The Gaming Den

RandomCasualty2 wrote: Well I mean she made some good points.

She started off with a reasonable question (When should I care about a +1 or +2 bonus?) and then within two posts fell into a pile of bizarre accusations, telling everyone that they were playing wrong.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote: If you look at her blog, she obliquely indicates that someone kept messaging her with links to this board. Anyway, it's good to have people like that come over here and rant. Every so often, they storm off in a huff and then come back a bit later to be regular contributors (presumably having seen the error in their ways). Not many, mind you, but it tends to be the smart ones that have the mental flexibility to change.

Well I mean she made some good points. It was just that the whole counter to the orbizard was pretty poor, because it relied pretty much on a very small subset of enemies that happen to be stun/daze resistant, which is basically just the hydras. Anything that limits you so severely in your encounter design is broken, especially if it involves using that many solos in an encounter (talk about grind city). Would anyone really use 5+ solo monsters in a single encounter?

AlexandraErin AKA ShillBot wrote:The climactic battles she's set up... and she likes the Boss Battle model... are against foes that probably would TPK us if we're not careful or that would devolve into a boring grind if we didn't come up with a creative solution... some being "puzzle fights" where elements in the room can be used to defeat the boss once bloodied, and some being creative use of skills and roleplay... yes, this is Magic Tea Party land, but what's the point of playing a game with a human brain adjudicating results on the fly if it's not so you can do things that exceed the scope of the system's programmed results?

Answer: Yes, but only if they were cheating to make it not such a grind.

As for the equipment bit, yes it's just a tool of the trade and a means to an end. No argument there. However 4.Fail is not a roleplaying game, nor is it a ROLEplaying game. It's supposed to be, but isn't, just as the plot for pretty much every CRPG and MMORPG ever is 'stab things in the face and steal their shit' and unlike tabletop it stops there. In other words, RPG in name only. Or MMORPG in slow mo. Whatever works.

Roy wrote: However 4.Fail is not a roleplaying game, nor is it a ROLEplaying game. It's supposed to be, but isn't, just as the plot for pretty much every CRPG and MMORPG ever is 'stab things in the face and steal their shit' and unlike tabletop it stops there. In other words, RPG in name only. Or MMORPG in slow mo. Whatever works.

Well, no.

That all depends on how you play it. The fact that it emphasizes combat isn't all that remarkable. Every RPG does that. There are more rules for combat in 3E, 2E, GURPS, Shadowrun... fuck I mean you name it, the RPG combat rules are the biggest section of game rules and mechanics.

Now that doesn't mean the game is only about combat. It just means that combat takes the most rules. I mean, you dont' really even need specific rules for roleplaying encounters, it can literally just be the player plays his PC and the DM plays his NPCs.

What percentage of the game is RP and what's fighting is pretty much up to the PCs and DMs. I've had 3E games that are pure hack and slash. I've had 3E games that have a battle like once every 5 sessions. Neither is really a right way or wrong way to play the game.

4E is pretty much the same way. The only real reason 4E feels like it's all combat is because combats take so fucking long, so when a battle starts, you know pretty much half the night is going to be taken up resolving it. If it's some twisted DM battle with 5+ solos, it's going to take the entire night, and possibly be split over two nights of gaming. And at that point regardless of how much story you had before then, by the end of that long combat, most of your PCs will have forgotten what the story was in the first place and why they were there. All they're going to be thinking about is how they had to grind through nearly 5000 HP worth of monsters by spamming their at-wills 50 times in a row.

BZZT! Wrong answer!

Players do what they are encouraged to do. And 4.Fail slaps you with a dual wielded dick and trout every time you try to actually interact with the world. And that's BEFORE dealing with the abortion orgy of skill challenges and merchants who buy everything for 20% price. Combined with the focus on combat (which it STILL got wrong) and what you have is a terrible grindfest, and nothing more. You can fucking copy paste the Fail that is Diplomacy rules everywhere and still have a large net improvement. That's how fucked it is.

Roy wrote: Players do what they are encouraged to do.

Players do what they have fun doing. In fact, if combats are boring and PCs hate them, they'll actively try to find ways to avoid combats, even if they don't get any XP or anything for doing that.

One of the main flaws of 4E is in fact that its combats tend to be boring to a lot of players, and people want to actually avoid them at all costs.

And 4.Fail slaps you with a dual wielded dick and trout every time you try to actually interact with the world. And that's BEFORE dealing with the abortion orgy of skill challenges and merchants who buy everything for 20% price.

Selling stuff isn't really roleplaying, that's just inventory management tedium.

As far as talking to NPCs, I honestly don't see why that's any worse in 4E than it is in 3.5. I really never bought into the whole "social skills make the game better" crap. Because really I've never seen evidence of that. Ever. Having too many social rules IMO really kills the roleplaying. I mean if you play 3.5 diplomacy by the book, NPCs no longer act with any logical whatsoever. You can run over and go stab someone's children, make him hate you and then one standard action diplomacy check later, he's your friend. It doesn't even matter what you say, and there's no logic or explanation as to why he likes you.

If that's not anti-roleplaying and a total storykiller, I don't know what is. Seriously, you can't even tell stories with 3.5 diplomacy.

Ugh. Someone else care to smite the latest apologetic outbreak?

Here's something that Roy's post made me realize:

3e is designed in such a way that the game relies on implicit trust between players and DMs. 3e is designed with the idea that players will not act like jerks by breaking the game, even if they can. 3e is designed with the idea that the casters and non-casters are going to work as a team to defeat challenges. 3e is designed with the idea that everyone can appreciate everyone else's character and his or her contributions to the party.

4e? 4e is the exact opposite. In 4e, the rules serve to protect players and DMs from one another--the players can't break the game and they can't deviate significantly from their assigned role, and the DMs are supposed to play monsters by the book. 4e forces everyone to work as a team because, individually, the characters are pathetically weak. 4e demands that all party members contribute equally, that everyone performs according to his or her role, that your character can't do more than any other character.

4e is a game for people who don't know how to play D&D.

PR that logic doesn't even make much sense. You're basically saying that 3.5 is better because you need a gentleman's agreement not to break it? WTF?

That sounds like the shit people say to defend Rifts.

I mean, I don't even like 4E, but some of the arguments used to bash it and defend 3.5 just really confuse me.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:You can run over and go stab someone's children, make him hate you and then one standard action diplomacy check later, he's your friend. It doesn't even matter what you say, and there's no logic or explanation as to why he likes you.

But this doesn't differ significantly from the general unreality of the rest of the nonmagical things that people can do in 3e. Like standing broadjump 50 feet.

It certainly doesn't differ meaningfully from the mind-control effects that we see tossed around by the various casters and critters. In one case the player casts a spell and the DM says, "The magic takes hold of the half-orc's mind, and he smiles at you pleasantly." In the other, the player use a skill and the DM says, "Your mastery of vocal cadences and psychology induces a sense of calm in the half-orc, who smiles at you pleasantly."

NineInchNall wrote: But this doesn't differ significantly from the general unreality of the rest of the nonmagical things that people can do in 3e. Like standing broadjump 50 feet.

But the broad jump doesn't really break the story. It just means you're telling a story about people who can jump 50 feet. Whatever. Odd physics doesn't get in the way of telling a story. In fact, all sci-fi and fantasy is about odd physics. Even action movies tend to do shit like that.

The diplomacy rules on the other hand basically remove any element of NPC personality and logic from your story, which is an absolute deathblow to any story you may want to tell. It's like taking any drama and replacing all the dramatic scenes with the actor just saying "blah blah blah blah blah" in a monotone, and then having the other guy either randomly agree with him or disagree, but the audience has no idea why.

The entire story is fucked up the ass at that point, because you can't even follow what's going on or why. And that's a huge deal.

But ... It doesn't matter to the story what he says. All that matters is that the character uses an ability (spell, skill, feat, or whatever) and a resulting change occurs.

Note that this is assuming that you don't feel equal antipathy toward the charm/dominate/glibness style spells.

NineInchNall wrote:But ... It doesn't matter to the story what he says. All that matters is that the character uses an ability (spell, skill, feat, or whatever) and a resulting change occurs.

Are you kidding?

That's integral to the story. The story is about understanding its characters and their psychology. If you don't have that, and your characters just do random shit "just because", then you have no story. Your characters don't even make any fucking sense. What you end up with is basically the writing for Heroes.

"I'm good now."
"Nope, evil again."
"Oops, good again."
"Nah. Just joking, I'm seriously evil."

Note that this is assuming that you don't feel equal antipathy toward the charm/dominate/glibness style spells.

Charm and dominate, no, because quite simply, those spells are explainable within the story. The guy was affected by magic and the reason he's friendly is quite simply because he's been mind controlled. Similarly high tech brainwashing or demonic possession and the like works in the same manner. Someone is doing something against his nature quite simply because he's no longer in control anymore. He's been mind controlled by some external force, whether that's a mind control chip in his head, or some kind of magic, it really doesn't matter. It's not the character's free will acting, his free will has been overridden.

But if you're saying that it's a result of some kind of smooth talking and diplomacy, I want to hear what the other guy is saying. This isn't a matter of free will being overridden, but rather the guy being convinced that the action is in his best interest. I mean I like manipulative characters in stories and I like watching them actively manipulate people by exploiting their hopes, dreams and fears. And that's actually cool, but for the scene to have any effect, you have to know what it is that they're saying. Otherwise it's just plain frustrating, since you can't even follow the story.

Right RC, we get it. You have a double standard for "convincing people with words" that you don't have for any other thing people do. Up to an including convincing people with red lasers or intimidating sword stances.

But you know what? So fucking what? That still doesn't address the fact that the action in 4e is still "shake the bard at the problem" - it's just that the 4e version has replaced the bard player rolling one die and having an effect based on how high he rolled with the bard having a number of times he has to roll his dice based on the effect he was looking for and then just rolling his dice that many times and either succeeding or failing as befits the binary results of his numerous die rolls.

The thing where it comes to your skills at magical teaparty to explain what it was that you said that was so convincing that it maid the mayor's daughter want to become a vampire and join your army as a vampire sex kitten is a constant. It's just that in 4e there are less possible outcomes and the rest of the party is watching with their mouths open why you roll dice for ten times as long. So your double standard doesn't even matter. I don't know why you even brought it up.

-Username17

So what if the rules dictated that succeeding on a diplomacy DC higher than a certain amount automatically makes it supernatural?

Sort of like a high enough balance DC to walk on water or air?

FrankTrollman wrote: The thing where it comes to your skills at magical teaparty to explain what it was that you said that was so convincing that it maid the mayor's daughter want to become a vampire and join your army as a vampire sex kitten is a constant. It's just that in 4e there are less possible outcomes and the rest of the party is watching with their mouths open why you roll dice for ten times as long. So your double standard doesn't even matter. I don't know why you even brought it up.

Well the thing with 4E is that it lets the DM set the benefits of success and failure of skill challenges (or even to have skill challenges at all). What this means is that at the very least you're giving veto power to the DM to overrule stupid shit. Because the question of how far you can influence someone with a check is entirely in his hands. As opposed to 3.5 where the rules specifically say you can turn anyone into your friend if they meet the required criteria, and then goes on to set a static DC and that it only takes a standard action to do it.

Now I don't dispute that skill challenges suck ass. They totally do. However, that doesn't change the fact that the 3.5 social system would completely destroy your game if you didn't house rule it. The 4E system, being so vague and loosely defined as to almost not be a system at all, may not destroy your game if the DM handles it correctly. That fact alone pretty much makes it better. Anything that is such a problem that it must be houseruled or it will break your game is worse than no system at all.

RC2 wrote: Now I don't dispute that skill challenges suck ass. They totally do. However, that doesn't change the fact that the 3.5 social system would completely destroy your game if you didn't house rule it.

That's not true.

The level when you can start getting diplomacy DCs high enough to turn people who hate you into dedicated followers is about the same level when you get access to day-long mind control effects.

Now, granted, it was very easy to push your diplomacy DCs up to that point before that happened, but I am just not feeling your point that a skill check that convinces Dark Lord Steve to be your friend breaks the game more than a magic spell that convinces Dark Lord Steve to be your friend.

The 4E system, being so vague and loosely defined as to almost not be a system at all, may not destroy your game if the DM handles it correctly and is therefore better.

This is true, but the 3E problem can be a lot more easily fixed than the 4E problem. Which makes this statement true in a useless and misleading way.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: Now, granted, it was very easy to push your diplomacy DCs up to that point before that happened, but I am just not feeling your point that a skill check that convinces Dark Lord Steve to be your friend breaks the game more than a magic spell that convinces Dark Lord Steve to be your friend.

Honestly, there's really no place this doesn't fuck things up.

If you want a game based around hack and slash, this ability is an instant win against any NPC you want. Whether it's Farmer Bill or Ao, overgod of Toril, a single diplomacy check can make him your friend for no apparent reason. So that means every intelligent monster is no longer even remotely a threat to you.

As far as any roleplaying or storytelling, honestly I think it'd be stupid if your NPCs decision making sounds like the writing on Heroes. Maybe you'd disagree, maybe you'd agree, I don't know. But that's just my opinion and I don't want my campaign to be like that. I like my NPCs to be as close as they can to real people with real goals. You can trick them by exploiting those goals and desires, but there is always a reason for something they do. But under no circumstances, do I want my NPCs to just do random shit that makes no sense, because I'm trying to create a believable world.

That just kills suspension of disbelief for me.

This is true, but the 3E problem can be a lot more easily fixed than the 4E problem. Which makes this statement true in a useless and misleading way.

Honestly, I've yet to see anyone fix 3E diplomacy. Every fix to it is usually worse than the original system, like Rich Berlew's often brought up diplomacy system.

The Shadowrun social system is kind of okay, because it uses DM fiat mixed with dice to determine things. The more codified and absolute a social system is, the more it pretty much sucks. Social systems really benefit from being more loosely defined similar to 4E, instead of 3E and the absolute system.

You can trick them by exploiting those goals and desires, but there is always a reason for something they do. But under no circumstances, do I want my NPCs to just do random shit that makes no sense, because I'm trying to create a believable world.

That just kills suspension of disbelief for me.

So then high-level diplomacy becomes the new charm/dominate person. Just like high-level climb becomes the new spider-climb. Easy.

What was your problem with it? That high-level diplomacy doesn't say that it's magic? Is that all? Fine. High-level diplomacy is magic. Whooptee shit.

Honestly, I've yet to see anyone fix 3E diplomacy. Every fix to it is usually worse than the original system, like Rich Berlew's often brought up diplomacy system.

The fix to it would be either to bring skill check bonus items down to earth or increase the DC and/or increasing the time it takes to make a diplomacy check, so that if you barge into Dark King Steve's castle he can still ghetto stab you and call the guards before you change his mind.

The Shadowrun social system is kind of okay, because it uses DM fiat mixed with dice to determine things. The more codified and absolute a social system is, the more it pretty much sucks. Social systems really benefit from being more loosely defined similar to 4E, instead of 3E and the absolute system.

That's a personal opinion, not a statement of fact. Some people really hate loose social systems for reasons people have given you repeatedly.

[In hindsight, this post is overly long; but whatever, i wrote it hours ago, and got interrupted doing something else.]

AlexandraErin wrote:You guys like math.

Here's math:

You guys get more TPKs than are normal and take longer to win the fights that you do win. That's a simple greater than-less than situation.

Explain to me how it is that you don't suck at playing 4E.

Now explain to me how this is the system's problem.

Playing rules as written, with minimal use of DM Fiat and often no use of it inside combat, other groups do better than you. They survive more often. They end battles faster.

The problem's not with the system.

Give me average 10 fights for 4e and tell me how long they take to fight out.

Nothing crazy, just the "stock" 4E team, better still, use the 1st level character sheets that are on the WoTC site

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dn ... ctersheets

Show me how well a 4 person party does against the pre-generated adventrure: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/duarch/adp

None of this "customized encounters to the party" bullshit. Since that is what it is, it's contrived bullshit.

I've seen that tons, it's contrived as fuck, and looks and feels contrived as well. It also means that you as a GM are a shitty person without creativity.

If you can't figure out how to explain a "random" fight off of the random encounters table, then you have no fucking business being a GM of any kind. You're just a coddling and ultimately useless human being who wishes to coddle, and not challenge their players.

If the player's characters cannot face, survive or otherwise defeat the encounters that are "possible" within the system and within their power-range (CR's ranging from 5 levels higher than the party level all the way to 8 levels lower the Party level), then the system also has no fucking business existing. Yes, seriously, 5 levels higher. Anything less and you're a coddling waste of a an eager egg and a fast sperm. That's a boss fight. Players should expect to face one really hard (nearly lethal) fight every level.

Anything less and it's hobo-hour at the local dungeon.

Races of War, and Dungenomicon were both written because the 3.5 PHB had classes that had no business in existing. These classes were for the most part what we called "non-spell casters"; with only Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue and Ranger being considered somewhat 'balanced'. Every other class was a piece of shit.

The problem with 4E, is that almost every class is in the POS category to one degree or an other.

AlexandraErin wrote: Though two minions isn't a threat to the party's Barbarian, with recuperating strike, but I don't leave her with just two for long. If everybody in the party was a Barbarian with recuperating strike, or could otherwise re-invigorate themselves every turn, I wouldn't use this tactic. That different tactics work differently with different parties doesn't mean the system is broken. It means that characters have differing abilities.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Characters must individually have a diverse enough portfolio of powers to deal with anything that they face at any level. Remember, at the core, every character is an adventurer.

Adventurers are more than a rigidly defined set of numbers, and usually a lot more than their character sheet. Usually, the character sheet only hints at what sort of level of power a character really has.

In the hands of a player with excellent tactical and strategic ability; a character is a living maelstorm of death, able to detect and defeat traps of all kinds, able to heal their entire party from the brink of death, able to remove nearly any type of status effect (from Nausea to Ability Drain to Death); as well as be durable and tough enough to withstand as much combat and spell-caster attention as the whole party might have to face at once.

Yes, I seriously build characters that are quad-threats, it's actually not that hard to make a non-caster that is a quad-threat (Deeps; Traps; Heels; Magics). I think that it's actually the standard that any character should eventually be. Anything else is a wandering hobo doing amateur hour at the local dungeon.

4E steps away from this idea that characters are able to be capable, and now turns each character class into some sort of limited option "toolshed". The problem is that each individual toolshed is actually very limited.

These 4E classes are a "toolshed" with a only a screwdriver, hammer, saw and wrench [re-usable At-Wills]; with a three Power Tools that run off of a single battery [Encounter Powers]; and one or two big tools, like a Bandsaw or a Drillpress [Daily Powers].

That's cool, but it's a very much lacking Toolshed. It's missing files, a mix of saws, more than one type of screwdriver (and in different sizes); sanding tools; a mix of power tools; and a proper toolshop will have more than just a bandsaw and a drillpress; there's Lathes, tablesaws, scrollsaws, and even triphammers that can all find their place in a toolshop.

With a limited range of tools, the game itself is also equally limited.

The truth is, it's not that we are not reading the rules for 4E. It's that you sound like you're slumming on trash mobs. That's why you don't see any problems. It's that you are playing the game on easy-mode. While we are looking at every monster compared to every character.

We're not matching up ideal matches for every PC class, we're instead matching the "normal" PCs that the designers expect us to play, and matching them up against the monsters in the books. It's not good.

However, when you're slumming, any game seems "fine."

Lago PARANOIA wrote: So then high-level diplomacy becomes the new charm/dominate person. Just like high-level climb becomes the new spider-climb. Easy.

What was your problem with it? That high-level diplomacy doesn't say that it's magic? Is that all? Fine. High-level diplomacy is magic. Whooptee shit.

It's not so much magic, but it should be considered an attack too, and have all the social ramifications of casting dominate person on somebody. It should also be easily recognizable to onlookers that the guy is using mind control.

I don't like the idea that using logical arguments and diplomacy is lumped in the same action as using mind control. It's not so much that I don't want a bard to be able to mind control someone, it's just that I want the guy's guards to at least be able to ready an action to stab him in the face if he starts his mind control mojo, and it should be noticeably different from just regular talking.

It's more the subtlety that bothers me more than anything. The fact that people don't consider the guy with tons of diplomacy to be a threat. I mean, seriously, if diplomacy like this existed, they'd shoot people who raised a flag of truce and everyone would walk around with earplugs so as to not be susceptible to that kind of attack.

The fix to it would be either to bring skill check bonus items down to earth or increase the DC and/or increasing the time it takes to make a diplomacy check, so that if you barge into Dark King Steve's castle he can still ghetto stab you and call the guards before you change his mind.

Well you can certainly make diplomacy suck to the point that the moment someone starts using it, it's just a clarion call for the guy to attack, as if someone walked in and started chanting the mind control ritual of doom. I mean, you can do that I guess where at the end of the diplomacy use that takes like 1 minute or whatever everyone just stops and turns into a mindless drone. It could just be a mass charm person spell like ability or something.

But really, that's still not about roleplaying, that's just mind control. So to even claim its some kind of social or roleplaying skill at that point is just a total joke. All it really is just an enchantment skill.

That's a personal opinion, not a statement of fact. Some people really hate loose social systems for reasons people have given you repeatedly.

Well of course it's an opinion. Everything about rating game systems is an opinion. Liking 4E is an opinion, thinking 4E is a bad system is an opinion. Liking psionics is an opinion.

Unless you're talking about cold mathematical fact, you're generally talking about opinions.

I would say that 4e takes the tactics away, because of the length of the combat. In 3e, there were default method to creating choke points on the battle map... 4e allows many monsters and players to slide around the map and ignore other actors on the map.

Which merely means the best strategy of focused-fire is almost always the one available.

-Crissa

PS: hogarth, admittedly, she was replying admidst a Roy-swarm.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:PR that logic doesn't even make much sense. You're basically saying that 3.5 is better because you need a gentleman's agreement not to break it? WTF?

No, 3e is better than 4e because it's designed with the assumption of "no dickery here." 4e is designed to protect dick players and dick DMs from each other--which fails, as dicks are dicks and will continue to be dicks even if the system doesn't allow for tricky dick things.

Psychic Robot wrote: No, 3e is better than 4e because it's designed with the assumption of "no dickery here." 4e is designed to protect dick players and dick DMs from each other--which fails, as dicks are dicks and will continue to be dicks even if the system doesn't allow for tricky dick things.

Seemed kinda like the opposite to me. 3E really seemed to have that tight codified rules emphasis of protecting PCs from DMs who tried to hose them by creating a rule for everything. 4E definitely loosened its restrictions and let the DM freeform a bit more.

As far as protection, 3E was more of a DM straitjacket.

I'm not sure that "freeform" equates to "lol make it up this is a minis game."

RandomCasualty2 wrote: the writing for Heroes.

"I'm good now."
"Nope, evil again."
"Oops, good again."
"Nah. Just joking, I'm seriously evil."

GAWD, season 3 was terrible. They should seriously right that season off as an alternate timeline entirely and pick up from the end of season 2 again.