| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 03:03:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
D&D alwas had "clearly defined character", that what's classes are. What exactly you feel wrong in the rest of the list ?
Yes, the previous editions had pretty much "clearly defined" (=restricted) functions/roles for all the classes. For example, if you wanted to play a "crossbow-slinging wizard" or a sword-wielding cleric you had to do it through multi-classing, kits or specialty priests.
Then 3.0 edition changed all that and brought a (welcomed) combination of versatility and realism into character creation.
I fear that 4E will bring it all back with these "even more clearly defined" roles - wizards who won't touch a sword or wear any armor, because it'd be...well, "unwizardly", and clerics whose primary function is to heal their party members (most often the fighters).
quote:
I have heard/read many designers comments saying that 4E has MORE options than 3E had for character's building.
Note that more *options* for *character building* does not automatically equal more versatility in *character creation*. This is a tricky issue, because you could have an RPG system with two or three attributes (e.g. Attack, Defense and Magic) PLUS tens of thousands (slightly varying) 'action-focused' special skills/talents to choose from (a la old school 'anime-style' console RPGs) - and yes, you could claim that this (overly simplified) RPG had more options for character building than all the D&D 3.5 books combined!  
quote:
It means that not every monster will be built as if it was a playable race. You won't get "complete stats" for every one of them, only what you really need to put it in play to have fun & challenging encounters.
And what if you really needed the stats, since there are many spells that damage a creature's constitution or charisma, for example? Or what if an 'orc scout' is engaged in a strength contest against a PC? Or am I getting this wrong, and they're just cutting the 'fluffy' stuff from the descriptions in order to crunch more monsters into MMs?
I am not overly fond of this whole 'focus on exciting encounters'-thing, as it probably confuses a lot of people and actually puts too much emphasis on action over role-playing. First of all, how do you define this concept of 'encounter'? Every time you roll for initiative? Every time you meet someone? What if you run and no one is killed and the encounter remains 'unresolved'? Do your 'per encounter' spells still remain active, since the bandits failed in their ambush but are still alive? And if you can only classify 'hostile' conflicts as 'encounters' your bard is not able to use his 'per encounter' Charm Person on the innkeeper? Etcetera, etcetera.
quote:
Don't tell me you need "complete stats" to do a bit of "acting" when the PCs meet the local innkeeper ?
No, but what if your PCs try to beat him into a bloody pulp or pick his pockets? Seriously, I loved that 3.X edition had those 'non-heroic' classes to represent (in game mechanics) the 'ordinary' folk. How are these people going to be represented in the 4th edition rules - innkeepers will once again become fighters and merchants will be thie... rogues? ;) Or will all the commoners be 'anomalies' that have no stats or levels, since they only function as 'flavour' in the community between the encounters? Or perhaps they'll have 'monster templates/roles' and MM entries, too?
I feel that a decent RPG system should be able to portray any character concept in some shape or form via its game mechanics, to create an illusion of a functioning society and its inhabitants. D&D 3.X edition did this admirably, and I fear that we will once again be saddled with all kinds of (typical to AD&D) "exceptions to the rules" when it comes to dealing with the craftsmen/merchants/commoners (e.g. "This 0-level smith has a whopping +20 modifier to his Armorsmithing checks because he is the best damn smith in the country but he couldn't be a 20th level fighter because he has never gone adventuring and we no longer have non-adventuring classes in the 4th Edition.")
To me it seems that D&D 4th Edition does not emulate a believable society very well, since it will apparently focus only on its more 'active' or 'heroic' inhabitants - the PCs and their 'opponents' - while happily ignoring the rest.
What it does emulate, however, is the fast-paced movie-like action and thrill of the console games or manga/superhero comics.
[quote]
They have already said that craft/professions skills didn't make the cut. It's a great idea because they don't need to be part of the rules, you can always add them as a bit of flavor/roleplay if you want.
I am currently playing an elven fighter/mage who has maxed-out his craft (armorsmithing) and craft (weaponsmithing) since his dream is to become a master-smith who makes a decent living through crafting (and selling) magical arms and armor. Don't tell me that I would not be able to create a character like this in this 4th edition which, after all, should have "more options for character building".... 
Besides, the whole skill system reminds me of Heroes of Might and Magic III, which had three ranks for skills: Basic, Advanced and Expert (compare to Unskilled, Skilled and Focused). HoMM IV expanded on this, adding two more skill levels: Master and Grandmaster. Since I cannot imagine that Epic Level characters in 4E would be 'capped' at mere 10 ranks ('Focused') there *will* be additional Talents that will 'unlock' more ranks for a nominal online fee.
What all this means, essentially, is that the *ONLY* difference between two equally competent characters (e.g. 'Focused') is the difference in their *attribute modifiers*!  
Furthermore, since they've announced that all those 'useless' skills (such as Craft or Profession) have been cut in favor of more 'martial' skills, we will actually have *LESS* skills (=less options) to choose from! Unless, of course, the designers are planning to increase the number of the 'action-focused'/'heroic' skills (e.g. 'Balcony Fighting', 'Roof-top Fireball-casting' etc.) *OR* there will be a huge number of Special att... err, Talents. And don't tell me that there will be no more Synergy bonuses in 4E...
Frankly, I am a bit leery of anything called a 'Talent Tree', since it reminds me very strongly of how most CRPGs/MMORPGs handle character skills (Diablo II, for example). I also fear that once you pick a Talent, you'll have too narrow (for my taste) choices with your further progress ("Lemme see - now that I've picked that 'Rain of Blows', my next choice will be either 'Rainstorm of Blows' or 'Blade of Fire'..." )
To me its pretty evident that what the designers try to achieve with D&D 4E is how a Pen & Paper RPG might incorporate some of the 'tried and true' mechanics from the most popular MMORPGs, CRPGs and console games, with no regard to the wishes of their original fan base or the game's previous editions.
Why are they doing this? Maybe the marketing researchers at WoTC have been reading only the WoW forums lately? Maybe they think that because WoW has over 8 million players, it must have a truly appealing RPG system? Maybe *THAT* is what all that 'untapped' customer potential *REALLY* wants, and if they copy-and-paste the system over D&D millions of potential new customers will want to play 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 |
 |
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 03:09:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I've heard some of the designers mention barbarians, but I haven't heard much in the way of confirming if they are in the game . . . i.e. I've heard people say the word bard, in reference to how they work in 3.5, but not in context of existing in 4th edition.
Bards are too gay to fit the new 'heroic' and action-packed console game/WoW concept of the 4th Edition!  |
"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 |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 03:11:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well what type of conversion they offer, if any, will be interesting to see.
As for the 1-30, the levels 21-30 will still be called epic (based or the report I linked in my last post this thread). It just might be there Epic 3.5 rules concerning BAB and saves progression might stay the same as 1-20. Though there is concern about posible change to saves as well.
Didn't they say that the previous editions are 'incompatible' with 4E and therefore there will be no conversion guidelines? |
"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 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 03:32:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well what type of conversion they offer, if any, will be interesting to see.
As for the 1-30, the levels 21-30 will still be called epic (based or the report I linked in my last post this thread). It just might be there Epic 3.5 rules concerning BAB and saves progression might stay the same as 1-20. Though there is concern about posible change to saves as well.
Didn't they say that the previous editions are 'incompatible' with 4E and therefore there will be no conversion guidelines?
Rob Heinsoo has backed off on that a bit, as he has said you can't directly convert some abilities and feats, but you can come up with some approximates . . . he said the main reason they were saying that is that there is not "absolute mathmatical formula" to do it, but he realizes that a lot of people will at least want general guidelines, so they will work on them. |
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 03:54:14
|
| They have to realize, or atleast I think Rob realized that no one want an exact conversion, they just want an official guideline of where their character would be. Somethings like Move Silently & Hide becoming Stealth are obvious, while taking Skill Focus in 3E for a prestige class might be "useful" sometimes, while in 4E +5 to you Spellcraft might make a HUGE different (if they follow Saga edition Skill focus.) |
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 04:42:22
|
There never was a prefect math conversion from Editions.
Though 1st to 2nd was something like two pages.
2nd to 3rd, IIRC, was 24 pages.
The SAGA Star Wars was 15 pages.
WotC appeared to be concerned that conversion would be much larger in part I suspect all the core classes that were added by expansions. They could very will be correct in this. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 05:33:16
|
AD&D conversion to D&D was only 24 pages because the BOOKLET was printed in 4"x5" pages. (1 sheet of paper had 4 "pages" on it.)
Except WOTC has an argument when they say they're not going to convert a class that's not in the PHB though. They'd have to playtest all those non-PHB classes that might not even be in 4e. They already said the Scout class "died" and that the Ranger is inheriting some of it's abilities. That means no conversion for Scout. Anyone that played a scout is indefinately SOL.
Wizards, fighters, etc. it doesn't matter what CLASS you are. We're talking about characters. If you have X levels you have X levels in 4e. If you're stuck as a character class not in Core, then you and your DM will have to decide if you can pick a new class or just create a new character.
Basically, if it's not in the Core books, your SOL until the class is add to 4E and then you just use the conversion guidelines to find out what level the character would be.
|
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
|
|
|
dern.whitecinder
Acolyte
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 05:33:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by eldritchknight
Also, I have read that the changeling, from Eberron, will now be Core along with the tiefling, and included in the PHB. Hopefully they wont try to include the changeling into FR, try to explain how an entirely new race appears out of nowhere would be hard to do believably.
Well, in The Seven Sisters, wasn't Randal Morn's ladyfriend Shree a "half-doppleganger" sorceress hanging out in the Spiderhaunt Woods? Heck, about two months ago I was banging together a little adventure for my group about the Red Wizard enclave in Athkatla importing brainwashed Eberron changelings through Sigil. Guess I won't have to now if they are just going to "come out of the shadows" in FRCS 4.x.
I'm just afraid that once changelings make it in, I'm going to end up DMing a group of 4 Warforged (sigh).
Just my two ceramic pieces...
|
Dern Whitecinder
ex-Sun Soul monk of Lathander, currently in hiding somewhere in the W. Heartlands |
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 05:36:57
|
| Or the FRCS can say on page 2 that changeling and warforged aren't part of the Realms. :) |
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 05:37:42
|
| Changelings are just people with doppleganger blood, so I don't really see much of a problem, in theory, with them. On the other hand, if Changelings and Tieflings are suddenly "common" races to reflect them being core, then we have more of a problem. But the concept isn't that hard to deal with, at least to my thinking. |
|
|
|
dern.whitecinder
Acolyte
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 05:39:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert, between munching sunflower seeds
I think Ebber-whatsit's shifters could be dropped in, too, in small numbers -- because it's not all that much of a stretch to think the second or third generation offspring from a were could inherit only a small part of their parent or grandparent's heritage, rather than the either-or approach of being either totally were or totally normal.
Yeah, they could be decendants of that group of weres in Myth Whassitsname that Selune blasted out of the Realms. |
Dern Whitecinder
ex-Sun Soul monk of Lathander, currently in hiding somewhere in the W. Heartlands |
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 05:45:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Changelings are just people with doppleganger blood, so I don't really see much of a problem, in theory, with them. On the other hand, if Changelings and Tieflings are suddenly "common" races to reflect them being core, then we have more of a problem. But the concept isn't that hard to deal with, at least to my thinking.
I wonder how Tieflings become Core and Aasimar don't? Either way, all these new races could not be included in 4E Realms OR just made rare. |
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
Edited by - SirUrza on 19 Aug 2007 05:46:26 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 05:59:15
|
| Well, Tieflings already got mentioned in the 3.0 FRCS, so I guess its not that strange that they get mentioned in the Core Rulebook . . . common or not they got mentioned as a starting race already. |
|
|
|
Daviot
Senior Scribe
USA
372 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 06:34:32
|
Avoiding the tiefling/aasimar point of conversation, I'd like a moment to agree with Asgetrion's observations on things like archetype and role-playing:
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
Then 3.0 edition changed all that and brought a (welcomed) combination of versatility and realism into character creation.
I fear that 4E will bring it all back with these "even more clearly defined" roles - wizards who won't touch a sword or wear any armor, because it'd be...well, "unwizardly", and clerics whose primary function is to heal their party members (most often the fighters).
My favorite (skewed) archetype has always been the subversion of the classic "wimpy robed wizard" trope. Who's to say that a wizard can't have started as a mercenary or a self-taught swordsman, or who picked up fencing after their apprenticeship? Expected roles and archetypes for a party are important, but it's an item of moderation. The official 4E preview info seems to fear the extreme-outside-of-the-box side of things, wherein with no roles, there's no leadership in a party. Like you, I would also worry about taking the "iconic four" of "tank"ish fighter, "healer" cleric, "nuker" wizard, and "dungeon/social expert" rogue too far. After all, some of the best characters I've seen are fighters who prefer to out-talk their opponents, cloistered clerics who can barely hold a mace, and rogues who happen to be dashing noble-born diplomats, able to pick the locks on tongues and hearts, but won't know a dungeon trap or a back alley to save their lives.
The reason these moderately out-of-archetype characters worked is that their players had a clear roleplaying-based character concept: know your character's shoes, and you won't have to worry about micromanaging your tactical role: do what your character what do.
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
I am currently playing an elven fighter/mage who has maxed-out his craft (armorsmithing) and craft (weaponsmithing) since his dream is to become a master-smith who makes a decent living through crafting (and selling) magical arms and armor. Don't tell me that I would not be able to create a character like this in this 4th edition which, after all, should have "more options for character building"....
Likewise, even my current PCs have found such "roleplaying only" skills useful. The diplomat-rogue worked on a fine (read: masterwork) dagger that turned out to be a crucial diplomatic gift, and the character-based hobby of collecting trophies and using them as crafting materials also came in handy; it's a house rule that leucrotta fangs contain adamantine in the tooth enamel, and even without knowing this, the dwarf fighter fashioned a fine fang dagger out of one. A few in-game weeks later, and in this bit of roleplaying turned out to be just the thing for chipping through a stone wall that I didn't expect the PCs to be able to do. Those sorts of anecdotes, or better yet, lateral thinking, are going to be lost if 4E discounts roleplaying solely for "kick down the door" action.
And to add on to Skeptic's line of thought, I've always admired the notion of NPC classes helping flesh out a world: just because a farmer or a merchant doesn't go out killing orc hordes doesn't mean he's a two-dimensional stick figure with a sign pointing "Quest This Way->". I've always made it a point that all NPCs have at least two levels, both for survivability and verisimilitude. Just because a town guardsmen isn't a fighter doesn't make cannon fodder, and even a commoner with a couple of fights can defend themselves aptly. The notion that the world stops and the lights go off when the PCs leave town is anathema to roleplay. |
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. |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 07:34:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Daviot
The notion that the world stops and the lights go off when the PCs leave town is anathema to roleplay.
Oh you can dream about it, but it's only that a dream. An RPG is not a "fantasy world simulator" even if you dream about it day and night. That reminds me when Stephen King said how astonished he was about fans asking him what character X or Y was doing after the events of the novels: they’re not doing anything, their story is OVER.
Many people here seems to think that good roleplay needs a game with good "simulation" mechanisms and that is false.
Some Indie RPG, which emphasis roleplay a lot more than D&D ever did, completely lack of "simulation" mechanisms. I recently read about a game where the "only" rule is to remove a block on a Jenga tower. That game is all about "roleplay" and gives no game mechanic details of how the various species of the world reproduce. 
Even with such a "simple" game you could use a detailed setting like FR, because all those details don't need to be fixed in "game crunch" to exist.
In the GenCon interview, Ed said that to create a setting that seems alive, you have to make sure the world doesn't stop running in a place when the PCs are elsewhere. How that stands with what I said previously? Of course the world can evolve between the adventures of the PCs, but you don't need rules and mechanisms to do it, only a bit of imagination (and/or authors in a shared world).
I'll resume later to answer some other specifics comments. Also, sometimes I have to simplify my ideas because English is not my first language.
Rinonalyrna what you think about it ?
Added : NPCs built exactly as PCs is IMHO one of the greatest error of D&D 3.x. "Custom-made" NPCs are powerful storybuilding tools and can be used as very specific challenges. An innkeeper with a tremendous strength, or that old blind man that can see things no one can, etc, etc.. NPCs having or no "complete (as in PC-like) stats" has nothing do to with them being "two-dimensional" vs "real". Would you say that the NPCs Ed presented here with no stats but well done description doesn't seem to be "real" ? |
Edited by - Skeptic on 19 Aug 2007 20:10:30 |
|
|
|
Alaundo
Head Moderator
United Kingdom
5695 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 10:49:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
Yay, the wotc site is working.
Saw the 4E Teaser Trailer. Looks like they were "putting down" previous versions of the game to try to make 4E look better.
I had to stop watching it. The fake French accent was hurting my ears.
Well met
Aye, I had to mute the video during those parts. Not a great teaser, by any means. I was expecting something a little more professional. |
Alaundo
Candlekeep Forums Head Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
An Introduction to Candlekeep - by Ed Greenwood
The Candlekeep Compendium - Tomes of Realmslore penned by Scribes of Candlekeep
|
|
|
|
Victor_ograygor
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1073 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 16:44:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alaundo
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
Yay, the wotc site is working.
Saw the 4E Teaser Trailer. Looks like they were "putting down" previous versions of the game to try to make 4E look better.
I had to stop watching it. The fake French accent was hurting my ears.
Well met
Aye, I had to mute the video during those parts. Not a great teaser, by any means. I was expecting something a little more professional.
After seeing the video I had the feeling that it was some kind of a joke… I hope the fourth edition material is more serious than that |
Victor Ograygor The Assassin and Candel keeps cellar master
Everything I need to know about life I learned from killing smart people.
Links related to Forgotten Realms
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9571
Adventuring / Mercenary Companies / Orders / The chosen from official sources
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11047
Priests in Forgotten Realms.
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9609&whichpage=1 |
Edited by - Victor_ograygor on 19 Aug 2007 16:45:11 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 18:17:08
|
I finally watched the video - We're doomed. 
Cheesy French accent aside,
they cleary want us to think that 3e was a lousy product. 1e and 2e weren't that bad, but then WotC came along and created 3e, which that video demonstrates is an unplayable mess.
Then they want us to believe that the company that produced that fiasco wants to create another version with a whole new layer of intricacey (the internet), and yet it will still be more fun?
The only mildly entertaining part of that was when the warrior hugged the troll.
Whoever approved that video and thought it would make folks play needs to be slapped around a little bit - with reality.
PS - I wonder if they will be selling the eraser and clothspin miniatures anytime soon.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
eldritchknight
Acolyte
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 20:09:21
|
Hey, I was reading a summary of 4E Forgotten Realms over at the Wizards.com coverage of GenCon, and mentioned something called the "Spellplague", that would effect all of the Realms, leaving no corner untouched. Also that Expedition to Undermountain and The Orc King have the stirrings of the beginning of this event.
Also, that big changes are coming to the Realms...
Time to shudder in dread?? |
Edited by - eldritchknight on 19 Aug 2007 20:10:22 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 22:11:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by eldritchknight
Hey, I was reading a summary of 4E Forgotten Realms over at the Wizards.com coverage of GenCon, and mentioned something called the "Spellplague", that would effect all of the Realms, leaving no corner untouched. Also that Expedition to Undermountain and The Orc King have the stirrings of the beginning of this event.
Also, that big changes are coming to the Realms...
Time to shudder in dread??
could you provide a link to that coverage?
If what you say is true then my Realmstimeline will deviate from the official version at that point. Cormyr, Shadowdale, Anauroch seem to be the "foundations" for this change...the timing seems to fit.
I'll let Shade appear, have my PCs hopefully prevent Lolth from waking from her sleep and then see how they move on from there... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Kaysae
Acolyte
14 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 22:38:45
|
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=welcome/conventions/gencon07#3
quote:
There will be a big event in the Realms soon, called the Spellplague. Rich says it won't leave a corner of the Realms untouched.
I did a google search for spellplague after reading this on the off-chance it would turn something up, and it did. Someone with an ARC of The Orc King made a post back in March and mentions the spellplague by name, so I assume it's legit. There weren't any real details though (it doesn't start in the novel or anything), you can google "spellplague" and find the post for yourselves it's in the first few results. |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 23:05:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kaysae
I did a google search for spellplague after reading this on the off-chance it would turn something up, and it did. Someone with an ARC of The Orc King made a post back in March and mentions the spellplague by name, so I assume it's legit. There weren't any real details though (it doesn't start in the novel or anything), you can google "spellplague" and find the post for yourselves it's in the first few results.
Lots of info about the Orc King on that forum's thread :
http://lavendereyes.rivkashome.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=6794&page=1 |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 23:07:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
[quote]Oh you can dream about it, but it's only that a dream. An RPG is not a "fantasy world simulator" even if you dream about it day and night. That reminds me when Stephen King said how astonished he was about fans asking him what character X or Y was doing after the events of the novels: they’re not doing anything, their story is OVER.
Many people here seems to think that good roleplay needs a game with good "simulation" mechanisms and that is false.
Some Indie RPG, which emphasis roleplay a lot more than D&D ever did, completely lack of "simulation" mechanisms. I recently read about a game where the "only" rule is to remove a block on a Jenga tower. That game is all about "roleplay" and gives no game mechanic details of how the various species of the world reproduce.
Even with such a "simple" game you could use a detailed setting like FR, because all those details don't need to be fixed in "game crunch" to exist.
In the GenCon interview, Ed said that to create a setting that seems alive, you have to make sure the world doesn't stop running in a place when the PCs are elsewhere. How that stands with what I said previously? Of course the world can evolve between the adventures of the PCs, but you don't need rules and mechanisms to do it, only a bit of imagination (and/or authors in a shared world).
Added : NPCs built exactly as PCs is IMHO one of the greatest error of D&D 3.x. "Custom-made" NPCs are powerful storybuilding tools and can be used as very specific challenges. An innkeeper with a tremendous strength, or that old blind man that can see things no one can, etc, etc.. NPCs having or no "complete (as in PC-like) stats" has nothing do to with them being "two-dimensional" vs "real". Would you say that the NPCs Ed presented here with no stats but well done description doesn't seem to be "real" ?
I agree with you - I don't think any role-playing system will ever succeed in 'simulating' (through its game mechanics) real life (not even Rolemaster ;). However, the purpose of any decent RPG system is to try to create an 'illusion' of a functioning environment (society) and its inhabitants.
An important part of that 'illusion' is to be able to create any character concept with the system. Or, rather, the system doesn't *prevent* you from creating a certain type of character. Consider this example: in your 3.X edition campaign your PCs often interacted with a n innkeeper called Thurl, who used to be a 7th level expert with a Profession (Innkeeper) skill modifier +14. Now you have a problem, since, Thurl has never gone adventuring, but you cannot "stat" him in 4E anymore (or even explain a skill modifier that high for a 'non-heroic' NPC), unless you change those Expert levels (and his whole backstory along with them) to either Fighter or Rogue. But Thurl is a fat middle-aged man, who is not burly or particularly dextrous, so you've got a hard time imagining him stalking the streets at night (to practise his Sneak Attack ;) or swinging anything larger than an ale keg with deadly efficiency... so what do you do? Just pretend that he's 'as good as before' although the rules explicitly state otherwise? Tell your PCs that he died and is now replaced by his 1st level son? Note that I am not talking about having a complete set of stats to 'role-play' him - I am just amazed that we will once again have to 'house-rule' every non-adventuring professional (just like in AD&D).
There is nothing wrong with 'focusing' on certain aspects, themes or individuals (e.g. the protagonists/heroes) of the society, as long as it serves some (in-game) goal or purpose.
However, if the society does not consist solely of 'heroic' archetypes (such as in many Anime/Manga series) or otherwise important/political figures around them, you can't maintain the 'illusion' of a functioning society without some sort of 'equality' or consistency in the game mechanics. In FR, the 'ordinary' people represent the life-blood of the Realms, and you just can't 'cut'n'paste' heroes into this environment without them (commoners/craftsmen/merchants/etc.) having at least some sort of 'mechanical' (and especially social) purpose in your campaigns. Of course, you can 'swing' it time after time, but I think that there *should* be a mechanical way to create (or convert) a 'non-heroic' professional with a high skill modifier in D&D 4E (although you're correct - you wouldn't need *ANY* game mechanics to create characters and run a game of pure storytelling, but that is another matter completely).
Having no stats do not make NPCS 'two-dimensional', but if you lack even the *possibility* to stat them with the rules, they feel more immaterial and, well, less important than the 'heroic' (adventuring) characters.
I know that many Indie RPGs represent a different angle on this, but there is *always* some in-game/mechanical purpose to do so. Some of them define characters through Aspects/Traits that enable you to create any concept you might feel inspired to try. Or, some don't even have 'conventional' stats/attributes (e.g. carry or Breaking the Ice). Take Polaris, for example: the only 'statted' individuals are the protagonists, but the system handles this brilliantly, because it is very different by its theme and nature from D&D.
The reasons for simplifying the D&D system seem to be due to external (marketing) reasons only: a simpler 'MMORPG-like action hero' system will appeal to the 'console/CRPG game generation' and get that untapped potential to play a 'faster and more heroic' edition of D&D. So far I've heard how they're going to cut a lot of 'needless' (as in "too fluffy" or "too unheroic") stuff from the books, and introduce a million new talents in their place. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 23:21:26
|
Well not much official on talents, but SAGA SW has them and there is indication that SAGA SW was a test proform for 4th Edition (which have some looking forward to the new edition and some fearing it).
The mention of console as Rodney Thompson states quote:
Don't get me wrong, I love 3rd Edition. But I think of 3rd Edition kind of like a first generation console video game in that sometimes it isn't programmed very efficiently. Ever played a first-gen game and seen the "slowdown" effect, where the system can't keep up with the graphics or the number of bad guys on screen? That's how I feel about 3E these days. I like what it's trying to accomplish, but it just doesn't happen very efficiently and things slow to a crawl. 4E on the other hand is like a late-gen game; the programmers have learned better ways to do things on the console, and as such you have even better games that don't experience as many slowdowns. When you think of the roleplaying gamer as the console, you can see what I mean. 4E benefits from many years of game design, and I think people will see that they still will be doing the same things, they will just be able to do them faster.
Oh as far as the NPCs do not do anything unless the adventurers is so wrong, that to dispute that idea would likely get me banned.
The roll in the hay, 9 months or 24 months later can provide a surprise for example. The BBEG is going to be making plans as the party recovers from fighting his minions, etc. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 23:22:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
An important part of that 'illusion' is to be able to create any character concept with the system. Or, rather, the system doesn't *prevent* you from creating a certain type of character. Consider this example: in your 3.X edition campaign your PCs often interacted with a n innkeeper called Thurl, who used to be a 7th level expert with a Profession (Innkeeper) skill modifier +14.
First, why would you need something like Profession(Innkeeper) to handle the PCs interaction with Thurl ?
Second, I'll take a better example, let's say that Thurl has a bluff skill modifier of +14. That could be interesting when the PCs are investigating this Innkeeper that is also a Zentish contact.
How to stat Thurl then ? Well : Thurl [Bluff +14] and you're done. How you choose +14 ? According to the challenges it must present to the PCs (that's a D&D answer).
The players will never now that you didn't really stat him completly, and the "illusion" (which of course I believe is important) is kept.
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
The reasons for simplifying the D&D system seem to be due to external (marketing) reasons only: a simpler 'MMORPG-like action hero' system will appeal to the 'console/CRPG game generation' and get that untapped potential to play a 'faster and more heroic' edition of D&D.
On the marketing side, you may be right, but on the design side, I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Don't forget that Mike Mearls is the lead developper and I'm sure this guy put a lot of thinking into the rules.
With 4E, D&D finally get rid of many ackward "simulation" bits and is becoming a lot more what it's supposed to be, a "gameist" RPG.
The good part of it, is that us that prefer "narrative" style RPGs are winner. Why? Because many restrictions to a more "narrative" style will be removed from the game. For example, the obligation to define NPCs with complete stats, using exactly the same abilities than the PCs. |
Edited by - Skeptic on 19 Aug 2007 23:30:21 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 23:44:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Oh as far as the NPCs do not do anything unless the adventurers is so wrong, that to dispute that idea would likely get me banned.
Nobody ever says the NPCs can't do a thing while the PCs are doing something else. What I have said (and many others) is that you don't need rules to handle it. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 01:06:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Changelings are just people with doppleganger blood, so I don't really see much of a problem, in theory, with them. On the other hand, if Changelings and Tieflings are suddenly "common" races to reflect them being core, then we have more of a problem. But the concept isn't that hard to deal with, at least to my thinking.
Agreed, definitely, but like a lot of other people I don't see the point in making them "core". |
"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) |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 01:10:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Daviot
And to add on to Skeptic's line of thought, I've always admired the notion of NPC classes helping flesh out a world: just because a farmer or a merchant doesn't go out killing orc hordes doesn't mean he's a two-dimensional stick figure with a sign pointing "Quest This Way->". I've always made it a point that all NPCs have at least two levels, both for survivability and verisimilitude. Just because a town guardsmen isn't a fighter doesn't make cannon fodder, and even a commoner with a couple of fights can defend themselves aptly. The notion that the world stops and the lights go off when the PCs leave town is anathema to roleplay.
I just want to let you know that there is someone out there (me) who agrees with you on this. Heck, more people besides me, too. More on the point of NPCs not being "unimportant fodder", though, regardless of the way they are built.
The PCs aren't the be-all end-all of the setting. |
"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) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 20 Aug 2007 01:12:00 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 01:14:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Rinonalyrna what you think about it ?
Heh. Like I said, regardless of how NPCs are built, they should be considered important parts of the setting, not just cardboard cut-outs to be trampled upon by the PCs. Even if they might be "wimps" in combat.
As for how they should be built--I have no opinion on that, I say let the DM do as he/she sees fit. |
"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) |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 01:22:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Then they want us to believe that the company that produced that fiasco wants to create another version with a whole new layer of intricacey (the internet), and yet it will still be more fun?
I agree with you on this. But to be fair, companies do this all the time with their products. Products get discontinued and replaced with newer, "improved" versions. That is essentially saying that the product that they once touted as the absolute best wasn't so great after all...
And of course, those guys weren't up there on stage to tell us that these new 4E products are going to be bad, or even "more of the same".
All that being said...the 4E teaser was indeed unprofessional, and I had expected much better. |
"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) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
