God, I'm mad at Wizards.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

or that the drow have been scaring the bejeezus out of people in the Underdark for about 29 years.

Are the Drow for real that old? I thought they were more along the lines of 17-20.

[Matthew]

Wow, another 'I like 4e/ I don't like 4e' Thread spiralling out of control. Same protagonists and the same arguments going round in an endless cycle. I expect to see a lot of these over the next few months and God help us when 4e is actually released...

Anywho, yeah, I'm still of the same opinion. 4e looks like it's going to be a mixed bag.

Likes:

1) Saving Throw Progression
2) Dropping Iterative Attacks
3) Skill Progression
4) Simplified Critical Hits
5) 0 Level (hopefully) Classless NPCs
6) 'Defence' idea

Dislikes:

1) 'Bloodied' concept
2) Rebooting the Forgotten Realms
3) Per Encounter Abilities [i.e. as a move from Strategic to Tactical considerations]
4) Hit Point Inflation
5) Changing the Standard Races
6) Increasing emphasis on Miniatures
7) New Attribute Modifiers (from what I can tell)
8) Quite a lot of the art, but especially Dwarf weaponry
9) Power Sources
10) Online Initiative

[Moral Wiz]

PCs can generate plot. So can events. Some NPCs cause these events, and other events merely occur. A volcanic eruption can cause a plot without an NPC so much as lifting a finger towards its generation. And none of that matters unless the PCs perceive it.

PCs are more important than NPCs because without PCs, NPCs have no reason whatsoever to exist. Every little bit of description and detail a DM comes up with exists to be perceived by the players. The living world exists to be interacted with and perceived by the PCs. It has no other function.

But the point here is the system. And two systems, one for PCs, one for NPCs, wrecks empathy, and ends up leaving the PCs regarding NPCs as nothing more than literary constructs, as opposed to characters, with whom they interact. As opposed to a system where the NPCs could, in theory, be dead ringers for PCs. And the ability to customize NPCs through system is yet another way to boost empathy that is being thrown out.

M&M, a game about SUPER HEROES, about as far off normal as you can get from the very premise, where normals basically have no way to gain the powers of the heroes, has one system for everyone. I can see no reason 4th ed shouldn't do the same if they had half an interest in RP.

[LibraryOgre]

Are the Drow for real that old? I thought they were more along the lines of 17-20.

Dude, 20 years ago is when I started playing... and, for that matter, when "The Crystal Shard", the first Drizzt book, was published. Salvatore was building on established D&D mythology.

Heck, I'll put them at 31; they're mentioned as a legend in the Monster Manual 1, released back in 1977. They figured prominently in some late-70s, early 80s modules like the Giants series (G1, G2, and G3), and the Drow series.

Gah. Get off my lawn, with your hula hoops and rock music.

[Neon Knight]

But the point here is the system. And two systems, one for PCs, one for NPCs, wrecks empathy, and ends up leaving the PCs regarding NPCs as nothing more than literary constructs, as opposed to characters, with whom they interact. As opposed to a system where the NPCs could, in theory, be dead ringers for PCs. And the ability to customize NPCs through system is yet another way to boost empathy that is being thrown out.

M&M, a game about SUPER HEROES, about as far off normal as you can get from the very premise, where normals basically have no way to gain the powers of the heroes, has one system for everyone. I can see no reason 4th ed shouldn't do the same if they had half an interest in RP.

The system affects RP in no way, shape, or form. A PC will regard an NPC as a fictional construct based on his whim, regardless of the mechanical difference between them.

The player's attitude towards the game world is not determined by the mechanics of the game world. It is determined by the player. I could play M&M and not care one bit about the story or NPCs if I decided to. And I could play a system where the PCs and NPCs work vastly different, and care a great deal if I choose to get involved.

[Moral Wiz]

Well, now we're finally down to opinion. You say that the system doesn't effect RP. But can't prove that. I say that it does, on some level, unconscious or no. But can't prove it.

But knowing that NPCs are working on the same system as the PCs creates empathy. A predisposition for the PCs to relate more to NPCs (though that's not a certainty, as you say, it makes such relativity more likely. Perticularly if that customization makes the NPC distinct.

Empathy for the NPCs equates to deep, emotional involvement in the plot. That is what RP should be about. And basically treating all NPCs as monsters won't help that. But I can't prove what I say.

[Diamondeye]

Going with the same format (and my apologies if any of these are inaccurate, I'm playing catchup ball on the whole 4E scene)

Likes
1) Removal of metamagic feats
2) Removal of item creation feats
3) Efforts to make clerics more than combat medics
4) Balancing of druid
5) self-healing.. I did dislike this until I realized it boded well for the cleric
6) getting rid of the level 20 barrier
7) improving multiclassability

Dislikes
1) Change to arcane spell use method (no more memorization/preparation. This right here is enough to make the entire edition unplayable to me.
2) Change to casting method of same (refresh timer method)
3) Nerfing of wizard schools
4) Removal of magic schools/specialist wizards
5) Move of magical capabilities to psionics
6) orb/wand/staff thing (whatever this is)
7) removal of gnomes/half elves/half orcs. Half elves were my favorite race
8) addition of dragonborn and Eldarin
9) Addition of tieflings; only because they removed other, better core races. If they'd left those alone I wouldn't mind
10) Apparent removal of monks, bards, barbarians and druids as core classes
11) Addition of warlords and warlocks in any form
12) Giving of martial-adept style abilities to other classes, especially fighters
13) addition of rituals as magic
14) apparent shift to more mobile combat
15) rogues moving towards the everquest "damage dealer" as opposed to underpowered combatant/skill master (this was already a problem in 3/3.5 but apparently it's worsened with them doing flips around enemies and such)
16) shift of druid emphasis to shapeshifting; this should have been nerfed if anything
17) Sorcerers and this "barely controlled/hold onto energy" nonsense
18) Inability to recreate a swordsage. My favorite class from any edition
19) Failure to move the 3 martial adepts to 4E as distinct classes, preferably non-core. The ToB was my favorite non-core book of any edition, and has been basically tossed aside in order to give special abilities to core classes, that should be very basic
19) de-emphasis of static bonus items
20) removal of some item slots
21) the magic ring (level-item) system
22) general reduction in magic item quantity. This could have been done simply by not planning on high level characters having so much wealth in designing encounters
23) pargon and epic paths. PrCs were the way to go
24) idea of epic-level PCs taking on dieties/being associated with them directly
25) all classes with same BAB/save progression.
26) magic and melee using the same mechanic
27) Pretty much any change to FR setting
28) changes to alignment system
29) the fact that they did not wait about 3 more years for 3.5 to be fully mature before doing this.

[VanBuren]

Well, now we're finally down to opinion. You say that the system doesn't effect RP. But can't prove that. I say that it does, on some level, unconscious or no. But can't prove it.

Burden of proof, If I'm recalling this correctly. He can't prove that it doesn't because he can't go through every instance that ever has or will happen to see if it does effect it. That's why the burden falls on you to prove that it does.

But knowing that NPCs are working on the same system as the PCs creates empathy. A predisposition for the PCs to relate more to NPCs (though that's not a certainty, as you say, it makes such relativity more likely. Perticularly if that customization makes the NPC distinct.

That tastes a bit metagamey.

[Moral Wiz]

Burden of proof, If I'm recalling this correctly. He can't prove that it doesn't because he can't go through every instance that ever has or will happen to see if it does effect it. That's why the burden falls on you to prove that it does.

But we're talking about psychology. Nothing can be proven, even actual research does not prove, only suggest. Burden of proof does not apply. Thus, it's an infinite argument.

And yes; it's metagamey. But unconsciously so; and doesn't affect the game. What I'm saying is that it's what we all do on some level., with or without intent? Who do you relate to? The best friend, who has progressed in the arcane arts alongside you, and occasionally gives you some new tricks? Or the lvl 10 NPC, under a different system? If anything, using a whole different system makes the PCs meta-game in their own importance, far worse, no?

[horseboy]

PCs can generate plot. So can events. Some NPCs cause these events, and other events merely occur. A volcanic eruption can cause a plot without an NPC so much as lifting a finger towards its generation. And none of that matters unless the PCs perceive it.

PCs are more important than NPCs because without PCs, NPCs have no reason whatsoever to exist. Every little bit of description and detail a DM comes up with exists to be perceived by the players. The living world exists to be interacted with and perceived by the PCs. It has no other function.

For some reason it's reminding me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq0gQOJK31E

No. The character does not exist. It is a fictional construct. An abstract. It has no concrete reality and no sentient intelligence with a free will behind it. It is a puppet. If the creator dictates that it undergoes a personality change, it does.

No, then it is no longer that character, it's a different character. Kinda like the two Darrins from Bewitched.

[EvilElitest]

That tastes a bit metagamey.

No, that makes you feel like these guys are just like you (the PC), people who have chosen to focus upon a certain profesion, that you are adventuring in a breathing consistent world, not a game created simple for your entertainment
from
EE

[Fax Celestis]

No, that makes you feel like these guys are just like you (the PC), people who have chosen to focus upon a certain profesion, that you are adventuring in a breathing consistent world, not a game created simple for your entertainment
from
EE

The system shouldn't matter.

[EvilElitest]

The system shouldn't matter.

If the NPCs and the PC function under different rules, then there should be a reason, why is one wizard better than all the other ones
from
EE

[Rutee]

I wish Dungeons and Discourse was a real game.

+10 Respect Points. Also I want a level 8 Positivist, on a sidenote. *Used DnDi Kimiko as a basis for a Mage in nWoD*

I gotta say, it's rather interesting to watch someone else use this style of debate instead of me. Thanks for making my day, Kasrkin. Also, need to remember that most people don't think in these terms in general, when phrasing my arguments.

Additional food for thought: Every single NPC and monster in the MM books uses the /commoner/ array (EG all 10s/11s). By definition, every single PC in a game of Dungeons and Dragons is a supremely better specimen then every single NPC, even if they are individually weaker.

[Woot Spitum]

But the point here is the system. And two systems, one for PCs, one for NPCs, wrecks empathy, and ends up leaving the PCs regarding NPCs as nothing more than literary constructs, as opposed to characters, with whom they interact. As opposed to a system where the NPCs could, in theory, be dead ringers for PCs. And the ability to customize NPCs through system is yet another way to boost empathy that is being thrown out.

M&M, a game about SUPER HEROES, about as far off normal as you can get from the very premise, where normals basically have no way to gain the powers of the heroes, has one system for everyone. I can see no reason 4th ed shouldn't do the same if they had half an interest in RP.

But if your players are simply seeing your npc's as random people with class levels as opposed to people with names and lives of their own, that battle is already lost. In fact, it could be argued that statting every single person the pcs come across is actually a cynical way of playing the game. After all, what does giving npcs stats allow them to do they couldn't do without stats besides allowing them to be killed or diplomacied into submission by the pcs.

This is not a RAW problem, it's a player problem. You can lead pc's to lovingly crafted characters and settings, but you can't make them care. They have to decide to care on their own.

[Ascension]

Yes, but you're no Half-Orc.
One parent was a victim of rape, the other a horrible monster. Your existance would serve as a constant reminder of the remaining parents rape, and as such they'd despise you. Living on the streets, detested by all...

And what do you get in return? Darkvision and +2 strength. Even Tieflings get cool things for being horrible freaks against nature.

I know I'm pulling a quote from the first page, but I just want to ask this question...

Have you ever considered that a Half-Orc MIGHT be the product of a loving relationship? I think classifying the whole lot of them as victims of rape is pushing it. Just because Orcs are fairly stupid and ugly (by normal human standards, that is) doesn't mean that they can't love or be loved.

[EvilElitest]

I know I'm pulling a quote from the first page, but I just want to ask this question...

Have you ever considered that a Half-Orc MIGHT be the product of a loving relationship? I think classifying the whole lot of them as victims of rape is pushing it. Just because Orcs are fairly stupid and ugly (by normal human standards, that is) doesn't mean that they can't love or be loved.

Impossible, don't be silly
from
EE

[Moral Wiz]

Rutee, if any are sentient, and chose to follow a class, they play by the same rules. Yes, PCs are slightly better, but they're playing the same game fundamentally.

And Faux? It shouldn't matter. That doesn't mean it won't. On some level, you'll not be able to relate to NPCs as well if they function nothing like PCs.

Wood? I'm not saying that PCs should see NPCs as class levels. I'm saying that creating NPCs that the players can relate to is a lot easier when they are all singing of the same song sheet, when NPCs basically work the same as them. It doesn't make NPC's better in itself. But it gives them more potential that 4th seems to be implying.

[Deepblue706]

If anyone has decided they really hate Wizards, there's always other games.

[Yami]

Also quoteing from the first page.

while i realize their are already many other threads on the topic, i must agree. My theory is that in WOW gnomes are a comedy relief and as WOW players are one of 4E target audiences, its focus upon everything being "cool" needs to cut gnomes out.

You apearantly don't play WoW then. As there, gnomes are about the only good thing the Alliance has.

[Rutee]

Rutee, if any are sentient, and chose to follow a class, they play by the same rules. Yes, PCs are slightly better, but they're playing the same game fundamentally.

Actually, the rules to advance monsters by HD rather then class already exist; They're simply neglected because class makes for more threatening enemies.

Wood? I'm not saying that PCs should see NPCs as class levels. I'm saying that creating NPCs that the players can relate to is a lot easier when they are all singing of the same song sheet, when NPCs basically work the same as them. It doesn't make NPC's better in itself. But it gives them more potential that 4th seems to be implying.

No, it gives them less potential, if they MUST function off the exact same growth guidelines as PCs, whom generally have to be less outright powerful then the enemies they face. Seriously, in no sense can you have higher potential with fewer options, given the exact same input. Further, you seem to imply that the lion's share of NPCs generated by different methods play under genuinely different rules. THey don't. They use the same mechanics to interact with the world (When they use mechanics) as the PCs. You're saying that because their songsheet is printed off carbon paper rather then computer paper, they're totally and completely different, and that's just not the case.

[Counterspin]

So wizards changing the rules (looser NPC rules) -> Players become worse (become unable to empathize with NPCs)

Seriously? Man, I'm glad I have my group, where we all laugh about how ridiculous of an idea that is and get on with gaming.

As for versimilitude, creatures with random powers have always been part of the system, it's just that the designers came up with the powers. Seriously, no amount of studying would give you a krenshar's howl, for instance. Changing who comes up with the powers has no effect on versimilitude, as long as the power can be explained in a way which maintains versimlitude, and the bar for that in a fantasy setting is hilariously low. Take the magic missiling goblin. He and his buddies can do that because their clan has a magic item which grants the power to goblins who worship it. Bam, easy.

[Moral Wiz]

Actually, the rules to advance monsters by HD rather then class already exist; They're simply neglected because class makes for more threatening enemies.

Personally, I have never followed that for either reason. None the less, with sentient races

No, it gives them less potential, if they MUST function off the exact same growth guidelines as PCs, whom generally have to be less outright powerful then the enemies they face. Seriously, in no sense can you have higher potential with fewer options, given the exact same input.

I'm... not entirly sure what you're saying here.

Further, you seem to imply that the lion's share of NPCs generated by different methods play under genuinely different rules. THey don't. They use the same mechanics to interact with the world (When they use mechanics) as the PCs. You're saying that because their songsheet is printed off carbon paper rather then computer paper, they're totally and completely different, and that's just not the case.

AFAIK, 4th ed uses a totally different system for NPCs.

If it's the same as ever; then I rescind all above statements, not on grounds of being incorrect, but on grounds of "utterly irrelevant"

As for versimilitude, creatures with random powers have always been part of the system, it's just that the designers came up with the powers. Seriously, no amount of studying would give you a krenshar's howl, for instance. Changing who comes up with the powers has no effect on versimilitude, as long as the power can be explained in a way which maintains versimlitude, and the bar for that in a fantasy setting is hilariously low. Take the magic missiling goblin. He and his buddies can do that because their clan has a magic item which grants the power to goblins who worship it. Bam, easy.

But that applying to everyone in the world but the party? You are telling me that wouldn't be alienating?

[Daimbert]

It is a simple observation in metaphysics. When in not in direct contact with, say, Bob the farmer, Bob's actions are not observed by the PCs. Therefore, they exist only in the DM's mind.

In the real world, objects have permanency whether we perceive them or not. Fictional constructs, however, exist only as long as we perceive and know them, and even then they exist only in our abstract thoughts. Bob the farmer did not exist until the DM thought of him, and even then he existed only in the DM's head. As a fictional construct, he was not real to the player's until they perceived him through the DM's description of him.

And something that will exist only in the DM's head, never to be perceived by the players, is a waste of thought that might as well not exist.

This only works for NPCs that the party will never see again, or for NPCs that, after they leave, will never have an impact on any part of the world that the PCs might encounter. If that isn't the case, then it isn't a waste of thought, since knowing what they would do and how they would do it allows the DM to build up consistency in the story. Inconsistencies break suspension of disbelief, to varying degrees for different people. For example, I could never really get into the movie "Memento". Why? Because I didn't believe that someone with the obvious problems of the main character would be allowed to walk around alone in society. I had the same problem with "Star Trek: Enterprise"; I couldn't see how they could get from there to the Original Series.

I'm probably an extreme case, but it does matter to most people that the world be consistent.

And all that backstory and history, unless related to the audience/players, does not matter one iota.

Whether a character has a backstory or doesn't, an author knows precisely what he will do in any given situation, because the author dictates his every action and his very existence.

And the author does that by, in fact, generating back story, and a personality, and running the character forward through events if they think it might matter to the plot. In a book, it's easy for them to do since they control if it matters to the plot or not. In an RPG, it isn't so easy, since the DM has to answer questions from the players as to why it would be the case that someone who was sent to go off and warn the main fortress about an attack -- for example -- never did, or why the fortress doesn't act alarmed, or why the person is there but the fortress isn't on a war footing, etc, etc. The DM ALSO has to deal with players ASSUMING that the NPC would act a certain way, and acting accordingly. If the DM doesn't have a logical and detectable explanation for why that character would do something else, the players will grumble.

And why do those NPCs need mechanical representation, especially mechanical representation akin to that of adventurers?

So that the players can figure out how to deal with them without having to have the DM explain PRECISELY how their characters work outside of the game world.

Think about it this way. You could have this conversation in-game:

Player: "How did you do that?"
Villain: "I'm a cleric of [fill in god here]."

At that point, the players pretty much know what they're dealing with. On the other hand:

Player: "How did you do that?"
Villain: "I'm a, uh, uh ..."
DM: "He's a goblin that I gave the ability to cast Cure spells to and turn undead and wildshape, but that's all I gave him. I think. Well, until I decide that he needs something else."

PCs are more important than NPCs because without PCs, NPCs have no reason whatsoever to exist. Every little bit of description and detail a DM comes up with exists to be perceived by the players. The living world exists to be interacted with and perceived by the PCs. It has no other function.

This is all true, but it doesn't impact your argument the way you think it does. They exist to be perceived by players, but players demand consistency in their world. And players can control what they perceive and what they ask about. So creating a living world MEANS keeping the world living and going even when the players aren't directly watching it, or else the players will notice that the world is flat, dull and unchanging ... like the worlds players COMPLAIN about in CRPGs.

No. The character does not exist. It is a fictional construct. An abstract. It has no concrete reality and no sentient intelligence with a free will behind it. It is a puppet. If the creator dictates that it undergoes a personality change, it does.

But the DM had better have a VERY good reason for that personality change, because the players are going to ask and try to find out why ... and if the answer is "Just because" they are going to get very upset. When these sorts of inconsistencies happen in novels we get mad, toss the book against the wall, and stop reading it. Players in RPGs aren't likely to be as happy.

And DnD 3.5 makes the PCs flat out better than NPCs, considering that most NPCs use inferior NPC classes, and inferior ability arrays.

Yes, but that makes sense; they chose a different profession that better suited their needs, which happens in the real world as well. A far cry from "make up the rules as you go along" and "they should always start and be less powerful than the PC, even if they're supposed to be stronger" types of things.

[Fax Celestis]

If the NPCs and the PC function under different rules, then there should be a reason, why is one wizard better than all the other ones
from
EE

Because that one wizard is a hero, and heroes don't follow the same rules that everyone else does. Achilles, for instance. Classical hero (well, antihero, depending on who you talk to). Did not follow the same rules that everyone else did, as he was nigh-invincible but for his fateful heel. See also: Jason, Odysseus, Paris, Hector, Gilgamesh, Conan, Loki...

[Daimbert]

The system affects RP in no way, shape, or form. A PC will regard an NPC as a fictional construct based on his whim, regardless of the mechanical difference between them.

The player's attitude towards the game world is not determined by the mechanics of the game world. It is determined by the player. I could play M&M and not care one bit about the story or NPCs if I decided to. And I could play a system where the PCs and NPCs work vastly different, and care a great deal if I choose to get involved.

I have to disagree that the system does not affect RP. The only way you can say that is to say that the system does not impact the world at all. Sure, you're right in the sense that the underlying base level mechanics -- how damage is determined, what dice and how many you roll, etc, etc -- don't really impact the world. But how things generally work DOES. If you have a supervillain attacking you -- using M&M as an example -- that is considered to be at a certain power level (or should be, based on back story) and they have higher levels of skills or powers than should be allowed at that level, players will generally cry foul; the enemy is stronger than they are or would be and is better at doing things that they'd do at that level. But the converse is WORSE, and really heavily affects RP: if the character does NOT have abilities that they should have at that power level, the players will think that they're stupid, even if you are trying to portray them as cold, calculating and ruthless. A DM or GM can fix that by giving them a back story where the difference makes sense and works.

Basically, how the world works has to be consistent so that players won't lose their suspension of disbelief, and role playing only occurs where players suspend disbelief, at least for a moment, and act as their CHARACTERS would act. To any extent where the system impacts the world, it adds or subtracts from consistency, and adds or subtracts from immersion, and thus impacts role playing.

(BTW, does this count as proving that RP is affected [grin]?)

[Woot Spitum]

If the NPCs and the PC function under different rules, then there should be a reason, why is one wizard better than all the other ones
from
EE

Because he works harder? Because he's more dedicated? Because he was born with more natural talent? Because he had better teachers? Because his motivations were pure?

See, all these explanations work regardless of what system you play. They even work in a systemless game or even a novel.

Whereas if we go for a D&D exclusive explanation it becomes: because he was built using LogicNinja's guide to wizards. So in my view, justifying power levels based exclusively on the rules actually hurts empathy and immersion.

[Daimbert]

I wish Dungeons and Discourse was a real game.

It's really a shame that Berkeley didn't actually argue for that, but instead argued against it since it was ridiculous.

Berkeley argued that all that we can know exists has to be perceived. This means that for something to exist, SOME perceiver has to perceive it. So what happens when you leave a room and no one is perceiving the things in it anymore? Well, there are two options. The first is that it ceases to exist, and then gets recreated in the precise form it had when we stopped perceiving it the instant we walk back in the room. The second is that something else is perceiving it and maintaining its existence. Berkeley rejects the first option, and then says that this proves that God exists ... because HE is always perceiving everything and so is maintaining the existence of things when we aren't perceiving them.

[LibraryOgre]

Berkeley argued that all that we can know exists has to be perceived. This means that for something to exist, SOME perceiver has to perceive it. So what happens when you leave a room and no one is perceiving the things in it anymore? Well, there are two options. The first is that it ceases to exist, and then gets recreated in the precise form it had when we stopped perceiving it the instant we walk back in the room. The second is that something else is perceiving it and maintaining its existence. Berkeley rejects the first option, and then says that this proves that God exists ... because HE is always perceiving everything and so is maintaining the existence of things when we aren't perceiving them.

Wow... talk about putting your conclusions in front of your data...

[Sebastian]

If anyone has decided they really hate Wizards, there's always other games.

seconded, and with a little research you don't even need to spend money

jags

witchcraft

fate

some other hundreds or so, some are good, some are not, but they are all free (for what I know.)