The Official "4e Critique and Rebuttal" Thread

[Darwinism]

That's what Darwinism appears to be arguing, yes.

Where?

In the post above yours. I'm just fucking with you, though.

I do find it somewhat ironic that people who are fans of 4e - where, if an earlier post is to be believed, you can buy essentially any spell scroll you want in a moderately sized town - find it "metagaming" that characters would know something about spells they can't cast yet. Do you guys seriously think apprentice Wizards never go down and hang out at the Magic Shoppe in their off hours to look longingly at all the badass scrolls they hope they can learn some day? Don't you think they intently study their master's spell book for just the same reason? I would totally do that, if I were an apprentice wizard. It's really no more unlikely than a kid with a beat-up Hyundai Excel knowing all about Ferraris.

Do you really not understand that these justifications of metagaming don't actually negate the fact that you're choosing a spell you know of and then saying, "Well my character obviously has a history that would let him know the things I know about this."

I mean, sure, it makes some sense if you're playing an exceedingly curious mage who wants to know everything about every spell, but you're not getting the point that in a world where spells are routinely created to do specific things it is pretty silly that you're saying, "My character would know that it was probably Wall of Stone so he knows the rough power level of the caster, what do you mean faulty assumptions it's in the rules just look at Wall of Stone it's the spell that best fits it and I want my character to already know that."

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Correct, incorrect, and incorrect. Rules aren't only important because they give information, so I'd've given you that one, but then you said "flat out wrong" and I was forced to shake my head.

Rules aren't important because they give out information. They're important for resolving conflict.

[Fuchs]

Correct, incorrect, and incorrect. Rules aren't only important because they give information, so I'd've given you that one, but then you said "flat out wrong" and I was forced to shake my head.

Rules aren't important because they give out information. They're important for resolving conflict.

Wrong. In a good game, you can use rules for information. You know how far you usually can jump, so you know if you've got a good or bad chance to make this jump over the chasm.

You know how strong a horse is, how far a spell reaches, and so on. All important information.

[violence in the media]

There was no expectation that the PC knew that Wizards get Wall of Stone at level X. Your character might be a wizard, but he's never seen the spell and he has no idea how hard it is to cast. He might have a few guesses, like that a huge meteor wasn't summoned by a novice, but it seems much more likely that everything here came from the simple fact that your players know the system and were gaming it.

That's called metagaming.

There are way too many assumptions going against the PC for this to be anything other than opinion. Even turning to the rules shows that identifying a Wall of Stone being cast is a spellcraft DC 20, 21 if the caster happens to be a Druid. You'll note that there's nothing in there about needing to have seen or heard about the spell before. There isn't anything indicating that you wouldn't know that casting Wall of Stone requires more magical power than casting Stone Shape. 1st level wizards can succeed at this task.

As far as hit dice go, Trap the Soul flat out tells you that such a thing is able to be researched, though it unfortunately doesn't give you any mechanics for that. This means that "roleplaying, not rollplaying!" MCs will give you a constant hard time, and everyone else will just say, "Okay, you need an 19,000gp gem." Considering that even our 1st level wizard has at least a small chance of identifying Trap the Soul in action (DC 23), I personally don't think it's unreasonable to extrapolate that they could figure out the gem research clause.

Think of it this way, is it metagaming for you to know about things in this world you can't do yourself? You can't use knowledge you have about a subject to react to new discoveries and experiences related to that knowledge?

Edit to add: Not only that, but I get tired of being expected to play a wet-behind-the-ears noob, just discovering the world, every time I roll up a character. I get tired of arguing whether or not someone knows something about something else. I get tired of sitting there listening to the wizard being a total moron about whether or not he knows about some magical effect when it's painfully obvious the DM expects him to.

[talozin]

I mean, sure, it makes some sense if you're playing an exceedingly curious mage who wants to know everything about every spell, but you're not getting the point that in a world where spells are routinely created to do specific things it is pretty silly that you're saying, "My character would know that it was probably Wall of Stone so he knows the rough power level of the caster, what do you mean faulty assumptions it's in the rules just look at Wall of Stone it's the spell that best fits it and I want my character to already know that."

This is an interesting and useful question that illuminates some of the assumptions people make about campaigns. It comes down to how you feel about spell creation.

My D&D experience is exclusively in 3.x and previous editions - all I know about 4E is what I read about it here, and honestly I take a lot of that with a grain of salt because so much of it comes from people with an axe to grind about the system.

And, in this context, I reject your premise that spells are "routinely created" to do specific things. Spell creation in the editions with which I'm familiar is a very expensive, time consuming project that may or may not even succeed. I consider spell creation to be rare, not routine at all. I think, in every game of D&D I've ever played in my entire life, maybe one wizard has actually invented one new spell, and I think the vast majority of wizards don't invent any at all.

I consider the spells in the PHB to be sort of the "basic grimoire" of spells. These are the spells that any wizard can learn with his two free spells per level; they're spells that are widely known and widely disseminated, such that it's not unusual, and in fact kind of expected, for wizards to be familiar with them. They are, if you like, the Hundred Spells from Vance, spells that have existed for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, that have played roles in songs and stories and epic poems, etc., etc. There are some spells other than these (depending on the campaign), but they aren't widely known and most of them are probably restricted to one wizard and his apprentices or at best a small wizardly school.

So no, I don't really think that a wizard would necessarily jump to the conclusion that someone might have invented a less-taxing-than-Wall of Stone "tower creation" spell rather than just using the well-known and well-tried Wall of Stone. But that conclusion is based on the kinds of campaigns I'm familiar with, and the kind I expect to be playing in. If I were playing a wizard in a game where wizards routinely invented new spells every level, and where, let's say, all the spells in the Spell Compendium were in play and freely available, my character might well come to a different conclusion. Or he might not, because I doubt if he even knows any of the spells in the Spell Compendium, and saying "he might have used this spell I know of, or he might have done something completely out of my experience" is broadly speaking not very helpful to him.

[talozin]

You'll note that there's nothing in there about needing to have seen or heard about the spell before. There isn't anything indicating that you wouldn't know that casting Wall of Stone requires more magical power than casting Stone Shape.

In fairness, there is also nothing indicating that you would know it takes more magical power. That has generally been the assumption of the games I've played in the past, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that the assumption is not universal.

[Roy]

Hey 4rries. You're only allowed to fail in a certain way a limited number of times before you are required by law to mix it up, or better yet stop failing.

[jadagul]

Well, the problem with option (b) there is that ultimately, either the DM is going to give you the macguffin or he isn't. And if you don't have any rules for adjudicating social situations then the DM at some point has to just decide whether he's going to give it to you. And let's face it, he's going to give it to you, possibly after making you jump through some collection of arbitrary hoops.

In contrast, if you have a system for modelling social interactions, your characters can go do whatever the macguffin holder wants them to do; or he can try to fast-talk his way into getting the macguffin; or he can try to steal it in the middle of the night; or he can cast a spell to persuade the guy to give it up; or he can threaten the guy into giving it up; or he can just up and kill the dude; or probably a few things I haven't thought of. And each of these strategies will have actual effects that the DM can adjudicate in some way other than arbitrary "sure, I guess I'll let that work" or "nope, won't let that work."

For what it's worth, one of the running discussions on this board that pops up every few months is how to design a negotiations system that has a lot of robustness and depth, and doesn't just boil down to "I roll the dice, and hey, he likes me!" Because yeah, having the entire plot turn on a single dice roll is kind of dumb. But then, having the entire plot turn on zero dice rolls is even dumber.

We already do have a system to arbitrate these things though, it's called the english language. As long as the DM and the player are both competent, there shouldn't be any major problems. If the DM is out to fuck you over he'll do it any way, but as long as everyone can act a bit it should work.

No, that's not a system of arbitration. Because it doesn't tell me, as the DM, how the NPC is going to react to something. It tells me to decide how the NPC is going to react to something. But I want there to be inputs to this decision that depend on the abilities of the characters (not just the players, but the characters), and ideally that don't depend on what I had for breakfast that morning.

I need some rules to tell me if the PCs can hoodwink my macguffin holder, or replace the macguffin with a copy while he's not looking, or whatever. I don't want to be in the position of just saying, "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't let you do that."

[lighttigersoul]

Hey 4rries. You're only allowed to fail in a certain way a limited number of times before you are required by law to mix it up, or better yet stop failing.

You passed that threshold a long time ago, come up with some new material.

[Novembermike]

No, that's not a system of arbitration. Because it doesn't tell me, as the DM, how the NPC is going to react to something. It tells me to decide how the NPC is going to react to something. But I want there to be inputs to this decision that depend on the abilities of the characters (not just the players, but the characters), and ideally that don't depend on what I had for breakfast that morning.

I need some rules to tell me if the PCs can hoodwink my macguffin holder, or replace the macguffin with a copy while he's not looking, or whatever. I don't want to be in the position of just saying, "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't let you do that."

Did they extol good logic for why they need the macguffin? Did they work out some detail that will tip the scales (do this and your daughter gets better)? Did they provide a convincing emotional appeal, threaten him convincingly do something right? Then hold out for a bit but come around and give it to him. If they fuck it up, don't say anything that would gain his sympathy and don't provide sound logic then they aren't getting it. It's best to be generous, but if they just don't give you a reason to help them, don't.

[LR]

Did they extol good logic for why they need the macguffin? Did they work out some detail that will tip the scales (do this and your daughter gets better)? Did they provide a convincing emotional appeal, threaten him convincingly do something right? Then hold out for a bit but come around and give it to him. If they fuck it up, don't say anything that would gain his sympathy and don't provide sound logic then they aren't getting it. It's best to be generous, but if they just don't give you a reason to help them, don't.

Those all are things that the players are doing. You should not be required to be charismatic in real life to be charismatic in a game. It's fantasy, after all.

[jadagul]

No, that's not a system of arbitration. Because it doesn't tell me, as the DM, how the NPC is going to react to something. It tells me to decide how the NPC is going to react to something. But I want there to be inputs to this decision that depend on the abilities of the characters (not just the players, but the characters), and ideally that don't depend on what I had for breakfast that morning.

I need some rules to tell me if the PCs can hoodwink my macguffin holder, or replace the macguffin with a copy while he's not looking, or whatever. I don't want to be in the position of just saying, "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't let you do that."

Did they extol good logic for why they need the macguffin? Did they work out some detail that will tip the scales (do this and your daughter gets better)? Did they provide a convincing emotional appeal, threaten him convincingly do something right? Then hold out for a bit but come around and give it to him. If they fuck it up, don't say anything that would gain his sympathy and don't provide sound logic then they aren't getting it. It's best to be generous, but if they just don't give you a reason to help them, don't.

I'm not saying that doesn't work, actually. That's a perfectly fine activity, though one that usually gets referred to around here rather disparagingly as "Magical Tea Party." But you're still telling me, essentially, "Spend some time shooting the shit with your players and then decide whether you're going to give them the macguffin." I want an actual system that tells me how the character responds to what they're saying. And I want it to be impacted by character abilities, not just player decisions; a character with a charisma of 24 and trained Diplomacy skills should be able to talk people into stuff that my players can't.

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Wrong. In a good game, you can use rules for information. You know how far you usually can jump, so you know if you've got a good or bad chance to make this jump over the chasm.

You know how strong a horse is, how far a spell reaches, and so on. All important information.

They tell the player things, not the character, sorry that wasn't more clear.

[LR]

Wrong. In a good game, you can use rules for information. You know how far you usually can jump, so you know if you've got a good or bad chance to make this jump over the chasm.

You know how strong a horse is, how far a spell reaches, and so on. All important information.

They tell the player things, not the character, sorry that wasn't more clear.

Actually, in a game with poor rules coverage, out-of-character information is more important than character knowledge. If the player recognizes the plot elements of the story that the MC is trying to tell, then the player can game his group and get the MC to cheat on his behalf. It's a powergaming strategy that requires zero system mastery.

[Fuchs]

Why again should we pay for a system that hasn't any social rules?

[Novembermike]

No, that's not a system of arbitration. Because it doesn't tell me, as the DM, how the NPC is going to react to something. It tells me to decide how the NPC is going to react to something. But I want there to be inputs to this decision that depend on the abilities of the characters (not just the players, but the characters), and ideally that don't depend on what I had for breakfast that morning.

I need some rules to tell me if the PCs can hoodwink my macguffin holder, or replace the macguffin with a copy while he's not looking, or whatever. I don't want to be in the position of just saying, "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't let you do that."

Did they extol good logic for why they need the macguffin? Did they work out some detail that will tip the scales (do this and your daughter gets better)? Did they provide a convincing emotional appeal, threaten him convincingly do something right? Then hold out for a bit but come around and give it to him. If they fuck it up, don't say anything that would gain his sympathy and don't provide sound logic then they aren't getting it. It's best to be generous, but if they just don't give you a reason to help them, don't.

I'm not saying that doesn't work, actually. That's a perfectly fine activity, though one that usually gets referred to around here rather disparagingly as "Magical Tea Party." But you're still telling me, essentially, "Spend some time shooting the shit with your players and then decide whether you're going to give them the macguffin." I want an actual system that tells me how the character responds to what they're saying. And I want it to be impacted by character abilities, not just player decisions; a character with a charisma of 24 and trained Diplomacy skills should be able to talk people into stuff that my players can't.

That's fine, but if you're rolling dice instead of role playing then you're essentially playing it like a video game.

[Quantumboost]

That's fine, but if you're rolling dice instead of role playing then you're essentially playing it like a video game.

FTFY

[Doctor Kenny Loggins]

Why again should we pay for a system that hasn't any social rules?

Good question. Which system is that?

[Novembermike]

Someone else said this better, but this is what I'm trying to get at with the stuff about rolling for social stuff.

Feb 17, 2011


It comes down to what skills are for.

In the original D&D where there weren't skills, it was just generally assumed your adventurer knew how to do "adventuring things" and your fluff stuff was roleplayed out. There wasn't a "tie ropes" skill because, well, you're an adventurer - you know how to tie ropes. Furthermore, the assumption is that, as an adventurer, you were already someone noteworthy. Fighters were already masters at arms, wizards had finished their apprentice training. Dungeons weren't laughably deadly because you all suck, it's because their horrible evil hell-dungeons.

2e's NWP was based on fluff skills more then "adventuring" skills. It actually had shit like baking or playing an instrument or knowing astronomy, and it was a strictly optional rule. It also cut back on adventurers already being veterans and made them more beginners at things.

3e tried to mash NWPs and thief skills together, and it shows, in a bad way. There's way too fucking many skills, and a lot of them are insultingly dumb. How many adventurers out there apparently don't know how to swim? Or how to tie simple knots? Level 1 meant you were still an apprentice at wizard school, or that you were some chump farm boy who had never handled a weapon in your life.

So 4e took it the opposite way 2e did, and reversed on 3e - skills are there for adventuring. The skills that exist are the ones that need to be rolled. Diplomacy isn't making small talk, it's being an ace negotiator. If you're just making jokes at Ye Olde Tavern, you don't need to make a diplomacy check. It's when you're trying to convince the king that his viceroy is really a succubus in disguise that you use it. It also jumped back to the original idea that as an adventurer you already mean something. DCs are set as level challenge markers rather then flat marks to succeed at things, because the assumption is "You can float on your back or doggy paddle, you're a goddamn adventurer."

Whenever people claim 4e isn't "D&D" I have to laugh, because it's closer to the original D&D in a lot of ways that 3e and 2e weren't.

[lighttigersoul]

Why again should we pay for a system that hasn't any social rules?

Because we're talking about Dungeons and Dragons, a direct descendant of miniature war games applied to fantasy dungeon crawling and designed, specifically, around killing monsters, taking their stuff and getting more powerful to kill bigger monsters.

If you want a social game, buy a social game, but if you're talking about a dungeon crawler the social rules are just a bonus, not the core of the game play.

The great advantage is that, unlike previous editions, 4th at least MADE AN ATTEMPT to create non-combat encounters with rules for helping advance characters without killing mobs, something 3rd edition doesn't have at all and many games either ignore it, or focus completely on it.

Now, those same rules have issues (Skill challenges broken as written.) but it was an attempt that other designers didn't make. The fact that the combat is better balanced, smoother, and easier for players to actually run makes it better for the combat section than 3.5.

Summing up:

4th edition is a better dungeon crawler RPG than previous D&Ds, making it a better D&D.

4th edition attempted to make non-combat encounters relevant to character advancement, something NO previous edition attempted, thus a step in the right direction.

[Koumei]

Most people around here aren't liked. So fucking what. This isn't some Paizil hugbox, so if someone tells you to suck a barrel of cocks, you simply tell them to do it first and go about your day unfazed.

That pretty much is how it works, mostly. Most people here don't like each other, and either make sure to insult each other on a weekly, daily or hourly basis, or they just ignore each other. Or do both.

So if Crissa and PL (who in turn don't like each other) have a particular grudge with ubernoob and Kaelik and vice versa... they live with it, and it's just a little grudge that kind of gets on everyone else's nerves. Frank and K have the most hilarious arguments with each other (or with everyone else combined). Tzor gets his daily satisfaction out of arguing with 95% of the Den in the politics area. And I'm an annoying [EDITED] who snaps at everyone on the planet.

And it all works, still. Despite (because of?) the name-calling.

Also, whoever I quoted, I already forget, can go suck a barrel of cocks.

[jadagul]

Novembermike: I think you're completely wrong. In a video game, the only things that work are things that were programmed in to work. So the "DM" (the game designer) has decided: "I'll give them the macguffin if they bring the X back from the Cave of Horrors." And then you go do that, and then the DM decides to give you the macguffin.

In an open-world game the players can decided to do any number of things. But a game where anything they decide to try works is dumb, because it doesn't matter what decisions they make--so if any approach I use to getting the macguffin will work, it's not a game.

On the other hand, you could say nothing works except things the DM decides works. But then we're back in a video game.

Or you could say that things work if the DM decides they should work. But then the game you're playing is "psychoanalyze your DM," and has very little to do with the actual fantasy world you're supposed to be doing.

Or you could give the DM some objective rules for determining whether something the players do work or not.

[LR]

Someone else said this better, but this is what I'm trying to get at with the stuff about rolling for social stuff.

No. We have moved past the point where players are at the mercy of the MC and his bad LotR ripoffs, and we must also move past the point where being well spoken at the gaming table makes you well spoken in the game. Games need robust social combat, because social combat is how you make actual changes in the game world.

[lighttigersoul]

you could give the DM some objective rules for determining whether something the players do work or not.

Considering 4th edition offers this (Though Skill challenges are broken as written, standard skill checks aren't.) you'll just call us on 'page 42 fallacy' or whatever retarded idea you've created.

Players want Mcguffin from The Elder. The party decides to appeal to his better nature, so the DM asks what points they want to make. Each reason a player gives becomes a skill check, probably Diplomacy or Bluff, and assigned a DC value, Easy, Medium, or Hard. Success means they get the Mcguffin, failure means something (Up to the GM.), hopefully something really interesting. (Maybe a new quest?)

[LR]

you could give the DM some objective rules for determining whether something the players do work or not.

Considering 4th edition offers this (Though Skill challenges are broken as written, standard skill checks aren't.) you'll just call us on 'page 42 fallacy' or whatever retarded idea you've created.

Players want Mcguffin from The Elder. The party decides to appeal to his better nature, so the DM asks what points they want to make. Each reason a player gives becomes a skill check, probably Diplomacy or Bluff, and assigned a DC value, Easy, Medium, or Hard. Success means they get the Mcguffin, failure means something (Up to the GM.), hopefully something really interesting. (Maybe a new quest?)

So now we're getting to the problem of the level treadmill where convincing the king to stop taxing the peasants to death never gets any easier.