Dungeons and Dragons 4E

[Ismaul]

Which is why you combine both methods, talking it out and skill check. You came up with a clever lie? Circumstance bonus.

I came up with a clever way of attacking. I thrust instead of swinging, circumstance bonus?

This is where you fail.


The real problem is how much do player skill can/should influence character skill. For combat, the main thing a player's skills can have influence on is tactical decisions. But no one cares about reducing that, since it's a tactical game, right? Who would go right into an overwhelming enemy just to play out his low INT score? But even if you use your (the player's) tactical skills instead of the character's, there's still a lot that has rules and is all about character skill.

For social interactions, it's not really like that. In 3e we only have a skill value with no rules for deeper interaction. So players' skill intervenes more, and the typical way to integrate it to the rules was with circumstance bonuses. 4e looks like it elaborates on social rules, and therefore will allow for more character skill to be used. The player's skills will still have influence over character skills, but hopefully it will come down to something more like combat. You'll influence the "tactical decisions" of a social interaction.

See how a more elaborate framework for "talking it out" actually gives character skill more importance? And as a nice bonus you'll have more fun interactions around the table since the rules easily allow conversations to go back and forth, and still have a meaningful mechanical impact on the outcome.

 

[Andhaira]

Thats some sweet shit on the elves right there. I guess all elves can teleport/shift!

Thas one poWaH dat's gonna cause some problems for video game devleopers!! If you don't know why, there is a reason most dnd rpg's (bg, bg2, nwn etc) did not have teleports, and dats cuz of scripting issues, where players might teleport ahead of a scripted encounter and fuck the game up.

 

[Texas Red]

I believe I found the new Hallfing concept art

Goddamnit I hate D&D art. Jesus fucking Christ!

 

[Keldorn]

Keldorn prefers the 'obsolete' rules. Having -5 armor is cool.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

Having -5 armor is cool.

Illogical is a better word. One of the best thing about 3rd Edition was dealing away with bizzare THAC0 mechanics.

 

[Jasede]

I prefer them too. They were complicated enough to turn everyone who sucked off from playing it and its games.

Sure, they lacked feats and shit, but you have your imagination, right? And you can tell great stories without perfect rules, as some of the Infinity Engine games show.

Besides, having -5 armor is cool.

 

[1eyedking]

This is were you fail.

The real problem is how much do player skill can/should influence character skill. For combat, the main thing a player's skills can have influence on is tactical decisions. But no one cares about reducing that, since it's a tactical game, right? Who would go right into an overwhelming enemy just to play out his low INT score? But even if you use your (the player's) tactical skills instead of the character's, there's still a lot that has rules and is all about character skill.

For social interactions, it's not really like that. In 3e we only have a skill value with no rules for deeper interaction. So players' skill intervenes more, and the typical way to integrate it to the rules was with circumstance bonuses. 4e looks like it elaborates on social rules, and therefore will allow for more character skill to be used. The player's skills will still have influence over character skills, but hopefully it will come down to something more like combat. You'll influence the "tactical decisions" of a social interaction.

See how a more elaborate framework for "talking it out" actually gives character skill more importance? And as a nice bonus you'll have more fun interactions around the table since the rules easily allow conversations to go back and forth, and still have a meaningful mechanical impact on the outcome.

The mere idea that "talking it out" just gives a circumstance bonus instead of being a prerequisite is fucking disturbing.

Attempting to draw rule analogies from combat to social interactions is stupid. I'm OK if you tell me the rule for speaking is "you just fucking roll some dice" (though I wont agree it's the best method); however, the minute you start bringing combat mechanics to justify that dice roll everything goes out the window: they're two completely different kinds of actions. You just have to admit D&D designers were lazy and decided to please munchkin kiddies by throwing in diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks so that their characters can actually kick ass outside combat.

I mean, come on, an 8-Strength Halfling Bard with 16 Charisma can actually intimidate a huge Ogre. Don't you notice something plainly wrong there?

 

[Gladi]

I mean, come on, an 8-Strength Halfling Bard with 16 Charisma can actually intimidate a huge Ogre. Don't you notice something plainly wrong there?

An 8-strength Halfling Archamge with vast array of destructive spells intimidating huge ogre, you say?

This exactly where the approach is important. For example no statement of strength would convince ogre straight, but if you add a fixed contest of strength (the cheese and stone of the famous fairy tale), the Ogre could conceivable believe that the hlafling has source of magical strength- so he will retreat for now and wait for the opportunity to snatch it for himslef.

Or you can try to convince him that you are powerfull mage, complete with illusinary glowing eyes, arms cackling with lightening.

Or maybe he will draw his shortbow and tell him how good marksmen he is, and if the ogre is willing to give a right eye for the few gold pieces, the halfling carries?

Yes if the player can come with good reason it is good. But if he cannot, it does not mean that his character cannot come with an arguement.

 

[Lumpy]

I mean, come on, an 8-Strength Halfling Bard with 16 Charisma can actually intimidate a huge Ogre. Don't you notice something plainly wrong there?

Obviously, that sucks. Intimidate should be a skill that only adds a bonus to the attempt, but the bulk should be the relative level. In fact, just get rid of the Intimidate skill. Intimidation should be a combination of character's power, disguise skill, and bluff skill.

 

[1eyedking]

Yes if the player can come with good reason it is good. But if he cannot, it does not mean that his character cannot come with an arguement.

Motherfuck it, you are a genius! Characters should play themselves!

 

[psycojester]

I believe I found the new Hallfing concept art

Goddamnit I hate D&D art. Jesus fucking Christ!

Lets here a big cheers for Faeruns creative way of avoiding the whole pedophilia issue.
"12 you say officer? i thought she was a halfing"

 

[Gladi]

Yes if the player can come with good reason it is good. But if he cannot, it does not mean that his character cannot come with an arguement.

Motherfuck it, you are a genius! Characters should play themselves!

Yeah, like when I attack, I don't have to say what stance I have and which cut I am using, it is like brilliant, man, ain't it?

Or like, I don't have to bring bat shit to the gaming table to be able to cast fireball! Wow, man, that is sooo totally rad!

Or I don't have to bring english-elvish dictionary to the table. If I want to speak Elvish, I could just say "I speak in elvish to..."

 

[Sarvis]

I mean, come on, an 8-Strength Halfling Bard with 16 Charisma can actually intimidate a huge Ogre. Don't you notice something plainly wrong there?

No, because intimidation is psychological. Maybe the halfling convinces the ogre that he carries some deadly disease, or an army will come looking for him or something like that.

There are probably better examples, but I clearly suck at intimidation. Point is it isn't just looking mean and flexing your muscles, but describing some consequences scary to the intimidatee.

 

[1eyedking]

Yeah, like when I attack, I don't have to say what stance I have and which cut I am using, it is like brilliant, man, ain't it?

Or like, I don't have to bring bat shit to the gaming table to be able to cast fireball! Wow, man, that is sooo totally rad!

Or I don't have to bring english-elvish dictionary to the table. If I want to speak Elvish, I could just say "I speak in elvish to..."

Yeah, like, well, you do know how to speak however, do you?

No, because intimidation is psychological. Maybe the halfling convinces the ogre that he carries some deadly disease, or an army will come looking for him or something like that.

That is called bluffing.

There are probably better examples, but I clearly suck at intimidation. Point is it isn't just looking mean and flexing your muscles, but describing some consequences scary to the intimidatee.

Yeah...it's easier to roll some dice, isn't it?

 

[Lyric Suite]

I believe I found the new Hallfing concept art

Goddamnit I hate D&D art. Jesus fucking Christ!

That can't be real.

 

[Sarvis]

Yeah...it's easier to roll some dice, isn't it?

More to the point, it allows me to roleplay a character that has skills I don't.

 

[Keldorn]

Having -5 armor is cool.

Illogical is a better word. One of the best thing about 3rd Edition was dealing away with bizzare THAC0 mechanics.

It's not illogical, simply because it employs an numerically abnormal/invertive system. Is the system internally consistent ? Yes, it is.

Like I said before, artistically speaking, having -5 armor is COOL.

And upgrading to -7 armor is even COOLER.


Whoop.



Oh yeah, I also like Brahms.

 

[dolio]

If someone isn't role playing, and that bothers you, why can't you just smack them upside the head and tell them to role play? It's supposed to be fun, right? Like, people are supposed to want to role play.

Is the only way to ensure that people role play to let the DM arbitrarily decide the outcome of any non-combat encounter based on how much he likes the player's acting?

And upgrading to -7 armor is even COOLER.

There is no -5 armor or -7 armor. There's just +5 armor that has -5 AC compared to +0 armor. And +1 rings that give you -1 AC and saves. And +1 swords that give you -1 THAC0, but +1 damage.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

That can't be real.

Well, here's what Drow look like in Urban Arcana:

And it's an official WotC product. But you're right, KC is likely to be fucking with us.

 

[Keldorn]

There is no -5 armor or -7 armor. There's just +5 armor that has -5 AC compared to +0 armor. And +1 rings that give you -1 AC and saves. And +1 swords that give you -1 THAC0, but +1 damage.

Inversive Numantics.


It says AC -7 on my character screen.


Having -7 Armor Class is cool.

And upgrading to -8 Armor Class is even COOLER.

 

[Keldorn]

If someone isn't role playing, and that bothers you, why can't you just smack them upside the head and tell them to role play? It's supposed to be fun, right? Like, people are supposed to want to role play.

Is the only way to ensure that people role play to let the DM arbitrarily decide the outcome of any non-combat encounter based on how much he likes the player's acting?

Groggleplex.

 

[Texas Red]

But you're right, KC is likely to be fucking with us.

Fucking or not, that's how D&D art usually looks, a bunch whores and men with Schwarznegger-like muscels.

 

[thesheeep]

And what is so wrong about that?...

 

[Gladi]

Yeah, like, well, you do know how to speak however, do you?

Yeah...it's easier to roll some dice, isn't it?

In three and half languages. Should my character understand German, just because I can?

Easier? Trust me it way easier for me to roll orc barbarian Smash and hog both figthing and social situations, jsut because I have the skills.

I have run no rules games. And they were not "better" or "more hardcore" or for "more skilled people", they were just different.

And if I am playing DnD, I will use DnD and all its' rules unless me and my players specifically agree not to. And the rules are the skills and skill rolls. Of course, I will reward an initiative, as I would always. That does not mean Your game is bad, but it is not DnD as written.

 

[kingcomrade]

The mere idea that "talking it out" just gives a circumstance bonus instead of being a prerequisite is fucking disturbing.

You mean chilling.

That can't be real.

It's from Deviant Art.

picture

Jesus Christ.