|
9 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 7:54PM
#151
|
|
|
Never really understand the 4e has no Rolplaying argument. Ive played some games of the 3.X edidion that most of the people saying this are into. That system didnt encourage RP either it just heavily discouraged combat (save or die! ). Neither game system encouraged roleplay with the rules or mechanics...RP is simply narrating your part in the story, you dont need rules to do that other than occassionally rolling a dice to see if you succeeded or failed in a task (and both systems have extensive "skill checks" to help with this)
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 1:51PM
#152
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
doesn't change that I've never seen anyone who likes GURPS, including writers and designers, use it
Lots of people have used GURPS-lite and GURPS 1e (even if you haven't seen them). I have to think some of them (like myself) even liked GURPS.
If you're not using most-to-all of the fiddly options, why are you playing GURPS instead of a different system?
Some common reasons:
- The desired setting is supported by GURPS.
- Pared-down GURPS was actually easier than most other systems.
- GURPS is generic, so a new system didn't have to be learned.
Krom... seen transcripts of him running a game online and seen session videos of him running games, and he uses most of the rules
Right: Kromm (Sean Punch) is a physics major (i.e. likes math and rules for their own sake). He's also the writer that added much of the complication to GURPS. Kromm's way is not everyone's way... but I understand where your viewpoint is coming from.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 2:23PM
#153
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2007
|
Never really understand the 4e has no Rolplaying argument.
Right: because no one contends that. It's a strawman. The only people that say that are the one's arguing against it.
However: if you're saying that you don't understand how 4e has made roleplaying a bit harder for some players... well, it's largely a preference thing. I'll try to explain, but I reckon you may not actually desire to understand my preference: Delving into 'labels' for convenience here:
I understand how 4e's rules can allow for greater freeform drama and Narrativist-type play. However, a lot of Narrativist seem unwilling to understand how less focus on consistency, 'realism' and verisimilitude can hinder roleplaying for Simulationist-types like myself... who view the role in roleplaying as adopting realistic responses rather than 'acting'. And WotC's focus on gamist balance and combat in 4e likely aids Gamists in roleplaying, but can hinder both Narrativist's and Simulationist's roleplaying by establishing expectations and patterns. Some 3e details simply aided roleplaying for some player types.
Now: if you're one of those people that don't believe that rules mechanics can even effect roleplaying... then I don't think I can help you.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 2:38PM
#154
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2009
|
Never really understand the 4e has no Rolplaying argument.
Right: because no one contends that. It's a strawman. The only people that say that are the one's arguing against it.
However: if you're saying that you don't understand how 4e has made roleplaying a bit harder for some players... well, it's largely a preference thing. I'll try to explain, but I reckon you may not actually desire to understand my preference:
Delving into 'labels' for convenience here:
I understand how 4e's rules can allow for greater freeform drama and Narrativist-type play. However, a lot of Narrativist seem unwilling to understand how less focus on consistency, 'realism' and verisimilitude can hinder roleplaying for Simulationist-types like myself... who view the role in roleplaying as adopting realistic responses rather than 'acting'.
Now: if you're one of those people that don't believe that rules mechanics can even effect roleplaying... then I don't think I can help you.
You don't contend that. People aside from you do, maybe not in this thread. Look at the book reviews on Amazon.
Narrativists (including me) don't "act". If you take on the character's role from a realism standpoint, that's pretty in-depth "acting".If you view leaving out things like "No more than 3 rangers to a party" as reducing realism, then I won't even contend that, it's such a staunchly traditional bias that this would escalate into an edition war.
And WotC's focus on gamist balance and combat in 4e likely aids Gamists in roleplaying, but can hinder both Narrativist's and Simulationist's roleplaying by establishing expectations and patterns. Some 3e details simply aided roleplaying for some player types.
Such as what? In my (admittedly brief) experience with 3.5, the rules almost told you how to play your character, like having barbarians being defaultly ilterate.
We summoned a devil once. All we used was the D&D books, too. It was pretty kwazy.
God of Arrested Development and Intelligence 
Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander
Pie-Cooling-On-A-Windowsill of the House of Trolls
In the morning HK'll be sober but you'll still be a meatbag.
I know I misspell "Danke" in my posts. It's an inside joke.
"Ten cents gets you nuts." -George Michael
Spoiler:
Show
''Being president is like running a cemetery: you've got a lot of people under you and nobody's listening.''
—Bill Clinton
You are not a moral man. There are not enough middle fingers in the world for you.
Actually, Santa just didn't like you. However, you weren't on the Naughty List, so he had to give you something "better" than coal.
I'd take coal. Heating your house is expesive, and engery cost arn't going down.
Mabey if i beat enough homeless people, i won't have to be cold this year. 
"Heroes"...I wish I had those. I remember in my first-ever campaign one PC went around shootin all the unconscious baddies in the head to gain Dark Side Points...
Whaaaaaat?!??
Wow...way to waste perfectly good potential slaves.
Er...no wait I mean..uh...something not evil!
(Quotes screwed up on the next one, won't give the poster's name. It's in the Best Lines thread on the D&D forum)
First, an experience from a game I played in a few years back. Our DM didn't like 3.5 as a whole but liked parts of it. So he hands us a big ass rules packet for his modified FR campaign, complete with quotes from important NPC's on the front. I can't remember most of the HRs, just that some how gods like Cyric and Bhaal existed at the same time, despite the obvious problems there. In the end the game became a problem more because of the railroading than the HRs, but it ended with this classic line, after our ranger tried to disarm the strange woman following us WITH HIS BOW: DM: You just killed (insert random noble sounding name here) JP: Was she important? Jack: Dude, she's quoted on the front of the rules packet!
"Why in the wide,wide, world of all things irrational would I help you?
-Daniel Jackson
"Fun will now commence."
-Seven of Nine
"Excellent."
-Mr. Burns.
Whey is a crotch.
Cut the last encounter on your way out after dealing with the Darth. He's the BBEG. Treat him as such. Play up that Darth Revan is THAT much of a badarse. When the shuttle landed, I had no less than 13 JEDI MASTERS step off the shuttle. The PCs were slack-jawed. After the meetup with Bastila (as she's carrying Revan's body), only TWO jedi masters remained with her. Let me tell you, the player whining about not getting to fight Revan himself shut up pretty quickly when he saw that. 
There's so much you can do with insanity, especially when it has alot of resources.
1. Cleric cast protection from fire on Tank.
2. Tank goes in and get surrounded by enemies.
3. Wizard cast fireball and blows them up.
4. ???
5. Profit
I go by the saying," If it ain't friendly fire then it's not working."
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 4:56PM
#155
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2007
|
You don't contend that. People aside from you do, maybe not in this thread. Look at the book reviews on Amazon.
I did when you mentioned this earlier. However, I did not find an instance of someone stating that 4e has no roleplaying. Only that is has less roleplaying.
Some 3e details simply aided roleplaying for some player types.
Such as what?
Some examples:
- The spell descriptions contained expanded details and more spells were designed to be used outside of strictly mechanical/combat roles.
- Save or die effects indicated that some things could still kill you instantly, which was 'realistic' and caused more players to portray their character with that reality in mind.
- Resting for 5 minutes did not remove all injuries, no matter how severe.
- 3e combats were often resolved in 3-4 rounds, and often required using the right item of effect. 4e combats were designed to take 7-8 rounds, and can eventually be overcome using almost any effect.
Not saying that all of these things are good, merely that they aided roleplaying for some player types.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 8:18PM
#156
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
Delving into 'labels' for convenience here:
I understand how 4e's rules can allow for greater freeform drama and Narrativist-type play. However, a lot of Narrativist seem unwilling to understand how less focus on consistency, 'realism' and verisimilitude can hinder roleplaying for Simulationist-types like myself...
The catch is that some of us would completely agree with that statement... and use it to explain why we prefer 4E over 3E.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 9:02PM
#157
|
|
|
- The spell descriptions contained expanded details and more spells were designed to be used outside of strictly mechanical/combat roles.
Those exist in 4E as well, but they're expensive and take longer - removing the ability of the spellcaster to make all non-spellcasters obsolete by doing his own job *and theirs*, better than they could. It's a pure game design improvement.
- Save or die effects indicated that some things could still kill you instantly, which was 'realistic' and caused more players to portray their character with that reality in mind.
Bad game design was bad. And?
- Resting for 5 minutes did not remove all injuries, no matter how severe.
That doesn't happen in 4E, either. A full day will get you all but the most severe and lasting injuries, yes, but that's a full day. 5 minutes lets you catch your breath.
- 3e combats were often resolved in 3-4 rounds, and often required using the right item of effect.
Read "often prohibited any solution other than the one predefined one"
4e combats were designed to take 7-8 rounds, and can eventually be overcome using almost any effect.
Uh, 7-8 rounds is a LIFETIME, in 4E as well. When the game came out a certain kind of fight tended to take that long, and that was a problem, not a case of working-as-designed. And it got fixed.
And sure, if your objective is "kill all the monsters using combat", then generally just about any tactic you take is going to work. That's an IMPROVEMENT over D20 and it's tendency to say "Oh, in this kind of fight? Those characters don't get to contribute at all. Enjoy sitting around and watching the other players play."
If your objective is something other than "kill all the monsters using combat", then 4E is still more likely to have something interesting for all characters to do in every round.
Except....
Not saying that all of these things are good, merely that they aided roleplaying for some player types.
.... no, those are all mechanical complaints. And yes, the kind of mechanical restraint and inability to function effectively that was endemic in D20 did, in fact, lead to some players roleplaying their way around it - but that's not something 4E PREVENTS, just something it no longer requires. In D20, you abandoned the mechanics because using the mechanics prevented you from playing entirely, yes, but that's not a sign in it's favour over a system that DOESN'T keep you from using the mechanics. That's just a sign that it's a poorly designed game.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 10:50PM
#158
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2004
|
Eh, simulationism. I like the idea of being 'realistic' and 'accurate' in some regards, but in most cases it seems like a lot of effort with very little payoff. (Well, other than players appreciating the power of magic a bit more later on.)
I understand the appeal of building around limitations. But one doesn't really need hard-coded limitations, just fluff that says "These guys typically don't do these things." If a DM feels strongly about a race/class combo not existing, required alignment/codes of conduct for certain classes, etc... he/she can add that restriction in pretty easily. It's a lot easier to add such setting-based limitations rather than have them baked-in.
Adapting and acting despite temporary disadvantages still exists in 4e, just rarely as absolutely penalizing as "All of the enemies here are immune to your primary shtick").
Non-combat uses for combat spells...well, so long as you got the memo, 4e does it probably better than at least 3e. (The 'memo' is in the DMG2, I think; yeah, not a good location for it, but I'm not sure the game designers thought it was necessary.) My main contention with 3e's execution of this is that some spells make sense (fireball sets things on fire) while others do not (lightning bolt has no special effect upon striking water). I'd rather go in with the idea that all non-explicit uses will be made up by the players, subject to DM approval.
Save or Die effects sound good to me in storytelling theory, but are pretty anticlimactic in the reality of my game table. Either the party knows about it ahead of time and equips themselves appropriately to more-or-less negate the effect, or they stumble upon it and hope Lady Luck smiles upon them. As much as I enjoy the horror on the player's faces when they come upon a foe who can one-shot them regardless of their Hit Points (and the resulting scramble and focus fire effect), an enemy who can **** up the PC's world quickly often has the same result, without the high chance of derailment that is PC death. On top of that, if the SoD is completely negated (either through preperation or luck), the encounter feels lame and is almost free XP as the PCs didn't expend any HP or perhaps many spells neutralizing it. It's an interesting/frustrating wrinkle in play, and morbidly exciting for the DM in preperation, but that's about as far as it goes.
4e could make it hard for people to take seriously if those people believe Hit Points literally represent how many times you can be stabbed/bashed/cut/blasted before dying. That said, HP has always been an abstraction of resiliency in D&D, they just take far longer to replenish without magic.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 11:41PM
#159
|
|
|
Oh look, Toki is misdirecting arguments about 4e again.
Obvious Troll is Obvious.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection. My Guides
Show
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 1:24AM
#160
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
I still find hilarious for people trying to see D&D as simulationism and realistic...it's a fantasy rpg game with monsters that breat ice and thunder, warrior that beat giants 4 times their mass with brute strength, godzi...i mean tarrasque, gender bending traps, etc...
And people saying that bashing someone with your shield to push him 5 square backward it's unrealistic...
|
|
|
