Alright first and foremost the disclaimers! I like 4e. I actually like 3.5, Pathfinder, 2e....never played 1e but I have the books. I think I'd probably enjoy 1e as well. I got everything covered.
My concern with 4e is not the ruleset but in how WOTC is supporting the campaign settings. The whole two books and an adventure format. So my question is how can 4E survive on its own? Because of the lack of setting fluff support do you find yourself plundering previous editions by necessity for world information?
I know the argument has come up that 4E is desgined to be less work for the DM but does it not require a tremendous amount of further world building? I know DDI provides some support but certainly not to the degree of the previous books that came out under different editions. Was there not a market for all of those setting flavor books? In my 3.5 library I have around 38 or 39 setting books between Forgotten Realms and Eberron. Were these books not selling? If they were selling and players were buying them, did the market cease to exist or are players porting in 2e books from ebay or adapting books from other game systems? Would this by default accidently drive people to other systems to lets say find a fully fleshed out city supplement....with no book on Sharn or Waterdeep would gamers find themselves buying an Earthdawn book where they wouldn't normally?
Just curious. I miss dungeons and dragons setting books. I miss the days of campaign overload during the reign of 2e.
and again....I like 4e. Otherwise I wouldn't be concerned. And yes I like 3.5.... but 2e is my favorite and for any die hard 1Ers.... I'll try it out soon. Don't leave nasty messages.
|
The whole two books and an adventure format. So my question is how can 4E survive on its own? Because of the lack of setting fluff support do you find yourself plundering previous editions by necessity for world information?
Unknown at this time. Speculation across various boards as well with RPGA is Wizards is more and more moving on-line, with tools, virtual "gaming table"(?), and the like. Again, all speculation.
As insiders have explained several times, the cost of a book is fairly equal, all things considered. Meaning that the cost of PHB2 is roughly the same as Secrets of the Shadowdale, assuming they are of equal lengths.
What does this mean?
Well, it's quite simple really. Assuming a base of gamers that play 4e = X. It's fair to assume that the number of people who will be at least potentially interested in the PHB2 will approach X.
On the other hand, Secrets of the Shadowdale, is a niche product. It's actually a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche product, or something like that. (of all D&D players, Secrets is a DM book. Of all DM's, Secrets is really only interesting if you play FR. Of all interested DM's who play FR; only a fraction will be interested in a book about Shadowdale..)
Since both the PHB2 and the fictive Secrets cost the same to produce and tie up the same amount of talent, it really doesn't matter if Secret even brings in enough money to cover the expenses. The real point is, could the talent at hand be used to make something more useful to more D&D'ers, ie make more money?
As insiders have explained several times, the cost of a book is fairly equal, all things considered. Meaning that the cost of PHB2 is roughly the same as Secrets of the Shadowdale, assuming they are of equal lengths.
I can understand that point of view but how possibly far can it extend? How many rulebooks can be published before there are no more topics? Won't 4e just burn out under a pile of classes and variants and tables? How many gamers do you think started roleplaying because we picked up a dungeons and dragons book and said, "OOh look at those rules?" How many of us picked up a setting book and became excited about the concepts within and picked up a rule book to execute those concepts? My first encounter with roleplaying was finding the City of Greyhawk box set. I poured over the maps and the history. If the first book I picked off the shelf was a PHB I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought. Looks too much like school.
And worse yet..Yes the players handbook 2 has a larger market but that would almost be the same as saying "well if we come out with a book for fighters.... only the people who play fighters will buy it so lets not bother with it." Isn't the martial power books niche products for people who only play fighter style classes? Isn't the supplements concerning dragons niche products for people who have dragons in their game?
In the end what I'm saying is there are only so many books that can be considered core, books that reach the complete game base. At some point in time all of those topics will be covered and books will have to be released concerning fringe items. I would just rather those fringe books be spent detailing settings rather than Monster Manual 18 Spineless Horrors, Jellies, and Mites.
As insiders have explained several times, the cost of a book is fairly equal, all things considered. Meaning that the cost of PHB2 is roughly the same as Secrets of the Shadowdale, assuming they are of equal lengths.
I can understand that point of view but how possibly far can it extend? How many rulebooks can be published before there are no more topics? Won't 4e just burn out under a pile of classes and variants and tables? How many gamers do you think started roleplaying because we picked up a dungeons and dragons book and said, "OOh look at those rules?" How many of us picked up a setting book and became excited about the concepts within and picked up a rule book to execute those concepts? My first encounter with roleplaying was finding the City of Greyhawk box set. I poured over the maps and the history. If the first book I picked off the shelf was a PHB I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought. Looks too much like school.
And worse yet..Yes the players handbook 2 has a larger market but that would almost be the same as saying "well if we come out with a book for fighters.... only the people who play fighters will buy it so lets not bother with it." Isn't the martial power books niche products for people who only play fighter style classes? Isn't the supplements concerning dragons niche products for people who have dragons in their game?
In the end what I'm saying is there are only so many books that can be considered core, books that reach the complete game base. At some point in time all of those topics will be covered and books will have to be released concerning fringe items. I would just rather those fringe books be spent detailing settings rather than Monster Manual 18 Spineless Horrors, Jellies, and Mites.
Just because you got into the game via a setting does not mean it is the norm.
Look, I am not disagreeing with you. I love settings as well, but to be honest, I must have around 20-30-40 different settings for the last many versions of D&D - While I wouldn't mind new shiny ones for 4e, it's not a must. I rather have the rules covered, then they can (for all I care) focus on making settings and sweet adventures.
Problem is, while adventures can sustain Paizo, I doubt they can sustain WotC, even if they were producing stellar adventures every single time.
I guess I'd argue that the formula for 4e's survival comes from exactly what they're doing--which I love. Most of their efforts go to expanding the Core setting. Just about every book, from Dungeon Delve, to Open Grave, to Manual of the Planes is focused on that core setting.
Then, once a year, they throw the spotlight to one of their other settings--an Eberron book, or a Faerun book. They do two of these and an adventure, and they're done. Most of the fringe settings that never were really settings of their own--but more campaign templates, games like Ravenloft or Planescapes, have been folded entirely into the 4e core world along with all the classic modules out there.
As for how these new setting books will do with newcomers to the various settings, I bought the Campaign Guide for Forgotten Realms and am really happy with it (though I'm an old hand at Faerun, with both the gray box and 3.0 Campaign Setting books as backup material). On the other hand I knew almost nothing about Eberron previous to picking up its 4e incarnation. I love it. I do feel somewhat like I lack some of the resources I'd like to really run it the way I want to, but I imagine the Campaign Guide will contain most of that. So far though I have to say I'm really happy with the product that's been coming out and certainly if my current 4e Eberron campaign is any indication, the 4e versions of the other settings seem to be doing okay.
On the other hand, Secrets of the Shadowdale, is a niche product. It's actually a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche product, or something like that. (of all D&D players, Secrets is a DM book. Of all DM's, Secrets is really only interesting if you play FR. Of all interested DM's who play FR; only a fraction will be interested in a book about Shadowdale..)
This is the unfortunate truth. The audience for such a book is too small for such a product as to make it a less attractive option to produce. The aim is to make products with a broader appeal. I have picked up both Player's Guides so far, but have avoided the Campaign Guides and adventures for lack of interest. That being said, the audience for a book like the campaign guide is still larger than most audiences for most other RPGs in general which is why it is somewhat worthwhile to produce something rather than nothing at all. We just will not be inundated with books on the campaigns.
I like the current incarnation of campaign and player's books.
As for how these new setting books will do with newcomers to the various settings, I bought the Campaign Guide for Forgotten Realms and am really happy with it (though I'm an old hand at Faerun, with both the gray box and 3.0 Campaign Setting books as backup material).
One of the problems I percieve is that even though you own the 4th edition Forgotten Realms books you still have to draw off the backup material of the greybox and 3.0 books. Now you said you weren't too familiar with Eberron. Do you feel, recognizing the fact that you haven't seen the Campaign guide yet, that it will be enough material to run several years of campaigns? I'm just concerned that it will not...but it may have to do with the way I structure campaigns. I also prefer to write my own adventures rather than using prepublished modules so I look to setting books for inspiration.
again with newcomers....they are not going to have the fluff resources that lie at our disposal. I just wonder if new gamers are going to look to other game systems to provide them that....
I like the current incarnation of campaign and player's books.
In its own way I am kinda relieved at the new format. It means less books for me to buy and a more healthy robust wallet.
Look, I am not disagreeing with you. I love settings as well, but to be honest, I must have around 20-30-40 different...
Sorry...I'm not trying to argue with you either. I was never very focused on the rules of the various incarnations of d&d. I own slews of setting books and very few actual rule books. Usually I just ran campaigns off the core books. I understand I am probably the exception. But like so many others swimming around the internet, I think my point of view is the most important! Well not really...but you get the my point. My point. The only correct point.
One of the problems I percieve is that even though you own the 4th edition Forgotten Realms books you still have to draw off the backup material of the greybox and 3.0 books. Now you said you weren't too familiar with Eberron. Do you feel, recognizing the fact that you haven't seen the Campaign guide yet, that it will be enough material to run several years of campaigns? I'm just concerned that it will not...but it may have to do with the way I structure campaigns. I also prefer to write my own adventures rather than using prepublished modules so I look to setting books for inspiration.
They seem to have marketed both books pretty differently too. The Forgotten Realms book seemed oriented toward a player who's into Forgotten Realms and is a current events book, bringing older players up to speed on the sprawling events of the last 100 years. There's a ton in there as a result. It's a smooth way to do it, since even if you've never touched Forgotten Realms before--100 years of backstory in one book is a ton. There's a lot of material in that one book. I don't know that I would really need my older FR books, though having them certainly adds a lot to the experience.
On the Eberron front, I hadn't even looked at the setting until 4.0 came out. A lot of my problems, as I talk with people, seem to be problems with Eberron as its always been rather than 4e version problems. It seems to be a "less than" setting rather than a "more than" setting. Rather than taking the D&D experience and kicking it up a level, they seem to be all about removing options. You can't have Demon Lords because they're all imprisoned. You can't have goblins and hobgoblins because they're all in their own country. You can't have drow because they're all in Xen'drik. Giants either. Oh and dragons are all either polymorphed and in hiding or off on their own continent studying obscure scrolls. Oh and the whole variety of devils/demons and yugoloths was interesting...I guess, but let's just have them all be Rakshasas! Even the fairly cool dream parasite guys who possess people to take over the world, yeah they have their own continent too--good luck seeing any of them. Aargh. AARGH!
That said, my whole campaign so far has been nothing but that one book. I don't even have the Campaign Guide yet, and the game is going strong. I think once I get the writeups on the different cities and organizations, I'll have pretty much whatever I'd need for my Eberron gaming needs.
I'm just not sure I LIKE Eberron enough to play it for years.
|
I know I and most of my friend felt very cheated on the books for say, the Forgotten Realms compared to what was released in 3rd edition D&D.
I think the format of the newer books being just powers books really isn't working well for the game's health as a whole personally.
Your eventually going to run out of "Book of Yet More Powers" topics just like 2nd edition AD&D did for the Handbooks and 3rd edition did for the Complete books.
This is especially true for 4th edition where the push/pull/slide/combat advantage/-2 to something/etc mechanic combinations are going to run out and lead to a lot of repackaging of abilities for other classes. (two-weapon fighter versus two-weapon ranger for example)
One could easily take all the powers in the PHB, make them roll neutral and then let people pick whatever they like using their choice of ability modifier or weapon and the game wouldn't change.
Yeah, seriously. One of the big things that has always bothered me in D&D has been the obsession with game balance and gamist design. It's really become the point of departure in 4e, where now the whole game has been broken into balanced modular blocks (like the ones you mentioned, push-pull, move+attack, 4W attack, etc.)
Really, in my heart, I would love to just toss game balance aside and see the design be about 1) deciding the effects the designers want for the power--what does it do? and then 2) make elegant mechanics that reflect what's happening.
The problem with this is that there's things that certain folks might be able to do that D&D has always concidered "unfair". If I go up behind a guard and cut his throat--he's a dead guy. If you do it in D&D, well you get Combat Advantage, or a Sneak Attack Bonus, or whatever.
So long as there's folks that complain that a wizard's spells are too cool, or that the druid's ability to turn into an animal are unbalanced, you're stuck on a failed path whose ultimate destination is the kind of sterilized, standardized rules you see in 4e.
Now is that all there is to the new books? Hardly. They're packed with good stuff--but the powers that appear, when they appear, often make me sigh a sigh of despair.
My suggestion is to do what I do--houserule the heck out of everything until it makes sense for you. There's plenty to love in 4e, really. Don't let the gamist junk in there jade you too much. They had to put it in to make the balance-mongers happy.
I know I and most of my friend felt very cheated on the books for say, the Forgotten Realms compared to what was released in 3rd edition D&D.
I think the format of the newer books being just powers books really isn't working well for the game's health as a whole personally.
Your eventually going to run out of "Book of Yet More Powers" topics just like 2nd edition AD&D did for the Handbooks and 3rd edition did for the Complete books.
This is especially true for 4th edition where the push/pull/slide/combat advantage/-2 to something/etc mechanic combinations are going to run out and lead to a lot of repackaging of abilities for other classes. (two-weapon fighter versus two-weapon ranger for example)
One could easily take all the powers in the PHB, make them roll neutral and then let people pick whatever they like using their choice of ability modifier or weapon and the game wouldn't change.
I don't think this is true, and I certainly think you're rather dramatically underestimating the wide range of variation and unique mechanical effects that can be created using the power system.
Yeah, seriously. One of the big things that has always bothered me in D&D has been the obsession with game balance and gamist design. It's really become the point of departure in 4e, where now the whole game has been broken into balanced modular blocks (like the ones you mentioned, push-pull, move+attack, 4W attack, etc.)
Really, in my heart, I would love to just toss game balance aside and see the design be about 1) deciding the effects the designers want for the power--what does it do? and then 2) make elegant mechanics that reflect what's happening.
The problem with this is that there's things that certain folks might be able to do that D&D has always concidered "unfair". If I go up behind a guard and cut his throat--he's a dead guy. If you do it in D&D, well you get Combat Advantage, or a Sneak Attack Bonus, or whatever.
So long as there's folks that complain that a wizard's spells are too cool, or that the druid's ability to turn into an animal are unbalanced, you're stuck on a failed path whose ultimate destination is the kind of sterilized, standardized rules you see in 4e.
Now is that all there is to the new books? Hardly. They're packed with good stuff--but the powers that appear, when they appear, often make me sigh a sigh of despair.
My suggestion is to do what I do--houserule the heck out of everything until it makes sense for you. There's plenty to love in 4e, really. Don't let the gamist junk in there jade you too much. They had to put it in to make the balance-mongers happy.
I find it difficult to understand why the idea of "balance" in a game is treated like a dirty word.
I find it difficult to understand why the idea of "balance" in a game is treated like a dirty word.
Just different schools. I like the idea of a game world that feels really real and am willing to lump the downside that there's some things and folks out there that are just better (if the flavor supports it--not all the time).
When you make a product that's balanced first and foremost, story and flavor conciderations end up having to bow to gamist mechanical considerations--which in my opinion, hurt the game.
It's like when they decided that an arrow that hits a target is automatically destroyed--to avoid sneaky people using spells cleverly to cast silence on an arrow and then make a target unable to sound the alarm or call for help.
Wet blanket much? Breaking suspension of disbelief much?
Sometimes arrows break. Sometimes they don't. They should never break or not break in order to bow to balance.
I find it difficult to understand why the idea of "balance" in a game is treated like a dirty word.
For me it's verisimilitude (although I'm sure that's got the wrong number of both i's and consonants...).
For example, I think arcane magic should be a rare, weird and wonderful thing - In my world, its practioners are rightly feared because they can do things...superhuman. That means wizards should be "better" than the rest (at least as far as matching my biases go anyhow).
Personally, I'd prefer a game simulate my preconceived idea of how the world would be if magic existed rather than ensure the fighter, cleric, thief and wizard all have as near-as-possible to 'the same impact'.
EDIT: I forgot to add. The reason I dont think it matters if the game balances is because the players arent competing against one another. Obviously in a competitive game I'm a fan of balance (there'd be no point in mandating that black gets an extra queen in the game of chess, for example).
there'd be no point in mandating that black gets an extra queen in the game of chess, for example.
Well and another interesting point is that chess is totally absract. You're not dealing with the realities of mideval warfare--you're playing a fun little game with some tactical elements to it. There's no story to it really. One guy wins, the other loses, usually after having chased the dumb king around the board for an hour, you reset the board and start over.
D&D is story driven. When you have something that patently doesn't make sense (like the rogue power that lets you shoot a shotgun spray of arrows, bolts, or slingstones at a group of guys who are then blinded because of the blood running into their eyes) you then have to try and convincingly tie that into a narrative.
The more the rules glut, the more you have to slog through to tell the story. And the story is what I love.
|
|
I don't think this is true, and I certainly think you're rather dramatically underestimating the wide range of variation and unique mechanical effects that can be created using the power system.
There are special rules for this forum and I do not appreciate your post. I don't know why you'd even bother to respond to my post if you thought something like that.
I was expressing my opinion as I saw it from a stance of having played 4th edition very regularly for several months. If you insist however, by my count:
There are 24 unique at will level one class power mechanics in the Players Handbook.
There are 32 at will level one class powers in the Players Handbook.
There are 11 unique at will level one class power added in the Players Handbook 2.
There are 32 at will level one class powers in the Players Handbook 2.
So out of sixty-two first level at will powers, there are only thirty-five of them that I consider unique.
My criteria was loose. I don't care about blasts/areas or damage types and I lumped Targets AC/Fort/Will/Ref Defense all in one category so you could choose to count those separately. Mine went something along the lines of for example "grant temporary hit points." There are 3 out of 8 classes in the Players Handbook 2 that don't have the ability to grant temporary hit points with an at-will power so that's 5 classes with the same mechanic. "I hit someone and then maybe they take damage again," was another popular one.
I only did this because it was late and I was bored and tired. Both physically given the hour and mentally of people trying to claim that the summation of shift/slide/pull/combat advantage/bonus/penalty is a dramatic understatement. There are 10 out of 16 conditions grant combat advantage, the same mechanic you get from flanking.
Perfectly acceptable for the miniatures skirmish game as 4th edition is, but even if I doubled my numbers I'd hardly consider it a huge sweeping maelstrom of variation and unique mechanical effects that overwhelm my senses with it's awesomeness, especially given the fact that not all of the mechanical effects are equally useful.
At the end of the day, the game is what it is and it doesn't have the growth potential of other RPGs or previous editions of the game if they insist on loading them down with 46% recycled powers. I don't enjoy seeing D&D like this. I grew up with the game and it really hurts to see it as it is now. :(
|
...
I know the argument has come up that 4E is desgined to be less work for the DM but does it not require a tremendous amount of further world building?...
No more and no less then 3.5 did. Maybe I'm the exception, but I never liked taking things directly from the setting books anyhow. so I might say it's an Ebberon campaign or something, but I'd still have to design my own forests, towns, goblin lairs, etc. Pre-built cities were fine, I guess, until I ran into the odd player who wanted to interrupt the political machinations of Sharn or something. Or try to assemble Waterdeep into a small army to overthrow Elminster. Then I'd have to alter the city anyhow. So ya. No real more or less time spent on it.
Just my opinion as a DM here.
Plus there's something to be said that the core setting is an actual distict place now. It has its own set of old empires, histories, gods, wars, and ancient evils.
Third edition was set in a weird mishmash of Greyhawk stuff and stuff that wasn't in Greyhawk...but wasn't anywhere else either. It just floated in limbo. You could stick it somewhere, sure, but it never really belonged until 4e came along.
Now if you have some old module that never belonged anywhere, it finally has a home. That's really nice. I love that books like Cityscape finally describe places in a real world. I love that adventures like Hellspike Prison or Dragondown Grotto come from someplace. Heck, the King's Road from Fields of Ruin is even part of the Nentir Vale map in the DMG! That kind of stuff is just great.
|
|
-a lot of things about game MECHANICS I agree with*-
(*I do not, however agree with his opinion on 4th editiona s a game)
There are only so many variations of effects that can be created before Powers look and feel similiar.
When this happens, and I think it may happen as early as 1-2 years down the road, WoC has two options to make things interesting again.
1) Blur the lines between types. For example, the Striker gets Controller Powers and vice versa. Look at Magic. In the beginning there was a clear destinction between what the colours could and could not do. But even 8 years back (that's when I stopped plying) these lines were severly blurred.
2) WoC might come upd with a new conditions and/or effects. Maybe they implant the "jumping" condition where the target jumps up and down and has a 25% chance each round to attack with a line of p*ke that automatically hits and does 2 Charisma damage. I know that this power is not possible under the PHB rules at the moment. This will of course change existing core mechanics.
Either way, the Power mechanics make it easy to come up with variations and combinations of the various effects that are still balanced, but on the otehr hand it also imposes limitations upon the number of unique Powers.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
-a lot of things about game MECHANICS I agree with*-(*I do not, however agree with his opinion on 4th editiona s a game)
There are only so many variations of effects that can be created before Powers look and feel similiar.
When this happens, and I think it may happen as early as 1-2 years down the road, WoC has two options to make things interesting again.
1) Blur the lines between types. For example, the Striker gets Controller Powers and vice versa. Look at Magic. In the beginning there was a clear destinction between what the colours could and could not do. But even 8 years back (that's when I stopped plying) these lines were severly blurred.
2) WoC might come upd with a new conditions and/or effects. Maybe they implant the "jumping" condition where the target jumps up and down and has a 25% chance each round to attack with a line of p*ke that automatically hits and does 2 Charisma damage. I know that this power is not possible under the PHB rules at the moment. This will of course change existing core mechanics.
You forgot:
3) Launch a new edition.
Yeah, seriously. One of the big things that has always bothered me in D&D has been the obsession with game balance and gamist design.
Somewhat off topic, you may be right that balance takes away from flavor. However, in my own personal experience, the ones claiming balance is irrelevant never play the 'weaker' classes. Maybe I have just been burned too many time, but it does make me suspicious.
I have run campaigns where I believed there to be some semblance of balance that did not lack for flavor or exciting narrative. Granted, those campaigns were not Lord of the Rings or the Justice League where someone was willing to play Frodo to someone's Gandalf or Elastic Man to someone's Superman. Books and movies have the advantage of a single point of narrative control where lesser characters can be guaranteed their fair share of spotlight.
I have run campaigns where I believed there to be some semblance of balance that did not lack for flavor or exciting narrative. Granted, those campaigns were not Lord of the Rings or the Justice League where someone was willing to play Frodo to someone's Gandalf or Elastic Man to someone's Superman. Books and movies have the advantage of a single point of narrative control where lesser characters can be guaranteed their fair share of spotlight.
Y'know and there's a point to this too. I think there's such a thing as bad flavor. The absence of scale and scope and reason does not produce a cool game. It creates a lot of Drizzts.
I guess I don't wanna' be Drizzt. I want to earn my victories. I want to play a vast swath of "heroic ordinary" guys with real lives and stuff they care about. Now that's not necessarily low magic scrabbling around with a sharp stick and muddy clothes--it's just a world that feels right and characters that feel right in them.
But no, given the choice between Legolas or Aragorn or Galdalf and Frodo--I'd pick Gimli, or maybe Lurtz, or even that big messed up orc leader in the last movie whose arm doesn't work right, who sidesteps that big ol' trebuchet rock and spits on it; but then just gets hacked to bits by Aragorn and Gimli as they go running past. Heroic or ignominious just me and the dice and whatever I can make out of them, gritty like crazy.
|
Yeah, seriously. One of the big things that has always bothered me in D&D has been the obsession with game balance and gamist design.
From my experiance, one of the nicest things about 4e isn't so much class balance but playtime balance.
In prior editions, you could end up having a combat round last 30 minutes, of that thirty minutes you could have 2-3 players of martial classes whose actions take 1-2 minutes to resolve, and then a caster whose complex spell mechanics might take up the rest 15 minutes alone. You end up with one guy by virtue of his classes mechanics becoming a time sync everyone else has to wait for disproportionately. It often left us martial classes feeling left out of the doing cool things book, unless there was something super situational.
I do think PFRPG addresses some of this buy giving non-casters a lot more things they can do, but 4e gives a much more consistent mechanic to a characters turn so no one player on average dominates a combat round. Each class has a distinct feel and type of thing they do, but the generalized mechanic really smooths out play.
Yeah, I really do like smooth mechanics that don't take a lot of bookwork. I worry a little bit with the new Pathfinder rules that it might be going from quick resolution for everyone but the mage, to everyone taking 15 minutes to muddle through their action. I really hope not.
Y'know and truth be told, I don't know that I even hate the modular block format of 4e powers all that much--so long as they're used in ways that fit the narrative. The fact that almost anything you can do to someone can be boiled down into one of the standardized mechanics does make things smooth and fast. It makes crunchy flavor something that suddenly isn't an oxymoron anymore. The kuo-toa is a great example of this. If you attack him, he weapon strips you and when he attacks you he leapfrogs over you to land in any space next to you. Seriously, no mechanic says "slippery ninja" as much as those special abilities do.
Yeah, seriously. One of the big things that has always bothered me in D&D has been the obsession with game balance and gamist design. It's really become the point of departure in 4e, where now the whole game has been broken into balanced modular blocks (like the ones you mentioned, push-pull, move+attack, 4W attack, etc.)
Really, in my heart, I would love to just toss game balance aside and see the design be about 1) deciding the effects the designers want for the power--what does it do? and then 2) make elegant mechanics that reflect what's happening.
The problem with this is that there's things that certain folks might be able to do that D&D has always concidered "unfair". If I go up behind a guard and cut his throat--he's a dead guy. If you do it in D&D, well you get Combat Advantage, or a Sneak Attack Bonus, or whatever.
So long as there's folks that complain that a wizard's spells are too cool, or that the druid's ability to turn into an animal are unbalanced, you're stuck on a failed path whose ultimate destination is the kind of sterilized, standardized rules you see in 4e.
Now is that all there is to the new books? Hardly. They're packed with good stuff--but the powers that appear, when they appear, often make me sigh a sigh of despair.
My suggestion is to do what I do--houserule the heck out of everything until it makes sense for you. There's plenty to love in 4e, really. Don't let the gamist junk in there jade you too much. They had to put it in to make the balance-mongers happy.
I see were your coming from, I just don't agree. Especially with a product like D&D which is likely to be a gateway game with lots of new players and rookie DMs. For this product having the system take on the burden of making sure everything is as balanced as possible seems to me to be a very worthwhile goal. Once one is deeper into RPGs I think there is more room for games like Shadowrun were its clear that mages are simply hands down more powerful then everyone else (Well that was true in the edition I played in anyway).
While its true that such balance does place limits on the system and it bows to gamist conventions I think these are worth while trade offs for this product.
Plus I'm having fun playing in a game were the cheese level is not out of control.
Well yeah, and totally we're not talking about absolutes here. I've just got a school of gaming where the extra realism is worth quite a bit more unbalance. You are willing to lose some of the realism because you totally get a lot out of the game balance. And I know you and you totally have never seemed like a crazy gamist--your games always seem like a nice blend of the two. You seem to have a set of priorities of what you want from a game and a somewhat different school of gaming you come from (that is gamist, true, but not in a bad way).
I think you're right too, that a lot of it has to do with the group we're playing with. I run games down at our local game store and for a variety of reasons (foremost being that I'm trying to show off the actual product--not my homebrew version of it) I tend to run things pretty canon. The more codified rules do keep everything quite a bit smoother--even if they make more work from me to keep things making sense. It's been working out different muscles.
I don't think this is true, and I certainly think you're rather dramatically underestimating the wide range of variation and unique mechanical effects that can be created using the power system.There are special rules for this forum and I do not appreciate your post. I don't know why you'd even bother to respond to my post if you thought something like that.
I was expressing my opinion as I saw it from a stance of having played 4th edition very regularly for several months. If you insist however, by my count:
There are 24 unique at will level one class power mechanics in the Players Handbook.
There are 32 at will level one class powers in the Players Handbook.
There are 11 unique at will level one class power added in the Players Handbook 2.
There are 32 at will level one class powers in the Players Handbook 2.So out of sixty-two first level at will powers, there are only thirty-five of them that I consider unique.
My criteria was loose. I don't care about blasts/areas or damage types and I lumped Targets AC/Fort/Will/Ref Defense all in one category so you could choose to count those separately. Mine went something along the lines of for example "grant temporary hit points." There are 3 out of 8 classes in the Players Handbook 2 that don't have the ability to grant temporary hit points with an at-will power so that's 5 classes with the same mechanic. "I hit someone and then maybe they take damage again," was another popular one.
I only did this because it was late and I was bored and tired. Both physically given the hour and mentally of people trying to claim that the summation of shift/slide/pull/combat advantage/bonus/penalty is a dramatic understatement. There are 10 out of 16 conditions grant combat advantage, the same mechanic you get from flanking.
Perfectly acceptable for the miniatures skirmish game as 4th edition is, but even if I doubled my numbers I'd hardly consider it a huge sweeping maelstrom of variation and unique...
I suspect if you think about it in many ways this has always been true. Or, I contend, its always been true for most of the elements of the game that ran smoothly. Skipping over the various 'I add more to either hit, damage or number of attacks' abilities that really were standard issue for fighters and such I think you'll find that most of the spells in use by the spell casting classes fell into a smaller number of categories as well. Furthermore the smoothest ones generally handled things in a pretty straight forward clear cut way.
The best ones had effects that were complex enough to be interesting but simple enough that it was not necessary to stop the game to look up how they worked. The worst, IMO, were either over complex (web), had moderately complex effects where the shine wore off after the second time the spell was used but you still had to look them up in the rule book for the subtable or were just blatantly overpowered and under some circumstances simply shut encounters down, The spell with intelligence drain makes visiting dinosaur island a bad adventure for example. Oh come to think of it any spell that bypasses the adventure was bad too. wind walk is a prime example.
What I'm basically saying is that there has only ever been a fairly limited number of ways of achieving good flavour for powers in every edition. Attempts to get beyond this, for the most part, added complexity or other iffy elements to the game for generally declining returns. This, I contend, is one of the reasons one tended to see spell casters with a fairly circumscribed list of powers. Hypothetically you could choose from a huge list but in reality most of the options were not appealing for one reason or another.
In essence I suspect you'd find that the 4E designers have already been through old, previous edition, spell lists over and over again, looking for those spells that either worked well and could be translated to 4E or ones that could be translated easily if just one or two elements were simplified.
There is room in the game for some slightly more complex powers but their best used as either Daily's or as monster powers were complex mechanics are going to come up only very occasionally and when they do they come pre-packaged with a big, game altering, boom (nothing worse then spending 15 minutes working out how a spell fuctions only for it to be nearly irrelevant).
As insiders have explained several times, the cost of a book is fairly equal, all things considered. Meaning that the cost of PHB2 is roughly the same as Secrets of the Shadowdale, assuming they are of equal lengths.
What does this mean?
Well, it's quite simple really. Assuming a base of gamers that play 4e = X. It's fair to assume that the number of people who will be at least potentially interested in the PHB2 will approach X.
On the other hand, Secrets of the Shadowdale, is a niche product. It's actually a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche product, or something like that. (of all D&D players, Secrets is a DM book. Of all DM's, Secrets is really only interesting if you play FR. Of all interested DM's who play FR; only a fraction will be interested in a book about Shadowdale..)
Since both the PHB2 and the fictive Secrets cost the same to produce and tie up the same amount of talent, it really doesn't matter if Secret even brings in enough money to cover the expenses. The real point is, could the talent at hand be used to make something more useful to more D&D'ers, ie make more money?
This is a really excellent post that explains the concept very succinctly. I think you really hit the nail on the head here Asmodeur.
I can understand that point of view but how possibly far can it extend? How many rulebooks can be published before there are no more topics? Won't 4e just burn out under a pile of classes and variants and tables? How many gamers do you think started roleplaying because we picked up a dungeons and dragons book and said, "OOh look at those rules?" How many of us picked up a setting book and became excited about the concepts within and picked up a rule book to execute those concepts? My first encounter with roleplaying was finding the City of Greyhawk box set. I poured over the maps and the history. If the first book I picked off the shelf was a PHB I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought. Looks too much like school.
I think there are still a lot of books one can do. Even if one is running out of races and classes one can still put out the big book on Devils and those who fight them and that sort of thing.
I suspect WotC is not making too bad a move with their current program. Note that the setting books are still there to snag in our hypothetical newbie. In fact the shelf will eventually be covered in setting books of different flavours any one of which might grab the newbie.
Its true that there won't be many books to follow but TSR determined that this was a flawed marketing model. The result was that 3.5 chose not to explore most settings at all really simply sticking to the Forgotten Realms and their new Eberron setting. Under the current model the depth might not be there but there will eventually be a lot more breadth, that breadth probably has more newbie snagging potential then just 2 settings with 30 books between them.
Y'know, I think you just hit on the reason I've always hated buffing (and cursing for that matter). Anything that changes the math round by round tends to gum up the works and slow down the game.
Web, by contrast, was fine. It creates an area of webs that are hard to move through. You can softshoe the mechanics if you want and if it still feels right, no big deal. Even windwalking out of an adventure still puts you someplace and all you gotta' do is have something interesting going on--or not.
But when (as happened to us a couple of weeks ago) three different characters are bestowing bonuses on different party members' saves, attacks, and initiative values on a round by round basis--it just made me want to scream. I would have rather NOT had the bonuses than have to sit and do math for two minutes every time I was going to roll the dice.
Same with cursing monsters. Tracking which monster has the -3 to hit and which monster has a -2 to saves in a fight full of monsters is just irritating as heck.
Under the current model the depth might not be there but there will eventually be a lot more breadth, that breadth probably has more newbie snagging potential then just 2 settings with 30 books between them.
*Shakes fist* Those durn newbies are always muckin' up my game! And gettin' on my lawn....
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This is especially true for 4th edition where the push/pull/slide/combat advantage/-2 to something/etc mechanic combinations are going to run out and lead to a lot of repackaging of abilities for other classes. (two-weapon fighter versus two-weapon ranger for example)One could easily take all the powers in the PHB, make them roll neutral and then let people pick whatever they like using their choice of ability modifier or weapon and the game wouldn't change.
Yeah, this is something I find frustrating as well. I don't feel like there is a good class-specific flavor running through the powers. There are attempts at creating that flavor (e.g., rogue abilities that require a dagger), but it's not quite enough. It'd also be nice if the various conditions/abilities were broken up by class to a certain extent to make them a little more iconic. I think there are some themes in the classes, but they aren't strongly supported and emphasized.
One thing I find odd about 4e is that WotC has a very good grasp of thematic design even within a limited amount of space and rules text, as shown by Magic. I really wish that the various roles and power sources had been treated vaguely like the colors in magic. I wish that arcane based characters focused on a particular mechanic or damage type(s) and that strikers had a unifying theme of some type in their abilities.
Plus, it's just not clear to me what the differences are between at-will/daily/encounter powers. It was mentioned in the thread that a recent ranger article was redone because it had encounter powers inflicting save ends status effects and that such effects are typically only for daily powers. That's an interesting fact, but I think it gets lost in the flood of powers and abilities out there.
Another element I didn't like (and mind you, this might be unique to the one class I was looking at when I noticed it) is where you have an daily ability at level X, and then you have an encounter ability at level X+3 that is basically the daily ability, but usable more often. That's just boring.
There are special rules for this forum and I do not appreciate your post. I don't know why you'd even bother to respond to my post if you thought something like that.
My post violates none of those rules. I was not rude, abusive, engaging in flaming, baiting or trolling or any other rule-breaking behavior. I simply disagreed with you. I don't think that voicing a disagreeing opinion and perhaps giving you cause to re-examine your own (as you apparently have, even if it didn't change) needs to be justified.
So out of sixty-two first level at will powers, there are only thirty-five of them that I consider unique.
And that, perhaps, is where we disagree. For instance, I see important differences in defense targeted - not only do the non-AC defenses vary monster-by-monster, making some attacks useful against certain opponents and unwise against others, but the AC defense is usually higher than the others as a rule.
Damage types are also very important, as they interact with class features, paragon paths, feats, and monster resistances and vulnerabilities in interesting ways. Cold damage, for instance, is incredibly useful if you're packing a particular set of feats.
Area is important, too. Close attacks do not provoke and are best suited for characters unafraid of getting into melee. Area attacks are better suited for characters who would suffer in close combat. Bursts tend to cover large areas but cannot be manipulated outside certain feats and abilities. Blasts allow for more finesse, but tend to target allies more often.
I think all of these are perfect criteria for considering a power unique.
There are 10 out of 16 conditions grant combat advantage, the same mechanic you get from flanking.
And yet being blind is incredibly different from being flanked. Being dazed is nowhere near as bad as being stunned. Being prone is easily correctable, and occasionally tactically useful. Being dominated dazes you, yes, but saying that it's not unique from being dazed is just wrong.
Y'know, I think you just hit on the reason I've always hated buffing (and cursing for that matter). Anything that changes the math round by round tends to gum up the works and slow down the game.
We've not had much problem with this in 4E so far because the effects tend to be so short lived. In 3.5 by contrast the players had a 'buff list' that included all the spells currently in effect and what type they were. This took a significant period of time to create and then each player had to work out which ones effected him/her. It then got more confusing when dispel magic became common and everyone started being effected or not effected by different elements of the list. The worst was when a roll was close and the players would add up the modifiers over and over again to make sure that they had not missed the extra 2 needed to make the hit or make the save.
What we do at our table is the players have the job of remembering their modifiers so the DM announces 14 vs. reflex and player X will say "-2! (the reason for the modifier) 12 vs. reflex". DM has to remember his buffs and debuffs but it works the same way.
Web, by contrast, was fine. It creates an area of webs that are hard to move through. You can softshoe the mechanics if you want and if it still feels right, no big deal. Even windwalking out of an adventure still puts you someplace and all you gotta' do is have something interesting going on--or not.
My problem with web is that it has a lot of bits thrown into it. Quick, off the top of your head, how far apart can the anchour points be? After that we have spell specific DCs for being allowed to move, then a condition (entangled), then it modifies the rules for movement in the web and it tops it off by being badly worded so that its unclear if the condition ends once you leave the web. Add to all of that the fact that the spell is probably overpowered for its level and its a really problematic spell that generally takes a long time to resolve.
wind walk is a different kind of problem. wind walk out of the adventure is no biggie but what about using it to go into the adventure, now your invisible gas, which floats through the adventure probably not drawing to much notice unless their are intelligent bad guys around. Once the adventure is all specked out you go back and do endless killing - except without any sense of exploration or anticipation of whats coming up next.
The spell forces players to choose between having fun at the games table or playing well. The best tactical answer is usually to use the spell - at worst it does not work, But if it works it blows chunks from a game night perspective.
The DM of course faces basically the same problem - the players have a good plan and by your notes it should work, but your considering thwarting their plan that should actually work because if it does work its going the make your tension filled adventure into a long drawn out session of show and tell. Bad spell - spells should not ruin the adventure for everyone just by working as advertised.
Heh. You know I would love it if the PC's windwalked as an approach to stealth through a scenario of mine. I'd probably abort the whole thing to narrative assuming they did well enough with it. Maybe fight one or two of the fights with some serious tactical advantages if that seemed like it would be fun, or else just breeze through it as mostly description. Then again, I run a really different kind of game. I really let the PCs control the throttle. If they want to recon a whole dungeon and then blow through it in turbo mode--I'm totally cool with that.
That said, I understand where you're coming from. It's not that I don't empathize, I just think it's interesting to see the different kinds of problems we tend to have.
I remember a Faerun game we did and while some characters were doing political investigations in Semberholm, some other PCs had decided to explore the catacombs under the tree city. Basically I had them make some rolls and let them know the upshot of the kinds of creatures they found and fought and what valuables they were able to recover. Just like a trip to the blacksmith--enough flavor to paint the scene and give them a vivid payoff for going and doing it, but certainly we didn't play it through room by room.
|
We've not had much problem with this in 4E so far because the effects tend to be so short lived.Y'know, I think you just hit on the reason I've always hated buffing (and cursing for that matter). Anything that changes the math round by round tends to gum up the works and slow down the game.
I think the major issue is now the number that can occur in any one round! This I think is one of the reasons I really hate DMing 4e.
S.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
We've not had much problem with this in 4E so far because the effects tend to be so short lived.Y'know, I think you just hit on the reason I've always hated buffing (and cursing for that matter). Anything that changes the math round by round tends to gum up the works and slow down the game.
I think the major issue is now the number that can occur in any one round! This I think is one of the reasons I really hate DMing 4e.
S.
We use the little markers from Alea tools. Not sure how we'd manage w/o them.
Seriously! If ever there was a game that demanded a little magnet board with a bunch of little +1,+2,+5 magnets...
Something like that would be such a lifesaver. Blargh I hate buffs. Never worth it and so freakin' hard to keep track of. Pain in my taut manly buttocks.
On the other hand, Secrets of the Shadowdale, is a niche product. It's actually a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche product, or something like that. (of all D&D players, Secrets is a DM book. Of all DM's, Secrets is really only interesting if you play FR. Of all interested DM's who play FR; only a fraction will be interested in a book about Shadowdale..)
This is the unfortunate truth. The audience for such a book is too small for such a product as to make it a less attractive option to produce. The aim is to make products with a broader appeal. I have picked up both Player's Guides so far, but have avoided the Campaign Guides and adventures for lack of interest. That being said, the audience for a book like the campaign guide is still larger than most audiences for most other RPGs in general which is why it is somewhat worthwhile to produce something rather than nothing at all. We just will not be inundated with books on the campaigns.
Perhaps you are underestimating the scavenging and tinkering abilities/proclivities of DMs. I think many DMs are creative opportunists who adapt and synthesize bits from various sources (along with inventing some stuff of their own) to make a fun game.
Perhaps you are underestimating the scavenging and tinkering abilities/proclivities of DMs. I think many DMs are creative opportunists who adapt and synthesize bits from various sources (along with inventing some stuff of their own) to make a fun game.
I'm sure they are. A majority, though, do not have the resources to be purchasing the many books just to pull out the one or two things that they want. They will either do without, or they may get the information through other means. Either way, they are not but what is already a niche book. It behooves WotC to make the many books be as broadly appealing as possible in order for them to be profitable to produce.
|
|
And yet being blind is incredibly different from being flanked. Being dazed is nowhere near as bad as being stunned. Being prone is easily correctable, and occasionally tactically useful. Being dominated dazes...
Flanking grants you combat advantage on the thing your flanking. Let's see how different that is.
Blind - grant combat advantage, -5 penalty to hit, can't flank, -10 to perception
Dazed - grant combat advantage, one action, can't flank
Stunned - grant combat advantage, can't take actions, can't flank
Surprised - grant combat advantage, can't take actions, can't flank
And so on...
Then you get into a mixture of, if your X then your also Y, which is normally where the other combat advantage situations come from. Oddly though you don't grant combat advantage when your petrified?
If your talking in terms of game mechanics, then of course blind is different then being flanked, as one is a condition and another isn't. The effects however aren't that different from one another. Certainly a -5 to hit, the inability to flank and giving others +2 to hit you is not to an italicized incredible difference from getting +2 to hit someone your flanking.
I'm not going to consider a power unique because it deals a certain type of damage or affects a different defense because that only adds in a little bit to the mix. There are only 4 possible targets for your abilities, and only so many types of damage.
I'm not going to consider a power unique because it deals a certain type of damage or affects a different defense because that only adds in a little bit to the mix. There are only 4 possible targets for your abilities, and only so many types of damage.
It's clear, then, that you operate under a different definition of "unique" than I do. Nothing I can do about that, I suppose.
|
I think the issue is more what is "similar" vesus what is "unique". However, part of the point of 4e was to limit the different subsystems and make the game flow more smoothly. Each and every spell under previous editions was a different rules subset, more or less. Some were easier to get than others (most evocations) others less so (like the above-mentioned Web). Unless one wished to pore over the rulebooks, a very large chunk of them (because you never really got them, or plain forgot about them) you would probably never use - dozens of magic items, spell, combat sub-systems (grapple, anyone - people would groan and reach for their book every time on this one). The limited sub-systems in 4e make for smooth play and easy preparation.
As a DM, I am enjoying 4e a lot, and so are my players. There is a trade-off between additional rule complexity and playability but, frankly, I don't see that this really impacts much on plot and storyline - that, for me, is flavour, not whether there is a another obscure spell I can trip out in different situations. I don't find it flavourful to have to stop the flow of combat and refer to a book.
|
|
Yeah, this is something I find frustrating as well. I don't feel like there is a good class-specific flavor running through the powers. There are attempts at creating that flavor (e.g., rogue abilities that require a dagger), but it's not quite enough. It'd also be nice if the various conditions/abilities were broken up by class to a certain extent to make them a little more iconic. I think there are some themes in the classes, but they aren't strongly supported and emphasized.
One thing I find odd about 4e is that WotC has a very good grasp of thematic design even within a limited amount of space and rules text, as shown by Magic. I really wish that the various roles and power sources had been treated vaguely like the colors in magic. I wish that arcane based characters focused on a particular mechanic or damage type(s) and that strikers had a unifying theme of some type in their abilities.
I think you are right. This would emphasize and define the flavor of the different classes better.
But this deign would demand the archetypical group again: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard (or Striker, Controller etc.). To make a party without a Wizard/Controller viable, WoC granted other classes typcial controller powers.And if would also seriously limit the number of powers each class can have. And that would limit the number of Books WoC can churn out. And that would minit the revenue. Which in turn would not be good for the D&D brand.
So the 4th deisgners have to walk a fine line. To make every party composition viable and also retain the flavor of each class.
But I think a few years down the road the lines between the various Class Powers will blurr so much, that indeed not the Class defines a PC but the Powers he takes. That means that a Fighter (today's defender) will have enough Powers to choose from to become a good controller. I think that this will happen because the basis of effects th designers can create Powers from is comparatively small (I am with Morgen here). But the designers have to create more Powers for the old and New Classes for the various PHBs and Splatbooks to make the Books viable.
Or, of course, they could intruduce a new effect, that breaks with current mechanics (something like the Book of 9 Swords for 3.5).
That will be the time when we know, that 4th has been strip-mined and no real options are left.
But whne that happens, there will be so many books to go by that they last for quite some time.
Alright first and foremost the disclaimers! I like 4e. I actually like 3.5, Pathfinder, 2e....never played 1e but I have the books. I think I'd probably enjoy 1e as well. I got everything covered.
My concern with 4e is not the ruleset but in how WOTC is supporting the campaign settings. The whole two books and an adventure format. So my question is how can 4E survive on its own? Because of the lack of setting fluff support do you find yourself plundering previous editions by necessity for world information?
I know the argument has come up that 4E is desgined to be less work for the DM but does it not require a tremendous amount of further world building? I know DDI provides some support but certainly not to the degree of the previous books that came out under different editions. Was there not a market for all of those setting flavor books? In my 3.5 library I have around 38 or 39 setting books between Forgotten Realms and Eberron. Were these books not selling? If they were selling and players were buying them, did the market cease to exist or are players porting in 2e books from ebay or adapting books from other game systems? Would this by default accidently drive people to other systems to lets say find a fully fleshed out city supplement....with no book on Sharn or Waterdeep would gamers find themselves buying an Earthdawn book where they wouldn't normally?
Just curious. I miss dungeons and dragons setting books. I miss the days of campaign overload during the reign of 2e.
and again....I like 4e. Otherwise I wouldn't be concerned. And yes I like 3.5.... but 2e is my favorite and for any die hard 1Ers.... I'll try it out soon. Don't leave nasty messages.
It does seem a bit daft putting so little effort into the campaign settings, especially in the market we are in.
However from a DMing point of view I have every intention of cracking out my 2nd,3rd and 3.5 Forgotten Realms materials for all the fluff I need for a realms campaign if I run a 4th ed in the realms or continue generating my own world as I have been and using the time I am saving on DMing items like making up NPC's,critters etc on more important things like campaign content.
For Dragonlance there is plenty of 2nd and 3rd ed material already. Greyhawk has always been a bit short in detail for DM's so they will have to make do with what they have and let create the missing parts themselves(as they always have).
Ultimately it doesn't generate much money for Wizards of the Coast but that is their issue and maybe they might wake up and re-write the 3rd ed material to 4th ed.