| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Bluenose
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
134 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 14:20:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
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.
If the problem is that "lumping things together is overly simplistic", where do you stop applying it? Where's the skill for haggling (it always astonishes me that there aren't any rules in 3e for negotiating a better price), why is following someone stealthily not represented by a Shadowing skill, why are there no rules covering what you actually DO with a Profession skill other than earn money, wetc. Taking it a little further, why does my barbarian get better at using a flail when he gains a level despite never using one or encountering anyone who uses one? Or is that acceptable because it's the way it's always worked in D&D? |
These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling
And took their wages and are dead.
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay. |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 15:38:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bluenose
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
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.
If the problem is that "lumping things together is overly simplistic", where do you stop applying it? Where's the skill for haggling (it always astonishes me that there aren't any rules in 3e for negotiating a better price), why is following someone stealthily not represented by a Shadowing skill, why are there no rules covering what you actually DO with a Profession skill other than earn money, wetc. Taking it a little further, why does my barbarian get better at using a flail when he gains a level despite never using one or encountering anyone who uses one? Or is that acceptable because it's the way it's always worked in D&D?
It's a balance that has to be struck. You have to consider the things that are most likely to happen, and account for them.
For example, it is theoretically possible that a character could decide to support a table on his feet while doing a handstand with one hand, juggling three flaming daggers with the other, and sing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" in Pig Latin, all at the same time. But is that likely to happen often enough, for most DMs, to need a rule for it? No! Is riding a horse under less than ideal circumstances something that is likely to happen, for most DMs? Yes! So give us a rule for the guy on a horse, and don't worry about one for the insane juggler. That's balance. No rules for non-encounter* situations is not balance.
*Note: earlier I was saying non-combat, but I realize now that non-encounter is more appropriate.
To use my discussion from earlier... If there is a Riding skill, I can use that to make any necessary checks for things like mounted combat, running over rough terrain, horses having to jump over barriers, and not becoming unhorsed by low tree branches. But without a riding skill, I have to wing everything.
Is it too much to ask for to want a D&D ruleset that's at least as comprehensive as 2E, if not 3E? |
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!  |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 18:06:52
|
I agree with Wooly that every RPG tries to strike a balance. To my mind, that balance is between worthwhile detail and ease of play.
For instance, we can imagine an RPG where, when an NPC is going to fight, the GM has to keep track of scores representing Experience with the Specific Weapon Employed, Experience vs. the Weapon Being Used Against the Character, Experience vs. the Style Being Used Against the Character, Experience Using Teamwork with the Specific Comrade Who's Fighting Beside You, Advantages to Being Bigger (or Smaller) than the Opponent, Drawbacks to Being Bigger (or Smaller) than the Opponent, Sense of Distance, Hand-Eye Coordination, Reflexes, Ability to Feint, Ability to Recognize a Feint, Balance, Strength, Overall Fatigue, Speed with which a Character Tires when Exerting Himself Strenuously, Hunger, General Health, Effects of Wounds to Specific Parts of the Body, and the Technical Difficulty of the Specific Maneuver Attempted. I suspect many of us would find that's too much detail. It tries too hard to account for every variable that plays a role in what we're trying to simulate (combat) and it makes play too slow.
On the other hand, many of us probably wouldn't care for a game where it doesn't matter at all what weapon a character uses, and fighting a dragon doesn't feel much different than fight an orc. That's not enough detail to make the game vivid and therefore fun.
My impression is that many people like or dislike 4e based largely on whether they think it got the balance right. |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 18:21:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
I agree with Wooly that every RPG tries to strike a balance. To my mind, that balance is between worthwhile detail and ease of play.
For instance, we can imagine an RPG where, when an NPC is going to fight, the GM has to keep track of scores representing Experience with the Specific Weapon Employed, Experience vs. the Weapon Being Used Against the Character, Experience vs. the Style Being Used Against the Character, Experience Using Teamwork with the Specific Comrade Who's Fighting Beside You, Advantages to Being Bigger (or Smaller) than the Opponent, Drawbacks to Being Bigger (or Smaller) than the Opponent, Sense of Distance, Hand-Eye Coordination, Reflexes, Ability to Feint, Ability to Recognize a Feint, Balance, Strength, Overall Fatigue, Speed with which a Character Tires when Exerting Himself Strenuously, Hunger, General Health, Effects of Wounds to Specific Parts of the Body, and the Technical Difficulty of the Specific Maneuver Attempted. I suspect many of us would find that's too much detail. It tries too hard to account for every variable that plays a role in what we're trying to simulate (combat) and it makes play too slow.
On the other hand, many of us probably wouldn't care for a game where it doesn't matter at all what weapon a character uses, and fighting a dragon doesn't feel much different than fight an orc. That's not enough detail to make the game vivid and therefore fun.
My impression is that many people like or dislike 4e based largely on whether they think it got the balance right.
I gather you played some eighties-era Rolemaster, Richard? 
I'm glad you posted this. First off, because I'd completely lost track of where this conversation was happening, but also because your last paragraph crystalizes what I was trying to think to say in response to Wooly Rupert. I really do think the 4E rules set is robust enough for even an inexperienced DM to adjudicate, tell interesting stories, and have fun, and my experiences on both sides of the screen over the last year back that up--at least for me and the people I've game with.
The writer Wooly linked to above--and I think Wooly himself--seem to think that there's a lack of necessary rules support in the, I guess, "non-combat encounters" department. That's never been a place that I've personally wanted a rules support, but that doesn't mean that wanting more isn't a legitimate wish (my guess is that more's coming, as it has on almost a monthly basis for about thirty-five years now).
Whether or not we like the system is purely a matter of taste, and that's fine. I guess what sticks in my craw are broad declarations that rich, complex, lively, multi-faceted, and complete role-playing experiences simply can't be had under this particular rules set. Because that's an all-or-nothing declaration, and one that my experience and the reported experiences of others disproves.
|
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3249 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 18:41:20
|
I agree with Richard as well, it all depends on the balance. For medieval fantasy, I feel that 3.5/Pathfinder has found the right amount of detail/simplicity to make it 'feel' right. For other games, I like the Star Wars Saga Edition (a very close cousin of 4E) to for that setting. It balances it out so non-Force using characters do not feel like 'second-fiddle' to the Jedi. For other settings, I like other rules sets.
It's not that you can't roleplay and have fun under certain rulesets, but some rulesets seem, IMO, to work against the feel you're trying to imply in your game. For instance, the WoD games have a terrific ruleset for a game set in the modern world and where 'leveling' isn't terribly important to the character. But if you take the same ruleset and try to place it in the Forgotten Realms, you'll run into a LOT of problems trying to make it feel like the Realms.
To sum up, I don't think that we're saying that you cannot have fun and roleplay with 4th Edition. Rather we're saying that when we tried to run/play a 4th Edition game, it didn't feel like D&D for us, so it's not our cup of tea (at least, that's how I feel about it). |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
edappel
Learned Scribe
Brazil
211 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 19:00:01
|
How many times did you play 4e Ashe?
The first 4 sessions didn't look well for me too, but when my DM started to "get the way" balancing RP and Fights it did well...
Yes, 4e have some problem issues... Like the end of "school of magic" and the f*****g Healing Surges, but it did not change so drastically like i thought. |
--- Ed Appel
*** I'm a brazilian FR fan. So, feel free to correct my writing mistakes to improve my english. |
Edited by - edappel on 07 Apr 2009 19:03:14 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 19:00:44
|
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 Ashe. I used the comments section to explain to them that what they did to the Realms in 4e directly affected my decision not to by any 4e products. Now, as to whether they will give it any thought or not, I doubt it...but it felt good to say directly to their market research peoples. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 19:15:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
..we're saying that when we tried to run/play a 4th Edition game, it didn't feel like D&D for us, so it's not our cup of tea (at least, that's how I feel about it).
Fair enough.
I guess what I don't understand... Hmm, let me start again. I think that what I perceive as a dissonance throughout Candlekeep is fueled by the fact it seems to me that any mention or discussion of new Realms-specific or D&D-general materials and concepts are guaranteed--seriously, I'll stand by that word--guaranteed to elicit responses that are not nearly so thoughtful as this and not nearly so moderately worded. In fact, they are frequently not grounded in familiarity with the materials or concepts, or are nothing more than "I speak now only to say that don't like that this exists" white noise. This is pervasive to the extent that muddily thought-out "criticisms" exist at one-liners in the .sig lines of some scribes every post. It's weird.
|
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3249 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 19:21:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by edappel
How many times did you play 4e Ashe?
The first 4 sessions didn't look well for me too, but when my DM started to "get the way" balancing RP and Fights it did well...
Yes, 4e have some problem issues... Like the end of "school of magic" and the f*****g Healing Surges, but it did not change so drastically like i thought.
Unfortunately, I didn't get to four sessions. However, as a card-carrying Rules Lawyer*, I am obligated to read each book carefully and memorize every thing in the book. 
Honestly, though, I pride myself on understanding the mechanics behind the rules almost to the point of obsession, mostly because I love to create spreadsheets where I keep all my characters information and have the computer do most of the work for me (like what's my attack modifier on a +3 keen greatsword for the Ranger 3/Cleric 6 I created). In order to do that, I have to understand the rules well enough to convert them into formulae. And my experience with 4th Edition was that, yes, the rules make it especially easy to play and run the game**, but I dislike the disappearance of 'Vancian' magic and the blandness of At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers to each other.
* Card-carrying, of course, is a requirement of a Rules Lawyer, since without your card, any loophole you find is not permissible and maybe dismissed by the DM out of hand.
**Heck, it only took me four hours to create my own excel Character Generator, including power card generation that calculated the exact attack and damage modifiers instead of the [2W] crap. |
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 |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 19:24:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
..we're saying that when we tried to run/play a 4th Edition game, it didn't feel like D&D for us, so it's not our cup of tea (at least, that's how I feel about it).
Fair enough.
I guess what I don't understand... Hmm, let me start again. I think that what I perceive as a dissonance throughout Candlekeep is fueled by the fact it seems to me that any mention or discussion of new Realms-specific or D&D-general materials and concepts are guaranteed--seriously, I'll stand by that word--guaranteed to elicit responses that are not nearly so thoughtful as this and not nearly so moderately worded. In fact, they are frequently not grounded in familiarity with the materials or concepts, or are nothing more than "I speak now only to say that don't like that this exists" white noise. This is pervasive to the extent that muddily thought-out "criticisms" exist at one-liners in the .sig lines of some scribes every post. It's weird.
Ah, but you also have to take into account that there's 4th Edition and 4th Edition Realms. Many people here are unwilling to give 4th Edition a try simply because of the changes that were implemented in the Realms, leaving a bad taste in many a fan's mouth. So the dislike for the lore/canon changes discolors the perception of the ruleset.
Edit: What I'm trying to say above is that, for those that dislike 4E because of the Realms changes, when you (and I mean the generic 'fan-of-4E' you) post what you like about 4E and why you think they should try it, they hear 'the new Realms are super-cool and much better than that which you loved'.
Again, this isn't everyone that dislikes 4E. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
Edited by - Ashe Ravenheart on 07 Apr 2009 19:27:51 |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 19:50:23
|
Well, as it happens I do think the new Realms are cool, though not "much better" than what I'd known and loved before, because it's all of a piece. I think that the "dissonance" I hear exists with regard to both the rules and the world.
I bow to no one in my admiration for the Realms--I've been with them, on and off, since before the gray box. The "new Realms," in my opinion, are the old Realms. I believe that based on my deep familiarity with material across all editions of the game, and through all the different changes that have happened in the game world, changes that were happening--big and small--from the very beginning.
Gods have gone before and come back. Weird magic-infused no-man's-lands have scarred the surface of Toril before. Whole continents have been unexpectedly and unceremoniously added to the world at least three times before Returned Abeir. Through it all, the Realms have abided, and good people have done good work shepherding them. That's still happening today, I think.
Some here don't think that--and so seem to spend more time and energy talking about things they profess to hate than about things they profess to love. Some of them even spend a lot of time and energy castigating creators, and denying that the Realms of today can be legitimately entered and loved. Here, in this fandom of a living world that was created with egalitarianism and open-mindedness in its social bedrock.
Dissonance.
|
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
Edited by - Christopher_Rowe on 07 Apr 2009 19:55:02 |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 20:20:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
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.
Let me throw a couple of potential skill uses here. The question is: "How would you adjudicate these situations as a DM?".
1) The players want to make a good impression on the local rules, say, a duke. They do not want to use Diplomacy in a skill challenge, because none of them have a high score in it. Rather, a player suggests that his character (let's assume the character has originally said that he's apprenticed to an Armorer in his youth) is going to craft the finest piece of Godplate (or whatever the Full Plate in called in 4E). Is it an automatic success, and if it is, how would you react if the player asks that is it possible for him to craft a Godplate for himself, too? Especially if he would be too low a level to be wearing a Godplate?
2) Using still the same situation here, one of the other players suggests that his character, who's a very talented artist, wants to paint the Duke's portrait from some sketches he has acquired? Again, does he automatically succeed to impress the duke, or not? What if he would ask you that since he's a talented artist, could he be doing some extra money -- in addition to what he gets from adventuring?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 20:23:50
|
Wouldn't a couple of common ability checks modified as the DM wants do the trick?
On the other hand, I have next to no knowledge about anything that has happened since 2ed. so I should stay out of this. |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 21:09:44
|
| Fascinating questions, Asgetrion. Let me get a little work done and then I'll pull down the books and cogitate a little bit. I'm gonna assume that the armorer and artist backgrounds were built in when I made them do their background write-ups at first level, right? 'Cause if not, well then, I could adjudicate that in a snap! |
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 23:17:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Fascinating questions, Asgetrion. Let me get a little work done and then I'll pull down the books and cogitate a little bit. I'm gonna assume that the armorer and artist backgrounds were built in when I made them do their background write-ups at first level, right? 'Cause if not, well then, I could adjudicate that in a snap!
Yes, that was the intention, that the players selected these backgrounds at 1st level; they did not use PHB 2 backgrounds, but rather the suggestions in PHB (i.e. you can define freely what background skills/hobbies/talents your character has, as long as the DM doesn't veto it). |
"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 |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 23:42:39
|
My folks use the FRPG backgrounds if there's one for where they want to be from, and if there's not, then we work something out together (with regard to those small bonuses and so on).
Okay, I'm looking at it! Though I can tell you right off the bat that no PC would be able to make any of the Masterwork armors beyond a ritualist being able to help out on the magic side of things, 'cause that's for lifetime Masters, not dilettantes or Apprentices that ran off to join the adventuring circus. So I'm going to assume you mean standard full plate.
This is kind of fun. Where do you live? 'cause you sound like you'd be a good addition to our group!
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Fascinating questions, Asgetrion. Let me get a little work done and then I'll pull down the books and cogitate a little bit. I'm gonna assume that the armorer and artist backgrounds were built in when I made them do their background write-ups at first level, right? 'Cause if not, well then, I could adjudicate that in a snap!
Yes, that was the intention, that the players selected these backgrounds at 1st level; they did not use PHB 2 backgrounds, but rather the suggestions in PHB (i.e. you can define freely what background skills/hobbies/talents your character has, as long as the DM doesn't veto it).
|
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2009 : 18:14:27
|
Asgetrion,
Thank you again for devising these. As I mentioned in my note to you, this has sparked an idea for what I think will make a tremendous addition to my new campaign, and to other games I run in the future.
So, let's get to it!
quote:
Let me throw a couple of potential skill uses here. The question is: "How would you adjudicate these situations as a DM?".
Okay, here's the simple answer. I would devise skill challenges.
Now, the particulars.
quote:
1) The players want to make a good impression on the local rules, say, a duke. They do not want to use Diplomacy in a skill challenge, because none of them have a high score in it. Rather, a player suggests that his character (let's assume the character has originally said that he's apprenticed to an Armorer in his youth) is going to craft the finest piece of Godplate (or whatever the Full Plate in called in 4E). Is it an automatic success, and if it is, how would you react if the player asks that is it possible for him to craft a Godplate for himself, too? Especially if he would be too low a level to be wearing a Godplate?
This one is actually pretty easy (though not for an immediately obvious reason, and not for a reason that has anything to do with game mechanics). First off, no, it's not an automatic success. As I said above, it'll be a skill challenge.
When I devise these skill challenges, I'll work with the player to determine which skills will come into play. But before that, I'll make sure that this is something that the player has built into the character's story from the very beginning. As I mentioned upthread, no player gets to decide that a character had spent their youth 'prenticed to the finest swordsmith in all the land five minutes after they (the player) have decided that the it would be handy for the character.
Now, going forward, I'm going to formalize that "background clause" in my home games a little bit at the character creation stage, but since that's kind of house-ruley, I'll stick to what's in the books and magazines.
The first thing the player and I do is to determine exactly what's involved in making a suit of plate armor. I'm sure we'd agree that it takes raw materials, tools, a workspace (forge), and time.
I'll decide that half the price of a suit of plate armor is in materials. So there's some money the character will have to spend, and a note for one of the goals of the skill challenge ("Find stuff--probably a little Streetwise, though this PC isn't that great at that--hey! He can ask the Rogue, maybe this can turn into a sort of group-supported Skill Challenge").
Now he needs tools and a workspace ("Can you rent that stuff in this town? Seems like he'd have to find a willing blacksmith--so maybe some Diplomacy, or Intimidate if he's going to be a jerk about it, or Bluff if he wants to convince the guy he's on orders from the Duke.")
Now, time. How much time does it take to make a suit of plate armor, anyway? That's something neither of us actually knows off the tops of our heads, so we'll have to do a little research. Let me just typety-type into the google machine here.
Okay. Looks like the very best armorers with full workshops, easy access to the potential wearer for measurements, and many helpers took at least a year to make mundane plate armor in the real world.
So, this becomes a "yes and" situation per p. 28 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. Yes, you can make this attempt. I will devise a skill challenge for it. And...you have to retire the character, or at least she has to step down to NPC level for the next in-game year.
On to our artist.
quote:
2) Using still the same situation here, one of the other players suggests that his character, who's a very talented artist, wants to paint the Duke's portrait from some sketches he has acquired? Again, does he automatically succeed to impress the duke, or not? What if he would ask you that since he's a talented artist, could he be doing some extra money -- in addition to what he gets from adventuring?
Okay, so again, no, it's not an automatic success and I'll work with the player to design a skill challenge. This time, it'll actually go all the way through to the point where we roll successes and failures, and as in a combat encounter, the player (or players, though this one seems less likely to invite any group participation) and I will use descriptive language to describe what the successes and failures mean. This (also as in combat) will be wrapped inside a general "environment of role-playing."
Now, since this has gotten so long, I feel like I should ask you, and others, do you want me to actually design the skill challenge--"playing" the parts of both player and DM? I could post it here or send it as PMs, probably using the format of the examples James Wyatt developed in the Dungeon Master's Guide, with some refinements from the Mike Mearls article series.
But in sum--when mechanics are required for non-combat stuff (and again, I'm usually more likely to lean away from mechanics than toward them, but as Asgestrion ably demonstrated with these examples, sometimes it's required, or even requested by players), then in Fourth Edition D&D, the mechanics are in the Skill Challenges.
Cheers,
Christopher
|
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
houstonderek
Acolyte
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2009 : 10:32:09
|
quote:
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?
Hi there. I've been lurking for a while on these boards, just for fun reading, but I had to respond to this.
The absence of chalk (or ten foot poles) from the price lists isn't much of an issue for us who have been playing forever, we can just add them in. For new players, however, nothing is obvious. If they've never played before, it may not occur to them that chalk might be useful (or string, or breadcrumbs...). A lot of kids today haven't been exposed to the story of Theseus, for one, and might not latch into the importance of marking a route, and may not have much experience hiking, so they might not know a ten foot pole could be useful to prod for holes and whatnot.
By not having any kind of "mundane" items on the list, the designers may be doing new players a disservice. I know the first time I looked at the price list in the 1e PHB, I wondered what the use of some of those items would be, and thought it was "silly" to list them. But I also thought they wouldn't have put them there if there wasn't a reason, so I started imagining different scenarios where a piece of chalk, or a ten foot pole, or any of the other common items listed there could come in handy. The fact they were there gave me the opportunity to use my imagination, in other words.
Like I said, to us old guys, it's second nature to want these things, but for new players, the lack of such items may keep them from cooking up some crazy ideas as it might not come to them that they CAN.
All in all, it isn't a big deal, but I just wanted to throw my 2cp in with a different perspective.
Thanks for listening :) |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2009 : 19:00:33
|
Welcome to the boards, houstonderek.
I hope this will not also be your last post - we are always looking for fresh m... erm... new blood. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 11 Apr 2009 19:00:52 |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2009 : 08:07:52
|
Tonight during our 4E Realms game (we're still playing H1: Keep on the Shadowfell) I got hit with two on the spot skill questions:
1) "Since we can't hear the ghost, could I at least read the ghost's lips before it turned away from us and went down the hall?"
2) "What do I roll to try to squeeze into the Bag of Holding to see what's inside?"
Now I too am a long time player who prefers the more detailed and robust 3.5 skill system, but this being 4E I've only those rules to work with.
That said I was not without resources. I was already familiar with the "Additional Rules" section on page 42 of the 4E DMG (that's where you find the mounted combat rules), so I just went with what it tells you to do: If it's a non-combat action, pick the skill that most closely fits the description of what the player is trying to do and roll with it (literally and figuratively).
Thus for #1 I chose Insight and for #2 I chose Acrobatics from the PHB skills list.
What's more: Making that decision wasn't a time killer at all. The description for Insight is dead on in terms of what the lip-reading player was trying to do. Acrobatics seemed most appropriate for wriggling into a bag (I figured I could use the same DC the game gives for wriggling out of restraints). I really cannot imagine it being that much harder for a novice DM to have come to the same conclusions since the game literally tells you to pick the nearest relevant skill and keep playing.
I think the point that's being missed in the criticism of 4E's non-combat rules is that the system is very free-form. Some of us --myself included-- became so used to 3E's detailed system that we perhaps forgot it is quite all right to use a generalist system that relies on the DM's common sense and judgment.
I don't know about you guys, but I enjoy that part of my job as DM. It's not the system I prefer, but that doesn’t keep it from being fun. |
|
|
|
MGyt
Acolyte
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 02:31:30
|
New to Castle Keep and jumping in on this for a second. Now I did not read all 93 pages of this discussion so if I'm reiterating something I assure you its from my own thoughts and not just rehashed material. I'd like to say first off that I don't hate 4th edition, I just don't like it.
I like that in the combat system every one can do 100 things in a turn, not just attack. (finally a paladin is more than his 1 smite a day. On the same note I don't like that there is hardly a difference between a ranger and a sorcerer. It makes it too even. I'll admit that casters can get far and away in terms of ability from fighters in 3rd but such a thing is to be expected. A gun is a far more potent weapon than a sword after all. However by giving every class these fantastical abilities it blurs the line of true separation between what the classes meant. If I'm a fighter I fight, If I'm a sorcerer I cast. It shouldn't be, If I'm a fighter I'm a striker and I strike with mah sword and If I'm a sorcerer I'm a striker and I strike with mah magik! It then creates lines based on "role", which by the way, is a concept I don't like at all.
I like the "bloodied" condition 4th introduces.
I don't like the healing surge. Why? self regenerating Barbarians. On that note Barbarians without a true rage? WTF?! I understand that their rages now come in the form of daily abilities but come on there are some out of combat times a barbarian is gonna wanna use that bonus to strength!
The streamlined skill system has its pros and cons for me. Things like the merging of spot and listen into simply perception is spot on for me. However the whole trained skill and untrained skill makes me a bit weary (just as it did in Star Wars Saga.
I give major kudos for the weapon abilities.
I think the way magic Items are treated now is interesting but I don't think its better than the way 3rd did it.
I do not like the way character races were done. While the base races were done well the monster races seem nerfed beyond all sense. Why is a full orc no stronger than a half orc? (+2 bonus for each) its for balance. I believe that they probably made themselves stuck at this point because I don't see a way for even the return of level adjustment to fix those balance issues that would come up if they made races like the minotaur the way they should be.
I give a thumbs up to ritual magic. A fighter should be able to learn and enact certain rituals without being a caster. However I am not exactly opposed to those who give clear reasoning as to why they shouldn't.
4 player's handbooks? I have to say that I do not like that. Especially considering how many other books they are going to have to make to replace all of the dropped stuff from 3rd.
A minor gripe: I now NEED to use a map even at low levels.
Points of light? umm no...
My biggest issues with 4th is lack of noncombat rules and the almost forced metagame present in this system. Really the thing that ruins 4ed for me is my style of play. I like flavor over combat and the materials released by WOTC seemed aimed at making the combat better. Honestly if the game boils down to combat for me I'd go play a video game as board game combat doesn't interest me much. Of course I've had people say well it seems the game was mean to be more open in that aspect. That It is now in the DM's hands to flavor his game. And I can appreciate that. However I find it exponentially easier to adjust for my creativity in 3rd than 4th. Why? the combat system, though streamlined, is much harder to add to than it is in 3rd ed for various reasons. and more over I buy supplements for the flavor and sometimes for the noncombat mechanics, If every book is going to start catering hand over fist to the meta game instead of the game immersion than my incentive to buy their products is then stunted. Another major issue for me is the incompatibility between 3rd and 4th. This is miniaturized in importance by a number of people who tell me, "They did the same thing 2nd going to 3rd". After a brief pause I respond with this... Just because they did it before does not make it the right thing to do.
On the more moderate hand I acknowledge that 4th, in its own right is a stand up game. to me its just a different game altogether now, then what it was. Just like GURPS and Warhammer Fantasy. I respect it in the way I do other systems, but I don't consider it "real" Dungeons and Dragons anymore. |
4th edition is to 3rd as Super Smash Brothers is to Street Fighter |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3249 Posts |
|
|
MGyt
Acolyte
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 11:54:19
|
| *claps* for the first time since 4e came out, I now have hope for the future. Presumably RF will have many of the problems found in 3.5 but from what I've read they have done a very good job. The upgrade smacks of the changes 3.5 made to 3.0. In fact with just this I can intuitively make changes for the 3rd edition things I have without really having to do much. Despite the many naysayers already popping up over this thing I think the Paizo people are doing a good thing. Though it seems a bit expensive ($50 for the first book?!) |
4th edition is to 3rd as Super Smash Brothers is to Street Fighter |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3249 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 13:35:34
|
$50 for the first 570 page book... That's 240 pages longer than the 4E PHB for an extra $15.
And, if you you don't want to spend it right away, may I suggest buying the PDF first to check it out? They are going to have it up for sale on August 13th for $9.00. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Ayunken-vanzan
Senior Scribe
Germany
657 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 15:22:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
$50 for the first 570 page book... That's 240 pages longer than the 4E PHB for an extra $15.
And, if you you don't want to spend it right away, may I suggest buying the PDF first to check it out? They are going to have it up for sale on August 13th for $9.00.
$9.99 |
"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 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3249 Posts |
|
|
houstonderek
Acolyte
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 18:12:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
$50 for the first 570 page book... That's 240 pages longer than the 4E PHB for an extra $15.
And, if you you don't want to spend it right away, may I suggest buying the PDF first to check it out? They are going to have it up for sale on August 13th for $9.00.
And, if we can assume they won't have as much "white space" per page and use a smaller font, those pages will contain MUCH more info than any of the 4e core books...
Even more bang for the buck!
(And if you're a subscriber to their various lines, you get discounts! And free PDFs! And Paizo's industry leading customer service!) |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 18:21:28
|
| The thing with Pathfinder is that it doesn't fix any of the real problems with 3.5 (too much complication, poor scaling, etc) and instead all of the previews have basically been Dragon-esque "15 Bloodlines for YOUR Sorcerer" or "Use A Better Fly Tonight!" There's nothing there that's actually in any way an interesting move forward from 3e, in design or implementation. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3249 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 18:36:56
|
| Ahh, but Arivia, not everyone dislikes the 'complication'. And they have GREATLY fixed the scaling of all the classes. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 19:04:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Ahh, but Arivia, not everyone dislikes the 'complication'. And they have GREATLY fixed the scaling of all the classes.
Okay, I've been away for a few years, so it might not be well-known, but I know complication in 3e very well. I have shelves upon shelves of supplements for 3e, and I know how to go through them to get the right thematic elements from everywhere. I can sit down with 15 supplements, make a Halruaan wizard or something, and enjoy myself. I have. But the end result of that is an arms race the DM's never going to win, for the sheer amount of NPCs they need to develop.
I haven't seen Pathfinder do anything to fix that.
There are a ton of scaling issues to address, but here's a simple one. Pathfinder's sample, iconic fighter is two-weapon fighting, with six attacks a round, not counting rends or other actual tricks. If you've never used that in real play, working all that out was generally 10-20 minutes, just for one PC's turn. Multiply...and yeah. Looks like they kept Two-Weapon Fighting as a chain that gets worse the more of it you take, too. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
