How much of the anti-4E sentiment is actually justified?

[Novembermike]

Having the chickens actually fight instead of randomly choosing the winner added to the enjoyment of the players/dm during the session, so you're wrong there.

If nailing your dick to a tree adds to your enjoyment then go ahead. Just don't expect anyone else to join in.

[LR]

no, I think he's saying it's really pointless to include rules that enable farming in a game about heroic exploits

Are you denying the possibility of heroic farming?

Isn't that essentially what 4e did? Set up the adventurers on a fairly high base note (similar to 3e 4th level or so) so that you can model all of the little stuff? Admittedly it still gets a bit wonky, but it's in teh direction that the players can kill pretty much infinite chickens or rats or whatever rather than having the rats be a serious threat to that first level mage.

No, I mean making sublevels so that you can have sane stats for rats and cats. Ideally, you'd have a CAN system where you can kill an arbitrary number of rats instantly but a goose can still be hardcore.

If nailing your dick to a tree adds to your enjoyment then go ahead. Just don't expect anyone else to join in.

Okay, you want to know what animal stats add to the game? Let's do a hypothetical, then.

A Druid charms a rat and casts a spell that lets the Druid hear what the rat hears, but only if the rat successfully returns to the Druid. The Druid sends the rat into the king's chamber to listen in on an important conversation. How do you determine whether or not the rat is spotted, and what happens if the king orders the rat killed?

[Plebian]

Having the chickens actually fight instead of randomly choosing the winner added to the enjoyment of the players/dm during the session, so you're wrong there.

you really don't realize that rolling dice IS randomly choosing the winner

[MGuy]

Yes, 3e desperately needs a minimum capacity level for humanoids so that it can have creatures who go below that.

Isn't that essentially what 4e did? Set up the adventurers on a fairly high base note (similar to 3e 4th level or so) so that you can model all of the little stuff? Admittedly it still gets a bit wonky, but it's in teh direction that the players can kill pretty much infinite chickens or rats or whatever rather than having the rats be a serious threat to that first level mage.

He said "humanoids" not "adventurers" You're fogging up the point. Yes as I said before men being able to get killed by house cats IS a problem. I'm not defending that but 4E has monsters you actually care about that exist that do not interact well with the world they live in. That's actually worse.

[Plebian]

Yes, 3e desperately needs a minimum capacity level for humanoids so that it can have creatures who go below that.

Isn't that essentially what 4e did? Set up the adventurers on a fairly high base note (similar to 3e 4th level or so) so that you can model all of the little stuff? Admittedly it still gets a bit wonky, but it's in teh direction that the players can kill pretty much infinite chickens or rats or whatever rather than having the rats be a serious threat to that first level mage.

He said "humanoids" not "adventurers" You're fogging up the point. Yes as I said before men being able to get killed by house cats IS a problem. I'm not defending that but 4E has monsters you actually care about that exist that do not interact well with the world they live in. That's actually worse.

please, name those monsters

because while their stat blocks may not interact well with the world their stat blocks are merely combat representations of the monsters; when they are not in combat those stat blocks do not apply and they act as the DM wishes them to act. just like any monster, only with less room for players to metagame and say "that contradicts the entry in the MM!"

[LR]

please, name those monsters

because while their stat blocks may not interact well with the world their stat blocks are merely combat representations of the monsters; when they are not in combat those stat blocks do not apply and they act as the DM wishes them to act. just like any monster, only with less room for players to metagame and say "that contradicts the entry in the MM!"

Fuck. It's the 1E DMG all over again.

[Koumei]

Apparently Cirno didn't send them here. He laughs at the place for being "autistic*, useless, crazy and pathetic" but leaves his trolling to ENWorld and Paizo. And does it himself. I can trust his word on that because it turns out we have the same rank, and Ops can't kick Ops. Well they can, but other Ops get shitty and ban you and it turns into a nuclear war.

That said, I find it hard to believe Plebian and friends actually have the mental capacity to find their way here on their own.

*Yes. With Frank as "an Autism Elemental". I am not making this shit up. Because "it's pure autism to be THAT focused on numbers and rules, that if there are no rules for tying rope, YOU CANNOT TIE ROPE, and that if chickens don't have stats, CHICKENS DON'T EXIST." And then a rant on how it's just autistic to think that "Fact: you are not your ally; Fact: enemies are all creatures that are not allies; Conclusion: you are your own enemy" - I pointed out "Yes, it's fucking retarded, we all know this, we even know what they intend." But no, AUTISM ALL THE WAY. And we're wrong, and TWISTING THE RULES, and there is actually another logical conclusion, an obvious one, but step 1 is you can't be Gaming Den Crazy.

[Archmage]

when they are not in combat those stat blocks do not apply and they act as the DM wishes them to act

Do you legitimately believe that it's better for things to happen because the DM says they do than because of a consequence of following the game's rules?

While there can't be a rule for everything because that would take up infinite space and I don't have that much room on my bookshelf, situations that are likely to come up in play should be included. DM fiat is occasionally necessary to resolve disagreements about the outcome of actions the rules don't cover, but DM fiat is only fun if you agree with the DM's conclusion.

If DM fiat produces such an awesome game, why play D&D at all?

[Plebian]

when they are not in combat those stat blocks do not apply and they act as the DM wishes them to act

Do you legitimately believe that it's better for things to happen because the DM says they do than because of a consequence of following the game's rules?

While there can't be a rule for everything because that would take up infinite space and I don't have that much room on my bookshelf, situations that are likely to come up in play should be included. DM fiat is occasionally necessary to resolve disagreements about the outcome of actions the rules don't cover, but DM fiat is only fun if you agree with the DM's conclusion.

If DM fiat produces such an awesome game, why play D&D at all?

if rules produce such an awesome game, why have a DM at all?

[Psychic Robot]

because while their stat blocks may not interact well with the world their stat blocks are merely combat representations of the monsters; when they are not in combat those stat blocks do not apply and they act as the DM wishes them to act. just like any monster, only with less room for players to metagame and say "that contradicts the entry in the MM!"

Fuck you. If I wanted to play something where things don't exist outside of combat, then I'd play a videogame, a tactical wargame, or a goddamn CCRPG.

[Plebian]

Fuck you. If I wanted to play something where things don't exist outside of combat, then I'd play a videogame, a tactical wargame, or a goddamn CCRPG.

no, combat abilities don't exist outside of combat. what's so hard to understand about this? outside of combat there are no needs for combat abilities. combat abilities do not exist outside of combat.

unless you're saying that a monster is summed up entirely by its combat abilities.

also the desire to have a monster's actions planned out by the rules? yeah, that's a lot more like a videogame than leaving the monster's actions outside of combat up to the DM for storytelling purposes.

[Psychic Robot]

no, combat abilities don't exist outside of combat. what's so hard to understand about this? outside of combat there are no needs for combat abilities. combat abilities do not exist outside of combat.

To summarize the insanity of plebian's game design: dragons cannot breathe fire unless they are in combat. They cannot light fires. They cannot burn villages. They cannot liquify gold and drink it out of crystal goblets because they're not in combat and the ability to breathe fire only exists when the PCs are trying to kill the dragon.

unless you're saying that a monster is summed up entirely by its combat abilities.

I expect a monster's statblock to provide the mechanical aspects of the monster and allow me to integrate the monster into the world. If, for instance, succubi can kill a man with a kiss, then I expect rules for that sort of thing to be in the succubus's statblock. I also expect her supernatural charming abilities to be statted out. Do you know why? Because if the succubi is a seductive murderess, then when the PCs encounter her, she's going to try and seduce them so she can murder them with poison kisses.

But apparently this sort of thing doesn't matter because the succubi is just a statblock for the PCs to stab to death.

[Jilocasin]

no, combat abilities don't exist outside of combat. what's so hard to understand about this? outside of combat there are no needs for combat abilities. combat abilities do not exist outside of combat.

Every ability a creature has, and this includes all the things that a creature can do in combat informs what it can do outside of combat! What's so hard to understand about that? If a beholder can't disintegrate shit whenever it wants I'm not going to assume that it lives in an extremely complex stone hive that it carved out from under some mountain. Just like if some demon doesn't have the power to sustainably charm or dominate things I have no reason to think it might surround itself with fawning mind-slaves. Everything a creature can do in "combat time", which is a apparently a thing to some people, is extremely important to every other time too.

[MGuy]

Seriously guys he's just trolling. He literally just said a given set of abilities only exist in combat and nowhere else. No one seriously believes that should happen in DnD. He is trolling!

[Maxus]

Seriously guy he's just trolling. He literally just said a given set of abilities only exist in combat and nowhere else. No one seriously believes that should happen in DnD. He is trolling!

Duh.

Seriously, just put Plebian on ignore and don't look at what he says. Ever. If he keeps posting despite that, well, FBMF will be along with the ban button when he isn't so busy being a new father.

[Plebian]

To summarize the insanity of plebian's game design: dragons cannot breathe fire unless they are in combat. They cannot light fires. They cannot burn villages. They cannot liquify gold and drink it out of crystal goblets because they're not in combat and the ability to breathe fire only exists when the PCs are trying to kill the dragon.

actually, unless you're stupid and trying to misinterpret me so as to justify your dislike of 4e more, what I said is a dragon's fire breath ability is only usable inside of combat. because outside of combat there is no goddamn reason to know that a dragon does Xd6 die of damage. it can still breath fire, it's a fucking dragon, but the exact amount of damage only matters for combat with PCs.

I expect a monster's statblock to provide the mechanical aspects of the monster and allow me to integrate the monster into the world. If, for instance, succubi can kill a man with a kiss, then I expect rules for that sort of thing to be in the succubus's statblock. I also expect her supernatural charming abilities to be statted out. Do you know why? Because if the succubi is a seductive murderess, then when the PCs encounter her, she's going to try and seduce them so she can murder them with poison kisses.

so you want metagame knowledge of monsters, awesome, you can admit it in less words next time.

But apparently this sort of thing doesn't matter because the succubi is just a statblock for the PCs to stab to death.

inside of combat? sure, but if a succubus gets into a brawl she's a bad succubus.


this is a hilarious misunderstanding of 4e; the designers know that a creature cannot be expressed by a stat block, so they express only combat abilities as a statblock. this angers idiots, because idiots want everything about a mythical creature explained in a statblock so they can abuse OOC knowledge of this statblock both in and out of combat to their advantage.

[Fuchs]

I've added the 4rry-crowd to ignore days ago, there's no need to read that stupid drivel.

[Jilocasin]

Yeah, I'm done. Apparently I lack the willpower to keep from rubbernecking occasionally though.

[Plebian]

it's cool for you to admit you have no arguments to refute mine, thanks for being mature about it Fuchs and Jilocasin

[LR]

it's cool for you to admit you have no arguments to refute mine, thanks for being mature about it Fuchs and Jilocasin

Your argument is that DMs should be allowed to cheat. The only argument to that is to call you on your munchkinism.

[Plebian]

it's cool for you to admit you have no arguments to refute mine, thanks for being mature about it Fuchs and Jilocasin

Your argument is that DMs should be allowed to cheat. The only argument to that is to call you on your munchkinism.

well the DM is certainly allowed to cheat, there isn't even a should involved, but no. my point is that codifying a monster's actions in a blurb is both pointlessly restrictive and encouraging of metagame actions on the part of the players. giving average actions is as far as it really needs to go, otherwise you'll either have to ignore what's written and be accused of cheating by idiots or you'll allow players to have OOC info on how certain monsters will always act because it's in the blurb!

[MGuy]

LR why? we've laid it all out for Plebian and he just seriously said he doesn't want anything but combat rules. There's nothing you can say to people like this.

[virgil]

Heaven forbid the plot and the characters have their own ontological inertia. The world must be filled with Steves to be fun...

[Xur]

it's cool for you to admit you have no arguments to refute mine, thanks for being mature about it Fuchs and Jilocasin

Your argument is that DMs should be allowed to cheat. The only argument to that is to call you on your munchkinism.

well the DM is certainly allowed to cheat, there isn't even a should involved, but no. my point is that codifying a monster's actions in a blurb is both pointlessly restrictive and encouraging of metagame actions on the part of the players. giving average actions is as far as it really needs to go, otherwise you'll either have to ignore what's written and be accused of cheating by idiots or you'll allow players to have OOC info on how certain monsters will always act because it's in the blurb!

But that is sort of the point with D&D... yeah, first time the new players encounter a displacer beast they'll be freaked out and shit, but next time they deploy tactics against it based on the former encounter, even if it's not within the same gaming round. There are plenty of adventures and modules that really expect the players to have OOC knowledge about world and monsters.

It seems you are the kind of DM who absolutely doesn't want players to have the slightest idea about whats going on behind your screen.

[Bobikus]

Not to mention that characters would often know stuff about creatures, which is what some of the knowledge skills even represent. A Malconvoker with high knowledge skills will likely know all sorts of shit about succubus behavior and abilities before even meeting one.