| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Mar 2009 : 15:27:49
|
Correct - what they have done is turn the clock back to a 'simpler time', hoping to re-capture the original games magic. They wanted that 'Old D&D' feeling back so badly, from what I understand, that they even considered making certain races classes again. Or at least, some form of 'racial leveling', to take the place of class-leveling for non-humans, sort-of similar to what was done with savage Species and 'monster levels'.
I found the idea facinating, but they seemed to have dropped that one fairly early.
Anyhow, what they did was try to bring D&D back to that mythical 'Golden Age', when the game was new and fresh, and most of the people who were playing never even read the rulebooks. Back then, we didn't have a whole lot of rules for stuff outside of combat, so this is really nothing new for D&D.
In fact... thats the problem... this is nothing new. The game has evolved over the years to get it away from its miniatures wargaming roots, and better-suit roleplaying. All they've managed to do was re-invent the chainmail rules.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 Mar 2009 15:28:57 |
 |
|
|
Ayunken-vanzan
Senior Scribe
Germany
657 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2009 : 20:58:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The complaint that I've heard most often is that while roleplaying is still possible in 4E, it's not supported by the rules the way it was in prior editions.
To shed further light on this, if I understand the article correctly, the author points out that the rules of 4e actually hinder roleplaying by being disscociated. This seems to prove the point many complained about that roleplaying in 4e is not as possible as in earlier editions.
To summarize the essay: 4e has fundamentally flaws in core game mechanics and is plagued by sloppy design which results in a game that has nothing to do with D&D. The best: he gives evidence for his claims. Great article! 
Mod edit: Moved the quotation marks to make the link code work properly.  |
"What mattered our lives now? When our world had been torn from us? Folk wept, or drank, or stood staring out over the land, wondering what new horror each dawn would bring."
Elender Stormfall of Suzail
"Anyone can kill deities, cause plagues, or destroy organizations. It takes real skill to make them live on."
Varl
FR/D&D-Links • 2ed Downloads |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 17 Mar 2009 21:58:37 |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2009 : 21:49:56
|
| I've noticed more than one person comparing 4e to original three-beige-pamphlets-in-a-white-cardboard-box D&D. I'm not sure that's valid. Back when I was young and dinosaurs walked the earth, I played a lot of 1e. And now I've tried 4e, 4e strikes me as considerably more complicated. Although in some respects it may be less complicated than 3.5. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2009 : 23:07:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan
The best: he gives evidence for his claims. Great article!
I agree, on both points. It's a good article that makes some compelling points, whether one likes 4E or not (or is indifferent). |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
scererar
Master of Realmslore
USA
1618 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2009 : 01:48:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
I've noticed more than one person comparing 4e to original three-beige-pamphlets-in-a-white-cardboard-box D&D. I'm not sure that's valid. Back when I was young and dinosaurs walked the earth, I played a lot of 1e. And now I've tried 4e, 4e strikes me as considerably more complicated. Although in some respects it may be less complicated than 3.5.
I concur. While I can't associate myself to being around with the dinosaurs, I have however played many editions of D&D, as they came out. I do not contribute 4E to easier or simpler then earlier editions. I also agree, it appears less complicated that 3E, which I really did not dig as much as 2E. |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2009 : 01:50:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The complaint that I've heard most often is that while roleplaying is still possible in 4E, it's not supported by the rules the way it was in prior editions.
In my experience with the rules system, it seems like the rules assume the players will figure out on their own when and how to roleplay.
It also relies on teh skill-challenge system and the DM to get players roleplaying and interacting with NPCs.
I can't say how well this works with new players, but with veterans like the people I play with the rules are great. Once players know that the rules are setup to allow players to roleplay in order to gain needed story information and rewards, they were all over it. |
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 18 Mar 2009 01:52:56 |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2009 : 00:41:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The complaint that I've heard most often is that while roleplaying is still possible in 4E, it's not supported by the rules the way it was in prior editions.
In my experience with the rules system, it seems like the rules assume the players will figure out on their own when and how to roleplay.
It also relies on teh skill-challenge system and the DM to get players roleplaying and interacting with NPCs.
I can't say how well this works with new players, but with veterans like the people I play with the rules are great. Once players know that the rules are setup to allow players to roleplay in order to gain needed story information and rewards, they were all over it.
In principle, I like the skill challenge system; veteran players (especially those familiar with the conflict resolution mechanics in indie RPGs) probably "get" it quickly.
However, apparently many DMs (especially new ones, but others as well) struggle with how they should be run, and no wonder -- the way it is presented in DMG tells me that it was developed in a hurry, most likely as a response to the "4E is all about combat!"-cries over the message boards (and this is also evident by the way they screwed up the math).
The thing is, unlike in most (narrativist) indie RPGs in which this type of system is "transparent", i.e. anybody can declare a conflict and then the stakes and consequences are openly decided ("If you win, you find a magic item hidden in this complex, but should you lose, you bump into a random encounter"), it's a bit vague in 4E. Even after reading the rules several times, I'm not all that clear if the DM should inform the players that they've entered a skill challenge, or not. Now, if he doesn't, should he inform them all their options (in which case they'll realize that it's about skill challenge) or not? And, if he does, should *all* PCs roll in certain cases (e.g. Endurance checks to see if they beat the BBEG's minions to the ruins)?
And so on.
All in all, it's a bit of a mess (for a narrativist mechanic in a gamist system) and they should have rewritten the whole subsystem into PHB 2.
|
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2009 : 03:13:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
I've noticed more than one person comparing 4e to original three-beige-pamphlets-in-a-white-cardboard-box D&D. I'm not sure that's valid. Back when I was young and dinosaurs walked the earth, I played a lot of 1e. And now I've tried 4e, 4e strikes me as considerably more complicated. Although in some respects it may be less complicated than 3.5.
Would it be bad to ask your opinion of 4E here (or is this covered elsewhere such as in your own thread?) |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2009 : 06:18:14
|
Hello Asgetrion,
I don't know that the system was put in place to answer the supposed cries of "too much mechanics in 4E!" How could gamers know that ahead of the release of the actual product?
To me the Skill Challenge system didn't seem rushed. Certain other parts of the 4E DMG, such as the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level chart (page 42), do seem rushed and a little wonky with the math.
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
Even after reading the rules several times, I'm not all that clear if the DM should inform the players that they've entered a skill challenge, or not. Now, if he doesn't, should he inform them all their options (in which case they'll realize that it's about skill challenge) or not? And, if he does, should *all* PCs roll in certain cases (e.g. Endurance checks to see if they beat the BBEG's minions to the ruins)?
I did note that the Skill Challenge section kind of blends making one check with making several.
As someone who's played 3E since it came out, I'm used to calling out for the player who has Tracking/Survival to make a roll to help the party find their way through the wilderness. One roll = done.
However, the 4E system wants to turn this kind of activity into a group effort (see the Lost in the Wilderness skill challenge, page 79) by asking the DM to describe to the players when they're lost, and to call out what the players can do, such as making Endurance and Nature checks to become un-lost.
If the players fail (3 failures before 6 successes) they end up in an encounter vs. a monster.
That's lots of rolls = might be done.
It's interesting that 4E is all about streamlining things, yet in some instances it tries super hard to throw everybody into the mix. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3249 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2009 : 12:43:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
It's interesting that 4E is all about streamlining things, yet in some instances it tries super hard to throw everybody into the mix.
That just smacks to me of putting the 'everybody rolls!' rule into place because a player that wasn't a ranger didn't like that the ranger got 'spotlight' time whenever a survival check came up (or something similar). |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2009 : 13:34:40
|
| Alisttair: At the risk of this sounding like a dodge, I'm still forming my opinion of 4e. I've only played it a few times. Maybe I'll give it my thumbs-up or thumbs-down at some point in the future. |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2009 : 14:50:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Alisttair: At the risk of this sounding like a dodge, I'm still forming my opinion of 4e. I've only played it a few times. Maybe I'll give it my thumbs-up or thumbs-down at some point in the future.
That is a fair answer. Thanks |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2009 : 01:57:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Hello Asgetrion,
I don't know that the system was put in place to answer the supposed cries of "too much mechanics in 4E!" How could gamers know that ahead of the release of the actual product?
To me the Skill Challenge system didn't seem rushed. Certain other parts of the 4E DMG, such as the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level chart (page 42), do seem rushed and a little wonky with the math.
Oh, it's written in a way that it is evident, in my opinion, that they didn't have it "proof-read" by playtesters or persons outside the WoTC offices. Like many other mechanics (monster building, for example) it's crystal clear to them, and no wonder; Mike Mearls, at least, has talked about how much he loves indie RPGs. However, your average Joe DM may find them running them hard to grasp -- all the major message boards contain threads about running them, and DDi has already featured... what, two or three articles on that subject?
And unless I'm completely wrong, they started to talk about it publicly only after people kept insisting that the consolidated skill system and emphasis on combat rules (note: opinions mostly based on the previews and designer blogs) meant "simplified" system that did not support any non-combat activities. That's all guessing on my part, but that's why I think they added "social combat rules" to 4E.
quote:
As someone who's played 3E since it came out, I'm used to calling out for the player who has Tracking/Survival to make a roll to help the party find their way through the wilderness. One roll = done.
However, the 4E system wants to turn this kind of activity into a group effort (see the Lost in the Wilderness skill challenge, page 79) by asking the DM to describe to the players when they're lost, and to call out what the players can do, such as making Endurance and Nature checks to become un-lost.
If the players fail (3 failures before 6 successes) they end up in an encounter vs. a monster.
That's lots of rolls = might be done.
It's interesting that 4E is all about streamlining things, yet in some instances it tries super hard to throw everybody into the mix.
Well, isn't 4E all about group dynamics? 
Seriously, it's a nice effort, but it would need to be rewritten and clarified a bit.
Calling out skill checks is how I've always done it, too, but the thing is that if your *really* want to get the most out of this system, you need to get the players involved and suggesting which skills and how their PCs are using. If you try to keep the challenge a secret, it's a bit hard, because veteran players expect the DM to call out which skill to use ("Alright, let's see some Endurance rolls from everyone"). Now, unless you manage to present it in another light, such as "How are you going to beat those Orc Raiders to the ruins?", they'll just stare at you and ask: "alright, we rolled those Endurance checks... did we reach the ruins, or what?". So, either you openly declare every skill challenge, or manage to bring it into the story in a way that the player's don't know it's a challenge.
The DMG *is*, in my opinion, a bit vague on this -- should the players be "kept in the dark" when running skill challenges or not? Should you declare which skills are "legal" each round or not? I'd personally go for the "wily presentation", and hook the players in the story by giving them a chance to suggest openly which skills to use, but I know that some DMs are a bit lost on how to run skill challenges. |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
edappel
Learned Scribe
Brazil
211 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2009 : 20:46:51
|
There is a nice quote that I heard..
WotC said: Take are of the R, cause our job is on PG
(something like that) |
--- Ed Appel
*** I'm a brazilian FR fan. So, feel free to correct my writing mistakes to improve my english. |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 14:27:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by edappel
There is a nice quote that I heard..
WotC said: Take are of the R, cause our job is on PG
(something like that)
Take care of the R? |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 15:42:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
quote:
Originally posted by edappel
There is a nice quote that I heard..
WotC said: Take are of the R, cause our job is on PG
(something like that)
Take care of the R?
I think it would be better phrased as "take care of the RP, because our job is the G". Whoever coined that one is saying WotC doesn't care about Role-Playing any more, and that it's no longer part of the Game. And a common complaint I've heard is that 4E really doesn't support role-playing the way prior versions did. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 16:01:17
|
It's always been our job to take care of the RP, hasn't it? And again, my opinion (based on decades of RPG experience, almost a year playing 4E, and having read pretty much all the published 4E material) is that this system supports role-playing at least as well as and better than most of any of the dozens of games I've played over the years, including multiple versions of D&D.
|
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Rhone Ethenkhar
Acolyte
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 16:09:10
|
Well, now that I have been playing 4e for a while now (since it came out, basically)I feel I can actually give a fair opinion of it.
Yeah, WotC really do not "support" the RP aspect of things; that is to say, the background and flavour of campaign material is lacking imho. It tends to just give lots of rules (focussed on combat, as far as I can see)and encounters in any of the books and adventures I have looked through. But that is just my experience.
The game itself is fine, but just does not feel the way it once was, which is not good imho. I have a good enough time with it, but it is not something that inspires me like the previous editions did. I am sure that is a lot of nostalgia talking there too, no doubt, but nonetheless that is how it feels for me.
Imho, I believe this to be the case (not just because of the drastic change in direction with respect to rules design) because of the heavy & narrow focus on "fantastic" and "fantasy", as opposed to blending it with a psuedo-European/Medieval atmosphere. Personally, I always liked having a semi realistic approach (kind of like LotR). Just my 2 cents, however. |
" Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages...I intend to discover who are the prisoners and who are the warders." -the Prisoner |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 17:37:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
It's always been our job to take care of the RP, hasn't it? And again, my opinion (based on decades of RPG experience, almost a year playing 4E, and having read pretty much all the published 4E material) is that this system supports role-playing at least as well as and better than most of any of the dozens of games I've played over the years, including multiple versions of D&D.
You're about the only person I know who has tried 4E and still says it supports role-playing. Most other folks say exactly the opposite. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 18:42:59
|
Well, role-playing and storytelling have always happened, in my experience, in conjunction with, not because of, game mechanics. It's when the game mechanics are distracting that they become a hindrance to those things. Since 4E is set up to be as easy or as complicated to play as an individual player or group wants it to be, then the system facilitates role-playing. Really, as long as a player has a good character sheet and a general familiarity with the game, only the DM needs to know the nitty-gritty, leaving everybody else to concentrate however much they like on the "RP."
Jerry Holkins from Penny Arcade kind of touches on this in the interview posted this morning at dungeonmastering.com.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
It's always been our job to take care of the RP, hasn't it? And again, my opinion (based on decades of RPG experience, almost a year playing 4E, and having read pretty much all the published 4E material) is that this system supports role-playing at least as well as and better than most of any of the dozens of games I've played over the years, including multiple versions of D&D.
You're about the only person I know who has tried 4E and still says it supports role-playing. Most other folks say exactly the opposite.
|
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 19:22:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Well, role-playing and storytelling have always happened, in my experience, in conjunction with, not because of, game mechanics. It's when the game mechanics are distracting that they become a hindrance to those things. Since 4E is set up to be as easy or as complicated to play as an individual player or group wants it to be, then the system facilitates role-playing. Really, as long as a player has a good character sheet and a general familiarity with the game, only the DM needs to know the nitty-gritty, leaving everybody else to concentrate however much they like on the "RP."
Role-playing happening in conjunction with the game mechanics is the important thing. You are correct when you say rules shouldn't get in the way of role-playing. But the converse is also true: their absence shouldn't also get in the way of role-playing. While we certainly don't need rules for every tiny bit of role-playing, there are many situations in which the rules are necessary. And most of the reviews I've seen of 4E say that those rules -- the ones which support role-playing -- are notably absent, and that 4E seems to be geared only towards combat. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 06 Apr 2009 19:23:07 |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 19:25:22
|
Well, I haven't seen those reviews. What "rules that support role-playing" do they say are absent from 4E?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Well, role-playing and storytelling have always happened, in my experience, in conjunction with, not because of, game mechanics. It's when the game mechanics are distracting that they become a hindrance to those things. Since 4E is set up to be as easy or as complicated to play as an individual player or group wants it to be, then the system facilitates role-playing. Really, as long as a player has a good character sheet and a general familiarity with the game, only the DM needs to know the nitty-gritty, leaving everybody else to concentrate however much they like on the "RP."
Role-playing happening in conjunction with the game mechanics is the important thing. You are correct when you say rules shouldn't get in the way of role-playing. But the converse is also true: their absence shouldn't also get in the way of role-playing. While we certainly don't need rules for every tiny bit of role-playing, there are many situations in which the rules are necessary. And most of the reviews I've seen of 4E say that those rules -- the ones which support role-playing -- are notably absent, and that 4E seems to be geared only towards combat.
|
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 21:58:20
|
Hmmm, well, I hope you don't mind if I take some time with the entire thing, but I have read the particular section you linked and...well, disagree.
Needing detailed, specific rules support for all of the situations he describes strikes me, frankly, as kind of anti-role playing. But even so, the "non-combat rules" that exist in 4E have been more than robust enough to address everything I've thrown at my DM or had my players throw at me. Horse riding, for example, is covered either by athletics or the mounted combat rules, depending on the situation; or heck, acrobatics if things are getting really interesting. A player announces an action--the DM either reacts through pure role-playing and collaborative storytelling, or she decides what skill or skills are applicable, sets a difficulty class, and adjudicates the situation based on the player's resulting roll.
As for there not being chalk (etc) listed in some equipment list of things available for purchase, goodness. Isn't that a bit silly? Can't the DM just decide? I love me some Aurora as much as the next Realms fan, but what if the player decides they want green chalk instead of white? Does the game grind to a halt while the DM goes through back issues of Kobold Quarterly hoping that somebody has provided a price list for all conceivable writing supplies?
And regarding out-of-combat "powers," between the utilities and the rituals, again, I don't know what more you could need. If they haven't already converted all your favorite spells to one or the other (and I'm thinking that, as with all previous editions, if you just wait, a supplement or article containing the one you want is surely on the way), well may I suggest that you make it up? Or better, have characters with the appropriate non-combat skills of Ritual Casting and (as appropriate) Arcana, Religion or Nature (or heck, Athletics, why not?) devise a ritual?
If "4E doesn't support role-playing" is code for either "there's not a paragraph-length rule description for what you want to do, so you can't do it" or "the designers didn't put a price for it in the first round of releases--logic therefore dictates that the item cannot exist," well, then, the problem doesn't lie in impoverished game mechanics. In other words, what he's missing isn't role-playing, it's a bunch of specific mechanical crutches that he was used to leaning on. They've been replaced by aids and guides.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Well, I haven't seen those reviews. What "rules that support role-playing" do they say are absent from 4E?
Just read thru this guy's review: PLAYTESTING 4th EDITION. Specifically, the section on Gutting Non-Combat.
|
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
Edited by - Christopher_Rowe on 06 Apr 2009 22:14:20 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 00:02:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Hmmm, well, I hope you don't mind if I take some time with the entire thing, but I have read the particular section you linked and...well, disagree.
Needing detailed, specific rules support for all of the situations he describes strikes me, frankly, as kind of anti-role playing. But even so, the "non-combat rules" that exist in 4E have been more than robust enough to address everything I've thrown at my DM or had my players throw at me. Horse riding, for example, is covered either by athletics or the mounted combat rules, depending on the situation; or heck, acrobatics if things are getting really interesting. A player announces an action--the DM either reacts through pure role-playing and collaborative storytelling, or she decides what skill or skills are applicable, sets a difficulty class, and adjudicates the situation based on the player's resulting roll.
As for there not being chalk (etc) listed in some equipment list of things available for purchase, goodness. Isn't that a bit silly? Can't the DM just decide? I love me some Aurora as much as the next Realms fan, but what if the player decides they want green chalk instead of white? Does the game grind to a halt while the DM goes through back issues of Kobold Quarterly hoping that somebody has provided a price list for all conceivable writing supplies?
And regarding out-of-combat "powers," between the utilities and the rituals, again, I don't know what more you could need. If they haven't already converted all your favorite spells to one or the other (and I'm thinking that, as with all previous editions, if you just wait, a supplement or article containing the one you want is surely on the way), well may I suggest that you make it up? Or better, have characters with the appropriate non-combat skills of Ritual Casting and (as appropriate) Arcana, Religion or Nature (or heck, Athletics, why not?) devise a ritual?
If "4E doesn't support role-playing" is code for either "there's not a paragraph-length rule description for what you want to do, so you can't do it" or "the designers didn't put a price for it in the first round of releases--logic therefore dictates that the item cannot exist," well, then, the problem doesn't lie in impoverished game mechanics. In other words, what he's missing isn't role-playing, it's a bunch of specific mechanical crutches that he was used to leaning on. They've been replaced by aids and guides.
No one is saying that something doesn't exist because there is no price for it, or that something can't be done because there's not an explicit rule for it. But it's not unreasonable to want to buy writing materials or to ride a horse across rough terrain, and the rules don't cover these things. And it's not unreasonable to think that climbing a rope and swimming aren't the same thing, but since they're not specifically combat-related, the rules act like those are the same thing.
Yes, the DM can decide on a whole lot of things... But why is a game system being designed so that a DM has to decide on basic things that used to be covered in prior versions?
You mention using Athletics to cover riding a horse. That is not, to me, an obvious use of the skill. Athletics to me implies feats of strength or endurance -- if someone is being pursued by a foe, and his horse jumps a fence, then I'm not going to think that him staying on the horse has anything at all to do with strength or endurance. And looking at the skill description, I don't see any reason to use it for riding a horse.
Not only that, but lumping everything together is overly simplistic. Yes, a runner and a swimmer are both going to be athletic. But it's not the same kind of athleticism... With lumping everything into one skill, that means that by the rules, Michael Phelps could ride a bike just as well as Lance Armstrong, and Lance Armstrong could swim just as well as Michael Phelps. The Athletics skill description says those two guys are the same -- but I know which one I'm betting on when it comes to swimming, and which one I'm betting on for riding a bike.
You mention chalk. Chalk is something that has a very obvious use in exploring dungeons, caves, or ruins. It doesn't matter if it's green, purple, red, or white -- it has an obvious use, and it's something that PCs are likely to want to buy. One price could easily cover it, regardless of the color. But when the DM doesn't have a price, then he's got to wing it. No big deal, you imply. And it's not -- if it was only for one or two things.
What if a person wants an extra pair of boots? What's the cost of the quill and ink for the spellslinger to write stuff in his ritual book? What if a character doesn't want to wear fine clothes? How much for extra blankets and heavy cloaks, for winter/arctic travel? I've had a couple of vain PCs -- what's the cost for them to buy a mirror? What's the price of parchment, for someone who wants to keep a journal, write notes, or even draw a map?
These are all things that are common or at the least, not uncommon. And yet, the PHB doesn't cover them. And it's notable that these things are all non-combat, like the chalk or the 10' pole.
When all rules for non-combat situations are systemically downplayed or removed, it does become a big deal.
So you might be fine winging it. But don't tell me that wanting rules for basic, non-combat situations is asking for "mechanical crutches". They're not even giving us "aids and guides", unless you want to simplify everything to an utterly ridiculous amount.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 07 Apr 2009 00:04:37 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3249 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 00:14:34
|
My problem with the lack of material in the 4th edition is that their express purpose behind the new edition is to recruit new players or bring people back to the game that haven't played in years. That being said, we have to assume that the person running the game is not experienced at adjudicating those types of situations.
That means that they have to spend more time, not less to figure out that kind of information, which brings the game to a grinding halt. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3249 Posts |
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 03:53:14
|
| Hey Wooly, thanks for the response. I was out late tonight (for me) at an LFR game, and will take more time for a detailed response tomorrow. But just a couple of minor notes--the examples I used of chalk and horsemanship were drawn from the article you linked, and in my experience, riding a horse is, in fact, a feat of strength and endurance. |
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Daviot
Senior Scribe
USA
372 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 04:16:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Heh... here's a new survey from WotC on DMing. It's focused on 4th Edition, but I know no better way to voice my opinion.
Survey
Thanks for the link; I've let my thoughts be known. |
One usually has far more to fear from the soft-spoken wizard with a blade and well-worn boots than from the boisterous one in the ivory tower.
My Tabletop Writing CV. |
|
|
|
Kyrene
Senior Scribe
South Africa
765 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 14:09:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
in my experience, riding a horse is, in fact, a feat of strength and endurance.
For the horse?
Sorry to pick that out, and digress from the point of discussion, but I just read it with incredulity. [:WTF]
I can ride a horse just as easily as my motorcycle, and both require more from a skill—let's call it "Riding"—than feats of strength or endurance. Since the horse is a non-mechanical form of transport, I could see strength and endurance checks required for it, but definately not the rider. And obviously not the motorcycle! |
Lost for words? Find them in the Glossary of Phrases, Sayings & Words of the Realms
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
