3) Background are like multi classing feats...they are great if you want to do x style character but fails spectacularly with y style of character.
That seems to be a major issue with 4e, for me. It's pretty good, as long as you do what it wants you to do. If you try to do anything else, it begs you not to, and when you insist you want to, it just breaks down.
I still don't understand what the system CAN'T let you do. No one has really said anything.
Feh. You're just slow!
If you have too much mechanics, you clearly can't roleplay because you're rolling dice all the time. However, if you don't get a mechanical benefit for what your character is, there's no incentive to do anything with it.
WHY DON'T MY ROLEPLAYING CHOICES GIVE ME MECHANICAL BENEFITS!
WHY DO I HAVE TO USE MECHANICS WHEN I COULD JUST ROLEPLAY!
See? It's simple. People want to roleplay to get extra benefits, but they also want mechanics to give them extra benefits in case they can't or won't roleplay.
They want to eat their cake and still have it.
Few people can see genius in someone who has offended them. -- Robertson Davies
1) Actualy it is related. Why did they get rid of skills points and skills...because it is viewed as a RP TAX....so create a system where these skills are not a RP Tax. Instead we all get a hidden RP tax. How is this a improvement. I agree with a point...but I see that they took it one step too far in my opinion. And they was a better way of doing this.
How is that a RP tax? A tax is something you have to pay for that should be free (many view weapon expertise as such a tax). You get the 1/2 level increase for free, so how is it a tax? And what is this "better way of doing this" that you allude to?
2) And a DMs or other players narrative can't limit creativity? I mean this is probably chalked up to lousey player and DM. I wanted to trip somebody in combat....using page 42....a player with a ther Trip Power start bitching about stepping on toes. The DM decided I can't trip. Now if they had actual mechanics for trips that aren't a power this would not have happened. Having even a loose set of mechanics can help make the narrative go better. But too loose of mechanics which the backgrounds and skill system is harms the narrative in ways.
That's a matter of preference. You see the situation as "I need mechanics to trip or the DM can decide not to let me trip." I see it as "if we make a separate set of mechanics for tripping, that might become the only way you are allowed to trip." There are some cases where it will help and some where it will hurt, but this is drifting off the ooc skills topic and way off the original RP in 4e topic.
3) That is just it though...my character is not skulking around the dungeon. He is not doing backflips...or etc. So why are they improving...but during my downtime I paint...or work at a blacksmith. Characters don't just exist just during adventures. Downtime is just as important to character development as is adventuring.
Really? Your character never makes any attempt to be quiet? He always tromps around mysterious dungeons just as loud as he can be making all kinds of noise and alerting every monster in the entire cavern? Even if you've never said "I roll Stealth" (that I could believe), you really have never envisioned your character being just a little quieter than when he's in the tavern? And he couldn't have possibly learned anything from seeing the rogue tie down or pad metal so it doesn't clink, use cover and concealment to avoid being seen, etc? And he's never ever walked on a narrow or slippery surface in his entire adventuring career? Really?
No, downtime is not just as important as adventuring. I'm not saying it can't be important to your group, or that it can't play a significant role in the campaign, but the PCs don't become heroes based on their downtime, and they don't generally gain levels based off their downtime, and the game system isn't designed to accurately simulate everything they do on their downtime. Its just like in RL soldiers receive awards for what they actually do on the job (whether that be dismounted patrols, disarming bombs, or sitting behind a desk), not for how many x-box games they beat during the deployment. Now again, you can make downtime a significant part of your game, but I find it hard to believe that it will be every bit as significant as the adventures.
Also this is problem with any system that gives exp for killing monsters. Personaly this is a editionist problem and really rather easy to fix in any edition.
Now to bring up you anaolgy...of toyota and hummer. Lets say I am looking for a jeep type car...Toyoto does make 4 wheel drive vehicles for people who like Toyoto but is looking for more of a jeep type vehicle.. So how is it wrong that WotC making something that appeals to people with different styles of play?
Because there has to be a sizable market for that product. To use your example of the hummer, why is it being discontinued? Because it's not a viable product for the current economy. Sure there are people who will still buy hummers, but they are not enough such people to keep the line profitable, especially in a company that's already having problems with the economy. While I don't have access to WotC's market research, since they are not catering to the people that want rules for profession skills, and have not indicated any desire or plans to do so, I imagine that means they do not feel such a product would be profitable enough. Now this is a conjecture, but they are a business and I doubt they would ignore that possibility if they thought it would be as popular as say, PHB3 or MP2.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
3) Background are like multi classing feats...they are great if you want to do x style character but fails spectacularly with y style of character.
That seems to be a major issue with 4e, for me. It's pretty good, as long as you do what it wants you to do. If you try to do anything else, it begs you not to, and when you insist you want to, it just breaks down.
I still don't understand what the system CAN'T let you do. No one has really said anything.
It tends to be quite a subtle force in most 4e games I've played, but there was one guy who wanted to play a character who didn't damage his opponents and who buffed his allies. 4e doesn't like that, and there was suddenly a glaring hole in it.
Is that what 4e was designed to do? No, probably not. Is it what D&D was designed to do? Maybe not, but he could do it in other editions. Other editions provided the material and the mechanics so that characters didn't have to deal damage, and so that they could improve their allies without damage their foes.
It's not a massive deal; he ended up playing a Warden, and had a decent enough time, but it shows that, as soon as we tried to do something that 4e didn't want us to do, it kind of fell apart.
My experience could be a completely isolated one. Maybe. I'd be interested to hear from other people on this issue.
Oooh, see, I thought you were talking about character concepts aside from the mechanical. It's true that 4e can't do everything in combat, but I think you have to be really stretching what's reasonable. But, in regard to your friend, was the Pacifist Cleric out? I know that it is all about healing/buffing and not dealing damage.
3) Background are like multi classing feats...they are great if you want to do x style character but fails spectacularly with y style of character.
That seems to be a major issue with 4e, for me. It's pretty good, as long as you do what it wants you to do. If you try to do anything else, it begs you not to, and when you insist you want to, it just breaks down.
I still don't understand what the system CAN'T let you do. No one has really said anything.
Feh. You're just slow!
If you have too much mechanics, you clearly can't roleplay because you're rolling dice all the time. However, if you don't get a mechanical benefit for what your character is, there's no incentive to do anything with it.
WHY DON'T MY ROLEPLAYING CHOICES GIVE ME MECHANICAL BENEFITS!
WHY DO I HAVE TO USE MECHANICS WHEN I COULD JUST ROLEPLAY!
See? It's simple. People want to roleplay to get extra benefits, but they also want mechanics to give them extra benefits in case they can't or won't roleplay.
They want to eat their cake and still have it.
That is in no way my complaint. I would prefer it if you would wait to hear my side of events, before putting words in my mouth, and attempting to predict my response. In fact, this is a clear attempt to bait me. If you can't contribute to a thread in a productive manner, without breaking to CoC, then simply stop posting until you feel you can contribute in a productive manner and follow the CoC.
If anything I say is wrong, clueless or spelt incorrectly, it is because, I am, in general, wrong, clueless and... Well, I'm usually spelt correctly.
That seems to be a major issue with 4e, for me. It's pretty good, as long as you do what it wants you to do. If you try to do anything else, it begs you not to, and when you insist you want to, it just breaks down.
Wouldn't that be true about every edition? I look at it this way: 4e is great for things the system was intended to do. When you try to use it for things the system was not intended to do, it might be not so great. Replace 4e with any system of your choice and the statement still holds true.
EDIT: Ok well there are systems that don't do great at what they are intended to do, but you get the idea.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
johnkretzer: Most arguement I see in game come from narrative side then mechanical.
John, I'm not going to quote anything else you've written becuase it's the same old tired arguments that have been handled time and time again. What you've written, which I quoted above, is, after doxens of pages of discussion, the first cogent point I can glean form what you've written.
From what I can tell, you don't need role-playing mechanics to aid roleplay. What you need is strict roleplaying rules to prevent the DM and/or the players from being douches. In other words, the problem you see is that if the DM is allowed to devise his own narrative for roleplay, he may write something with which players disagree, and this will cause an argument, which will distract from the roleplay.
The problem is not the roleplay itself (since no roleplaying is occurring), but the fact that there is any modicum of discretion at all where anybody might disagree. Because when people disagree they aren't playing. (They're neither roleplaying or roll-playing, mind you, so your concern works no matter what is happening.)
Now, games mechanics do establish rules to prevent arguments. That's the Cops-and-Robbers scenario ("I shot you." "Nuh-huh. You missed." "Did not!"...) What you're proposing is that the DM and players be stripped of any ability to step outside preset roleplaying boundaries.
I guess that's a valid aesthetic preference. To me, it sounds like a craving for drop down menus of dialogue. Sure, it hinders creativity, but at least there are no arguments.
So, you're right. 4e does not stifle creativity sufficient to prevent people from arguing with one another about a campaign's narrative. I now agree with you that if this is your preference, 4e is absolutely not the game for you and there's really no way to make 4e into the game you want. (As an aside, I don't think any edition of D&D or any other role-playing game does what you need.) But I supposed on a sliding scale, tghe more rules that exist, simply for rules' sake, whether they make sense, whether they are corner cases, whether they even need to apply, the fewer arguments will erupt. With this preference, yes, everything needs a rule. No discretion can be tolerated. Even Hackmaster -- the game that comes closest to giving you what you seek -- isn't detailed enough.
As for the rest of your arguments, it doesn't make sense to rehash them again. You don't appear to understand how 4e's skill system works or what it contains. And, frankly, I don't think you really mean what you write when you suggest mechanical fixes.
When I read your post through a lens of needing every bit of choice to be mechanically represented ot prevent DMs and players from having to figure out on their own how things might work, your posts make a lot more sense. However, I caution that none of the rules fixes will give you what you truly seek. Nothing you've offered is comprehensive enough to stifle argument at the table.
@Oprah: I agree with Kratch. You're not helping. If anything, you're poisoning the well.
No I don't think getting rid of the narrative will end all arguements at a gaming table(never said it will). But a better balanced of narrative vs mecanics might reduce them.
Also it is about equalizing the power of the DM. A DMs say on the narrative is absolute. Sure he can be reasonable but his word is final. That is a very arbitary way to handle co-opperative storytelling. The mechanics are a tool that players have to limit the DM. A very detailed system yes does restrain you...but more mechanics in 4th ed will not neccessarily do so.
For instance I think that the mechanics for hybrids are a great addition to the game. It adds something that can enhance the narrative of the game. Do the mechanics cripple the game? Maybe if you play it one way...but it makes playing it another way easier. So a more detail mechanics for those non-combat skills can enhance the narrative and aid it. When I saw the hybrids rules I thought wow this concept would fun to play. I suddenly have the mechanics to reflect my narrative...I did nopt have to play "Mother may I" with the DM. I only have to ask if the DM is allowing hybrids.
The same would hold true for a more in depth look at crafting...professions...etc. for me...I don't I am alone. Heck talking to someone who first game is 4th edition those mechanics for Hybrids really gaved him some character ideas he never haved before.
So rather it is just a page or two or a entire book I do not think it would be bad for the game to have mechanics to do so, I mean did we really needed mechanics for Wardens...Fighters...etc. I mean wouldn't it just be simpler just to have Defender...Striker...Leader...and Controler base classes and base powers and let you narrate however you want to reflect things like power souces etc.
3) Background are like multi classing feats...they are great if you want to do x style character but fails spectacularly with y style of character.
That seems to be a major issue with 4e, for me. It's pretty good, as long as you do what it wants you to do. If you try to do anything else, it begs you not to, and when you insist you want to, it just breaks down.
I still don't understand what the system CAN'T let you do. No one has really said anything.
It tends to be quite a subtle force in most 4e games I've played, but there was one guy who wanted to play a character who didn't damage his opponents and who buffed his allies. 4e doesn't like that, and there was suddenly a glaring hole in it.
Is that what 4e was designed to do? No, probably not. Is it what D&D was designed to do? Maybe not, but he could do it in other editions. Other editions provided the material and the mechanics so that characters didn't have to deal damage, and so that they could improve their allies without damage their foes.
It's not a massive deal; he ended up playing a Warden, and had a decent enough time, but it shows that, as soon as we tried to do something that 4e didn't want us to do, it kind of fell apart.
My experience could be a completely isolated one. Maybe. I'd be interested to hear from other people on this issue.
Oooh, see, I thought you were talking about character concepts aside from the mechanical. It's true that 4e can't do everything in combat, but I think you have to be really stretching what's reasonable. But, in regard to your friend, was the Pacifist Cleric out? I know that it is all about healing/buffing and not dealing damage.
The Pacifist Cleric may have been out, but none of us had a copy of Divine Power yet, so it may have not been out as far as we were concerned.
It's not really unreasonable to want a character that does nothing but improve his own party. That said, there are lots of concepts that require a bit of work, but are attainable in 4e.
If anything I say is wrong, clueless or spelt incorrectly, it is because, I am, in general, wrong, clueless and... Well, I'm usually spelt correctly.
That seems to be a major issue with 4e, for me. It's pretty good, as long as you do what it wants you to do. If you try to do anything else, it begs you not to, and when you insist you want to, it just breaks down.
If you try to run a kick-in-the-door, take-on-the-world L5R or Red Steel game, it doesn't work. If you try to run a 7th Sea game as a gritty tactical wargame, it doesn't work. If you try to run Warhammer 40k as a Save-The-World rainbows and bunnies adventure, it doesn't work. If you try to run d20 Modern as an merchant enterprise game, it doesn't work. If you try to run a Call of Cthulhu game in which the characters don't die horribly, it doesn't work.
Sometimes, using something in a way it wasn't meant to be used results in it not working well. That's part of life.
So no, 4th edition doesn't include rules for, say, running your own business against the stiff mercantile competition of the Sword Coast. It doesn't include rules for inventing new machinery in an arms race. It doesn't include rules for two empires fighting a war, complete with logistics, tactics, and strategy for 1000+ armies. That's not its job. If you want it to do so, either use rules from an alternative product geared toward these ideas, or go to the homebrew forum and start whipping up some crunch on the subject.
DnD is good for running games of fantasy adventure. And it is a product designed to do its job.
Use a wrench to do things a wrench is meant to do. A wrench is not a saw. Use a saw for saw things, or invent a wrench-saw hybrid. But be careful, because if you want a hammer section as well, things start getting clunkier and clunkier and clunkier, and by the time you are adding the pulley system to allow the wheelbarrow attachment to function alongside the leveler, the wrench no longer wrenches.
Use a wrench to do things a wrench is meant to do. A wrench is not a saw. Use a saw for saw things, or invent a wrench-saw hybrid. But be careful, because if you want a hammer section as well, things start getting clunkier and clunkier and clunkier, and by the time you are adding the pulley system to allow the wheelbarrow attachment to function alongside the leveler, the wrench no longer wrenches.
+1 to dragoncat
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Except why spend money that I don't have too? Sorry put the people I play with do subscribed to it...and have all the books. So I have access to this infomation and I still find it lacking.
But if they did come out with this book(or even just a page or two in PHB4...maybe) I would see a need for it and depending on how they did it would use it.
So, are you willing to pay to get access to things that fulfil your needs, or not? How is WotC going to know you like backgrounds and want more support for them, if you don't buy things that have backgrounds? If these product don't sell very well, they won't be expanded. (Not so much with DDI, since it's quite wide-ranging, but with books that support your needs... buy them )
Seeing as there is a disconnect between balance (quantifiable) and fun, (subjective and personal) discussing fun in a thread about balance because you find one system more enjoyable than another is as helpful as discussing religion in a thread about architectural engineering because you think cathedrals look prettier than outhouses.
)