The Official "4e Critique and Rebuttal" Thread

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

jadagul
Master
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 11:24 pm

Post by jadagul »

MadScientistWorking wrote:
LR wrote:
Halloween Jack wrote: Wait, you mean there are skills to know things about things?

So if I could roll Nature to know things about a swamp, I could roll Arcana or Dungeoneering to know things about a magically spontaneously generated physics-violating obsidian tower full of monsters?

So Kaelik's original argument about needing detailed rules for magic rock construction was stupid?

Thanks, good to know!
Except that when the players roll Arcana, it doesn't have any rules to reference, because magical obsidian towers aren't real things. The DM can go on and on about the arcane rituals required to make an obsidian tower, but until that ritual exists as a thing that PCs can find and use, it's nothing but meaningless and insulting fluff.
So every single scenario that you can come up with is useless and meaningless if there isn't a rule mechanic for it?
Yes, exactly!

More seriously, as far as I can tell there's sort of one core disagreement between the Denners and the pro-4e people. A couple of posters upthread commented something like, "the game splits into combat, which needs well-defined rules, and social interactions/everything else, which people can just sort of figure out and we don't need rules for." But we tend to think that you really, really do need rules for everything else, for two reasons:

1) It allows players to draw conclusions about the world. In Magical Instant Tower case, in 3e or something we can say, "oh, there must be a high level caster around who put that up, he can probably do X and Y and Z as well." If the assassins kill the king, we can say "they must have been high enough level to get through whatever defenses he had." If there's a 10' pit we can say, "Oh, given my abilities I know I can jump that far pretty consistently." Or maybe "oh, given my abilities I probably can't jump that far." If rules for those things don't exist, it's hard to make those sorts of predictions and the players have much less agency.

2) It allows the players to do stuff the DM doesn't expect/want. The problem with "NPCs react however the DM decides they should" is that then the PCs really can't affect those reactions--the NPC is going to react however the DM decides, regardless of what the players do. And this isn't good for the DM either, because sometimes (ideally, usually) doesn't have a specific set of reactions in mind and would rather find out how successful the PCs are. I show up with my 22 charisma character and try to talk someone into something--does it work? Should I expect it to be easy because he's a peasant and so easy to talk into stuff? If I fail to sweet-talk a peasant should that make me suspicious that he's something else (and now we're back to point 1)? Or does it just mean the DM is saying, "fuck you, he doesn't like you?"
Roy
Prince
Posts: 2772
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

Post by Roy »

Darwinism wrote:
Roy wrote: I'm flat out admitting I am dismissing idiots with the minimum possible effort. To be stupid, I would have to do things like be persistently wrong, compulsively lie, defend people's right to not do the job they are paid to do, make MMO style claims and then deny that means the subject I am referring to is MMO like, and straw man constantly. For example, if I were defending 4th edition by lying constantly about it, claiming it's ok the designers wrote terrible rules because the DM can just make stuff up, talk about how monsters don't exist out of combat so what they do when they aren't being slowly ground down by the PCs doesn't matter, and present false arguments such as that counter to Knowledge: Nature, I'd be stupid. But see, I am not doing any of those things.
Actually you are being persistently wrong by attributing positions to people who haven't taken those positions, by throwing the MMO descriptor at 4E without realizing 3.5E is far more like a video game, and by throwing around insults and idiotic portmanteaus because someone dares to have a different opinion about a book than you.
Roy wrote: It takes no great degree of skill to be good at such games. Merely knowing and understanding math is sufficient. Now admittedly, grasp of basic mathematics is a rather rare skill. See Skill Challenges (any version, or just the fact there are so many versions, and they all fail) for examples. Even so, being good at grind games is simply a matter of finding the most efficient way to grind.

In 4.Fail, that means finding a way to get the Sand Veil ability. Then you enter the field, a sandstorm rages, and all minions auto pop. Great XP to be farmed there.
Please, tell me how 4E is any more or less about killing monsters than previous editions. Oh and some examples on how skill challenges fail. Oh and please tell me how you'd find a source of infinite minions.

Thanks in advance!



One thing I thought of; random loot tables really are a lot more like CRPGs and MMOs than 4E; I can't think of any MMO I've played where I actually got to say, "hey I would like this item," instead of getting a randomized bunch of shit from some monster's loot table.
Paizil Fallacy, and more lies.

Hi Welcome
Draco_Argentum wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
Darwinism
Journeyman
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:19 pm

Post by Darwinism »

MadScientistWorking wrote:
talozin wrote:If a stone tower goes up overnight in D&D, you can be fairly confident that somewhere around is a guy who's capable of casting Wall of Stone, and probably casting it quite a few times if the tower is of any size. If it goes up overnight in Ars Magica, you can be pretty sure that there's a serious Creo Terram dude in the background. So if a stone tower springs up and you go inside and fight a guy who casts no spells higher than 3rd level, players are -- or should be -- asking questions like, "Wait, where did this tower come from? Was that guy just bait, and his master's watching to see how tough we are? Did someone more powerful fund him? Is someone out to get us?" And so on.
are.
Actually, using your scenario I would start wondering why there aren't wizard construction companies who use magic to make towns using wall of stone.
That way lies Eberron! (which is a really cool setting)
Novembermike
Master
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:28 am

Post by Novembermike »

jadagul wrote: Yes, exactly!

More seriously, as far as I can tell there's sort of one core disagreement between the Denners and the pro-4e people. A couple of posters upthread commented something like, "the game splits into combat, which needs well-defined rules, and social interactions/everything else, which people can just sort of figure out and we don't need rules for." But we tend to think that you really, really do need rules for everything else, for two reasons:

1) It allows players to draw conclusions about the world. In Magical Instant Tower case, in 3e or something we can say, "oh, there must be a high level caster around who put that up, he can probably do X and Y and Z as well." If the assassins kill the king, we can say "they must have been high enough level to get through whatever defenses he had." If there's a 10' pit we can say, "Oh, given my abilities I know I can jump that far pretty consistently." Or maybe "oh, given my abilities I probably can't jump that far." If rules for those things don't exist, it's hard to make those sorts of predictions and the players have much less agency.

2) It allows the players to do stuff the DM doesn't expect/want. The problem with "NPCs react however the DM decides they should" is that then the PCs really can't affect those reactions--the NPC is going to react however the DM decides, regardless of what the players do. And this isn't good for the DM either, because sometimes (ideally, usually) doesn't have a specific set of reactions in mind and would rather find out how successful the PCs are. I show up with my 22 charisma character and try to talk someone into something--does it work? Should I expect it to be easy because he's a peasant and so easy to talk into stuff? If I fail to sweet-talk a peasant should that make me suspicious that he's something else (and now we're back to point 1)? Or does it just mean the DM is saying, "fuck you, he doesn't like you?"
Isn't this the point of role playing? When I need to convince somebody to let me have their macguffin so I can seal the portal to the realm of evil, I can either roll a dice and add my modifier video game style or actually have an argument with the DM (who is acting as the character) where I play the role of the hero and he plays the role of the macguffin holder.
LR
Knight
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:15 am

Post by LR »

MadScientistWorking wrote:
LR wrote:Except that when the players roll Arcana, it doesn't have any rules to reference, because magical obsidian towers aren't real things. The DM can go on and on about the arcane rituals required to make an obsidian tower, but until that ritual exists as a thing that PCs can find and use, it's nothing but meaningless and insulting fluff.
So every single scenario that you can come up with is useless and meaningless if there isn't a rule mechanic for it?
Yes, because if there's no mechanic, then the players cannot interact with it. It's useless because the players have no use for it. If I occasionally have to make a houserule, then that's fine. No game can actually cover everything. However, making houserules without a proper framework takes a lot more effort than hooking a new effect to an existing mechanic, and any houserule I do make must be persistent and usable by the players.
Darwinism wrote:Wow that is one long-winded way to say, "I cannot use my imagination without rules"
No, it's a way to say that imagination is enhanced by rules. If the players don't have a concrete foundation to build upon, then all of their ideas can be destroyed with one strong word from the MC. In a game with explicit rules, an MC who does that is cheating.
tzor wrote:I thought that there was also an artifact that turned into a stone tower., perhaps it was in an eariler edition and was removed by the time of 3E, I often get my artifacts confused.
http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/SRD:Instant_Fortress

It's not an artifact, and it's significantly stronger than stone.
MadScientistWorking wrote:Actually, using your scenario I would start wondering why there aren't wizard construction companies who use magic to make towns out of towers.
Wall of Stone can't actually make industrial quantities of stone. It's fine for a DIY project, but not for city building. That requires Rock to Mud and a bunch of unskilled laborers.
jadagul
Master
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 11:24 pm

Post by jadagul »

Novembermike wrote:
jadagul wrote: Yes, exactly!

More seriously, as far as I can tell there's sort of one core disagreement between the Denners and the pro-4e people. A couple of posters upthread commented something like, "the game splits into combat, which needs well-defined rules, and social interactions/everything else, which people can just sort of figure out and we don't need rules for." But we tend to think that you really, really do need rules for everything else, for two reasons:

1) It allows players to draw conclusions about the world. In Magical Instant Tower case, in 3e or something we can say, "oh, there must be a high level caster around who put that up, he can probably do X and Y and Z as well." If the assassins kill the king, we can say "they must have been high enough level to get through whatever defenses he had." If there's a 10' pit we can say, "Oh, given my abilities I know I can jump that far pretty consistently." Or maybe "oh, given my abilities I probably can't jump that far." If rules for those things don't exist, it's hard to make those sorts of predictions and the players have much less agency.

2) It allows the players to do stuff the DM doesn't expect/want. The problem with "NPCs react however the DM decides they should" is that then the PCs really can't affect those reactions--the NPC is going to react however the DM decides, regardless of what the players do. And this isn't good for the DM either, because sometimes (ideally, usually) doesn't have a specific set of reactions in mind and would rather find out how successful the PCs are. I show up with my 22 charisma character and try to talk someone into something--does it work? Should I expect it to be easy because he's a peasant and so easy to talk into stuff? If I fail to sweet-talk a peasant should that make me suspicious that he's something else (and now we're back to point 1)? Or does it just mean the DM is saying, "fuck you, he doesn't like you?"
Isn't this the point of role playing? When I need to convince somebody to let me have their macguffin so I can seal the portal to the realm of evil, I can either roll a dice and add my modifier video game style or actually have an argument with the DM (who is acting as the character) where I play the role of the hero and he plays the role of the macguffin holder.
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.
Roy
Prince
Posts: 2772
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

Post by Roy »

Crawfish wrote:
Roy wrote:4.Fail has enough real problems that I don't have to make them up. No amount of pretending I am will change that I am right.

Also...
Crawfish wrote:
Bullshit. You talk exactly like an MMO pubby (fail and dumb portmanteaus, I am expecting "FAIL HUNTARD" at any point now), you can't wrap your head around RPGs abstracting things - there's no way you haven't played MMOs extensively. It's you, you are the World of Warcraft baby.
Fail is internet based, not MMO based.

Hi Welcome

You are dismissed by such memes as you are unworthy of intelligent thought.

I'm better at RPGs, and your favorite grind games than you'll ever be. Despite having not played said grind games very long.

Fact: The job of game designers is to write rules. Saying lolwut, no you guys paying me do my job will get you fired in any other profession. Your "abstracting things" is actually "making up random bullshit" and not in fact abstracting things. This of course is something the customer can do for free, which is why 4.Fail has only sold hundreds of thousands of books, and is already being replaced with 4.5.

Fact: MMOs have more depth than 4.Fail, at least the modern ones do. And when MMO choices consist of "Do I do fire or cold damage?", that's really fucking sad.

Fact: Said grind games also do the math for you, meaning combat doesn't take half the fucking session, each, such that you've long since forgotten why the fuck you're fighting all these bags of HP in the first place.
Run along little boy, you may be late for your raid. Maybe you can get some laughs with some fresh Chuck Norris jokes?
Displacement (psychological) and Hi Welcome

Still grinding the same mob there? Or are you on fight 2 by now?
Draco_Argentum wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
Roy
Prince
Posts: 2772
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

Post by Roy »

Darwinism wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
talozin wrote:If a stone tower goes up overnight in D&D, you can be fairly confident that somewhere around is a guy who's capable of casting Wall of Stone, and probably casting it quite a few times if the tower is of any size. If it goes up overnight in Ars Magica, you can be pretty sure that there's a serious Creo Terram dude in the background. So if a stone tower springs up and you go inside and fight a guy who casts no spells higher than 3rd level, players are -- or should be -- asking questions like, "Wait, where did this tower come from? Was that guy just bait, and his master's watching to see how tough we are? Did someone more powerful fund him? Is someone out to get us?" And so on.
are.
Actually, using your scenario I would start wondering why there aren't wizard construction companies who use magic to make towns using wall of stone.
That way lies Eberron! (which is a really cool setting)
This proves even broken clocks are right twice a day.
Draco_Argentum wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
Darwinism
Journeyman
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:19 pm

Post by Darwinism »

jadagul wrote:
Novembermike wrote:
jadagul wrote: Yes, exactly!

More seriously, as far as I can tell there's sort of one core disagreement between the Denners and the pro-4e people. A couple of posters upthread commented something like, "the game splits into combat, which needs well-defined rules, and social interactions/everything else, which people can just sort of figure out and we don't need rules for." But we tend to think that you really, really do need rules for everything else, for two reasons:

1) It allows players to draw conclusions about the world. In Magical Instant Tower case, in 3e or something we can say, "oh, there must be a high level caster around who put that up, he can probably do X and Y and Z as well." If the assassins kill the king, we can say "they must have been high enough level to get through whatever defenses he had." If there's a 10' pit we can say, "Oh, given my abilities I know I can jump that far pretty consistently." Or maybe "oh, given my abilities I probably can't jump that far." If rules for those things don't exist, it's hard to make those sorts of predictions and the players have much less agency.

2) It allows the players to do stuff the DM doesn't expect/want. The problem with "NPCs react however the DM decides they should" is that then the PCs really can't affect those reactions--the NPC is going to react however the DM decides, regardless of what the players do. And this isn't good for the DM either, because sometimes (ideally, usually) doesn't have a specific set of reactions in mind and would rather find out how successful the PCs are. I show up with my 22 charisma character and try to talk someone into something--does it work? Should I expect it to be easy because he's a peasant and so easy to talk into stuff? If I fail to sweet-talk a peasant should that make me suspicious that he's something else (and now we're back to point 1)? Or does it just mean the DM is saying, "fuck you, he doesn't like you?"
Isn't this the point of role playing? When I need to convince somebody to let me have their macguffin so I can seal the portal to the realm of evil, I can either roll a dice and add my modifier video game style or actually have an argument with the DM (who is acting as the character) where I play the role of the hero and he plays the role of the macguffin holder.
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.
The thing is that 4E does have rules concerning things that aren't explicitly stated; the DM finds the most appropriate skill or stat to use, chooses how difficult a challenge it is, and has the player roll.

This, in my opinion, is far better than saying, "any creature that speaks will become your willing slave with bonuses to his stats because you are so fucking persuasive at this number on diplomacy checks."

Static progression charts are horrible. Scaling checks are better, though still not perfect, and are much better at fitting in odd skill uses or making things up as you go.
Last edited by Darwinism on Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Novembermike
Master
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:28 am

Post by Novembermike »

jadagul wrote: 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.
Doctor Kenny Loggins
Journeyman
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:33 pm

Post by Doctor Kenny Loggins »

jadagul wrote: 1) It allows players to draw conclusions about the world. In Magical Instant Tower case, in 3e or something we can say, "oh, there must be a high level caster around who put that up, he can probably do X and Y and Z as well." If the assassins kill the king, we can say "they must have been high enough level to get through whatever defenses he had." If there's a 10' pit we can say, "Oh, given my abilities I know I can jump that far pretty consistently." Or maybe "oh, given my abilities I probably can't jump that far." If rules for those things don't exist, it's hard to make those sorts of predictions and the players have much less agency.
Consistent rules don't tell you any of those things but the last one. You can guess that there's a "high level" (a term which makes no sense in game) caster who made the tower, but it could as easily be a large number of lower level casters, something which can use wall of stone at will, earth elementals, etc. All that knowledge is metagame anyway.

When I used that exact idea recently it was because it had been moved from another plane. No wizards involved at all, just planar instability.
talozin
Knight-Baron
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:08 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by talozin »

Novembermike wrote: Aren't the players just metagaming here?
No. I'll explain.
The PC never saw that character sheet and the concept of a character level is completely foreign to him, so it seems like this is just bad roleplaying.
If a homeless hobo with no money leaps out of a Lamborghini Gallardo and points a gold plated Desert Eagle at you, but you manage to disarm and kill him before he can mug you - do you think it would be reasonable to wonder whether possibly someone else, maybe someone wealthier and more powerful than a homeless hobo with no money, might be out to get you?

Because that's pretty much what it's like when a guy who can't cast anything better than Fireball is the sole inhabitant of a stone tower that magically appeared overnight. I don't actually know how much money it costs to buy a Lamborghini or a gold plated handgun, but I can guess that it's probably a shit ton more money than a homeless hobo is likely to have.

And similarly - while my character (who is probably a Wizard, if past experience is any guide) doesn't know exactly how powerful an enemy is (because that involves shit like "levels" and "hit dice" that he doesn't even know anything about), he does know that more powerful wizards get better effects from the same spells, he knows that more powerful wizards get a wider selection of spells, he knows about the spells he could cast himself, and he knows at least something about those he can't (otherwise he couldn't make spellcraft checks to identify them at all). And that means he probably has a good idea that someone who doesn't bring anything more badass than throwing a ball of fire to the table is not capable of magically conjuring walls of stone.

Now, my character might be wrong - the enemy wizard might have burned up a Wand of Wall of Stone making the place, or he might have gotten attacked by a gang of wights after he'd blown all his high-level spells building the tower, or he might belong to a wacky prestige class with tower-creation powers, or he might have had a plot devicey artifact that let him build it. You'll note that in the latter two cases, it isn't even important that the tower match up with what a PC wizard could actually create with Wall of Stone (or iron or whatever). But it is important that there be an explanation.

Metagaming would be saying "Gee, this adventure is really short, there must be another villain out there somewhere" - that's when you have your character act on things that he has no knowledge of. But things like the relative power levels of wizards are objective fact in the world that D&D characters live in. If you have two bored wizards and a large supply of disposable humanoids, it is mathematically provable that a wizard who can cast Magic Jar has a deadlier Fireball than a wizard who can only cast Vampiric Touch.
Halloween Jack
NPC
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:31 pm

Post by Halloween Jack »

MadScientistWorking wrote: I think Kaelik's original argument was that there were no rules for the magic rock structure construction. In that how would the magic rock would work with X,Y, and Z scenarios. What happens when the magic rock gets sold? What happens when you go inside of the structure? This I have no problem with because you have a set amount of rules that would dictate what would occur and the basis of different encounters. The problem I would have is expecting the game engine itself to generate those rules. The modules themselves should have rules and background depending on the scenario but not the actual engine.
It's still nonsense, though. Let's say in an epic-level 3e campaign, you want your players to journey into an entire Prismatic Palace. Are you really going to follow the rules for how a Prismatic Wall works in every single little instance? Does being able to look up the Prismatic Wall rules tell them things you wouldn't reveal if they made a skill check? No, sooner or later you're going to be making things up by fiat. No game is broken by failing to be a (meta)physics engine for every single atom in its imagined universe.
LR wrote: Except that when the players roll Arcana, it doesn't have any rules to reference, because magical obsidian towers aren't real things. The DM can go on and on about the arcane rituals required to make an obsidian tower, but until that ritual exists as a thing that PCs can find and use, it's nothing but meaningless and insulting fluff.
So when a WotC designer writes rules for a magic obsidian tower, magic obsidian towers become a real thing?

Have you been watching The Neverending Story a few too many times?

But seriously, what is it that you want? If something exists in the setting, there have to be rules in a book for building it? What if Kaelik had wanted to make a tower out of magically summoned pork? Is 3.5 a failure because it doesn't include written rules for how magic meat behaves? Is the DM being "insulting" when he crafts a unique scenario, creates an interesting location, and decides what the PCs can learn about their environment by making skill checks?

Sorry but this has gotten ridiculous; you've gone beyond "Criticisms of 4e" to "Criticisms of D&D in general" to "Complaining about the lack of things that have never existed in any tabletop RPG."

What do you want? Do you want tabletop RPGs to be geometaphysics simulator? It's never going to happen.
Roy wrote: To be stupid, I would have to do things like be persistently wrong,
Check
compulsively lie,
Check
defend people's right to not do the job they are paid to do,
WotC doesn't pay people to convert Dwarf Fortress code into text, I'm pretty sure
make MMO style claims and then deny that means the subject I am referring to is MMO like,
I don't know anything about MMOs. I can't compare 4e to MMOs with you because I've never played one. In a clinical study of you and me, half of the sample has played MMOs for more than 0 seconds, and it's you. So you can talk about 4e=MMO all you want; it means nothing to me. My 4e play experience doesn't simulate MMOs and isn't informed by MMOs because I have never played one. (Unless you count browser-based turn-based ones like Urban Dead.)
claiming it's ok the designers wrote terrible rules because the DM can just make stuff up,
Not claiming they wrote terrible rules; they didn't write rules for some things; claiming that's okay. HTH!
talk about how monsters don't exist out of combat so what they do when they aren't being slowly ground down by the PCs doesn't matter,

They literally don't, because things that only exist as shared imagination necessarily cease to exist when you aren't thinking about them. You can build your world so as to give them an immersive context, but that can be done without devoting several pages to aspects of monsters' lives that the players will never know about. I will probably never need to know very much about the internal politics of a hobgoblin troupe. A bit, but there's no good reason to waste pages describing their mating season and beadwork traditions or whatever.
and present false arguments such as that counter to Knowledge: Nature, I'd be stupid.
Saying something's false doesn't make it false, there's a process of discourse and explanation involved; this is called reason and debate. You're learning things today! Or at least, you can choose to learn. The power is in your hands!
It takes no great degree of skill to be good at such games. Merely knowing and understanding math is sufficient.
I wouldn't know! Tell me about this grind game hobby of yours! Never played one!
User avatar
tzor
Prince
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by tzor »

Doctor Kenny Loggins wrote:You can guess that there's a "high level" (a term which makes no sense in game) caster ...
Well it USED TO :razz: back in 1E where every class's level had a unique name to it and you had to go back to town to study in order to obtain that level and where sometimes you had to fight the guy already holding that level name for the title (druids, monks and assassins at the highest levels).
Novembermike
Master
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:28 am

Post by Novembermike »

talozin wrote: And similarly - while my character (who is probably a Wizard, if past experience is any guide) doesn't know exactly how powerful an enemy is (because that involves shit like "levels" and "hit dice" that he doesn't even know anything about), he does know that more powerful wizards get better effects from the same spells, he knows that more powerful wizards get a wider selection of spells, he knows about the spells he could cast himself, and he knows at least something about those he can't (otherwise he couldn't make spellcraft checks to identify them at all). And that means he probably has a good idea that someone who doesn't bring anything more badass than throwing a ball of fire to the table is not capable of magically conjuring walls of stone.

Now, my character might be wrong - the enemy wizard might have burned up a Wand of Wall of Stone making the place, or he might have gotten attacked by a gang of wights after he'd blown all his high-level spells building the tower, or he might belong to a wacky prestige class with tower-creation powers, or he might have had a plot devicey artifact that let him build it. You'll note that in the latter two cases, it isn't even important that the tower match up with what a PC wizard could actually create with Wall of Stone (or iron or whatever). But it is important that there be an explanation.
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.
Darwinism
Journeyman
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:19 pm

Post by Darwinism »

talozin wrote:
Novembermike wrote: Aren't the players just metagaming here?
No. I'll explain.
The PC never saw that character sheet and the concept of a character level is completely foreign to him, so it seems like this is just bad roleplaying.
If a homeless hobo with no money leaps out of a Lamborghini Gallardo and points a gold plated Desert Eagle at you, but you manage to disarm and kill him before he can mug you - do you think it would be reasonable to wonder whether possibly someone else, maybe someone wealthier and more powerful than a homeless hobo with no money, might be out to get you?

Because that's pretty much what it's like when a guy who can't cast anything better than Fireball is the sole inhabitant of a stone tower that magically appeared overnight. I don't actually know how much money it costs to buy a Lamborghini or a gold plated handgun, but I can guess that it's probably a shit ton more money than a homeless hobo is likely to have.

And similarly - while my character (who is probably a Wizard, if past experience is any guide) doesn't know exactly how powerful an enemy is (because that involves shit like "levels" and "hit dice" that he doesn't even know anything about), he does know that more powerful wizards get better effects from the same spells, he knows that more powerful wizards get a wider selection of spells, he knows about the spells he could cast himself, and he knows at least something about those he can't (otherwise he couldn't make spellcraft checks to identify them at all). And that means he probably has a good idea that someone who doesn't bring anything more badass than throwing a ball of fire to the table is not capable of magically conjuring walls of stone.

Now, my character might be wrong - the enemy wizard might have burned up a Wand of Wall of Stone making the place, or he might have gotten attacked by a gang of wights after he'd blown all his high-level spells building the tower, or he might belong to a wacky prestige class with tower-creation powers, or he might have had a plot devicey artifact that let him build it. You'll note that in the latter two cases, it isn't even important that the tower match up with what a PC wizard could actually create with Wall of Stone (or iron or whatever). But it is important that there be an explanation.

Metagaming would be saying "Gee, this adventure is really short, there must be another villain out there somewhere" - that's when you have your character act on things that he has no knowledge of. But things like the relative power levels of wizards are objective fact in the world that D&D characters live in. If you have two bored wizards and a large supply of disposable humanoids, it is mathematically provable that a wizard who can cast Magic Jar has a deadlier Fireball than a wizard who can only cast Vampiric Touch.
That was a lot of words insisting that metagaming isn't metagaming.
talozin
Knight-Baron
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:08 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by talozin »

Novembermike wrote: 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.
Er, how do you know that? Perhaps he's a graduate of the campaign world equivalent of Hogwarts. Perhaps he's the scion of a family of wizards. Perhaps he just made his Spellcraft check, and so, yeah, he actually does know something about Wall of Stone.
That's called metagaming.
No, sorry. That's called "a character observing how the world he lives in works." Do you guys also play that Clerics who have Knowledge: Religion don't have any idea whether a Nightwalker is more dangerous than a Skeleton?
Darwinism
Journeyman
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:19 pm

Post by Darwinism »

talozin wrote:
Novembermike wrote: 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.
Er, how do you know that? Perhaps he's a graduate of the campaign world equivalent of Hogwarts. Perhaps he's the scion of a family of wizards. Perhaps he just made his Spellcraft check, and so, yeah, he actually does know something about Wall of Stone.
That's called metagaming.
No, sorry. That's called "a character observing how the world he lives in works." Do you guys also play that Clerics who have Knowledge: Religion don't have any idea whether a Nightwalker is more dangerous than a Skeleton?
You are basing your characters actions off of your knowledge of the system and then justifying it. It's metagaming.
Last edited by Darwinism on Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Doctor Kenny Loggins
Journeyman
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:33 pm

Post by Doctor Kenny Loggins »

Are you seriously arguing that a character having knowledge of how the game system works and how two creatures (known in game to him) compare are the same thing?
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

Novembermike wrote:The PC never saw that character sheet and the concept of a character level is completely foreign to him, so it seems like this is just bad roleplaying.
In the world where people get actual in-setting abilities in consequent tiers, this concept is sure as hell not completely foreign to anyone with a brain. They might not be able to measure the character level exactly, but referring to people as masters of spells/maneuvers of Xth circle, and approximating their abilties from this, should be commonplace. Because in a system that isn't total bullshit, character's powers should correspond to their actual abilties within the setting (and vice versa, so you won't have supposedly god-slaying heroes, that can't do anything visually different from what Conan could do).
Last edited by FatR on Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
talozin
Knight-Baron
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:08 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by talozin »

Doctor Kenny Loggins wrote:Are you seriously arguing that a character having knowledge of how the game system works and how two creatures (known in game to him) compare are the same thing?
That's what Darwinism appears to be arguing, yes. Fortunately, knowing that wizards can actually learn "better spells" as they get more powerful, and even knowing what some of those spells actually do implies no knowledge of any "game system" or even knowledge that one actually exists.
Doctor Kenny Loggins
Journeyman
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:33 pm

Post by Doctor Kenny Loggins »

talozin wrote: That's what Darwinism appears to be arguing, yes.
Where?
Fortunately, knowing that wizards can actually learn "better spells" as they get more powerful, and even knowing what some of those spells actually do implies no knowledge of any "game system" or even knowledge that one actually exists.
We're getting bogged down by minutia here. None of this changes that the way the tower was made gives little to no information about what made it, and that saying the rules for it are important because they give information is flat out wrong.
Darwinism
Journeyman
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:19 pm

Post by Darwinism »

talozin wrote:
Doctor Kenny Loggins wrote:Are you seriously arguing that a character having knowledge of how the game system works and how two creatures (known in game to him) compare are the same thing?
That's what Darwinism appears to be arguing, yes. Fortunately, knowing that wizards can actually learn "better spells" as they get more powerful, and even knowing what some of those spells actually do implies no knowledge of any "game system" or even knowledge that one actually exists.
Actually it's the fact that you have chosen Wall of Stone as the most appropriate spell you know of that could accomplish it and then saying that, obviously, your character would know that too. That's the metagaming.
Last edited by Darwinism on Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
talozin
Knight-Baron
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:08 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by talozin »

Doctor Kenny Loggins wrote:
talozin wrote: 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.
We're getting bogged down by minutia here. None of this changes that the way the tower was made gives little to no information about what made it, and that saying the rules for it are important because they give information is flat out wrong.
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.
LR
Knight
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:15 am

Post by LR »

Halloween Jack wrote:
LR wrote: Except that when the players roll Arcana, it doesn't have any rules to reference, because magical obsidian towers aren't real things. The DM can go on and on about the arcane rituals required to make an obsidian tower, but until that ritual exists as a thing that PCs can find and use, it's nothing but meaningless and insulting fluff.
So when a WotC designer writes rules for a magic obsidian tower, magic obsidian towers become a real thing?

Have you been watching The Neverending Story a few too many times?

But seriously, what is it that you want? If something exists in the setting, there have to be rules in a book for building it? What if Kaelik had wanted to make a tower out of magically summoned pork? Is 3.5 a failure because it doesn't include written rules for how magic meat behaves? Is the DM being "insulting" when he crafts a unique scenario, creates an interesting location, and decides what the PCs can learn about their environment by making skill checks?

Sorry but this has gotten ridiculous; you've gone beyond "Criticisms of 4e" to "Criticisms of D&D in general" to "Complaining about the lack of things that have never existed in any tabletop RPG."

What do you want? Do you want tabletop RPGs to be geometaphysics simulator? It's never going to happen.
First, magical obsidian towers aren't real things. That's why we need rules for them, because we don't have reality to reference. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought they were real.

Anyways, 3.5 actually has magically summoned pork. One can create it using Major Creation or True Creation, but the best way to create it is through the use of Chain Bound Genies. We'll ignore the 3.5 rules for this, because 3.5 Wishes are crazy. We'll instead use the 3e Wish that lets us summon 15,000 gp worth of magical or nonmagical goods. Referencing the Arms and Equipment Guide, we find that salted pork is worth 3gp per pound, which is good, because we don't want to cut up an imaginary pig or use the rules for chunks of mystery meat from the PHB. A cubic foot of pork is roughly 37 pounds, so we know that we can wish up 2.5 tons, or 135 cubic feet, of salted pork per wish. Much more generous than the 20 cubic feet available to a 20th level caster with True Creation.

But to get to your point, I do think that once the game begins, any setting building tools available to the DM should be available to the players. That doesn't mean that players should be able to conjure continents into existence (unless you're playing a game with a collaborative setting), but I do think that if castles exist in the world, there better be rules that let players obtain or even build a castle without the DM's consent.
Locked