[4e] Those lying liars.

[Windjammer]

And then here's the real kicker: all attacks in 4e target "creatures" - scenery is technically indestructible save by DM fiat. And anyone who s a creative designer or whatever the fuck for WotC should fucking know that already. That's a flaw in the fucking rules, and the official patch is to just let players target walls and doors whenever they want unless they are doing it to gain hitpoints or otherwise advance themselves by using attacks up.

You know it gets even funnier when you turn from the way the powers are designed (as in 'can only target creatures') to the way WotC staffers design some encounters. To mention one of several examples I could reference here*, they designed an encounter where a fight takes place such that the monsters can erode the environment but not the PCs (environment here being: wooden platforms). It boggles the mind since the base descriptors of the monster power responsible for damaging the scenery (area blast, damage type: acid) could in theory be shared by what one of the PCs could do. But they can't. Because the module says otherwise. The book actually needs to spend a quarter page explaining all this since telling 4E DMs that sometimes the scenery can get hurt is quite a departure from usual practice.

I imagine the ensuing DM-player conversation would be even more hilarious than the one we see in the podcast. Chris Perkins' dragon would get to bring down the elevated wooden platforms with his acid blasts, and then a player attempting the same (to bring down the dragon's minions positioned on those same platforms) would be told he can't do that because... Well let's just say I'd like to see the because.

*Taken from: Draconomicon 2, page 107.

[Roy]

Now go open the blue door.

[Thymos]

And people claim this game is not MMO like?

You know those games where 90% of the rules are combat with some crafting and players can not affect the plot nor the environment nor use anything creatively?

I wonder if they realize that they basically just created a MMO on a table top which is worse because the ones on computers can have much more enjoyable and better combat in real time.

[Roy]

And people claim this game is not MMO like?

You know those games where 90% of the rules are combat with some crafting and players can not affect the plot nor the environment nor use anything creatively?

I wonder if they realize that they basically just created a MMO on a table top which is worse because the ones on computers can have much more enjoyable and better combat in real time.

That's what I, and all the other intelligent people have been saying since the beginning. It's also why the only people that actually like it are functionally impossible to distinguish from religious fanatics with the exception that they are sucking off books instead of sky fairies.

[A Man In Black]

One of my favorite conversations with a newbie:

Newbie: Wow, so what does Tide of Iron not work on?
Oldbie: It works on everything. Dragons, golems, the terrasque. Everything.
Newbie: That is so awesome! What about statues? Can I knock those back?
Oldie: No.

1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you push the target 1 square if it is your size, smaller than you, or one size category larger.

The idea that powers are designed only to work on creatures and that their interactions are badly-described GM fiat is true. But if you get details like this shit wrong, you're just begging to get in big stupid flamewars every time this forum gets linked somewhere else.

[Windjammer]

And people claim this game is not MMO like? ...

That's what I, and all the other intelligent people have been saying since the beginning. It's also why the only people that actually like it are functionally impossible to distinguish from religious fanatics with the exception that they are sucking off books instead of sky fairies.

Hey, I like 4E, but I guess I'm not representative. See, I don't think 4E fares particularly well as either a RPG or an inheritor of D&D - probably the two main things 4E lays claim to as a game. Officially, that is. For I think 4E is a well designed game which very successfully mixes the mechanics of D&D Miniatures with the goofball flavour text of Kenzer & Co's Hackmaster 4th edition.

Modules like Keep of the Shadowfell are actually to me parodies of D&D modules, best enjoyed when the players (and the DM) realize just how non-functional these are if run with a straight face.

Or take Revenge of the Giants, which boasts all the endearing elements of Kung Fu Panda except, perhaps, for the crucial element of not actually taking itself seriously. Again, a splendid module, ranking right up there with the BBEG's plans the fictional Hard8 wrote for Little Keep on the Borderlands and Annihilate the Giants.

And that scene in Draconomicon 2 where a dragon blasts apart some wooden stage props which are magically untouchable for the PCs? Why, that's right there with the guy in Mel Brooks' Men in Tights who remarks a propos the opening scene, in which firy arrows are shot at village roofs,

"How come every time they make a Robin Hood movie they have to set our village on fire?"

[mean_liar]

Hey, I like 4E, but I guess I'm not representative. ... For I think 4E is a well designed game which very successfully mixes the mechanics of D&D Miniatures with the goofball flavour text of Kenzer & Co's Hackmaster 4th edition.

Modules like Keep of the Shadowfell are actually to me parodies of D&D modules, best enjoyed when the players (and the DM) realize just how non-functional these are if run with a straight face.

I didn't realize it, but I think this is why I like DnD4e as well and why my group will never cotton to it. What I don't think they realize is that this is how I played the entirety of our Savage Worlds fantasy campaign and why I enjoyed it so much more than they did.

Hogar from the Blood Mountain was a cacklingly awesome ride and I was disappointed when the game ended, despite how shitty the game's mechanics were.

[Doom]

But how can it mix with the flavor text of a game that didn't exist when DnD4.0 came out? Hackmaster Basic was released well after.

Actually, I can't tell if you're joking or not with that post; I do concede that it's quite possible that a design paradigm of DnD4.0 was to be the butt of many jokes.

[Archmage]

So...you like 4e because it's an unintentional parody of other roleplaying games?

Different strokes, I guess.

[Windjammer]

But how can it mix with the flavor text of a game that didn't exist when DnD4.0 came out? Hackmaster Basic was released well after.

No no, I'm not talking about Hackmaster Basic, I'm talking about Hackmaster 4th edition. If you google the module titles I referenced, you can learn more (if you wish). To be precise, check out the story behind the keep on the first 20 pages of Little Keep, and Eclavdra's reworked background write-up in Annihilate the Giants. Finally, the quickest way to grok Hackmaster 4E is this review.

The review highlights a real problem with any RPG you run as a parody (whether intended as such by design or not). The joke gets old and laboured at one point, and if there's one thing offensive about 4E from my POV it'd be that WotC in all earnest put out those 3 books for 90 dollars excepting people to run functional long-term campaigns with it. Me, I'm using it for comic relief when taking a session off from our 3.x game, but these poor souls out there who ever only feast on 4E... quite sad.

[Psychic Robot]

Perkins: "[The doors] look like that they are frozen shut. You think that it might take some force to open."
Other Guy: "Or heat."
Perkins: "Or heat."
Beardo: "Can I attack doors with dark fire?"
Perkins: "Let me take a look at your card and see what it says. ...Okay. Dun-dun-da-dun... It says that the target has to be one creature, and the doors do not qualify as a creature."

This is MMO logic.

[A Man In Black]

This is MMO logic.

It's Magic: the Gathering logic.

Video game logic is only limited because you don't have a person to sit over the game and adjudicate creative solutions to problems. Video game designers do their best to hide the completely illogical stuff out of the way where you won't notice it unless you're deliberately trying to sequence-break. Good ones know how much "Nintendo logic" sucks and try to limit players' exposure to it.

What Perkins does there is Magic: the Gathering logic. It's elevating the rules of the game over the logic of the setting, except that there's no goddamn good justification for it. It's fine in Magic, because it is explicitly a game where the pieces are arbitrary rules constructions. Experienced MtG players are used to quibbling about the sequence of priority on instant effects and not worrying about why a rain of stones can destroy an underground city. The rules are their own end, and nobody complains about that too much.

When you port that over to D&D, however, you get bullshit like that Youtube clip. I understand he wants them to break down the door with the ballista instead of a spell, but he doesn't even bother to justify why they can't in-universe. The rules are their own end, and that's madness in any game that aspires to be anything but an abstract wargame.

[Doom]

But how can it mix with the flavor text of a game that didn't exist when DnD4.0 came out? Hackmaster Basic was released well after.

No no, I'm not talking about Hackmaster Basic, I'm talking about Hackmaster 4th edition. If you google the module titles I referenced, you can learn more (if you wish). To be precise, check out the story behind the keep on the first 20 pages of Little Keep, and Eclavdra's reworked background write-up in Annihilate the Giants. Finally, the quickest way to grok Hackmaster 4E is this review.

sad.

Weird, I always thought it was just Hackmaster, not 4e (I even have a published Hackmaster module), based on the AD&D license. Ah well, guess the old brain is short-circuiting.

[RandomCasualty2]

Perkins: "Let me take a look at your card and see what it says. ...Okay. Dun-dun-da-dun... It says that the target has to be one creature, and the doors do not qualify as a creature."

This is MMO logic.

Well that's one way to solve the rules issue with 4E objects lacking any hardness score...

That's DM rules dickery logic. I mean the fucking basic attack says it can only target creatures too. So is he saying you can't attack objects at all? that's pretty stupid if you ask me. Somewhere along the line we got into this trend where people feel like the DM should throw away all common sense and run the rules in an ultra literal fashion as though the game designers were these infallible gods and to question their rules would be blasphemy of the worst kind.

I mean seriously, wouldn't it be easier just to let him try it and say the fire isn't hot enough or something?

[shadzar]

And this isn't an isolated or non-representative instance. Earlier today I watched the (currently) newest episode of the WotC podcast where the creators of Robot Chicken play D&D. Watch the clip as of here (the link gets you to the right timing) and watch the next 3 minutes.
Watch how Creative Director of D&D, Chris Perkins, here in DM role reacts to a new player trying to use his powers creatively. Watch his rationale in turning the player down.

Players are shut down from from interacting with the in-game environment in every meaningful way. And that is why this game has written 'say no' all over it at every point. It says 'No' even past the point where a player has already accepted the narrow choices the game makes for him at character generation.

Wow... That was horrible. I can't believe this is how a D&D designer runs the game.

No you can't do something that makes perfect sense, because someone codified the video game so that it only works the way it knows how to work and cannot deviate, and like a dumb robot that is the engine to a video game, I the DM will not allow anything that makes sense either.

Oh instead of me letting you waste my fucking time trying to figure out what to do, let me tell you that it takes STR check or fire to melt the door, but you cannot use your fire power on a door because you are too stupid to know how to make it work against a door.

This is paraphrased of what I heard when Chris Perkins opened his mouth about the door, and prior to the trap going off.

Sounds more like mother may I, than D&D. Maybe when he lost his hair, he lost his fucking mind as well and might as well be classified as a vegetable rather than an animal. Granted he appears pretty close to becoming just a mineral...

That... is annoyingly stupid. Someone should revoke the "Creative" part of his title. Seriously, the only DMs I've met that were like that, nobody liked to play with. There may be a link between these two things.

My girlfriend wishes to know whether it would work against a Gazebo though - do they count as scenery/terrain/"stuff" or creatures?

That depends on if your girlfriend is Eric or not.

[TOZ]

I had the misfortune of running into a 4E player at the local comic shop. He gushed about how it gives him his 'MMO-goodness' and I had to bite my tongue.

[Koumei]

I had the misfortune of running into a 4E player at the local comic shop. He gushed about how it gives him his 'MMO-goodness' and I had to bite my tongue.

...did you tell him that if he wants his daily dose of MMO, they have these things called fucking MMOs? That he could seriously go play WoW or whatever and then benefit from pretty pictures and stuff?

[RobbyPants]

That's DM rules dickery logic. I mean the fucking basic attack says it can only target creatures too. So is he saying you can't attack objects at all? that's pretty stupid if you ask me.

I guess lumberjacks in 4.0 need a special attack to fell trees or something.

They should seriously say in the PHB "this game is to model killing monsters and nothing else. If you try to be creative or think outside this tiny box, you're a munchkin and you should feel bad."

[TOZ]

...did you tell him that if he wants his daily dose of MMO, they have these things called fucking MMOs? That he could seriously go play WoW or whatever and then benefit from pretty pictures and stuff?

I didn't want a repeat of the conversation I had with a Pathfailure and a 4rrie while I was waiting for my turn in the Magic tournament. It got better once I turned them onto game stories instead of edition arguments. I almost punched the 4rrie when he walked up making snide remarks about 'people need to stop complaining and join the bandwagon already'.

Edit: Spelling, I fail at it.

[Psychic Robot]

He gushed about how it gives him his 'MMO-goodness'

he walked up making snide remarks about 'people need to stop complaining and join the bandwagon already

10/10

[TOZ]

Honestly, I should have punched him. The wife and I dropped out of the tournament after getting stomped every game we played. Our draft decks pretty much sucked. At least I would have gotten some pleasure out of it. But I guess I like being able to shop there.

[Josh_Kablack]

This is MMO logic.

It's Magic: the Gathering logic.

What Perkins does there is Magic: the Gathering logic. It's elevating the rules of the game over the logic of the setting, except that there's no goddamn good justification for it. It's fine in Magic, because it is explicitly a game where the pieces are arbitrary rules constructions. Experienced MtG players are used to quibbling about the sequence of priority on instant effects and not worrying about why a rain of stones can destroy an underground city. The rules are their own end, and nobody complains about that too much.

When you port that over to D&D, however, you get bullshit

This is hardly new to 4th edition.

In 3rd a Mind Flayer's Mind Blast attack is not tagged as a Mind-Affecting Effect, let alone enchantment, so all the mental defense stuff PCs get doesn't apply.

[A Man In Black]

This is hardly new to 4th edition.

In 3rd a Mind Flayer's Mind Blast attack is not tagged as a Mind-Affecting Effect, let alone enchantment, so all the mental defense stuff PCs get doesn't apply.

It's not new to ANY edition, or specific to D&D. Pushing the rules over in-universe logic completely destroys any hope of having in-universe logic in the first place, and it makes you a crap GM if you do that.

[Judging__Eagle]

Seriously.... styming player actions only does one thing.

Reduces the odds of players attempting to be creative in the future.

I guess Chris likes a boring game. I mean, he fucking runs a boring fucking game. Very slow paced as well, even if everyone there is completely new, very slow paced.

Seriously, the DM should know more about the Players sheets than the players do if he's supposed to be running for new PCs; or just have the PCs start at low levels so that everyone is equally ignorant of what the PCs will be able to do eventually.

[A Man In Black]

Seriously, the DM should know more about the Players sheets than the players do if he's supposed to be running for new PCs; or just have the PCs start at low levels so that everyone is equally ignorant of what the PCs will be able to do eventually.

Near as I can tell, those are low-level characters. They're all talking about low-level powers and fiddling with about four or five power cards.