|
The "world" is populated with PCs, NPCs, critters etc. So, no the PCs are not the only people in the "world".This is already addressed in my post.
I know and I am disagreeing with your post. The PCs are not the only "people" in the "world". They are the only ones controlled by the players and the GM controls the rest. In any given game there are dozens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of "people" that pass through a campaign.
I disagree. Tell me, why would you need to actually stat out a NPC that is neither part of a combat or skill challenge?Since 'skill challenge' is so vauge these days - including entire quests as a single dice roll event - it's going to be hard to argue that point. Still, sometimes it's good just to see where one NPC stands with his abilities as a narrative aid.
See, a Craft (Whistle) of 10 means something. And with that meaning, I can work the narrative around it. The guy's really good at making whistles. It may never be rolled against, but, as a DM, I can more easily wing what he can and cannot do - and, more importantly, keep it consistant.
You see, at the end of the day, that's what the rules are for, keeping consistancy in the gaming narrative. That's all. That's the whole point of them, and that's what the point of them has always been. The more you do 'out of the ether', the less consistant you're likely to be, and the more pointless your rules then are.
I disagree completely. You think that having mechanical stats for a NPC that has neither a purpose within a skill challenge or a combat challenge demands statistics, because sometimes a DM might need to know where a NPC stands.
Going off of your example, in 3rd Edition, a DM may decide to stat out a whistlemaker. He's apparently an expert (say, 1st-level) with maximum ranks in Craft (whistlemaking) and perhaps Skill Focus (craft [whistlemaking]). Remember, you dont want to half-ass your NPC in 3rd Edition! So, we find out that this guy has at least a +7 on his Craft check, not counting his Intelligence bonus. This guy is great at making...WHISTLES! Or, at least he could make them somewhat faster than another guy could...or something.
See, I dont need to do that. I didnt need to do that in 3rd Edition, but its strongly implied that you dont need to sweat the small stuff in 4E. You want a guy who makes whistles? Fine! This guy makes them. He's really good at it, too: the best in the whole region! Is a player really going to try and prove me wrong? I'm the DM. He's the best because I SAID so. Its the same thing as actually making an ENTIRE stat block just to "prove" my point, just faster and I dont have to try and make the whole thing feel "legal".
I dont think that 4th Edition stifles your creativity or ability to role-play from a social stance at all. Just because its not strongly encouraging you to fully stat out every single NPC that your players might talk to, doesnt mean that your NPCs are any less realistic, or should even feel or play in a less realistic manner. I think its easier to say that the blacksmith is a dwarf, and he's gruff (or whatever), and makes the best axes around. You dont need to pile a bunch of levels and ranks on him to mechanically prove it, but then you didnt have to before.
|
I know and I am disagreeing with your post. The PCs are not the only "people" in the "world". They are the only ones controlled by the players and the GM controls the rest. In any given game there are dozens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of "people" that pass through a campaign.
These aren't "people" as in "people around the table."
NPCs and creatures are no one real at the game table. The DM in that regard isn't anyone to contend with by virtue of also being the referee.
The only people there are in the entire world is the PCs. If everyone's special around the game table, no one is.
Do you understand we're not talking about the same referential here?
As I said, this is covered by my post quoted here.
|
|
I know and I am disagreeing with your post. The PCs are not the only "people" in the "world". They are the only ones controlled by the players and the GM controls the rest. In any given game there are dozens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of "people" that pass through a campaign.These aren't "people" as in "people around the table."
NPCs and creatures are no one real at the game table. The DM in that regard isn't anyone to contend with by virtue of also being the referee.
The only people there are in the entire world is the PCs. If everyone's special around the game table, no one is.
Do you understand we're not talking about the same referential here?
No, I don't get it. The players are the PCs and the GM is everyone else. He or she is the only one controlling more than one character (though some folks do play more than one - not vast multitudes however). So I disagree. Sorry.
|
|
No, I don't get it. The players are the PCs and the GM is everyone else. He or she is the only one controlling more than one character
Until there you got it right. The players controlling the PCs cannot compare their characters with those of the DM, because he is also the referee, the gate to the world itself. These characters are not extensions of the DM in the imaginary world, but his tools. Ergo, the only real people immersed in the fantasy are the players controlling their own characters. If each of these characters are special in same ways, then no one is.
Are you getting it better that way?
|
|
No, I don't get it. The players are the PCs and the GM is everyone else. He or she is the only one controlling more than one characterUntil there you got it right. The players controlling the PCs cannot compare their characters with those of the DM, because he is also the referee, the gate to the world itself. These characters are not extensions of the DM in the imaginary world, but his tools. Ergo, the only real people immersed in the fantasy are the players controlling their own characters. If each of these characters are special in same ways, then no one is.
Are you getting it better that way?
I get it but I disagree. Time to move on.
I understand what you are implying as well, but I dont agree that because all of the players are special by virtue of being central to the story that they are less special (especially if you are a simulationist player).
|
|
I understand what you are implying as well, but I dont agree that because all of the players are special by virtue of being central to the story that they are less special (especially if you are a simulationist player).
I'm not saying PCs are less special by virtue of being central to the adventure.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter what NPCs and creatures are. The PCs are the only real persons with alter-egos in the world. If each are special in similar ways, then no one is.
I moving on too, now. Goodnight!
Side note, two people I know who loved tome of battle because it "made them awesome" hate 4e
I'm the opposite. I hated Tomb of Battle but I like 4E.
One of the reasons for this is tomb of battle significantly continued the trend to ramp up the players powers. Considering that it was already out of whack making it even more extreme was not helping.
4E characters are not nearly so potent within the system as a whole.
I understand that some folks like you enjoy it but stating out kids and the like but that has never been a part of the rules. The claim vance is making is that "normal" people do not exist in 4e because we have no stats for them. Stats can be created for all kinds of people in 3e or 4e and in both cases you need to go outside the bounds of the rules as written.This is not true -- 3.5 has NPC classes, well within the bounds of the RAW.
WotC evidently determined many such elements to be superfluous, and left them out of 4e. I really wonder what percentage of players would have left them out, given a choice.
I agree WotC left them out and see why a lot of people might feel that they could really be very useful. I'm personally fine with this decision in most ways. I was never really happy with the idea that most combatants in 3.5 were Warriors and Adepts and the PCs were particularly potent in comparison. I mean its fine in some ways but it really does set a base line for the world and its one that I might well want to deviate from. The presumption in core is that the PCs are really special but its a presumption that I'm likely to pull away from by doing things like making all guards and such 1st level fighters. I also felt that the issues this raised between how good the PCs were and how good a Warrior or Adept was just got worse and worse as time went on and their was significant power bloat. The difference between the Warriors and the PCs just kept on climbing.
I also found that concepts of commoner level could really distort things in odd ways. One example I bumped into was the idea of a 5th level brick layer. Dumb concept right - what right thinking DM would make a 5th level brick layer. Well I didn't either but you do need high level experts to be master sages and such in order to get their skills into the really high 'I'm a world renown expert in this field' level. So we did have weird stuff like 14th level experts in terms of sages, which came up a lot in my game as the PCs kept taking their hand outs to sages to answer questions. Well now I have 14th level sages but no 5th level brick layers. It kind of seemed like I was in a pickle whichever option I took.
Couldn't you simply use the NPC creation guidelines (DMG pg. 187-188) and simply skip step 6 (Powers)?
Yes, but that's not the point.
I'm trying to give 4e a chance, and I don't have nearly the distaste for it that many do. But I can't buy into the belief that it provides all things to all people. And by not supporting certain activities (like full stats for commoners), it tacitly discourages them.
It's not a question of whether or not I can fix the rules -- it's about the fact that sometimes I do have to fix the rules sometimes, even when previous editions provided something.
As for 4e not allowing it, I am not sure how you arrived at that?
I didn't. 4e allows it -- but it doesn't support it.
Here's a list of some things 4e currently allows:
- fully-statted commoners
- monks, druids, & bards
- cohorts (henchmen)
- building a stronghold
Regards :)
Remember that many NpCs simply need a name...
Seems like it is allowed and is covered. Sure, it may not be in depth, but it is there.
The discussion is about those who do want the depth and detail.
For the record, I like 4e's approach better, and 3.5 encouraged a minimal approach -- provided a skill level or two and a name. But I sympathize with those that want more detail (as I once did). It irritates me that WotC has essentially said they don't need it, and thus won't get it.
I think 4e does that a lot -- decide what the best way is, and provide nothing beyond that. That's the paradigm shift 4e engenders that I don't like.
I agree WotC left them out and see why a lot of people might feel that they could really be very useful. I'm personally fine with this decision in most ways. I was never really happy with the idea that...
What he said :)
Pardon my tardiness.
What influence from anime? No seriously, I'd really like to know 'cause my fanboy-ness is weak :P That and I'd like to see if the inane comment "D&D is like anime!" is really that inane.Um, is it just me, or did they forget to give a paragon path?*SNIP*They had to save something for the actual book, I guess.
This the kind of thing the digital versions of Dragon and Dungeon should have had right from the start, in my opinion. A definant step in the right direction for the DDI. I can't really comment on the class itself with my lack of experiance with 4E, but seems to have the right vibe for the class. I can still see the influence of a certain anime series, but that might just be my fanboy-ness leaking through.
As others have noted, the series I was thinking of was indeed Full Metal Alchemist.
I got the Full Metal Alchemist vibe from it too. But for me thats a great thing.
Oh, I didn't mean it imply the FMA influence was a bad thing. Quite the opposite, actually: the point of any class-based game, to me anyway, it to be able to play as established architype. This definantly qualifies. I thought it when Eberron first came out and I still think it.
Edit: errm, that last part came out a little too high-and-mighty. Sorry about that.
|
|
I disagree completely. You think that having mechanical stats for a NPC that has neither a purpose within a skill challenge or a combat challenge demands statistics, because sometimes a DM might need to know where a NPC stands.But the logical extension of your argument, "taking things that seem unimportant as rote" , is to simply not have a system at all. If the argument is seriously 'only combat encounters need or should ever have write-ups', how can you argue that you're not pushing a skirmish game?
And if saying 'he's really good at making whistles' is unimportant... why is 'he's really good at swinging a sword' important? Why is it, then, that only combat-information is deemed 'important' in a supposedly full-rounded role-playing game?
You do not need mechanics and stats to resolve roleplaying but you do need mechanics and stats to resolve combat. If you do not need roleplaying stats then there is no need to spend time and effort to create stats you will not use. Because you need stats to resolve combat then you have no choice but to create them.
|
|
And now you're arguing that the 'role-playing' bit is the stuff that you ignore and handwave... IE, not even the 'real' part of the game.
I said no such thing - I said it does not require mechanics and stats to resolve. To me roleplaying is the most important part of the game. The great thing about roleplaying is that it does not require rules to adjudicate.
|
I said no such thing - I said it does not require mechanics and stats to resolve. To me roleplaying is the most important part of the game. The great thing about roleplaying is that it does not require rules to adjudicate.And now you're arguing that the 'role-playing' bit is the stuff that you ignore and handwave... IE, not even the 'real' part of the game.
Yes it does. Unless you DM fiat every intimidate or bluff check and whatever the equivalent is in 4E, then there are rules for roleplaying. How do you resolve situations where the NPC might or might not be persuaded by the PCs to do something if not with rules? Just how you're feeling at the time? Based on the eloquence of the player rather than his Charisma 5 character?
|
|
Yes it does. Unless you DM fiat every intimidate or bluff check and whatever the equivalent is in 4E, then there are rules for roleplaying. How do you resolve situations where the NPC might or might not be persuaded by the PCs to do something if not with rules? Just how you're feeling at the time? Based on the eloquence of the player rather than his Charisma 5 character?I said no such thing - I said it does not require mechanics and stats to resolve. To me roleplaying is the most important part of the game. The great thing about roleplaying is that it does not require rules to adjudicate.And now you're arguing that the 'role-playing' bit is the stuff that you ignore and handwave... IE, not even the 'real' part of the game.
You are right - some mechanics may be required, but they are very light compared to those required for combat. Even so, most roleplaying does not require skill checks and even when it does the role play should always trump the roll play.
well we know alot of rules are "in other books, coming soon"
I'm sure something akin to DMG 2 will be down the pike for more stuff that may address some of this.
yeah I know, some stuff we would rather have "NOW".
It is almost like more of that videogame feel
we pay and pay and the game gets patched and added on to as we play
"what? Where'd my Creature Handler class go? My Rancor! NOOOOOO!!!!!"
;)
But the logical extension of your argument, "taking things that seem unimportant as rote" , is to simply not have a system at all. If the argument is seriously 'only combat encounters need or should ever have write-ups', how can you argue that you're not pushing a skirmish game?
I never said that it was "unimportant". You did. When it comes to combat statblocks, then yes: only things that you intend for the party to kill (or arguably kill) require them, because thats the purpose of them.
I do not need randomized tables or rules to tell me how to build a world, create a city, design a dungeon, or to generate NPC characteristics.There are mountains where I put them because I put them there. The hamlet is as big as I want because thats how big I want it to be. There is SOMEHOW a dungeon in the sewers because I WANT one there. The blacksmith is a very talented dwarf with red hair because thats what I WANTED.
The difference between D&D and a skirmish game is obvious to people who actually understand games. You dont particularly care for 4th Edition, which is fine, but you're also trying to find what you perceive to be flaws in the game, or exaggerate things (like me saying that knowing which NPC is a badass whistlemaker is unimportant).
Many people are probably happy with the more freeform NPC design. I can attach a name, personality, and perhaps a role to the NPC if I want and be done with it without feeling like I am cheating, or whatever.
Lets compare an actual skirmish game, such as D&D Minis. First of all, in DDM you just build a warband out of whatever you want and go through a single combat against another player who also has a warband constructed of...whatever. It doesnt always make sense (archons and hags, or something), but it doesnt matter. Build your army, pick a map, throw down.
Likewise, there isnt any inherent role-playing involved because you are not playing a single character. You're controlling a cluster of units that you selected within the limitations of the point cost given and trying to destroy the other side, or accumulate a minimum amount of Victory Points before the other player does.
There is no personality to the units, no background or history to the warband, no names, no skills, no equipment, and no customization at all. I would argue that if you were playing just ONE unit that it could potentially be a role-playing game (or at least have some element of it), but it lacks many things that role-playing games typically have, such as advancement. At the end of the skirmish, the next time you decide to use your dracolich, eye of flame, or ice archon, they're reset back to the way they were before the skirmish.
And if saying 'he's really good at making whistles' is unimportant... why is 'he's really good at swinging a sword' important? Why is it, then, that only combat-information is deemed 'important' in a supposedly full-rounded role-playing game?
Again, didnt say it was unimportant. I said that it shouldnt require mechanics to justify what you want.
Combat data, while no less important than any other aspect of role-playing, is actually useful because its a sort of contest. Combat information isnt the only data necessary for a "normal" game, nor is it the most important. More accurately, its probably the most often used.This is not to say that you should never stat out a NPC. In fact, most NPCs have stats.
When it comes to populating your towns, however, I dont see the need to fully stat out a whistlemaker, a blacksmith, an innkeeper, or whatever.
Arguably, I think that at best it would be necessary to know how good a NPC is at something if you think that a character might attempt to best them. For example, if a player wants to become the best whistlemaker around. In 3rd Edition, this was generally accessible by about...5th level, no matter what job or craft you practiced or how often you could practice is. However, I can only see that rarely happening. D&D is NOT a game about becoming the greatest business cat around. Thats not its genre, and it never was.
So, you might want there to be mechanics to determine "on the fly" which NPC is the best go-to guy for weapons, ropes, or whistles, but I dont. This guy is a reputed sage because I want him to be, and that guy sells weapons because I want a guy to sell weapons, and that guy sells typical adventuring gear because thats likewise pretty handy. The longer route would be to actually stat out all the NPCs, but the end result would be exactly the same.
Defensive, much? I'm curious as to what games you've actually designed. Not all designers design successful/fun games, after all.
4th Edition, like prior editions, doesnt provide hard rules for talking to people when its not really pertinent to the overall story (such as saying hi to people, buying gear, or talking about your history).
However, I'm curious as to what kinds of rules that you need for "social" role-playing and/or character interaction.
|
|
I'm enjoying the initial info release about the artificer, even though its a bit bare bones and our options are limited in regards to builds. Whilst I'm reserving my wholehearted endorsement, which of course Wotc are waiting for ;-)), I do like the different vibe/feel I get from it Arcane yet not a Wizard.
Sadly its unlikely I'll get to try it out till we see the final product so no opportunity to offer in depth feedback.
Oh, except I agree with a lot of posters that they need to rejig the healing ability, not lose it necessarily but definitely give it a different feel.
|
|
You are right - some mechanics may be required, but they are very light compared to those required for combat. Even so, most roleplaying does not require skill checks and even when it does the role play should always trump the roll play.So, one again you offer 'no but yes' and you still manage to avoid the key question... "Why does combat require all this attention?"
Because it requires objective, consistent, and fair adjudication.
|
|
Because non-combat is roleplaying and that should never be governed by detailed and cumbersome mechanics.But combat.. is role-playing...
And, even if your supposition is right, that 'non-combat doesn't need rules', wouldn't the game then be a skmirish game by definition?
Just because a game has rules for combat does not make it a skirmish game. Every fantasy RPG has rules for combat (with the exception of games like Amber and Baron Munchausen). That does not make them skirmish games.
And yes, you can and should roleplay during combat but very few games actually use roleplay to resolve combat.
|
|
Ok fed up now.
CWM
Vance
How about zipping it!!
You realise this thread was for people to discuss the artificer right?
Stop following each other around!!
Stop sniping at each other, a ridiculous number of threads on this board are being derailed by your inane arguments..
Yes it is!!
No it isn't!!
Yes it is!!
NO IT ISN'T!!
For crying out loud. Your lucky I'm not a mod cause at this point I'd ban you both.
Having had a chance to review the class now what would people like to see added?
I would like to see what route they'll go with paragon and epic paths.
|
|
Having had a chance to review the class now what would people like to see added?I would like to see what route they'll go with paragon and epic paths.
Yeah, I would have been in favour of at least one example of a paragon class.
Maybe a Cannith Golem maker? Nah, unlikely given how they seem hesitant to reinstate magical companions at this time.
Moving back on topic, has anyone aside from me actually played the artificer? What were your thoughts on it? If not, what are your thoughts from reading it?
Moving back on topic, has anyone aside from me actually played the artificer? What were your thoughts on it? If not, what are your thoughts from reading it?
My players are not, but their first official BBEG is going to be one. I am playing them a bit more techy + alchemy than written, but that is all just flavor changes to the actual powers.
So hopefully I can let you know how an enemy Artificer runs. He is shaping up to be 4th level. I expect the group to get to deal with him next weekend, but that all depends on what route they go and all that fun stuff.
Moving back on topic, has anyone aside from me actually played the artificer? What were your thoughts on it? If not, what are your thoughts from reading it?My players are not, but their first official BBEG is going to be one. I am playing them a bit more techy + alchemy than written, but that is all just flavor changes to the actual powers.
So hopefully I can let you know how an enemy Artificer runs. He is shaping up to be 4th level. I expect the group to get to deal with him next weekend, but that all depends on what route they go and all that fun stuff.
Are you using a full-blown character writeup or a class template statblock?
Given that 4E allows for more mutable descriptions and effects, I can see the artificer style varying from character to character (or even combining different styles within the same character).
My shielding cube looks high-tech, but creates a runic force field, and the wall of acid daily is performed how Al would do it in Full Metal Alchemist.
vance, what is it that makes minions super-powerful in your view? Why can't you have a regular guy in 4E? The Human Guard from the MM sure looks like just a regular guard to me.
He's not though. He's a level 3 fighter, likely with the toughness feat and fewer powers because he's a monster. Add a few more fighter powers and he is a PC.
I think what Vance is trying to say is that you can't use RAW or any MM entry, to make a normal, everyday, person in 4E. And that's true, you can't. It's one of my personal disappointents in a system which I mostly am coming to like - there is no example of an everyday person. Since the PCs are supposed to be much better than the normal people, it would be really nice to *see* normal people as a comparison point.
And, just to keep this from being a threadjack, I'm gonna hop back to the Artificer. Remember, WotC only showed us one possible path for it and not all the powers yet, so they very well might have other ways to play them.
|
|
I think what Vance is trying to say is that you can't use RAW or any MM entry, to make a normal, everyday, person in 4E. And that's true, you can't.
Actually you can. You can take any entry in the MM and reduce its level. You could take the 3rd level human guard and reduce him down to zero.
Decreasing a monster’s level works like increasing it, but in reverse. For each level down, reduce the creature’s attack rolls, defenses, and AC by 1 and drop its hit points based on its role. For every two levels, also reduce its damage by 1.
So this:
Human Guard Level 3 Soldier
HP 47; Bloodied 23
AC 18; Fortitude 16, Reflex 15, Will 14
m Halberd (standard; at-will) Weapon
Reach 2; +10 vs. AC; 1d10 + 3 damage, and the target is marked
until the end of the human guard’s next turn.
M Powerful Strike (standard; recharge) Weapon
Requires halberd; reach 2; +10 vs. AC; 1d10 + 7 damage, and the
target is knocked prone.
R Crossbow (standard; at-will) Weapon
Ranged 15/30; +9 vs. AC; 1d8 + 2 damage.
Becomes this ...
Human Guard Level 0 Soldier
HP 23; Bloodied 11
AC 15; Fortitude 13, Reflex 12, Will 11
m Halberd (standard; at-will) Weapon
Reach 2; +6 vs. AC; 1d10 + 1 damage, and the target is marked
until the end of the human guard’s next turn.
M Powerful Strike (standard; recharge ) Weapon
Requires halberd; reach 2; +6 vs. AC; 1d10 + 5 damage, and the
target is knocked prone.
R Crossbow (standard; at-will) Weapon
Ranged 15/30; +5 vs. AC; 1d8 damage.
|
|
Unless you DM fiat every intimidate or bluff check and whatever the equivalent is in 4E, then there are rules for roleplaying. How do you resolve situations where the NPC might or might not be persuaded by the PCs to do something if not with rules? Just how you're feeling at the time? Based on the eloquence of the player rather than his Charisma 5 character?
How did we adjudicate them in Basic D&D? First Edition AD&D? Second Edition AD&D?
Third Edition was the first edition of the D&D rules to include rules for social skills with hard numbers attached.
Under Vance's definition, every variant of D&D has been a DM-fiat, skirmish miniatures game, with zero roleplaying, until the year 2000. Which doesn't agree with my experiences.
I was roleplaying before I even knew about RPGs, since I was old enough to play pretend with my toys. I was roleplaying when I played Cops & Robbers, Cowboys & Indians, Battle of Britain or Redcoats & Zulus. I was roleplaying using the Moldvay Basic set, when a typical character's stats (and equipment and spells) could be fit on the back of a bus ticket. I was roleplaying when I got my books confiscated, and my friends and I just continued our game from memory. I was roleplaying when the PCs went in the opposite direction from the adventure, and met people who had no names, let alone stats, pre-written for my convenience. I was roleplaying when the players decide to spare and adopt a monster, and it becomes a henchman, despite there being no such thing as a template, level adjustment, or even ability scores listed for creatures.
Roleplaying wasn't invented in 2000, and doesn't require skill points.
Personally, I'd like to know why so many people claim to play role-playing games, yet not even know what that means.
|
|
Unless you DM fiat every intimidate or bluff check and whatever the equivalent is in 4E, then there are rules for roleplaying. How do you resolve situations where the NPC might or might not be persuaded by the PCs to do something if not with rules? Just how you're feeling at the time? Based on the eloquence of the player rather than his Charisma 5 character?How did we adjudicate them in Basic D&D? First Edition AD&D? Second Edition AD&D?
Third Edition was the first edition of the D&D rules to include rules for social skills with hard numbers attached.
Under Vance's definition, every variant of D&D has been a DM-fiat, skirmish miniatures game, with zero roleplaying, until the year 2000. Which doesn't agree with my experiences.
I was roleplaying before I even knew about RPGs, since I was old enough to play pretend with my toys. I was roleplaying when I played Cops & Robbers, Cowboys & Indians, Battle of Britain or Redcoats & Zulus. I was roleplaying using the Moldvay Basic set, when a typical character's stats (and equipment and spells) could be fit on the back of a bus ticket. I was roleplaying when I got my books confiscated, and my friends and I just continued our game from memory. I was roleplaying when the PCs went in the opposite direction from the adventure, and met people who had no names, let alone stats, pre-written for my convenience. I was roleplaying when the players decide to spare and adopt a monster, and it becomes a henchman, despite there being no such thing as a template, level adjustment, or even ability scores listed for creatures.
Roleplaying wasn't invented in 2000, and doesn't require skill points.
Preach it brother!:)