiently different that you can't pit a character from each version against each other to see who wins.
Their not so different that you can't compare. 4E high level powers are a lot more constrained then what you can do with 3.5 9th level magic. Your restricted by the number of daily and encounter powers are a lot more limited when compared to a high level 3.5 mage. B
eyond this you can see that a far weaker power curve was built into the game. The design is clearly meant to make something as mundane as basic orcs significantly dangerous for a lot more levels then in 3.5. This is done by limiting the ability of the players to raise their ACs beyond the reach of weaker monsters and by slowing down their BAB.
In 3.5 your BAB varied in 4E everyone has the same BAB - the 3.5 wizards (+1 per two levels). Beyond this its harder to get access to magic that will significantly raise your to hit or ACs, you'll have less of it and it will generally be weaker. Your damage output is also significantly scaled back finally the feats tend to be weaker. Lots of +1 to hit type stuff. The whole package is designed to keep your AC within reach of the weaker monsters for longer and to make it so those same weaker monsters are more of a challenge to the players for longer. Your a lot stronger at 1st level but your not really getting that much more powerful when you gain a level. Your picking up new stuff all the time but its not really that strong. I'd say your going up in power at about 1/2 the rate of what you got in 3.5 edition.
I think the talk of "roleplaying" and all the other terms are just approaching the issue since most everyone will have a different definition for those terms.
What 4E does, IMO, is concentrate on the pivotal moments of a campaign. It is excellent at detailing encounters and challenges and overcoming obstacles. I know that I'm loving it.
What some people being turned off by is the lack of minutiae. 4E doesn't worry, for an example, about a character's Cooking skill, or how many skill ranks a monster has in History, or how the monster builds its lair. The game ignores those areas to better concentrate on what the designers felt was the core of the DnD experience.
In a nutshell it's the complexity that people are missing. The game was deliberately streamlined, which is what I was hoping for. The complexity that was removed, however, is in some cases the essence of the game that appeals.
A DM could, quite easily IMO, add this complexity back into the game, to whatever degree he and his group desired. The game, though, doesn't support the minutiae "off the shelf".
I think the talk of "roleplaying" and all the other terms are just approaching the issue since most everyone will have a different definition for those terms.
What 4E does, IMO, is concentrate on the pivotal moments of a campaign. It is excellent at detailing encounters and challenges and overcoming obstacles. I know that I'm loving it.
What some people being turned off by is the lack of minutiae. 4E doesn't worry, for an example, about a character's Cooking skill, or how many skill ranks a monster has in History, or how the monster builds its lair. The game ignores those areas to better concentrate on what the designers felt was the core of the DnD experience.
In a nutshell it's the complexity that people are missing. The game was deliberately streamlined, which is what I was hoping for. The complexity that was removed, however, is in some cases the essence of the game that appeals.
A DM could, quite easily IMO, add this complexity back into the game, to whatever degree he and his group desired. The game, though, doesn't support the minutiae "off the shelf".
Maybe their holding off so they can do a splat book. The book of mundane skills and feats.
Anyway I pretty much agree with you. We'll probably eventually see a few of these issues addressed as Dragon articles. Probably something more along the lines of the 1st edition secondary skill table. You know the one that told you the kind of things you did before you were an adventurer. I actually think that'd make a pretty interesting and might dig that table up from my 1st edition DMG just to add a little to the players backgrounds. Maybe even think of ways that having these backgrounds could figure into the adventure occasionally.
I've seen a lot of comments to the effect of how 4th Edition takes away from or doesn't allow for roleplaying.
I don't agree those comments now. I believe them to be false.
That doesn't give you much to work with Fletch, in replying to those comments, but I thought you and the 4E gang could use the support.
|
I've seen several people mention that the game mechanics themselves in 4e, by their descriptive nature, give an automatic boost to the amount of "default" roleplaying you'll see in a game - see the example above (or last page, wherever) on rescuing the girl from the Troll on the bridge.
In my experience reading those skill descriptions, and the very mechanics they're based on, I personally see them being a large impediment to roleplaying, as they seem to have been put in the game to promote good gameplay instead of good roleplay. The Cleric for example - apparently healing other players isn't a fun thing to do in D&D because WotC has decreed it so. In an effort to keep Clerics from having to do "boring" things like healing their team mates, they've been given a new mechanic called a "Healing Surge" that lets them do "more fun" things in combat like smiting baddies and still get to keep their teammates alive while they're at it! If that doesn't smack of sounding pulled straight from an MMO, I don't know what does.
Consider the following, quoted from another thread:
Seriously though,
It's a hot, dry day in a tiny village just out of reach of the Keep in the Borderlands. A handful of peasant farmers are going about their daily routine, tilling dusty, clay-like fields hoping for rain.
Meanwhile, 100 or so yards out of the village proper 4 teenagers are hiding from their farmer-parents and chores, splashing in the water-hole.
Then hordes of orcs and ogres charge down to the village to begin slaughtering the women, raping the men and burning the village. The peasants grab some pitch forks, wood-chopping axes and the farming polearm to try to fight off the raiders but it all seems hopeless.
The teenagers frantically put their clothes back on and begin to charge to their families and home. But arrive too late. They grab a few weapons from the bodies of orcs and try to fight, only to flee from overwhelming numbers all too soon. Hiding in the hills minutes later, bruised and bloody they vow to follow the raiders and seek revenge.
The 4 teenagers, peasant farmers yesterday, angry adventurers today, follow the raiders deep in the wilderness to their cavern stronghold. Once inside they go area by area, quietly killing as they go. As one fight gets particularly messy one of the teenagers gets slashed across the back, blood spewing everywhere. Another has her leg smashed and is bleeding from a head wound.
Then, one of the teens swings the sword he took from an orc only hours earlier and screems
HEALING SURGE ACTIVATE! and all four teens' wounds are healed.
The end.
-W. E. Ray
4th Edition goes out of its way to promote good gameplay at the expense of realism and roleplay.
Buggy, thats simply not a fair (or apt) example. I could easily write up a similar short re: 3E aimed at making it seem foolish as well, but I'm sure everyone here knows that isn't how the game plays.
Where does the opinion that good gameplay invalidates good roleplay come from? Do real roleplayers only play crappy games?
4th Edition goes out of its way to promote good gameplay at the expense of realism and roleplay.
I don't agree -- entirely.
But for the sake of discussion, isn't gameplay more important than realism? Certainly the action movies we love are sorely lacking realism.
On the roleplay, I think the accusations are getting increasingly unfair. IMO it is a very poor gamer that can't roleplay without the rules' help. Whether or not 4e helps is a separate question.
|
|
Buggy, thats simply not a fair (or apt) example. I could easily write up a similar short re: 3E aimed at making it seem foolish as well, but I'm sure everyone here knows that isn't how the game plays.
Where does the opinion that good gameplay invalidates good roleplay come from? Do real roleplayers only play crappy games?
Hey, people were asking for examples why we thought 4e doesn't lend itself well to RP, I gave an example, and you responded that "It's not fair" without actually specifying why. That's my honest opinion - I read rules like that and I find their existence ridiculous and unbelievable. There's nothing in the mechanic of a Healing Surge that I find to be internally consistant with the way a fantasy game works (at least in my mind - YMMV).
And I never said that good gameplay = crappy roleplay. I do, however, have a problem with making rules that make for a good game at the expense of immersion and believability, such as healing surges and cubic fireblasts.
|
|
4th Edition goes out of its way to promote good gameplay at the expense of realism and roleplay.I don't agree -- entirely.
But for the sake of discussion, isn't gameplay more important than realism? Certainly the action movies we love are sorely lacking realism.
Aha! There we have it. Some people like action movies with gratuitous violence and no realism, while others think they're idiotic and won't watch them.
In the same way, some people like a tabletop game that's unrealistic, but focuses on gameplay/balance/etc. Those people can play 4th edition. Good for them.
Not everyone likes the same thing though! Not everyone thinks that gameplay is more important than realism!
Hey, people were asking for examples why we thought 4e doesn't lend itself well to RP, I gave an example, and you responded that "It's not fair" without actually specifying why. That's my honest opinion - I read rules like that and I find their existence ridiculous and unbelievable. There's nothing in the mechanic of a Healing Surge that I find to be internally consistant with the way a fantasy game works (at least in my mind - YMMV).And I never said that good gameplay = crappy roleplay. I do, however, have a problem with making rules that make for a good game at the expense of immersion and believability, such as healing surges and cubic fireblasts.
To avoid typing it out, try re-reading the short you posted but at the end, have a friend touch him and shout "Cure Light Wounds!". Seems silly to me, but it isn't really a fair account of how 3E works. Likewise, I don't think the description of someone shouting "Healing Surge Activate!" is a fair representation of how 4E works. Sorry if that didn't come across.
Essentially, 4E is very blatant about HP being more than just physical health. This isn't a change from previous editions, but most other editions really just paid the idea lip service ... sure HP weren't physical health (and how fast you naturally "healed" made this obvious) but for the most part magic or bed rest were the only way to get them back. 4E embraces the concept of abstract HP with open arms. If you don't like that, fine, but I don't have any problems reconciling 4E's HP system with the real world.
On ENWorld, many threads were made early on looking for ways to explain some of 4E's more abstract game concepts from a simulationistic PoV. 4E may not hold your hand in having you reach those conclusions, but I do think you can find explanations for them if you look. Some may be more inclined to developing explanations than others though.
Cheers! :)
I don't agree -- entirely.But for the sake of discussion, isn't gameplay more important than realism? Certainly the action movies we love are sorely lacking realism.
Aha! There we have it. Some people like action movies with gratuitous violence and no realism, while others think they're idiotic and won't watch them.
In the same way, some people like a tabletop game that's unrealistic, but focuses on gameplay/balance/etc. Those people can play 4th edition. Good for them.
Not everyone likes the same thing though! Not everyone thinks that gameplay is more important than realism!
While your points ARE true, I don't think they're relevant. I DO like a realistic game that is internally consistent and makes sense. I also like strong gameplay and balance. I find both of these things in 4E.
Not all are as willing to think up logical explanations of how the 4E world works, but if you settle for the silliest explanation you can think of and then blame the game for being silly, I think you're not giving it a fair chance (which, of course, you aren't required to do. But if you don't like 4E because it's 4E well I'm not sure what response to offer.)
Cheers! :)
|
|
To avoid typing it out, try re-reading the short you posted but at the end, have a friend touch him and shout "Cure Light Wounds!". Seems silly to me, but it isn't really a fair account of how 3E works. Likewise, I don't think the description of someone shouting "Healing Surge Activate!" is a fair representation of how 4E works. Sorry if that didn't come across.
I understand what you're getting at, but I can't wrap my mind around it. Cure light wounds makes sense to me - it can be role played by walking up to the character in need of healing, placing your hand(s) on him and saying "may <insert Deity's name here> bless you." I don't see how Smiting an enemy with a something called a healing surge is supposed to get the gods to smile on you and fix your friends' problems.
Essentially, 4E is very blatant about HP being more than just physical health. This isn't a change from previous editions, but most other editions really just paid the idea lip service ... sure HP weren't physical health (and how fast you naturally "healed" made this obvious) but for the most part magic or bed rest were the only way to get them back. 4E embraces the concept of abstract HP with open arms. If you don't like that, fine, but I don't have any problems reconciling 4E's HP system with the real world.
If HP aren't actual wounds that you've received (which is an idea I'm willing to buy into) why is the skill to replace them even called a "Healing Surge"? If you're gonna go that direction and make HP not equal actual heath or wounds, go all the way like LotRO and just call it Morale instead. A "Healing Surge" instead turns into a "Morale Boost" which I could swallow much more readily than having divine healing energy flow out of the wound you just created to heal your companions. It's called healing, so the intent is to heal, regardless of what HP may or may not represent.
But no ability is actually called Healing Surge. A Healing Surge is a resource used to represent the maximum amount of punishment a character can take in a day. Once you are out of Surges, it is VERY difficult, if not impossible (depending on abilities available to you and your group mates) to heal at all.
I understand what you're getting at, but I can't wrap my mind around it. Cure light wounds makes sense to me - it can be role played by walking up to the character in need of healing, placing your hand(s) on him and saying "may <insert Deity's name here> bless you." I don't see how Smiting an enemy with a something called a healing surge is supposed to get the gods to smile on you and fix your friends' problems.
If HP aren't actual wounds that you've received (which is an idea I'm willing to buy into) why is the skill to replace them even called a "Healing Surge"? If you're gonna go that direction and make HP not equal actual heath or wounds, go all the way like LotRO and just call it Morale instead. A "Healing Surge" instead turns into a "Morale Boost" which I could swallow much more readily than having divine healing energy flow out of the wound you just created to heal your companions. It's called healing, so the intent is to heal, regardless of what HP may or may not represent.
Probably a sense of tradition, and it is a naming convention that anyone who has ever played any RPG (and heck, damn near ANY game) anywhere can grok. It's not like anyone in the world actually has any concept of Healing Surges, just like Levels and Classes are meaningless to the characters. It's just there to help explain things. I do admit that calling them Healing Surges does give people a bad impression, but again, that's just the keyword given to the concept. The concept itself is rather sound.
Cheers! :)
PS: As an addendum, I'd just say HP have ALWAYS been more than physical wounds in DnD. This comes from Gygax himself at the dawn of the game. 4E is the first to take the concept thats been there the entire time and really run with it though.
Healing Surge is a meta game name, not an in-game/in-character name. In game you use your Second Wind, which can most easily be described as just that: gaining your second wind.
Other abilities access healing surges but have their own name (and their own description), such as Healing Word.
Healing Surges are no more unrealistic than Hit Points. Do characters roleplay shouting out "Ah! I lost 3 hit points! I be near death!" No. Same with Healing Surges.
|
4e doesn't forbid non-dramatic scenes, but certainly discourages it, and thus indirectly discourages character development.Where and how does it do that?
By implying that anything that isn't "fun" can be looked over, ignored. "On with the fun": According to the rulebooks, meeting with town guards is not worth spending time on since it's mundane. Nevermind that some of the most exhilarating/hilarious/memorable/i.e. "fun" moments of roleplaying may and do actually occur during "mundane" encounters. Nevermind the inherent unpredictability of the game itself, and thus of seemingly mundane encounters on paper that happen to be the best, most entertaining moments of the game play.
The structure of the rules themselves gloss over anything that would be non-dramatic. The list of Skills, and Skills that have been nerfed from 3.x to reach this current one, is just an example of this. Anything that doesn't relate to a/ combat or b/ any aspect of dungeon exploration simply isn't needed because it's lame, boring, an obstacle to the "real fun", according to this game.
I think it's fairly accurate to call this a fact. Now, some can love these changes because they define the fun of the game on the same terms as its designers, but others might and will disagree.
I understand what you're getting at, but I can't wrap my mind around it. Cure light wounds makes sense to me - it can be role played by walking up to the character in need of healing, placing your hand(s) on him and saying "may <insert Deity's name here> bless you." I don't see how Smiting an enemy with a something called a healing surge is supposed to get the gods to smile on you and fix your friends' problems.
Not to intrude but to me this sounds like "I think imps a totally implausible. But faeries, faeries are real man."
But you are right in one way, 3e is better for simulationsists (but still not even vaguely good enough, it is full of crazy illogical stuff).
My group had no issues with identifying hit points as "combat stamina". In fact, with the addition of the bloodied condition, we pretty much assume that if you are not bloodied, you are just tired and maybe have a few dents in your weapon/shield/armor. When you are bloodied, that's when you start showing cuts, bruises, and maybe worse conditions than that.
Our group was pretty bad at metagaming hp in previous editions, saying things like "I'm down to 5 hp, help!" while now they can merely say they've been bloodied, and the cleric or paladin can jump to the rescue.