The Gaming Den

DeadlyReed wrote:Within the framework of 4E (which I don't DM), I was just suggesting how I would handle a situation. Did it really warrant all that?

1) As I understand it, "attacks as a part of a skill challenge" is not part of the skill challenge rules. You are already outside of the 4E framework.

2) Suggesting someone use the 4E skill challenge rules actually makes the game worse for anybody who uses your advice.

3) Did anything bad happen to you? Frank just summarized why skill challenges in general are a bad idea. He did not even casually hurl some insults your way while he was at it. And I am sure if you asked him to he would go into greater detail.

Complaining about a simple "fuck" that is not even aimed at you seems incredibly thin-skinned by any standard I have ever encountered.

Fine. I concede. Whatever. I think it's a lot of words when a simple "I just wouldn't use skill challenges because they're statistically meaningless and a waste of time" would've suffice.

Still, if the person is going to insist on using skill challenges, the idea is there and I don't feel like wasting time telling someone to do something they're not inclined to do.

Caedrus wrote:It's when an error takes more than 0.01 seconds to solve that I might actually care about it.

I sort of agree. I don't care about someone "abusing" the power of "you can do anything to reptiles: example: give them +2 dex" to give a reptile Alter Reality. That sort of thing is silly.

I also don't really care about Balor mining. Change the ability to "summon your sword", change the sword to actual gear (make it explode with Death Throes if you insist). That sort of fix is obvious and automatic.

I do care about the limits of wishing, about holy word abuse and about vacations on the negative energy plane. These are not obvious fixes and more importantly the amount of imbalance is variable, so you are going to be fine in 20 games and in the 21st game some player wishes for a ring of wishes and then asks you why all of sudden you have to houserule wish after every other player already wished for more expensive items.

To follow the earlier "removable discontinuity" metaphor, the thing is that you don't even give a damn about a design error until a point where removing it alters the overall graph and messes up your equations.

So, "armor imbalances" are seriously an infinitely more important issue than "Pun Pun is possible through a very specific abuse." No one actually cares that you made a game where Pun Pun wasn't possible, because the game they were playing was already a game where Pun Pun isn't possible at the point that they automatically houseruled it with no expenditure of effort whatsoever.

There is a difference between practical balance and design issues that are actually *issues* for people to solve and stuff you can just plain ignore.

crazysam wrote:1) combats last too long
2) tactics are minimal
3) there is very little conflict-resolution aside from "kill them all"

Do I understand your beliefs?

Look, the Socratic Argument is lame and we don't respect it. Constantly restating your opponent's position in an effort to trick them into signing off on a straw man you can knock down is a level of sophistry that is acceptable in high school debate clubs, but over here we'd prefer it if you at least pretended to interact with your opponent's actual argument.

The skill challenges thing is quite open and shut, but if you'd like me to break it down for you into small digestible math bits, I'm happy to do so. But the other major complaint aside from the fact that the basic rules for "doing stuff" is completely nonfunctional, is the fact that there is explicitly nothing in the universe for you to "do stuff" to.

It's a systemic problem. Enemies in 4e don't have equipment that you can loot. You can't steal from shops. You can't kill shop keepers. You can't get a job. Or build a castle. There is nothing to interact with except quest giving NPCs, Monsters, an Treasure Drops. That's seriously it.

The MMO comparison isn't weird or stretching things at all. There are green dots, red dots, and yellow dots. And if you want to do anything other than that, you pretty much have to just make things up and play Magical Princess Teaparty. If you're lucky. Often you have to manually overturn explicit restrictions on the system and then go cops and robbers it afterward.

Your "bad rules versus no rules" thing is not even relevant. Because in 4e you explicitly can't use the poison arrows that Medusa Archers run around with. Actually interacting with the "world" that has those physical objects in it doesn't just require that you make crap up off the top of your head, it requires that you actively overturn the rules on monster item drops. And if you do it, you'll probably severely undermine what little balance that 4e has. Thinking outside the box shows you that the bow is itself made of rice paper, and indeed without your mind rigidly inside it the whole thing collapses.

-Username17

crazysamaritan wrote:Except it isn't a house-rule. What's the stats for a guard? Go on, show me where they printed "NPC, Guard" in 4e.

PL beat me to the punch, this is a bad faith argument. For a start anyone arguing in good faith would assume I was using the word guard as a generic term rather than referring to a specific monster manual entry. Second, show me the rule for a creature changing from a minion to a normal NPC mid-fight.

TGD needs people who disagree with the majority. We need PL and Frank arguing. And we could honestly do with more people willing to question consensus. What we don't need are people slinging Oberoni around as an argument then deliberately making exceedingly obvious misrepresentations as counter. Well actually we already have that but don't need more.

Thread over.

My apologies to you, Lago, as though you seem like an extremist, you've quickly earned my respect by knowing just what the fuck you're talking about, whether we agree with you or not.


The rest of you have one opinion, YOUR fucking opinion, and no one else's could EVER matter to you. Hence, I'm wasting my time here. Trying to scan through your horseshit and personal opinion used as fact while trying to get to someone who isn't just an elitist fuck with lots of free time is far too tiring for someone working two jobs and trying to finish college.

Thanks anyway, but no thanks. Everyone here can keep on hating 4E, I could really care less. I'll be on the WotC Boards if anyone wants to hold a decent discussion, where you can't call someone a moron because they happen to like Skill Challenges and you don't.

Crimson Lancer wrote:My apologies to you, Lago, as though you seem like an extremist, you've quickly earned my respect by knowing just what the fuck you're talking about, whether we agree with you or not.


The rest of you have one opinion, YOUR fucking opinion, and no one else's could EVER matter to you. Hence, I'm wasting my time here. Trying to scan through your horseshit and personal opinion used as fact while trying to get to someone who isn't just an elitist fuck with lots of free time is far too tiring for someone working two jobs and trying to finish college.

Thanks anyway, but no thanks. Everyone here can keep on hating 4E, I could really care less. I'll be on the WotC Boards if anyone wants to hold a decent discussion, where you can't call someone a moron because they happen to like Skill Challenges and you don't.

Understand, Neo, that most people are not ready to be unplugged. They are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Crimson Lancer wrote:I'll be on the WotC Boards if anyone wants to hold a decent discussion, where you can't call someone a moron because they happen to like Skill Challenges and you don't.

The best thing about this is that Crimson Lancer did not provide a single defense of Skill Challenges. Go back and look at it, there is some discussion of the negatives of skill challenges from other people and a genuine offer to go step by step with the math behind these arguments. In light of these arguments he declined to make an argument and instead insulted the forum and left. Don't feel like you drove this asshole away, the diva-exit was clearly planned from the beginning.

If he had ever intended to engage in any real debate, he would have produced something, anything for his side of the "debate" rather than just crapping on the forum and then running away. I don't feel in any way sorry to see Crimson Lancer leave, because he never actually came.

-Username17

Frank, were you honestly expecting facts from dogmatic self delusioners? It's just like 'debating' with a religious person. Input: Whatever you want. Output: GIANT FUCKING FROG.

FrankTrollman wrote:because he never actually came.

Clearly he's a troll, and he got some rise out of us, so I'd say otherwise, Frank :p

Anyway, this thread was mildly amusing. It's awesome to set PhoneLobster onto people like a vicious attack dog, and then when Frank showed up it was like the Undertaker suddenly stepping into the arena.

Or something. I don't know, sleep hasn't really been a happening thing so I feel like I'm on coke, which is odd, seeing as I've never taken any and thus don't have a point of reference for that statement.

crazysamaritan wrote: Okay, so here's an argument.
4e is not a fun adventuring game because:
1) combats last too long
2) tactics are minimal
3) there is very little conflict-resolution aside from "kill them all"

Do I understand your beliefs?

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Though it's not so much about conflict resolution as it is about overcoming obstacles, in that you don't have much in the way of options.

FrankTrollman wrote: It's a systemic problem. Enemies in 4e don't have equipment that you can loot. You can't steal from shops. You can't kill shop keepers. You can't get a job. Or build a castle. There is nothing to interact with except quest giving NPCs, Monsters, an Treasure Drops. That's seriously it.

Well actually you can loot equipment, you just can't sell it for anything of worth.

And that I can totally understand. It's not realistic exactly, but it's fucking annoying when you've got PCs wasting hours of game time collecting every suit of chain armor, every masterwork longsword and every other damn thing in their portable hole, because not only do you have to wait for them to add all that shit up, but it takes forever for them to sell it too. And all the time wasted on that are minutes of my life I'd want back if I was either the DM or another player.

And that's the kind of bullshit that happens when GP is tied to power level and you allow free looting. The 4E solution may not be the best, but it simulates fantasy literature pretty well. Because generally, the heroes don't loot most of their enemies equipment. They take gold, gems or magic items and that's it. 4E still lets you take the longsword, it just doesn't give you incentive to collect 100 longswords to sell.

I'm not sure why you couldn't steal from shops. If you wanted to, you definitely could, it'd just be that you'd be more interested in stealing gold and gems rather than coils of rope or suits of armor. Which actually is pretty reasonable and works well within the fantasy genre. Unless of course, you'd rather have PCs dismantling every door off its hinges and every piece of furnishing in the dungeon to sell. Because really, 3.5 encourages you to do just that. Given how expensive traps are, if you find some arrow shooting trap, you're best bet is to actually gain access to the gearwork or what not and strip it down to sell.

RC2 wrote:Well actually you can loot equipment, you just can't sell it for anything of worth.

Not really, no. I mean, if it was just a situation like Hack where for whatever reason the default assumption was that you couldn't sell swag in order to buy different stuff at any meaningful rate that would be fine. There are lots of real life situations where that's basically true, such that looting is kept to a minimum. But seriously, I direct your attention to the Awarding Treasure discussion on page 125 of the 4e DMG. You fight enemies who have equipment, but there are no allowances for that equipment in the treasure charts.

Indeed, let's bust out the sample level 21 encounter with War Devils. You face a War Devil (who has a flaming trident), an Ice Devil (who has an Icy Longspear), 2 Bone Devils (who are naked), and 12 Legion Devils (who have Longswords). But the encounter only gives you one item or less. And that isn't unique or anything. The sample Bearded Devil encounter has 3 Bearded Devils who all have wounding glaives and 2 Yuan Ti archers who have magic bows and quivers full of poison arrows. But you still only get one item.

In order to allow people to pick up the items that the monsters are actually carrying into battle you have to do two things:

• Scrap the treasure rules, because the treasure rules don't allow you to get all the crap off of one batch of enemies over a whole level.
• Make a bunch of crap up because the books don't even tell you what the poison arrows of a Yuan Ti or the wounding glaive of a bearded devil does in the hands of a player character. Furthermore, the armor of an opponent is listed nowhere. A Gythyanki Gish has an AC of 31 and is drawn with some kind of shiny armor, but nothing is actually written anywhere what that armor is or does or what it would do in the hands of the player characters.

It's not just that the rules are written under the assumption that you won't use the stuff around you, it's that the rules need serious rules zeroing before you even can.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:The books don't even tell you what the poison arrows of a Yuan Ti or the wounding glaive of a bearded devil does in the hands of a player character.

A Bearded Devil has "equipment: glaive", which is just a regular non-magic glaive. It does ongoing damage and marks enemies because of how the Bearded Devil uses it, rather than because of a property of the item itself. This is reasonable.
The Yuan Ti archer shoots arrows that do ongoing poison damage, despite having regular arrows in their inventory, rather than poison arrows. This is stupid.

MartinHarper wrote: A Bearded Devil has "equipment: glaive", which is just a regular non-magic glaive. It does ongoing damage and marks enemies because of how the Bearded Devil uses it, rather than because of a property of the item itself. This is reasonable.
The Yuan Ti archer shoots arrows that do ongoing poison damage, despite having regular arrows in their inventory, rather than poison arrows. This is stupid.

Yeah, pretty much I always assumed it was just magic powers like the PCs got. When a paladin does radiant damage with his sword or the swordmage causes his sword to burn with fire, it's not because he's using a flaming sword or a holy sword, but rather because he has his own power that makes the weapon seem enchanted.

For the Yuan Ti, I always assumed that they might just lick the arrow with their own venom before firing it, or merely that the poison dries at the end of the encounter. If you used a poison arrow in the same encounter the DM may let your arrow have the same poison the Yuan Ti gets (which is easy enough to add on).

But by default, their equipment isn't really magical. It's just special monster powers that make it seem magical.

FrankTrollman wrote:Oh fuck no, you did not go there. The Skill Challenge rules are terrible.

Murtak wrote:4E skill challenges are obviously shitty and it is so incredibly easy to design a better system its an insult they even included them in the game.

Caedrus wrote:It's like they were seriously trying to make the skill challenge system as bad as possible. To even think that such a monstrosity is the result of careless blunder has staggering implications for the competence of the designers responsible.

I've read several threads which debate the effectiveness of the Skill Challenge. It is my opinion that the system works. However, because I cannot prove this position, I must concede this argument.

Murtak wrote:A failure in any check means the challenge fails.

I don't think this rule is conducive to Player success.

---

---

Are you aware that XP is a measure of how powerful a character is?
That all characters who have earned [x] XP are supposed to have roughly the same power level?
If character 'A' has twice as much XP as character 'B', then character 'A' has more power than character 'B' does.

---

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

crazysamaritan wrote:Can I summarize this as "4e is so balanced it's sterile"?

No, please don't. 4E is not balanced. It's more balanced than 3rd Edition but its neutering of player power and interaction only resulted in a modest improvement.

Okay, what about, "4e has reduced same-level power variables"?

---

---

PhoneLobster wrote:

crazysamaritan wrote:Then you should be able to cite which book, and the page numbers for me.

Lago did that and you acted like a moronic asshole and denied it in the face of direct references.

crazysamaritan wrote:

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I'm not saying that 3rd Edition was better than 4th Edition because the rules for running Lefty's Bar and Grill were better, but because they had rules for running Lefty's Bar and Grill.

And I'm telling you that those rules weren't complete. I don't care if you can use the available rules in 3e to create a system for handling a player-run tavern. If I wanted to, I could do the same in 4e.

He did not provide what I asked for. He provided page numbers to rules that did not do what he claimed they did. I don't refute that "3e DMG had rules for hirelings". Or "3e has rules for demographics". I refute that 3e DMG had rules for a complete economy (or in this case, managing a bar). As Lago said in another post, he extrapolated from the available information to create his economy. I applaud his initiative in making things up. I point out that it was his[/i] skill in doing so. What he did was not done by the rules, he did it himself.

If he wants to argue that 4e doesn't inspire him to create an economy, I'll concede that. But neither 4e or 3e have rules for a complete economy.

---

PhoneLobster wrote:

Tell me, in order to know "dick" about 3e, do I have to pass the 3.5 Herald test? Because I've only tried a couple times. Can I know "dick" about 3e by DMing it? Because I've done that several times.

So you passed a remarkably easy online quiz, and you have played the game "several" times. ("Several", really? That's your "HAH!, totally l33t experience credentials in your face!", really?)

Remarkably easy? I'm sorry, I don't feel I know the errata and minutiae of 3.5 well enough to consider the test easy. I told you that I failed several times. That I have still not passed the test is not a point in favor of my credentials, it is a point against them. Because you don't know me, I felt required to give you evidence to support your claim. The support for my claim (that I am familiar with the 3e rule system) is in the fact that I have DMed several 3e games.

Draco_Argentum wrote:PL beat me to the punch, this is a bad faith argument. For a start anyone arguing in good faith would assume I was using the word guard as a generic term rather than referring to a specific monster manual entry. Second, show me the rule for a creature changing from a minion to a normal NPC mid-fight.

It's not mid-fight.

PhoneLobster wrote:Because it is ENTIRELY a house rule to literally transform a monster to a minion and back to simulate a replacement stealth and ambushing system because the existing one is mostly non existent and full of utter suck.

Perhaps we're using different meanings for "House-rule". I define a "house-rule" as "changing part of the rules". The idea of a monster having no statistics until a threshold event does not re-write any rule that I am aware of.

FrankTrollman wrote:Look, the Socratic Argument is lame and we don't respect it. Constantly restating your opponent's position in an effort to trick them into signing off on a straw man you can knock down is a level of sophistry that is acceptable in high school debate clubs, but over here we'd prefer it if you at least pretended to interact with your opponent's actual argument.

Strawman?

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

crazysamaritan wrote: Okay, so here's an argument.
4e is not a fun adventuring game because:
1) combats last too long
2) tactics are minimal
3) there is very little conflict-resolution aside from "kill them all"

Do I understand your beliefs?

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Though it's not so much about conflict resolution as it is about overcoming obstacles, in that you don't have much in the way of options.

1) Combat lasts too long.
I'm not sure about this one; the combat goes faster when you've practiced with the system, and it's going quickly enough for me. It's also easy to fall into Oberonii territory with suggestions on how to make it go faster.

2) Tactics are minimal.
I don't see the support for this at all. Positioning is a significant aspect of the 4e battlefield. Powers that allow re-positioning are therefore powerful. Deciding between the use of an encounter or daily is a serious choice. When to use an Action Point is also a tactical consideration. The dynamic of the fighter holding back one enemy, while the strikers attack the rest of the encounter, is another style of tactics. Which enemy the fighter should target is also important; does he target the brute? Should he go after the leader? Is it better to hold the lurkers down to one spot?

3) There are very few options in how you're allowed to overcome obstacles.
But the DMG encourages the DM to support any idea that the player has in any conflict, as well as offering rules for how to adjudicate the situation. If a player wants to "swing on a chandelier and shove the orc into the brazier", then the DM has a guide in the DMG on how to reward that player with her creativity.
It also gives a general challenge level for any Difficulty Class that the DM may have the player target.
Could more be done? I hope so. 4th Edition is far from complete.

If your objections are more the realm of "But the DM has to adjudicate those options", then I'm afraid I don't understand what the problem is. Is there an edition that has rules for every action the player might take in the core rules?

FrankTrollman wrote:Enemies in 4e don't have equipment that you can loot. You can't steal from shops. You can't kill shop keepers. You can't get a job. Or build a castle. There is nothing to interact with except quest giving NPCs, Monsters, and Treasure Drops. That's seriously it.

If I understand this, you claim 4e rules do not adjudicate interactions with anything other than combat. You also provide for an explanation of Quest XP. The only result of defeating an encounter is XP and Treasure.

Do I understand this correctly?

RandomCasualty2 wrote:But by default, their equipment isn't really magical. It's just special monster powers that make it seem magical.

With the exception of when the DM gives the monsters the magic weapons the PCs would earn, this is my understanding, as well.

crazysamaritan wrote: 1) Combat lasts too long.
I'm not sure about this one; the combat goes faster when you've practiced with the system, and it's going quickly enough for me. It's also easy to fall into Oberonii territory with suggestions on how to make it go faster.

Well I've played some 4E and I've tried it with people experienced with the rules and not experienced. The problem is that there are just too many things to keep track of in combat and it takes so many hits to down a monster. with the myriad of save ends and "end of next turn" effects that are being tossed around you have to remember a lot.

2) Tactics are minimal.
I don't see the support for this at all. Positioning is a significant aspect of the 4e battlefield. Powers that allow re-positioning are therefore powerful. Deciding between the use of an encounter or daily is a serious choice. When to use an Action Point is also a tactical consideration. The dynamic of the fighter holding back one enemy, while the strikers attack the rest of the encounter, is another style of tactics. Which enemy the fighter should target is also important; does he target the brute? Should he go after the leader? Is it better to hold the lurkers down to one spot?

4E is basically a game of focused fire and stunlocks. Seriously that's it. Marks generally just aren't even powerful enough to outweigh the idea of someone focusing on you. So you all target one monster at a time until you bring him down, and you try to stunlock the monsters that do the most damage. Meanwhile if anyone gets weak, the leaders heal him.

4E has only very basic tactics, and there just aren't any counters to those tactics. There is no way to counter focusing fire or combat healing. So it pretty much means you can use the same tactic over and over again and win. Which by definition means that the game is tactically weak.

Now granted, 3E tactics weren't all that in depth either, but at the very least you had options like dispelling magic and the combats were faster. 4E combats are tactically poor and also take forever to resolve.

3) There are very few options in how you're allowed to overcome obstacles.
But the DMG encourages the DM to support any idea that the player has in any conflict, as well as offering rules for how to adjudicate the situation. If a player wants to "swing on a chandelier and shove the orc into the brazier", then the DM has a guide in the DMG on how to reward that player with her creativity.

That's still solving a problem via straight up kick down the door style combat. Even if you do get to occasionally invent cinematic moves, it's still not finding alternate solutions to problems, you're just adding some extra flavor to hack and slash.

Which isn't bad, but it still doesn't mean that you're solving problems by any means other than kicking the door down.

There are business rules in DMG II pg 183

Are you aware that XP is a measure of how powerful a character is?
That all characters who have earned [x] XP are supposed to have roughly the same power level?
If character 'A' has twice as much XP as character 'B', then character 'A' has more power than character 'B' does

Actually it's level that tells how powerful a character is. Xp represents the learning and experience that leads to the next level.

crazysamaritan wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:Oh fuck no, you did not go there. The [Holocaust] [was] terrible.

Murtak wrote:[The Holocaust] [was] obviously shitty and it is so incredibly easy [be a more moral guy then Hitler].

Caedrus wrote:It's like they were seriously trying to make the [Holocaust] as bad as possible. To even think that such a monstrosity is the result of careless blunder has staggering implications for the competence of the [people] responsible.

I've read several threads which debate the [morality] of the [Holocaust]. It is my opinion that the system [is moral]. However, because I cannot prove this position, I must concede this argument.

Your attempt to criticize from relativism fails. Please don't try again. In the future, please admit that things either work well or do not work well. And that whether or not the skill challenge system works is not an opinion statement.

Also, seriously, a skill challenge is pure math. There's a right and wrong answer for what it does, and what probabilities it generates. There aren't even meaningful decisions once you get started. This means that you get the same end result for just doing some math (you can program a computer to do this) and then making a single die roll.

There's a right and a wrong answer for the math, and the right answer to the math says that skill challenges don't do anything useful.

Ok, Mr. Defend-4E, forget any fancy testing you may have undertaken for 3.5. Answer me these questions, which should, beyond all levels of belief, answer whether you know anything about 3E whatsoever.

1) Who is more powerful, a beguiler or a wizard? Why?
2) What is the most fundamental flaw to the 3.5 fighter?
3) What is an example of a character who can play the game at all levels effectively and why?
4) Why is the Complete Arcane warlock inefficient?
5) Is Tome of Battle unbalanced or not? Why?

And then, these questions about 4E:

1) What is the most powerful cleric paragon path yet printed? Why?
2) What is the most powerful epic destiny in the 4E Player's Handbook? Why?
3) Is the two-weapon ranger the best two-weapon user in the game? Why or why not?
4) What is the optimal fighter race? Why?
5) What is the most effective 4E tactic at any level?

If you can answer these, we can continue this discussion knowing exactly how much you know.

If the archers lick their arrows before shooting them, the Monster Manual should say that. That's the type of detail that PCs would notice, and it should be narrated as it happens, not after the fight during the looting phase.

crazysamaritan wrote:{Lago} extrapolated from the available information to create his economy.

This is something we can't do in 4e, because there is almost no relevant information to "extrapolate" from.