Well, I guess they just figured Fighters should be better at... fighting.
Isn't that what Weapon and Armor Training are for?
The most basic element of fighting is hitting the other guy. That's what BAB and iterative attacks are about.
That doesn't answer my question.
They're just frosting on the cake TOZ :)
Maybe the problem is considering Rogues as just another combat class. They have other skills which is why they can't match the Fighter in a contest that involves beating on other people with various sharp / blunt instruments. You might as well complain that Fighters don't get as many skill points as Rogues. You would be right on both counts. Rogues don't hit as well as Fighters and Fighters don't have the skills Rogues do.This concept seems to be lost to people with the modern so called progress of class balance.
I use the word progress loosely.
Actually, I think the concept of varying attack modifiers is rather silly. I don't think it fullfills any sort of simulationist idea of how combat truely works "in real life" any better than + 1/2 level systems. And balance is just one reason why the BAB system is poor. Personally, I never saw a need for BAB's existance except in an attempt to keep up with scaling AC (which of course only scales higher because BAB does). What is really so wrong with flat modifiers and using more Resistance style detractors in combat? A guy could swing and hit a dragon's hide all day long, connecting with every shot but the attacks are weak and deal very little to no damage due to the Dragon's muscles, the amount of energy displaced along the scales, and so forth. Yet each attack makes a solid "Thwak!"
It really has nothing to do with Rogues trying to be like Fighters, it has to do with Rogues working in combat and having some moderate success at doing so because the class is clearly designed for that style of play.
Who cares about 5e! Pathfinder was created because 4e was created. We were playing 3.5 and wizards of the coast stopped printing their 3.5 things and stopped producing their 3.5 line cold. They decided to make 4e which alienated all the people who didn't want to switch to a new game altogether. Ie. we either stopped playing Dungeons and Dragons and start playing 4e or do both. And either way that was expensive. So we sat on piles of books we bought and were obsolete and liked and we could buy lots of new that we were forced to or not. They Paizo came out with 3.5 modules and we were happy. Then they upgraded the works a bit to 3.75 and it worked. And we were happy. They are doing a great job. And wizards of the coast are sticking it to the people again. They trashed Star Wars game, and they thumbed it to the old school D&Ders and now they are upgrading soon after... I keep my 3.5, my 2nd Edition, my 1st Edition and my Pathfinder Edition. And wotc can 45$6 themselves...
Wow, this really contributed nothing to the current conversaion. Do you feel better now having vented that out?
It really has nothing to do with Rogues trying to be like Fighters, it has to do with Rogues working in combat and having some moderate success at doing so because the class is clearly designed for that style of play.
I don't see their relative "inability" in combat as a problem. How effective is a 3/4 or 1/2 caster with a limited spell selection compared to a Wizard in spell casting? Not very. But then they have other tricks up their sleaves. So does the Rogue. I think the problem is in viewing the Rogue as a combatant as if it was his primary area just like it is for primary combat types like the Fighter. Given the Rogues other abilities, skills and talents they should be less effective combatants. To each their own though. I think more of the Rogues talents, feats and so on should center around his non combat functions. They should be avoiding combat if they're not cornered or presented with an inviting back to stab. Ymmv.
*edited for clarity.
Honestly, the only people who should care about 5E are the people still buying WotC products.
Too true. The funny thing is I was posting about issues in this thread besides 5E. I was like "5E?". It took me a second to realize it had mutated into another discussion entirely... when I first tuned in to this thread it was morbid curiosity about what I thought would turn into another battlefield in the edition wars :)
...
Wow, this really contributed nothing to the current conversaion. Do you feel better now having vented that out?
Ever realized that people occassionally can reply to the OP?
Aside from that not hitting the AC simply means "Your attack was ineffective". If it was because you failed to hit or made that "thwak" is a matter of description.
What about just dropping the whole basic advancement for attacks all together? I mean really it's only to simulate that you can attack faster and more efficent that a peasant or lower level person (someone not as experienced as you in RP terms). I'm much more of a fan of the 1/2 level + Ability system than a standardized Basic Attack Bonus approach. Instead of it being BAB (hells, could throw out 1/2 level too if you want) go with more attacks at the same modified attack number. How this translates into "real-world" dynamics is that newbie Foot-Soldier Fred has the basics for swinging his sword, getting his shield into place, and has a good stance. He has a good swing, attacks at a normal pace and every once in a while can eek out a nice combo or attack sequence (like a 4E-style power). Then he sees Veteran Maximus taking on 3 to 4 of his buddies, making quick strikes and precise attacks while using intresting maneuvers. These attacks (plural mind you) are quicker and more accurate but use the same modifier, maybe one or two higher for added Strength or some other ability.
Just some things to ponder.
Also, I agree with losing the Enhancement bonuses to magical equipment that are mostly used to keep up with the math of high level play. Just put them into the regular advancement of the character and use magical items like they were magical. If it's a flaming sword, then it deals fire damage, maybe some additional fire damage on a critical hit and maybe it can shoot some fire X amount of times per day (or once a battle yadda-yadda).
I also think they should keep the Tier style system, basing feats and progression (if we're going vertically) as it helps people understand the kinds of games you can make and their impact on the greater world.
I have thought about removing progressions altogether (including attack progressions, saving throw progressions and so on) and having characters be differentiated more by interesting abilities than a boring (though effective) bonus. Having said that, I dislike the +1/2 per level system. If I were to prevent the scissor effect of differential progressions, I would get rid of the progressions completely. Some abilities might provide bonuses to specific types of things, so fighters, for example, could still improve their to hit probability, but a progression would not be assumed by the rules.
Having said that, I must say that I like the fact that fighters improve at fighting (e.g. to hit probability) faster than say wizards. Perhaps the rate of improvement difference is too rapid for base 20 levels, but I like it that there is a difference. In my opinion, the scissors should open, though it should happen slower and iterative attacks should not automatically follow from a high attack bonus - they should be given by special abilities.
If we wanted to avoid probability scissors, though, we could convert base attack bonus (BAB) progression to a base damage bonus (BDB) progression. I think this would make differential progressions for different classes more viable. AC could then work as DR and perhaps have its own progression (base armor bonus? (the new BAB?)).
Just some ideas for thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the only people who should care about 5E are the people still buying WotC products.
Why? I currently don't buy WotC products, but that doesn't mean I will never do so again. Hence, I am still interested with what they might come up with.
Because if you're not buying WotC products, you won't be affected by a new edition releasing.
A new edition will quite likely bring back lapsed players.
I have 6 versions of the PHB, why not pick up one more? ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because if you're not buying WotC products, you won't be affected by a new edition releasing.
If 5th edition comes out, and I like where they've taken the game, then I think there are pretty good odds that I'll at least get the core rules.
This isn't Twilight, you don't have to pick between Team Paizo or Team WotC.
If 5th edition comes out, and I like where they've taken the game, then I think there are pretty good odds that I'll at least get the core rules.
This isn't Twilight, you don't have to pick between Team Paizo or Team WotC.
Thoughtcrime. You're either with us or against us.
Because if you're not buying WotC products, you won't be affected by a new edition releasing.A new edition will quite likely bring back lapsed players.
I have 6 versions of the PHB, why not pick up one more? ;)
I have a bunch of those different versions now. But new editions are not like video cards. I don't think a new edition is even necessary. 4e has their players Pathfinder has theirs.
I don't buy the arguments of particular games being more modern. They are just different, certainly not better, but not any worse either.
The only reason for a new edition is sales. I think that ultimately was the reason for 4e and I think ultimately 5e will be an attempt to win back players that found 4e to be inferior. Again sales.
I love 3rd edition D&D but I did not find it inherently better than AD&D. These RPG's are not like video games where newer usually means better. AD&D may be older, but it certainly is no Atari or Intellivision to the XBOX 360 of Pathfinder. that analogy cannot even be applied which is why I laugh when I hear 4e is more 'up to date'.
I know editions cannot stop because the game company needs to make money. I just wish they would find another way to do it other than bringing in new editions.
|
|
I have a bunch of those different versions now. But new editions are not like video cards. I don't think a new edition is even necessary. 4e has their players Pathfinder has theirs.
I don't buy the arguments of particular games being more modern. They are just different, certainly not better, but not any worse either.
The only reason for a new edition is sales. I think that ultimately was the reason for 4e and I think ultimately 5e will be an attempt to win back players that found 4e to be inferior. Again sales.
I love 3rd edition D&D but I did not find it inherently better than AD&D. These RPG's are not like video games where newer usually means better. AD&D may be older, but it certainly is no Atari or Intellivision to the XBOX 360 of Pathfinder. that analogy cannot even be applied which is why I laugh when I hear 4e is more 'up to date'.
I know editions cannot stop because the game company needs to make money. I just wish they would find another way to do it other than bringing in new editions.
Somewhat agreed, especially about newer editions not necessarily being better than older editions. I've become a big fan of Mythmere Games' / Frog God Games' Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules...based on the original edition of D&D, even before 1E. In many (hell, MOST) ways I prefer it to 3.x/PFRPG.
That being said, there are elements of other editions that I do like, in particular the character customization offered in PFRPG. And I like the way BRP handles skills far better than D&D has in any edition.
Real people tend to remain fundamentally squishy throughout their entire lives. In real life, a arrow shot by a 1st level kobold would kill a 20th level paladin just as quickly as a 5th level wizard. The level/HP advancement is fundamentally flawed.
Agreed...another area where BRP does better than D&D.
My personal favorite rules system is Call of Cthulhu, in which human beings are fundamentally incapable of defeating the BBEGss in combat.
Hell, just fighting minions is often hideously deadly.
I know I won't convince the mechanics cowboys out there, but try focusing on your character's personality for a bit. You might end up having some fun.
+1
Hasbro's corporate greed and ignorance about the gamer in general has totally alienated them to me.Because Lorraine Williams was not just about the money either?
Why do you think many of us stopped playing 2E in the first place? Granted, we didn't know much about what was going on behind the scenes at that time, but it showed in the quality of the products that they were in it for the quick cash and not the love of the game anymore.
And seriously, what does one have to do with the other?
Original Statement "I don't like what Pol Pot did to his people."
Response "Because what Hitler did to the jews was OK?"
(Yes, it's hyperbolic. No, you aren't defending Pol Pot. :p )
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm looking forward to a PF 2e, but for specific reasons.
- Streamlining
- Increased clarity in rulebook presentation
IIRC, This is one thing I'm interested in about the beginner box. Apparently TPTB are also concerned about clarity in rulebook presentation, and the Beginner Box is supposed to benefit from it.
While I don't want a Pathfinder 2.x yet, I wouldn't mind if they cleaned it up a bit.
|
IIRC, This is one thing I'm interested in about the beginner box. Apparently TPTB are also concerned about clarity in rulebook presentation, and the Beginner Box is supposed to benefit from it.
While I don't want a Pathfinder 2.x yet, I wouldn't mind if they cleaned it up a bit.
I've picked up a copy of the original 3.0 Player's Handbook (with the 3 authors' signatures and for $10 no less!), and I was surprised to see it had numerous examples to illustrate the rules, at least in comparison with the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.
I suppose Paizo prioritized fitting everything into one volume and so had very few illustrative examples. Also, their audience was largely people who had already been familiar with 3.5.
After the Beginner Box arrives, I hope Paizo publishes "intermediate" material that (1) summarizes the changes going into the full rules and (2) has more newbie-friendly material, including examples, to illustrate the new rules.
I have thought about removing progressions altogether (including attack progressions, saving throw progressions and so on) and having characters be differentiated more by interesting abilities than a boring (though effective) bonus. Having said that, I dislike the +1/2 per level system. If I were to prevent the scissor effect of differential progressions, I would get rid of the progressions completely. Some abilities might provide bonuses to specific types of things, so fighters, for example, could still improve their to hit probability, but a progression would not be assumed by the rules.
Having said that, I must say that I like the fact that fighters improve at fighting (e.g. to hit probability) faster than say wizards. Perhaps the rate of improvement difference is too rapid for base 20 levels, but I like it that there is a difference. In my opinion, the scissors should open, though it should happen slower and iterative attacks should not automatically follow from a high attack bonus - they should be given by special abilities.
If we wanted to avoid probability scissors, though, we could convert base attack bonus (BAB) progression to a base damage bonus (BDB) progression. I think this would make differential progressions for different classes more viable. AC could then work as DR and perhaps have its own progression (base armor bonus? (the new BAB?)).
Just some ideas for thought.
Definitly some good ideas there, and I agree with most of them. On Fighters being better at attacking and such, I agree to an extent but contrary to their name, Fighters main job has been to protect his allies. If a Fighter is doing his job, he's keeping the most destructive enemy away from his more vulnerable allies. Yet I've seen very little of this strategy outside of 4E. So even with a BAB-less system, the fighter should be able to engage multiple enemies and keep them there to allow other party members to be better at their own jobs.
Rogues, OTOH, aren't great at direct confrontations out in the open. They're "Squishy" and have to rely on *ahem* The Fighter to open up those nice vital areas. But this discrepency in role or style doesn't need to be off-set by inborn mechanics with the system.
I also like the idea as AC as DR and having more Hit Points to combat direct damage spells. That, to me, feels more real than the "evade" style of AC we've commonly seen in D&D. I'd also favor less advancement (bonuses to attacks for example) for more swings with no decreasing modifers. This method could also help separate the low-level fighter (and other melee types) with those of higher levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I'm totally not bashing the lateral-movement concept. I'm just pointing out that it's not a magical (hah) cure-all for the disparity between games and real-life. I like the ideas thrown out, I'm just putting some stuff for thinking.
FIRST: to clarify, I'm not bashing 4E out-of-hand. I've played 4E games and, while it's not my high preference, I do enjoy it. This post is for comparison purposes, and, while I do prefer 3.X/Pathfinder to 4E within it, this is not an attempt to say "4E is t3h suxx0rs" or anything similar.
4E, in design philosophy took all that, streamlined it (somewhat) into a "bonus +1/2 level", and, as a result (along with a high differentiation of the rules between monsters, NPCs, and PCs) now looks (and feels) too much like a game (for my tastes). This is, I think, where the accusations of 4E=boardgame come from, as well as comparisons to WoW.
First: yes, I know, it's all a game. And that's fine! I like games! But there's a difference between playing monopoly and coming up with a story for it and playing RPGs and coming up with stories for it. Monopoly feels far more "gamey" and, while a story to explain what's happening is certainly possible (and is even the basis for what's occurring!) you are never fully immersed because you never forget the fact that you're really just pushing little pewter or plastic pieces around a board for fake money.
Supply "battleship", "clue", or even "candy land" for "monopoly" and you have the same thing. They are all games first, and the story is only a reason to have a themed game. If you took all the fluff out of them, they'd be boring. Who want to win paper by pushing a nondescript piece of plastic around a number of squares with arbitrary rules? No one, because that's boring. BUT, many people would like to win money by moving their character across (and purchasing) important pieces of land. The story is there, and part of the game.
The thing is, story is only a (vague) dressing for the (very arbitrary) game. That's something that (most) everyone acknowledges (consciously or not). Something like, say, Catchphrase doesn't even pretend to be anything other than a game nor does it attempt to dress it up with a story, so you're always aware you're playing a game. Clue, on the other hand, pretends to be a murder story (whose "villain" that changes repeatedly) but it is, in fact, a game, and always feels like it, despite its story-dressing (still a good game, and a fantastic movie, though!). RPGs originally came out of tactical war gaming, but have become (and now are) Role Playing Games, and are there to facilitate a story (aka the "role") via a system of rules (aka the "game"). Both are important, but some amount of balance is necessary.
Technically, one could even point at monopoly and clue and claim "aha, you are playing a role in those games, ergo, they are role playing games", but I think that most people understand that those are first and foremost games and the story is only a nice bit of fluff to make the games palatable. RPGs are a whole 'nother beast. They have mechanics, but the mechanics are their to facilitate a story.
This is one big differences between the "feel" (to me) of 3.X against 4E. While third felt like it was a single, consistent world in which you could do things, and all creatures great and small worked the same way, fourth feels like a game: there's the player characters, and player characters function differently from NPCs, which function differently from monsters, despite the fact that monsters can be PCs, except when they can't, and NPCs are monsters, except when they aren't. Then there's the very bizarre at-will, encounter, daily split of powers (especially when you take martial classes into consideration; with magic it's more understandable, but just being able to hit something really hard or perform a particular maneuver, or stand with a certain posture, but only once per day is... strange). Take those with the relative inability of the system to handle non-combat actions (skill challenges, I'm looking at you, here) without a very high degree of arbitration and you have a game that looks and feels like a game first and story (not-nearly-as-distant) second to me, regardless of which side of the screen I'm on. The world is arbitrary and divided in ways that don't make sense. (Again, I'm fully aware that people will disagree with me, and that this is subjective, however, I'm getting to the point eventually, I promise).
This is true to an extent with 3.X and Pathfinder as well. There are numerous elements of arbitration and plenty of ways to "break" the system; that's understood and volunteered by me. But being able to break the system doesn't really translate into that happening at the tables (at least in my experience). Instead you have a reasonably consistent set of rules that allow for a reasonably immersive experience that allows the whole world to run, act, look, and feel the same way. It feels more like a world in which a story can be facilitated, and a bit less like a game with entirely arbitrary elements.
This is what many people here have been talking about with lateral v. horizontal growth. They want their RPGs - their story-games - to be supported by rules (as opposed to having their games supported by stories). One of the problems with purely lateral movement is that, again, this doesn't hold out to well with real-life things either. The farther afield you go, the less you'll master that field. On the other hand, doctorates-holders are masters (pun intended) in their field, unrivaled (excepting, of course, for other doctors... medical or otherwise). RPGs are always going to have to be somewhat abstract, and somewhat more gamey than real-life (thank goodness!) in order to facilitate play.
Things like hit points being a measure of life-force is an understandable, but occasionally story-shattering artifact* of game design. I suggest that we look at systems for the purpose of finding ways to streamline, yes, but also to facilitate. I'd suggest something like hit points and wound points (it's been done before) in this one example. Armor as DR would also make sense, then, but then again so does armor-as-miss. There should be ways around the armor doing it's job, just as there armor should be able to apply to many elements. The idea that it would be DR/- (presuming the "-" includes energy-based stuff) doesn't really work as directly as it should, either historically or game wise, but putting too many arbitrary "it works against all but s, t, u, v, w, and x, but it works against y and z, too" is just a bit too complex, I think. And really, that's one main reason for rules revisions and new editions of games - to hit that sweet spot that allows for immersive stories, that doesn't feel too much like a game, that allows for complexity, but isn't too complex ("I don't know; complex casual!"**).
I mean, personally, I'd love to see magic separated into multiple sources (like 4E) that do different things*** and behave in their own ways (unlike 4E, save psionics for the last part). I don't know that that's going to happen, but it's something I'd prefer.
* Gygax never claimed that hp = life force. However the terminology combined with the function of the game(s) belies his straight-forward assertion that hp =/= life force. Otherwise things like acid damage, or spells like "cure x", or "vampiric touch" wouldn't work the way they do, there'd be no differentiation between lethal and non-lethal (a good mechanic, in my opinion), and there'd be no reason to go into negative hit points. In older editions, there'd be no reason for system shock, either, for that matter. Instead the game insists and reinforces that hp are, in fact, vitality.
** I use far to many Star Wars quotes and misquotes.
***
I mean, I think that if we really look hard at what "magic" is and how it functions, we could define arcane, divine, natural, and psionic magic easily enough. Arcane magic would have schools like conjuration, illusion, necromancy, and transmutation - the things that you can "set and forget", because the magic/spell is doing it for you. Psionics would have things like psychokinesis/evocation, "shapers" (ectoplasm and/or ether), and telepathy/enchantment (although the latter be magic, too) - things that require direct, consistent concentration to manipulate physical reality with energy; that allow you to mold the raw substance of the astral-and/or-ethereal; or that allow you to influence the mind. Abjurations/???, divination/ESP, and other non-covered things would fall more into the realm of the divine (and, in fact, might be "arcane" or "psionic", and the divine doesn't really care, 'cause it does what it wants, it's a deity, foos, I pitty the foos!). Obviously, this doesn't make a perfect fit, and it's just something I'm typing up now without a close examination, however it's the basic idea: psionics is different from (but meshed with) magic; divine and non-divine are similar, if different in their own ways. I still haven't figured out nature magic or what have you.
ALSO SAME EDIT, but FAR more on actual topic than the rest of the post:
Really this is what WotC would have to do for me to be interested - create a system that, to me, actually makes me feel like the world functions in a consistent-enough way to be immersed. Less like a game and more like a potential story waiting to happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tacticslion, I agree. An attempt by WotC at higher world consistency in the rules is absolutely essential if I am to have any real interest in a new edition of D&D. Indeed, judging from your post, I think what we look for in a new D&D game is virtually identical.
Anyway, to add something extra, many of the departures from the 'immersion function' (it is not a perfect term, but I have to call it something short...) to an 'unveiled game function' in 3.XE/Pathfinder are based on D&D traditions (e.g. hit points). For this reason, I find them more acceptable than I would have found them were they newly introduced. In other words, I accept some mechanical conceits as part of the heritage of the game. Of course, that's not to say that I would object to them changing to provide enhanced support for immersion, but I am not as bothered by them as by newly introduced immersion-hampering rules elements.
This is one big differences between the "feel" (to me) of 3.X against 4E. While third felt like it was a single, consistent world in which you could do things, and all creatures great and small worked the same way, fourth feels like a game: there's the player characters, and player characters function differently from NPCs, which function differently from monsters, despite the fact that monsters can be PCs, except when they can't, and NPCs are monsters, except when they aren't.
... and you have a game that looks and feels like a game first and story (not-nearly-as-distant) second to me, regardless of which side of the screen I'm on. The world is arbitrary and divided in ways that don't make sense. (Again, I'm fully aware that people will disagree with me, and that this is subjective, however, I'm getting to the point eventually, I promise).
I can't really disagree with how it feels, but I'm curious as to whether you can expand on that feeling as a player?
Personally, I dont have any 'feel' for how the NPCs are operating as a player in an RPG - I say what I want to do, do various mechanical things, then the DM tells me what happens. At various points he tells me what the NPCs do. I dont see any disconnect there (as a player) even if the two rules systems were to be totally disjoint and wonder where it comes from. Is it just that you know what's happening behind the screen and it prevents you from 'getting into it' or is there some actual break in the immersion stemming from the way the game plays?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't really disagree with how it feels, but I'm curious as to whether you can expand on that feeling as a player?
Personally, I dont have any 'feel' for how the NPCs are operating as a player in an RPG - I say what I want to do, do various mechanical things, then the DM tells me what happens. At various points he tells me what the NPCs do. I dont see any disconnect there (as a player) even if the two rules systems were to be totally disjoint and wonder where it comes from. Is it just that you know what's happening behind the screen and it prevents you from 'getting into it' or is there some actual break in the immersion stemming from the way the game plays?
To me at least, the difference is that in 3.5, as a player when I interact with a npc/monster/environment, I can have a reasonable expectation of generally what to expect in response, and how to interpret the response, both as a player and the character. This doesn't and shouldn't work all the time, but it's a decent baseline to start from. In 4E, until I get to know the DM and how they do things, that is a much harder task, because I have no such baseline to work from.
In 3.5, the rules provide some of the consistency without the DM having to consciously think about every little detail; 4E doesn't have that. This is why I question if DMing 4E is really easier than DMing 3.5. Sure the details are easier to make up on the fly, but with a truly creative group, the DM is going to be doing this constantly, making the overall workload about the same as it is in 3.5, possibly harder if the DM doesn't take good notes that help him maintain consistency. In 3.5, good notes are definitely a plus, but not an absolute requirement all of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one big differences between the "feel" (to me) of 3.X against 4E. While third felt like it was a single, consistent world in which you could do things, and all creatures great and small worked the same way, fourth feels like a game: there's the player characters, and player characters function differently from NPCs, which function differently from monsters, despite the fact that monsters can be PCs, except when they can't, and NPCs are monsters, except when they aren't.
... and you have a game that looks and feels like a game first and story (not-nearly-as-distant) second to me, regardless of which side of the screen I'm on. The world is arbitrary and divided in ways that don't make sense. (Again, I'm fully aware that people will disagree with me, and that this is subjective, however, I'm getting to the point eventually, I promise).
I can't really disagree with how it feels, but I'm curious as to whether you can expand on that feeling as a player?
Personally, I dont have any 'feel' for how the NPCs are operating as a player in an RPG - I say what I want to do, do various mechanical things, then the DM tells me what happens. At various points he tells me what the NPCs do. I dont see any disconnect there (as a player) even if the two rules systems were to be totally disjoint and wonder where it comes from. Is it just that you know what's happening behind the screen and it prevents you from 'getting into it' or is there some actual break in the immersion stemming from the way the game plays?
I spent a long time arguing about this over on RPGnet, particularly about how it influences worldbuilding and GMing. I tend to call what Tacticslion is referring to as "story immersion" as "objective rules." If you want to hear my ramble on about it for 17 pages* and get yelled at a lot, take a look. :p
Basically, the rules function as a computer that underlies all actions and are entirely impartial to the source of data that comes through it. Even if the crafting rules don't produce any sane results, anyone using them gets the same end product. That matters to my sense of established world, and as a GM, I like to play around with extrapolating situations that can happen based on rules interactions. There's a few good well known examples of that sort of worldbuilding. On the extreme gonzo edge, you've got the K explorations of the "Wish-based economy" or on the less extreme side, you've got Eberron. The whole underlying concept of an economy built on spell-like abilities and the magecraft spell is exactly the sort of extrapolation from underlying rules to setting that I think is fascinating.
On the other hand, as that linked thread clearly demonstrates, the sort of objective, immersive rules that I and tacticslion enjoy do not universally appeal. Plus in many ways, they're unique to 3rd edition/PF; they weren't really a part of earlier versions of D&D. In the sense that you have to turn to your GM to figure out anything that isn't covered by the basic conflict resolution system, 4E is far closer to earlier editions than 3.5 ever was.
I've gotten in trouble for the phrase before, but the tendency I developed after coming into D&D at 3rd edition was a sense of the "rules as gameworld physics" and obviously there's all kinds of ways they break down and present crazy results, but the underlying concept of consistently applied objective rules is central to any sort of D&Desque fantasy game I'd want to play. Took me forever to figure out why the FATE systems and certain other narrative games felt so off to me as a result.
*Edit: Actually, we're up to 19 pages. :p
I can't really disagree with how it feels, but I'm curious as to whether you can expand on that feeling as a player?
Personally, I dont have any 'feel' for how the NPCs are operating as a player in an RPG - I say what I want to do, do various mechanical things, then the DM tells me what happens. At various points he tells me what the NPCs do. I dont see any disconnect there (as a player) even if the two rules systems were to be totally disjoint and wonder where it comes from. Is it just that you know what's happening behind the screen and it prevents you from 'getting into it' or is there some actual break in the immersion stemming from the way the game plays?
Yes, actually! See, one of the things is that I, as a player, know my own capabilities. When I see an NPC with supposedly similar capabilities, I figure that I'm pretty much know what's coming for good or ill - not in the meta-gaming sense, but in the "I literally use this power every single day, I know it in and out as a character". Let's say, for example, that I'm a wizard and have a spell. When I hit something with that spell, I know what it does. When I'm hit with that same spell, I'd expect to know what it does. But it doesn't work that way - NPCs are designed to function differently, and their effects don't work the same. Alternatively, I see the NPC wizard over there using a daily power spell, and I think it's awesome. I try and get him to teach it to me. He can't. It doesn't exist. There are no game-rules for it to be in the PCs hands. There's no divine authority granting this power, it's just out there for those who research it (like this guy apparently did), but it's not viable in a player's hands because... um... it just isn't.
Or let's take rituals. Ah, rituals. They're great*! Until you start looking at how, and why, precisely, you can't make ritual scrolls, but NPCs can. Why not? Or worse, why can't I sell them? In 3.X, there exists a mechanic that allows you to become a business person: "profession" (also "craft" and "perform"). Is it perfect? Far from it! But what it does is allow you to feel like your only option in life is not going around killing things. In 4E... there's no way to work in the world at all. You can only sell the stuff you create for finite amounts of gold... the exact amount you put in to making them, in fact. While that's true in 3.X, in 4E there's absolutely no way to get money without killing things and taking it off their corpses. It would seem that a character who is dedicated to creating items or rituals should, you know, be able to make items and rituals, especially if NPCs can do it for a profit, and you're not provided with any workaround at all, in-game.
Speaking of rituals: how can people use rituals without needing a ritual book, when there's no way that I can?
OR: why do monsters have "magic" weapons that, when I claim them, have no benefit?
OR: why don't they have magical armor/weapons/items/etc? They can make them - they're ritual casters, after all, and vastly wealthy/powerful ones. So why don't they have anything that works? It's just... strange.
Also, I can adjure, control, compel, and command the universe, but bringing an NPC into battle is too much for the system to handle. Better hope the that peasant can defend themselves! Oh, wait, it's okay, they don't have hit points, and the creature only does hit point damage. ALTERNATIVELY: why are all of those guys (some of which are veteran warriors) dying with one-hit-kills with blows that I, a novice, could take and survive?
Those are just a few things. I mean, sure, the DM could just whip some stats up on the spot, or make all peasants human rabble (but lacking the clubs), or whatever, but that requires a great deal from the GM, and gathering a bunch of people who all happen to have the exact same ability scores is... strange. There's just too much arbitration going on, and, especially when the Pre-designed modules try to use stuff to immerse you, it kind of falls flat and feels very odd.
* No.**
** It's not that the concept is bad, it's just that most of them are completely not worth the rather extravagantly ridiculous investiture necessary to get them to function for the very small time they work. "Why, yes, I'd like to spend several small fortunes and and hour to be be able to see what that guy's up to for... ten minutes... an hour from now."
Tacticslion, I agree. An attempt by WotC at higher world consistency in the rules is absolutely essential if I am to have any real interest in a new edition of D&D. Indeed, judging from your post, I think what we look for in a new D&D game is virtually identical.
Anyway, to add something extra, many of the departures from the 'immersion function' (it is not a perfect term, but I have to call it something short...) to an 'unveiled game function' in 3.XE/Pathfinder are based on D&D traditions (e.g. hit points). For this reason, I find them more acceptable than I would have found them were they newly introduced. In other words, I accept some mechanical conceits as part of the heritage of the game. Of course, that's not to say that I would object to them changing to provide enhanced support for immersion, but I am not as bothered by them as by newly introduced immersion-hampering rules elements.
I'm not bothered by the old ones either, per se, but I would like to see new systems get better nonetheless, which seems to be what people were mentioning with the lateral-versus-horizontal growth elements, and what you indicate as well (as opposed to becoming more and more "hey look, it's a GAME, play this GAME, here are GAME PIECES and a BOARD"). But, peoples' preferences in those things varies, which is understandable as well.
Also, yes, from what you've said we do seem to share very similar tastes in game design, often! Also, your terms are, I think, rather accurate. :)
OR, if you want eloquent, good responses, go with sunshadow21's and Pedantic's. I choose theirs. :D
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re; Hit points
I never really 'got' the Vitality/Wound system until I read a description in Stargate RPG that made sense.
When you see O'Neill duck back as the staff weapon hits near him, that's Vitality When Teal'c gets HIT with the staff weapon, that's Wounds.
For some reason that just clicked.
Also one of the things I like about Vitality/Wounds vs HP is something that I guess was a factor in moving away from it for Star Wars.*
It doesn't matter what level you are, one good roll is going to cripple or kill you. It makes it more 'real' to me.
*
Yes, actually! See, one of the things is that I, as a player, know my own capabilities. When I see an NPC with supposedly similar capabilities, I figure that I'm pretty much know what's coming for good or ill - not in the meta-gaming sense, but in the "I literally use this power every single day, I know it in and out as a character". Let's say, for example, that I'm a wizard and have a spell. When I hit something with that spell, I know what it does. When I'm hit with that same spell, I'd expect to know what it does. But it doesn't work that way - NPCs are designed to function differently, and their effects don't work the same. Alternatively, I see the NPC wizard over there using a daily power spell, and I think it's awesome. I try and get him to teach it to me. He can't. It doesn't exist. There are no game-rules for it to be in the PCs hands. There's no divine authority granting this power, it's just out there for those who research it (like this guy apparently did), but it's not viable in a player's hands because... um... it just isn't.
Or let's take rituals. Ah, rituals. They're great*! Until you start looking at how, and why, precisely, you can't make ritual scrolls, but NPCs can. Why not? Or worse, why can't I sell them? In 3.X, there exists a mechanic that allows you to become a business person: "profession" (also "craft" and "perform"). Is it perfect? Far from it! But what it does is allow you to feel like your only option in life is not going around killing things. In 4E... there's no way to work in the world at all. You can only sell the stuff you create for finite amounts of gold... the exact amount you put in to making them, in fact. While that's true in 3.X, in 4E there's absolutely no way to get money without killing things and taking it off their corpses. It would seem that a character who is dedicated to creating items or rituals should, you know, be able to make items and rituals, especially if NPCs can do it for a profit, and you're not provided with any workaround at all, in-game.
Speaking of rituals: how can people use rituals without needing a ritual book, when there's no way that I can?
OR: why do monsters have "magic" weapons that, when I claim them, have no benefit?
OR: why don't they have magical armor/weapons/items/etc? They can make them - they're ritual casters, after all, and vastly wealthy/powerful ones. So why don't they have anything that works? It's just... strange.
Also, I can adjure, control, compel, and command the universe, but bringing an NPC into battle is too much for the system to handle. Better hope the that peasant can defend themselves! Oh, wait, it's okay, they don't have hit points, and the creature only does hit point damage. ALTERNATIVELY: why are all of those guys (some of which are veteran warriors) dying with one-hit-kills with blows that I, a novice, could take and survive?
Those are just a few things. I mean, sure, the DM could just whip some stats up on the spot, or make all peasants human rabble (but lacking the clubs), or whatever, but that requires a great deal from the GM, and gathering a bunch of people who all happen to have the exact same ability scores is... strange. There's just too much arbitration going on, and, especially when the Pre-designed modules try to use stuff to immerse you, it kind of falls flat and feels very odd.
* No.**
** It's not that the concept is bad, it's just that most of them are completely not worth the rather extravagantly ridiculous investiture necessary to get them to function for the very small time they work. "Why, yes, I'd like to spend several small fortunes and and hour to be be able to see what that guy's up to for... ten minutes... an hour from now."
Cheers. I suspect the difference in our experiences is that you know the rules and I dont - I doubt you'd enjoy the 3.5/PF games of our group either given this explanation. We've always taken rules as 'vague guidelines' at best and quite often as little more than 'mild suggestions' - this is true when playing D&D, rolemaster, Pathfinder GURPS or any other system.
I find it hard to understand being aware of what's happening on the other side of the screen as a player. No doubt that's because we've always taken a rather laissez-faire approach to rules. (We'd certainly have no problem with powers 'working differently' for example - when our wizard throws a fireball it explodes and does fire damage. When the NPC wizard throws one it explodes and does fire damage. We dont even notice if, for example, his damage is greater - the rules are totally abstract in my view, thanks to the ludicrous concept of hit points. That flows through to just about every combat feature).
The profession issue is similar - we've never used any 3.5 crafting or profession rules, we'd just make something up same as we do in 4th edition, AD&D, rolemaster or anything else. Hence, I dont really understand the difference in play you're alluding to (without denying that there is one).
I'm glad there are different styles of rules. I'm personally of the view that WoTC won't be making any effort to 'regain' lost players of 3.5. I think they've well and truly gone down the narrative, DM-fiat path as opposed to the simulationist, rules-complete path. From what I've seen, they've done pretty well garnering a new batch of players who like the 'story requirements trump rules' approach. I dont know that it's wise to try and be all things to all players.
I spent a long time arguing about this over on RPGnet, particularly about how it influences worldbuilding and GMing. I tend to call what Tacticslion is referring to as "story immersion" as "objective rules." If you want to hear my ramble on about it for 17 pages* and get yelled at a lot, take a look. :p
Basically, the rules function as a computer that underlies all actions and are entirely impartial to the source of data that comes through it. Even if the crafting rules don't produce any sane results, anyone using them gets the same end product. That matters to my sense of established world, and as a GM, I like to play around with extrapolating situations that can happen based on rules interactions. There's a few good well known examples of that sort of worldbuilding. On the extreme gonzo edge, you've got the K explorations of the "Wish-based economy" or on the less extreme side, you've got Eberron. The whole underlying concept of an economy built on spell-like abilities and the magecraft spell is exactly the sort of extrapolation from underlying rules to setting that I think is fascinating.
On the other hand, as that linked thread clearly demonstrates, the sort of objective, immersive rules that I and tacticslion enjoy do not universally appeal. Plus in many ways, they're unique to 3rd edition/PF; they weren't really a part of earlier versions of D&D. In the sense that you have to turn to your GM to figure out anything that isn't covered by the basic conflict resolution system, 4E is far closer to earlier editions than 3.5 ever was.
I've gotten in trouble for the phrase before, but the tendency I developed after coming into D&D at 3rd edition was a sense of the "rules as gameworld physics" and obviously there's all kinds of ways they break down and present crazy results, but the underlying concept of consistently applied objective rules is central to any sort of D&Desque fantasy game I'd want to play. Took me forever to figure out why the FATE systems and certain other narrative games felt so off to me as a result.
*Edit: Actually, we're up to 19 pages. :p
This is a pretty good summary of my view too - I've expressed the dichotomy as rules-to-enable-story vs rules-as-physics in the past. (Without intending that to mean that 4th edition doesnt represent the physics in some sense, nor that PF doesnt enable a story - just as a focus of the designers).
I think the only real difference is in our preferences. I dont think I have time to learn how to play PF 'properly'. We stopped playing D&D when 2nd edition came out and 3.5 was kind of fun but very different. Like you, I think 4th edition is much closer to AD&D (what I began with) than 3.5/PF is. The mathematician in me enjoys the complexity and interconnectedness of PF, the guy with a job and a family who only gets to game three hours a week these days if I'm lucky enjoys the ease and quick resolution of 4E.
To me at least, the difference is that in 3.5, as a player when I interact with a npc/monster/environment, I can have a reasonable expectation of generally what to expect in response, and how to interpret the response, both as a player and the character. This doesn't and shouldn't work all the time, but it's a decent baseline to start from. In 4E, until I get to know the DM and how they do things, that is a much harder task, because I have no such baseline to work from.
In 3.5, the rules provide some of the consistency without the DM having to consciously think about every little detail; 4E doesn't have that. This is why I question if DMing 4E is really easier than DMing 3.5. Sure the details are easier to make up on the fly, but with a truly creative group, the DM is going to be doing this constantly, making the overall workload about the same as it is in 3.5, possibly harder if the DM doesn't take good notes that help him maintain consistency. In 3.5, good notes are definitely a plus, but not an absolute requirement all of the time.
I think this is very much a function of your group's style. Those of you who understand 3.5/PF well would probably be driven mad by playing in our group. The fact there are 'obective rules' is going to be a hindrance when the DM departs from them frequently (intentionally or not). I regularly read things on these forums where our interpretation of RAW is universally agreed to be totally incorrect. It doesnt really matter how you play, but I think you will need to get to know the DM and how they do things in any game - you may just not have experienced the 'hand-wavy' style of 3.5/PF DMing that I'm used to.
I think this is very much a function of your group's style. Those of you who understand 3.5/PF well would probably be driven mad by playing in our group. The fact there are 'obective rules' is going to be a hindrance when the DM departs from them frequently (intentionally or not). I regularly read things on these forums where our interpretation of RAW is universally agreed to be totally incorrect. It doesnt really matter how you play, but I think you will need to get to know the DM and how they do things in any game - you may just not have experienced the 'hand-wavy' style of 3.5/PF DMing that I'm used to.
Good point, and I think one reason I like 3.5 is that it can really be played either way. A skilled DM can play with a lot of the rule interactions to achieve the desired results that look like they break the rules, but are actually perfectly in line with them. Meanwhile, a newer DM can focus on learning one area at a time without having to worry about the other ones immediately.
Steve,
I actually would not be. There's a difference between the base set of rules that one uses (the template) and the ultimate expression of house rules. It's the template that's the thing. With 3.X, I can be reasonably sure that, House Rules notwithstanding, the world functions in generally the same way with notable exceptions being notable exceptions.
With 4E, everything is a notable exception. That reflects in-play as well. The way that NPCs interact with each other, with PCs, and with monsters just doesn't reflect a cohesive world. You're right that it provides much more room for a GM to deal with narrative structures, but it brings me out of the story when the same critter I dealt with ten levels ago (an elite solo whatever) I can now down with a punch (a minion), when I still can't lift any more or carry anymore than I used to.
Again, 4E has many useful conventions. Minion, as a template, is very useful, and functions well in its own way. But it can also be story-shattering.
I don't hate 4E, despite my list of complaints. Rather, I prefer 3.X/Pathfinder (despite my list of complaints :D). It's just that one works better for me. I can more easily accept house rules as a variant and abstractions for purposes of working with a group (something we do often) than I can a base, core system simply not allowing the game to promote certain play styles (such as 4E does).
|
|
A look at 3.X/Pathfinder, 4E, board games, and immersion (TL;DR, 3.X/Pathfinder is subjectively a bit more immsersive, 4E is subjectively a bit more gamey):
I don't have enough experience with 4E to comment on it, but I think d20/3.x/PFRPG lose a great deal of immersion from so often getting bogged down in the mechanics. I don't really have a solution for that, though. Well, maybe I do, but most people aren't going to use that solution.
|
|
Well, maybe I do, but most people aren't going to use that solution.
Yeah, 'play a different game' is just avoiding the issue, the same way 'use a Ranger' is avoiding the issue with the Rogue. :P
Steve,
I actually would not be. There's a difference between the base set of rules that one uses (the template) and the ultimate expression of house rules. It's the template that's the thing. With 3.X, I can be reasonably sure that, House Rules notwithstanding, the world functions in generally the same way with notable exceptions being notable exceptions.
With 4E, everything is a notable exception. That reflects in-play as well. The way that NPCs interact with each other, with PCs, and with monsters just doesn't reflect a cohesive world. You're right that it provides much more room for a GM to deal with narrative structures, but it brings me out of the story when the same critter I dealt with ten levels ago (an elite solo whatever) I can now down with a punch (a minion), when I still can't lift any more or carry anymore than I used to.
Again, 4E has many useful conventions. Minion, as a template, is very useful, and functions well in its own way. But it can also be story-shattering.
I don't hate 4E, despite my list of complaints. Rather, I prefer 3.X/Pathfinder (despite my list of complaints :D). It's just that one works better for me. I can more easily accept house rules as a variant and abstractions for purposes of working with a group (something we do often) than I can a base, core system simply not allowing the game to promote certain play styles (such as 4E does).
It's somewhat charitable to refer to our arrangements as "house rules" - we quite regularly change our interpretations week by week. Nonetheless, maybe you'd fit in after all (though no doubt you'd need to hold yourself back a couple of levels in order to find some kind of challenge). ;)
I'm also a fan of both systems in differing degrees and for differing reasons. I don't know much about rules really, but I appreciate thoughts like you gave above. Cheers.
Yeah, 'play a different game' is just avoiding the issue, the same way 'use a Ranger' is avoiding the issue with the Rogue. :P
Who is that a response to?? :confused:
Because Lorraine Williams was not just about the money either?
Why do you think many of us stopped playing 2E in the first place? Granted, we didn't know much about what was going on behind the scenes at that time, but it showed in the quality of the products that they were in it for the quick cash and not the love of the game anymore.
Those days were AWFUL! It was very aggravating to see the art director stick Lorraine WIlliams face on the cover art. SORRY, Liriel Banerae does NOT look like she should serve you fries in a diner.
There was great art in the second edition days, but when they would superimpose TSR heads in the art, it was jarring and awful.
Roll for Sanity.
|
|
Well, maybe I do, but most people aren't going to use that solution.Yeah, 'play a different game' is just avoiding the issue, the same way 'use a Ranger' is avoiding the issue with the Rogue. :P
Well, people who argue that 4E was some massive shift, but 3.0 was just a minor tweak might not really consider it a different game. :P
IIRC, This is one thing I'm interested in about the beginner box. Apparently TPTB are also concerned about clarity in rulebook presentation, and the Beginner Box is supposed to benefit from it.While I don't want a Pathfinder 2.x yet, I wouldn't mind if they cleaned it up a bit.
I really don't want a PF 2nd edition. I don't think there is that much that needs to be fixed unless you are looking for Perfect. They made 3rd edition better. The last thing I would want is them moving away from that.
If they do release a 2nd edition I hope it is like you say just streamlined. Where I love the Pathfinder book because i am an Academic, I am also in touch with younger gamers. That book makes them scream. I would tell them get over it, it is not that difficult, but I am not trying to make money from them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am also in touch with younger gamers. That book makes them scream. I would tell them get over it, it is not that difficult, but I am not trying to make money from them.
They don't really need a truly new edition to do a new format. That's what a revision is for. It doesn't even have to be a revision as drastic as 3e to 3.5. Pathfinder Core Revised, Gamemastery Guide Revised, done. Although this should still be a bit off. There are some things that need addressing first, stealth, crafting, a few other corner cases.
I'm looking forward to the 10 dollar PDF copies of the Beginner Box book. The 4 preview they already have is extremely valuable.
I am also in touch with younger gamers. That book makes them scream. I would tell them get over it, it is not that difficult, but I am not trying to make money from them.They don't really need a truly new edition to do a new format. That's what a revision is for. It doesn't even have to be a revision as drastic as 3e to 3.5. Pathfinder Core Revised, Gamemastery Guide Revised, done. Although this should still be a bit off. There are some things that need addressing first, stealth, crafting, a few other corner cases.
I'm looking forward to the 10 dollar PDF copies of the Beginner Box book. The 4 preview they already have is extremely valuable.
even though I am a longtime veteran I am looking forward to the beginners box. What I also like is all the beginner information is there in the beginner set.
I felt the 4e dmg was a waste for me, as it was mostly advice for beginners. I paid full price for a book only half useful to me.Difference was the dmg was considered core. The gamemastery guide has a lot of good advice for beginners, but it is not necessary for the game, or lead you to believe it is.
I bought the gmg knowing alot of it I wouldn't need but I felt the purchase was more voluntary in it not being core.
I thought the purchase of the GMG was worth it just for the NPC lists...
I have all the core books from 4E, and the FR campaign setting books, and have never played it but once...
Talk about a waste of money...
Back to the BaB iteritive penalties, didn't Kirth address this with his revision?