Would it be that most of 4th editions out of combat stuff is done mainly by the DM and player's and nothing to do with mechanics?
Underlined for emphasis.
You know, Xun, you never told us how you'd like 4e mechanics for non-combat stuff to be different. I mean, I don't see any real difference in the capability of 3.x systems and 4e to handle non-combat stuff; both have a fairly robust and comprehensive skill system, and both offer ways for magic to circumvent obstacles. Though its a lot easier in 3.x for a caster to obviate skills.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling
Defenders: We ARE the wall!
I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.
Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!
On the topic of using 4E for combat light adventures I have to say that I'm generally very happy with 4E in this regard. I do a lot of fairly combat light gaming with the system and feel that it stands up in this regard better then any previous edition of D&D.
One the one hand the system really does pretty much start from the premise of the players being an adventuring group at least in some fashion. By this I mean it'll work fine if its the traditional adventuring group or a group of mercenaries or maybe an Eberron style group of investigators but whatever the basic premise of the group they need to be about to enter a story involving adventure and conflict. Its possible to point out that the system does not work as well if what is desired is running a business in which conflict will not occur but this is fine by me in large part because I feel there is actually a trade off going on here. In 3.5 it was possible to more accurately reflect the idea of characters that where much more extremely specialized so we could and did have characters that where extra ordinary out of combat and not very useful in it and vice versa.
4E, by its design, has worked hard to make it so that if you have a group they will tend to function in and out of combat in a pretty balanced manner and all the characters will be able to participate. In 3rd this was rarely the case. Instead either the characters where made to function in combat but not out of it (at least 80% of the characters in my experience) or the reverse was true. This means that whatever the activity that is going on it will always result in at least some of the players not being in a position to have as much fun as possible. In particular since the average D&D game seemed to have more combat orientated players then out of combat orientated players the usual result was the DM working hard to actually make combat by far the main thing the group was up to - after all the players of the Fighters and Scouts etc. had all stopped really paying attention while the Bard did his 'spotlight' activity out of combat some significant time ago and a good DM is usually gauging the players attentiveness. Once most of the group has taken out their smart phones and is no longer paying attention to to the game the DM, in my experience, usually felt a need to push things into a fight ASAP.
In 4E I have had the feeling that I need to get the PCs into a fight ASAP far less often. Maybe my group is itching for some conflict or some such but if so its not because the system does not really allow them to participate out side of conflict. The non-combat portion of the game is not some how the 'bards chance to shine' or some other conceit that mainly excludes much of the group.
Beyond this I tend to really love the building block approach to 4E. While I don't normally anticipate having my players run a business I could see it coming up maybe as a cover for something else they are doing. Should it come to the fore then I'd build it in much the same way as I build a Hazard or a scene with a Volcano spewing fire everywhere. In effect I would start with page 42 an I would design a mini-game meant to take into account whatever factors I felt where needed for the circumstances surrounding my story.
The circumstances of my story are really the important part for me here. The problem with some kind of hard coded mechanics for running a business is that its far to broad a topic without a huge tome on the topic. Sheep Herding is not the same as being a blacksmith and even if I'm a small shop keeper how that exactly works presumably changes a lot depending on if I am playing in Eberron's city of Sharn or I'm [pretty much an brutally disenfranchised and oppressed small shop keeper in one of the City States of Darksun spending my time falling to my knees begging Templar's to take just what they need and not everything or trying to convince the local criminal element not to break my legs and I'll for sure have their payment next week...for sure this time.
This all even depends on the PCs actually trying to run the business - if its just a front or some such then they probably are actually spending their time doing something else - leaving lots of room of 'inconvenient' customers and such.
In effect 4E's system is highly modular and its very easy to use it as a DM side tool to craft what ever is needed for the specifics of ones actual campaign. Trying to craft 'official' rules to fit on top of the story may get one some general guidelines but I'd usually rather just craft things to fit into my unique story.
Why do you think 4th edition is the best incarnation that deals with non-combat? Would it be that most of 4th editions out of combat stuff is done mainly by the DM and player's and nothing to do with mechanics? If that is the case then you can do that with any game out there on the market simply by leaving stuff out.
If you fight every once and a while why would you even need most of the classes, feats, and magic items in the book? You are esentially leaving out about 90% of the mechanics so why even bother playing 4th edition. just to say that you are playing that particular game?
Meh, I'm pretty much with BeaverDuck. 4e has a nice generalized system that lets you deal with the plot relevant aspects of things like owning a castle or whatever by simply structuring it within the framework of SCs, adventures, and general skills, with some basic extrapolation of the treasure system, rituals, etc as needed. The nice thing is there are not a lot of extraneous rules cluttering things up. Maybe you have to make up a few things now and then, but they're all relatively simple to deal with using generalized mechanics. At worst you might make up a minor subsystem for a specific setting/genre like maybe an 'honor' system for an oriental themed setting, or something like that.
When you DO fight, you have a good solid set of rules for it that make it easy to generate encounters, etc. You might use it more or less in different games, but so what? Combat is going to come up reasonably often in any plausible campaign where you'd want to be using D&D at all anyway. Most of 3.5's rules were designed around combat as well. You certainly wouldn't get any more milage out of using 3.5 in a game that was limited combat than with 4e. The whole notion that it is 'bad' to not be using all the rules of a given system makes no sense to me anyway. You have a system that covers what you want to do. Who cares how many pages of that system you do or don't use? Are you renting the game rules by the page? It simply isn't relevant.
If you want to get into what sorts of aspects of a given system are good for creating a specific tone within a given game, THEN you get into what system might or might not be appropriate. 4e is appropriate for basically the same sorts of games as other versions of D&D. PCs band together into parties. They are generally larger-than-life heroic types with magical abilities who fight with mythic evil forces, etc. It works pretty well for that, and 4e is solidly in that tradition. If you want a game of cosmic horror with PCs who are nearly helpless pawns trying to survive the machinations of forces far beyond them, then D&D in ANY form is not really the best system for that (or any number of other sorts of games). Beyond that 4e covers all the bases quite well in its space.
Why do you think 4th edition is the best incarnation that deals with non-combat? Would it be that most of 4th editions out of combat stuff is done mainly by the DM and player's and nothing to do with mechanics? If that is the case then you can do that with any game out there on the market simply by leaving stuff out.
three things about that.
1) WoD is generally concidered to be good system for non combat, yet it is also very light on rules. 2) why I find it the best incarnation (of 3.0/3.5/4), I already stated
doesn't get rediculous unrealistic for higher levels
doesn't ignore classes (like low int fighters or int 7- barbarians/paladins/... )
3) imo there's pretty much no difference between your DM says what to do (4ed basketweaving), and your DM says what to do (leaving stuff out) ... except in the latter you paid for something you don't use.
If you fight every once and a while why would you even need most of the classes, feats, and magic items in the book? You are esentially leaving out about 90% of the mechanics so why even bother playing 4th edition. just to say that you are playing that particular game?
Xun, in all fairness, in your aristocrat/expert/noble campaign you ignored WAY more*. Please don't use dual standards.
* also since the power mechanic is also used out of combat
Qube's block builder: if you want to create blocks for powers, items and monsters for this forum, but don't know html "Signature in a box"Show
For years, I've lived a double life. In the day, I do my job - I ride the bus, roll up my sleeves with the hoi-polloi. But at night, I live a life of exhilaration, of missed heartbeats and adrenalin. And, if the truth be known a life of dubious virtue. I won't deny it - I've been engaged in violence, even indulged in it. I've maimed and killed adversaries, and not merely in self-defence. I've exhibited disregard for life, limb and property, and savoured every moment. You may not think it, to look of me but I have commanded armies, and conquered worlds. And though in achieving these things I've set morality aside, I have no regrets. For though I've led a double life, at least I can say - I've lived.
Scipio: And Chihuahuas have definitely improved in the "attacking ankles, yapping, and being generally annoying" environment. Me: OK, am I the only who sees an analogy between forum trolls & Chihuahuas?
XDMC 19 (silver): A full fledged assassins guild (with stats, skill challenges, ...)link XDMC 14 (Bronze): a one shot campaign for beginning DMs/players. link XDMC 16: Paragon path: the Epitome: being better then all then any one else. link (note: this is balanced) XDMC 25: The Gelatinous Cube mount Guide To Disreality: a collection of houserules - Introduction & table of content
On the topic of using 4E for combat light adventures I have to say that I'm generally very happy with 4E in this regard. I do a lot of fairly combat light gaming with the system and feel that it stands up in this regard better then any previous edition of D&D....
...In effect 4E's system is highly modular and its very easy to use it as a DM side tool to craft what ever is needed for the specifics of ones actual campaign. Trying to craft 'official' rules to fit on top of the story may get one some general guidelines but I'd usually rather just craft things to fit into my unique story.
Why do you think 4th edition is the best incarnation that deals with non-combat? Would it be that most of 4th editions out of combat stuff is done mainly by the DM and player's and nothing to do with mechanics? If that is the case then you can do that with any game out there on the market simply by leaving stuff out.
If you fight every once and a while why would you even need most of the classes, feats, and magic items in the book? You are esentially leaving out about 90% of the mechanics so why even bother playing 4th edition. just to say that you are playing that particular game?
It does however deal with the mechanics. Its just that the mechanics are tools used to create elements of the game instead of rules meant to be followed.
SPecifically if I'm creating a scene involving the players running a business in Darksun as some kind of a front or home base or what have you I have the building blocks to make this. I can use the tools to craft a long term mechanical element if that is what is going to happen here or I can use the tools, likely a skill challange, to just deal with a very specific scene or maybe I mix and match.
Of particular importance is that I can build this to be true to Darksun without even really having to refference my players characters because the skill system is robust enough that I can presume that their skills will interact perfectly well with my creation. I don't have to worry that none of my players took rope use and therefore none of them will have any chance of actually runing elements of the business. They'll have skills - maybe some parts of what is going on won't line up with their best skills of course but they will have some reasonable chance of functioning in the environment that is being created so I can stick to making sure this has a Darksun flavour instead of insuring that it lines up with the handful of skills the players focused on.
Nor do I really plan to run a game that does not use any of the combat abilities. If I did I'd play something that is not D&D. Nonetheless 4E is extremely good for doing fewer more epic combats. Its almost ideal for that really as it tends to feel grindy when doing many throw away combats while the same tools that let me make a business also let me design a scene involving a battle in the middle of a sand storm. Hence I'm not doing no battles at all - I'm just doing less of them and making it so that the ones I do do involve me pulling out all the stops and really designing encounters that I can imagine as part of some summer block buster.
Why do you think 4th edition is the best incarnation that deals with non-combat? Would it be that most of 4th editions out of combat stuff is done mainly by the DM and player's and nothing to do with mechanics? If that is the case then you can do that with any game out there on the market simply by leaving stuff out.
I'd say that the 4E methodology on dealing with just about everything -- rolling only when it matters -- is the key difference in this regard.
Let's say the DM wants to do a combat-light or even a combat-less campaign. Since 4E is all about refluffing without interfering with mechanics, a fighter can be just as good a diplomat as any other character if he wants to, but as the class tends to be a bit more on the brutal side (STR-based), he's likely the best for fear-based information gathering [thus, Streetwise and Intimidate], and when it comes to debates [easily a skill challenge/combat encounter hybrid], he relies on aggressive tone and straightforwardness (unarmed fighter power attacks). With Inherent Bonuses and non-physical item rewards (divine boons, reputation, etc.), the party can definitely have fun even with zero houseruling, albeit with around 80% refluffing and 30% skill use.
If you fight every once and a while why would you even need most of the classes, feats, and magic items in the book? You are esentially leaving out about 90% of the mechanics so why even bother playing 4th edition. just to say that you are playing that particular game?
Simple: character definition and progression. The system relies less on fluff-based mechanics than just about any incarnation, which gives both DM and players the freedom to refluff as needed.
You can easily have a cast of protagonists based on their methodologies in acquiring information:
(Str) physical, brutish, often fear-inspiring and straightforward in their threats (Con) enduring the opposing side's banter and perhaps being able to twist those facts to their advantage as counter-arguments (Dex) one who defeats others by rapidly speaking and giving their enemies no quarter (Int) those who use knowledge as their source of [debating] power (Wis) the patient folk who bide their time and speak with wisdom in their words (Cha) those who use cunning and the more subtle form of verbal threats
For debates, you'll probably limit encounters to minor, move, and standard, with no immediate or opportunity actions (no battlemaps, flanking being effectively two opponents using their combined efforts to take down a single PC or vice versa), and death being "giving up the debate", then utilizing ability checks, skill checks, and properly-reflavored attack powers... but otherwise it'll be a fully functional combat encounter, played as a social encounter.
Magic items are easily reflavored as reputation and grandmaster training, and there are magical items that don't even need reflavoring (most notably the wondrous items in general).
Feats? Even if you turn the game into a purely social, class-less (thus, HP-less) campaign, you could still use them to enhance skills and grant abilities to your character, and with 18 or 19 feat slots available, there's certainly room there for enhancing the party's skills and stuff -- really, so many feats out there that have combat, non-combat, or even interchangeable use, and suddenly removing combat renders *all* of them useless?
And take note, even up to this point I have done just one houserule -- and an optional one at that -- which, compared to giving players a DM-only resource (NPC classes) and ignoring the core function of the system (combat resolution), seems trivial if you ask me.
EDIT: I'm not even tackling this using the very subsystem 4E has in dealing with non-combat situations: Skill Challenges. That subsystem alone, with its simplicity and broad use, deals with almost every non-combat-related thing (just almost, but given how adventure-centric D&D is, I'm thinking that it's fine as it stands ).
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
).
