4e: Well and Truly F&%$ing Nigh

[VagrantWhisper]

Anything that allows a party of 1st level characters to defeat a challenge that should be well beyond their capabilities is considered anathema, a sure sign of "brokeness" which has to be avoided at all costs.

LOL ... This reminds me of a DM who used to SCREAM imbalance because my 2.0 Wizard (evoker) made it a tactical habit to take advantage of the Grease and Web spell's ability to add damage to fire based spells.  He was famous for throwing down Web, followed by Grease followed by fireball into confined rooms.

Subsequently ... 3.5 grease doesn't add damage to fire spells anymore ...

He also claimed Wand of Wonders was horribly imbalanced because one time I managed to disintegrate a dragon in the first round (never mind that we used expanded tables, which meant i had to roll 100 followed by 100 AND have the dragon fail its saving throw for like what?  1 in 130,000 chance?) ... but 15 years later that story still lives on in our group.

Have to say I agree with you though.  I'm tired of games (board, video, tabletop alike) removing things like creativity and luck by trying to create statistically equal probabilities of success and failure in all circumstances.

[VagrantWhisper]

I think it will make most people very happy and be a much better system than 3rd.

I guess this is where I'm lost in the whole issue.  From a purely non-emotional, non-partisan point of view, what REALLY sucks that bad about 3.x that needs changing SO much?

What i'm saying is relative to the other systems out there (say Palladium, or Rolemaster) IS 3.x really that broken?  Cause to be honest, except from a few niggilng issues that are generally patched by house rules or campaign setting (Midnights magic system seems relatively similar to whats been described in 4E already) its actually a pretty good system all in all.

Anyone here ever DM'ed a RIFTS campaign?  You wanna see complexity and convolution, that game will make your head spin.

Maybe I'm just a grognard now, and have to accept the fact LOL

[LeaderDesslok]

I guess this is where I'm lost in the whole issue.  From a purely non-emotional, non-partisan point of view, what REALLY sucks that bad about 3.x that needs changing SO much?

Grappling.

Honestly, my biggest problem is the Digital Initiative and the fact that everything will be subscription based. What I've seen so far of the character and mapping tools looks cool, but those are only prototypes that are unfinished. WotC's record with digital enhancements are lackluster at best, pathetically useless at worst. They have their work cut out convincing me i want to pay them a monthly fee to enhance my game, a game which my group only gets together to play about once a month.

Even if the rules suck I know I will be buying the core rules, but I'm a game designer so I want to stay on top of things. The DI, well that's another story.

[Fizz]

what REALLY sucks that bad about 3.x that needs changing SO much?

Grappling, combat (AoO in particular), actions, feats, skills, prestige classes...

I played 3E quite a bit.  But over the years i became disheartened by it because it is a rules hog.  I'm not saying they're aren't worse ones out there- you may be right about RIFTS (never played it).  But it shouldn't take two hours to adjudicate a couple rounds of combat.  There shouldn't be skill checks for every action you take.  There shouldn't be a rule to counter every rule that counters another rule.  If i wanted that i'd play MtG.  And there shouldn't be features that masquerade as `new options' when all they do is tell you what you can't do.

All that excess has turned 3E into a rules-lawyer's wet dream.  The emphasis is taken off the story.  Instead of roleplaying, it becomes roll-playing.  It's not about slaying the dragon, it's about finding the optimal set of modifiers to maximum your damage on a smite-cleave-judo-flaming-kick-bullrush.  I got tired of having to deal with minutia for every little thing.  I want to get back to the story, the adventure.

OK, sorry for the rant, but you did ask. 


-Fizz

[VagrantWhisper]

OK, sorry for the rant, but you did ask. 

No worries!  I realize as one of the newbs around here folks aren't going to fully appreciate my boundaries, but I think I can set straight, that right off the bat - I'll never have hurt feelings over a question I asked, even if i don't like the answer :-)

I suppose part of where I'm coming from is having played so many systems now, I can pretty much say that with the exception of a few, you've described 90% of them.  Its almost an epidemic of the hobby that so many systems award ROLL instead of ROLE-playing.  Every system I've seen fixes a rule with another rule, and even the most streamlined eventually becomes a quagmire of IF -> THIS, ELSE ->THAT

What I haven't seen out of 4th edition (going on previews from Gencon and Wizards.com), or Saga as its clostest representative, is anything that hasn't already been done within the context of the d20 system.

Turning classes into silos for skills/talents?  d20 Modern already did it with its profession progession model
Spell points and instant casting?  Midnight and Unearthed Arcana have reasonable alternatives
Faster Combat?  Book of 9 Swords.
Prestige Classes?  we don't use 'em, too Munchkin, but to each their own

What I have seen, is alot of people saying all the same things that they said about 3.0 and its revolution of the game.  All of which happen to be the things we're complaining about now :-)

I'll happily be proven wrong, but as it stands we've got a system that works well enough for our group and thousands of hours of Midnight, Dawnforge and Iron Kingdoms to play it out in.

~VW

[VagrantWhisper]

VagrantWhisper, out of the Shadows. Welcome to the posting world!

In all the haste of posting responses I forgot to say thanks for the welcome :-)

I love your site too by the way!

[PhadeOut]

Well, after more reading, here are my reasons that make 4E junk to me:

"Rules for non-combat encounters. The example given was social interaction. Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E. I make a skill check, but I also tell the DM what/how I'm doing. The opponent responds with behavior (and a check) of his own. I counter with a new check, and new words. And so forth."
 
PUKE - What garbage.  Let's make "Role-Playing" like combat?!?  OMG.  Someone should be fired.

There are four "roles".

    * Defender: fighter & paladin classes
    * Leader: cleric & warlord classes
    * Controller: wizard class
    * Striker: rogue & ranger classes

Although two PCs may serve the same role, they may do it in different ways. (Like fighters with different styles.) The roles are geared towards combat; a PC's non-combat aspects can differentiate him further. He also said that they are still considering the possibility of there being a class or two that doesn't quite fit the four "roles"
 
Eeeh, PUKE again.  This looks like something from a World of Warcraft walkthrough guide, double puke.  Let's not make an RPG that is MORE like an MMO...

There is also that fact that they are still doing "Character Builds" as a necessity.  It does seem that they are not requiring you to build your character from level 1 to 30, right from the start, which is nice to see, but I doubt the can deliver on this, especially since they are still using Prestige Classes - which necessitate planning.

[VagrantWhisper]

PUKE - What garbage.  Let's make "Role-Playing" like combat?!?  OMG.  Someone should be fired.

anyone else notice that the trend with 4E seems be "getting the chance to roll more dice in an evening". I love tactical gaming, don't get me wrong ... but if i wanted it to be the focus of my evening I'd go play Warhammer 40K. 

Everything I've seen so far in the demonstrations and discussions seems to amount to how much faster the room will swing around to "your turn".  Not once has anyone said, "we're making combat faster, so you can spend more time role playing your character, taming the wilds, ascending to god(dess)-hood, etc." Sure you can extrapolate that faster combat means more time for other things, but thats not how they're presenting it.

4E seems to (so far) be all about the combat game - which clearly in the world of WoTC includes diplomacy.

[LeaderDesslok]

"Rules for non-combat encounters. The example given was social interaction. Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E. I make a skill check, but I also tell the DM what/how I'm doing. The opponent responds with behavior (and a check) of his own. I counter with a new check, and new words. And so forth."
 
PUKE - What garbage.  Let's make "Role-Playing" like combat?!?  OMG.  Someone should be fired.

My biggest objection in your quote is in their explanation of diplomacy, they talk about you rolling against your opponent. So the hot barmaid I'm trying to seduce is now my opponent eh?

I believe they need to have some rules in there explaining to DMs how to adjudicate non-combat interactions, but from this explanation I think they went way overboard.

Of course, that's not a detailed explanation, and it's still only August. I sit patiently now, but I am fidgeting.

[Dirigible]

PUKE - What garbage.  Let's make "Role-Playing" like combat?!?  OMG.  Someone should be fired.

I dunno, I've heard good things about 'social combat' in Exalted - and very good things about Duels of Wits in Burning Wheel.

So the hot barmaid I'm trying to seduce is now my opponent eh?

Sure - she's opposed to your wicked, sinful ways!

[Glacialis]

Social combat in Exalted (which some gracious soul ported over to Scion and simplified it appropriately) is amazing. It gives social characters almost as many tactical options as physical combat characters. A similar system for magical combat would be excellent as well.

When I first heard about the new social rolls for 4e I thought, "Exalted social combat!" And got giddy. Apparently non-Exalted players heard about it and went, "Ugh!"