Quote from: Windjammer;361531Perkins put up another series of videos where he personally runs a (sort of) director's comments on the Robot Chicken play D&D videos. Listening to his comments, it's apparent that he's extremely perceptive of the players (e.g. who's distracted when and why), so I don't think he's an ass. To the contrary. In any case, it will be interesting when the director's commentary goes up for the sequence in question here ("Can Dark Fire be worked on an object?").

My personal take on the issue is actually quite relaxed. Perkins is an expert DM guiding new players into his campaign. He's setting some base lines here. Right there, near the very first session kicking off, he frankly had to communicate whether he's going to winge this game or not. This ruling, and the drawn out sequence of "let me look at your card text and read it (though I'm one of the designers who wrote it, knows it, and doesn't need to to this)" - that serves the purpose of alerting the players to his DMing style. And that style is "please look at your card before you use it", as in "look up the mechanics, look beyond the flavour line".

Geez, is that so bad? I mean, I'm the guy who brought this issue up at the Gaming Den before my (timed) Youtube link got cross posted to Enworld and this site. And man, I was just as offended as the next guy, because I love to winge stuff in 4E. But I can totally see how some DMs might not love winging. It's that simple.

I'm not saying that he made the wrong call here...I'm just saying that from an outside perspective he could have communicated why this idea wouldn't work as it relates to the game world, rather than just the rules.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361523. . . stand on your head and maturbate while single the score from Pirates of Penzance for this.

Ooooh, I'd forgotten about the Thief's optional attract-random-harlots-as-followers subsystem.

Good times. Though a trifle messy.

Quote from: StormBringer;361519More likely my fault, as I rather like to hear myself speak.  What were you referring to specifically?

Well specifically your reference to the way how chess utilizes roleplaying and AM's point that many dismiss 4E as not a roleplaying game. I reread your Darkfire example and shazbot's reply, and think that OtE beats any edition of D&D as far as roleplaying "as an extension of the rules" (encouraging player creativity, through roleplaying) but I certainly woud not say D&D is not a roleplaying game or that it utilizes roleplaying as Chess would.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Shazbot79;361523Monopoly is a different animal than D&D.

Sure, both are games however they differ in that Monopoly is family entertainment first and foremost...you sit around a table, pull it out of the box, and play until someone wins, whereas D&D is a hobby. Meaning that when the game ends, people are still thinking about it and tweaking it.

This is partly true but in fact Monopoly is not primarily sold as a game at all. :)It is a gift. You need to buy something for a kid at Christmas you know they like the Simpsons so you buy them the Simpson's Monopoly game becuase it costs $19:99 and hits one of their sweet spots. They play it once and never open the box again.

Monopoly fills an interesting niche in western socieity. It's a well known fun game but the key is the price point. In a world replete with Gift Reciprocity and Social Mores Monopoly is very similar to a nice soapstone sulpture or a Singing Carp.

I never realised this myself until I was watching Dragon's Den on the telly (if you are not familiar its a program where budding entrepeneurs try to get funding for their products /ideas from sucessful business folks who put up their own cash). This guys came on and he had a new sort of golf bag. It was a simple plastic frame and the clubs snapped on slots... Anyway it wasn't great but one of the guys backed it and afterwards the others asked why. He pointed out that the thing could be sold at a profit for £19:99 and that there were loads of people who play golf and their families at birthdays and xmas want to get them something golfie but even a cheap club is £80 and a bag of golf balls is a pretty crap gift. This thing was perfectly placed as a gift you buy for a golfer that costs 20 quid and the market for that was huge. it didn't actually matter that it would be used once then stuck in the back of a cupboard as it would have been sold for a profit.

Monopoly is like that. If you have kids you know they get invited to loads of parties at a party you have to give a gift. So there are loads of crappy kids games at £9:99, 14:99 and 19:99 depending on if its a class mate, close friend or relative. They are not meant to be actually played but to fulfil a social obligation. (I mean I have 5 scrabble sets.... )

Oh and I agree that a standard core mechanic is definitely game design progress and it gets out of the way of role playing. If you know that whatever you decide to do its target value on a d20 (or %d, or pool of d10s). I really like the WW dice pool as the mechanic "stat+skill = dice in the pool" is so easy to adapt to any game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;361543Oh and I agree that a standard core mechanic is definitely game design progress and it gets out of the way of role playing. If you know that whatever you decide to do its target value on a d20 (or %d, or pool of d10s). I really like the WW dice pool as the mechanic "stat+skill = dice in the pool" is so easy to adapt to any game.

The WW dice pool mechanic got a lot better when they retooled botch rules.

It just didn't make any sense to me that the better you were at something, the more likely it was that you would critically fumble.

So far I think that my favorite core mechanic that I've seen so far is the one that the new Dragonage P&P uses.

The game uses 3 six-sided die, with one of those dice (which the game refers to as the "dragon die") acting as sort of a "success meter."

The system works by rolling 3d6+Modifiers vs. target number (similar to D20) this determines if the action succeeds or fails. the number showing on the dragon die determines how well the action succeeds (mostly for narrative purposes)

For example, if a character is trying to tightrope walk across a clothesline strung between two rooftops, then the player rolls 3d6+6 vs. a difficulty of 20 and comes up with a 21 then the character succeeds. If a 1 is showing on the dragon die, then the character wobbles, almost falling and has to jump the rest of the way, barely making it onto the next roof...but if a 6 is showing on the dragon die, then the character easily jogs across the line, nimble as a cat.

I like this, because the resolution is straightforward, but it offers a gauge for the degree of success which the D20 system really doesn't.

The same mechanic is applied to combat rolls, where rolling doubles on any of the 3 six-sided dice gives a character a number of "stunt points" equal to the number showing on the dragon die, which the character can spend on extra bits like doing extra damage, making another attack, knocking the enemy prone, bullrushing the enemy back a few yards, etc. This is the games version of a critical hit, and to me it's a lot more interesting than simply doing double damage.

I really dig this, because it lends combat in the game a dynamic feel, with a sort of free-form melee combo system that feels a bit more natural than 4E's power system.

The hand wringing and tears of rage over whether or not Darkfire (AKA Faerie Fire!)  should be allowed to melt ice is great because .. 6 months ago, people were arguing that 4E forces DMs to only say "yes" and "constantly pamper the privileged players". Chris Perkins doesn't allow Faerie Fire to melt ice and now, some of the same fucking people are all up in arms because he said "no".

Can someone just do an honesty check at this point and admit that all of this outrage has nothing to do with 4E? I mean.. I get it; worlds are spinning out of control and someone, somewhere has hurt feelings, somewhere there is some discontent in the universe that must be tapped into by a bunch of teary-eyed used-to-be gamers.

But that has nothing to do with a game.

Oh, and dice pools suck!

Quote from: Peregrin;361252Foster, I'm just curious.  How are spell/mana points worse than fire-and-forget?  Fantasy Craft managed to use them in conjunction with making spellcasting a skill to help give melee users a significant edge without resorting to 'all-you-can-eat' low-powered bits.

Aren't the free (as long as you make the roll) 0-level spells in Fantasy Craft "'all-you-can-eat' low-powered bits"?

Not saying you need to go that way, just wondering what you were trying to say here.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361545The hand wringing and tears of rage over whether or not Darkfire (AKA Faerie Fire!)  should be allowed to melt ice is great because .. 6 months ago, people were arguing that 4E forces DMs to only say "yes" and "constantly pamper the privileged players". Chris Perkins doesn't allow Faerie Fire to melt ice and now, some of the same fucking people are all up in arms because he said "no".

WRONG. But way to misrepresent to bolster your point. Well done.

Speaking as one of those people who took issue with how Chris handled the issue, it was not because merely he said no. It was how he handled it and how he made the decision.

He made the decision based on combat-centric rules minutia of it targeting a creature. If Perkins had said "darkfire doesn't produce any heat", I don't think anyone would have had an issue with it.

QuoteOh, and dice pools suck

This much we can agree on.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361545The hand wringing and tears of rage over whether or not Darkfire (AKA Faerie Fire!)  should be allowed to melt ice is great because .. 6 months ago, people were arguing that 4E forces DMs to only say "yes" and "constantly pamper the privileged players". Chris Perkins doesn't allow Faerie Fire to melt ice and now, some of the same fucking people are all up in arms because he said "no".

If your player has a +5 vorpal sword on his Magic Item Wish List TM, give it to him.
If your players are to stupid to retrieve the information to solve the crime case, give it to them.
If your players are about to face a TPK and would break into tears like girls who can't handle it, give them sweet victory.

If your player wants to use any of the 800 powers in this game to blast a fragile door, don't let him.


Oh yes, I do think it's possible that a single game and its GM advice can fail in in all these ways at once. It's impressive, it doesn't come along often, but you know, Shit Happens.

Quote from: David R;361539Well specifically your reference to the way how chess utilizes roleplaying and AM's point that many dismiss 4E as not a roleplaying game. I reread your Darkfire example and shazbot's reply, and think that OtE beats any edition of D&D as far as roleplaying "as an extension of the rules" (encouraging player creativity, through roleplaying) but I certainly woud not say D&D is not a roleplaying game or that it utilizes roleplaying as Chess would.

Regards,
David R

I understand what you are saying.  Of course, no version of D&D is exactly designed to support the more social interaction level role-playing I think you are referring to.  The earlier versions much more smoothly filled the gaps, however, and they weren't nearly as sharp.  I'm not making the argument that 4e isn't a role-playing game, I am saying the move to a more rules oriented game makes this harder to achieve, to the point where it is attaining the same level of difficulty as chess or M:tG.  You can certainly do it, but you are largely on your own, and you will need to gloss over a greater number of inconsistencies.  Going by the example mentioned in the video, if one is to interpret the target listings strictly, a fireball isn't a ball of fire anymore, as it also affects 'creatures'.  Without looking up every single entry, I would suspect that just about every spell and almost any other power has the same descriptive under 'target'.

In fact, standard limiting of what can and cannot be targets in the first place already discourages creative thinking.  If there are a dozen ropes or chains in a reasonably close proximity supporting some heavy object the players want to release, why can't the Ranger Blade Cascade all the ropes?  Well, again, the target is one or more creatures.

4e is the end result for all the 'rules are not physics' folks out there, and because if it, there are a very large number of disjoints.  It is these disjoints that are the gaps needing to be filled.  Sure, the earlier editions had their problems as well; no set of rules can cover every situation.  But the gaps were not as glaring, and the ones that did exist were easier to smooth over with guidelines provided by the rules.  The description for fireball told you more or less exactly what you could melt with it; from there it was a fairly simple extrapolation to how it would affect other materials.

Quote from: StormBringer;361529Then you wasted a lot of time typing this response.

What I love about the post he made though is the delusion that young=relevant and old=irrelevant.

Quote from: jibbajibba;361543This is partly true but in fact Monopoly is not primarily sold as a game at all. :)It is a gift. You need to buy something for a kid at Christmas you know they like the Simpsons so you buy them the Simpson's Monopoly game becuase it costs $19:99 and hits one of their sweet spots. They play it once and never open the box again.

Monopoly fills an interesting niche in western socieity. It's a well known fun game but the key is the price point. In a world replete with Gift Reciprocity and Social Mores Monopoly is very similar to a nice soapstone sulpture or a Singing Carp.

I never realised this myself until I was watching Dragon's Den on the telly (if you are not familiar its a program where budding entrepeneurs try to get funding for their products /ideas from sucessful business folks who put up their own cash). This guys came on and he had a new sort of golf bag. It was a simple plastic frame and the clubs snapped on slots... Anyway it wasn't great but one of the guys backed it and afterwards the others asked why. He pointed out that the thing could be sold at a profit for £19:99 and that there were loads of people who play golf and their families at birthdays and xmas want to get them something golfie but even a cheap club is £80 and a bag of golf balls is a pretty crap gift. This thing was perfectly placed as a gift you buy for a golfer that costs 20 quid and the market for that was huge. it didn't actually matter that it would be used once then stuck in the back of a cupboard as it would have been sold for a profit.

Monopoly is like that. If you have kids you know they get invited to loads of parties at a party you have to give a gift. So there are loads of crappy kids games at £9:99, 14:99 and 19:99 depending on if its a class mate, close friend or relative. They are not meant to be actually played but to fulfil a social obligation. (I mean I have 5 scrabble sets.... )

Oh and I agree that a standard core mechanic is definitely game design progress and it gets out of the way of role playing. If you know that whatever you decide to do its target value on a d20 (or %d, or pool of d10s). I really like the WW dice pool as the mechanic "stat+skill = dice in the pool" is so easy to adapt to any game.

The problem I see with your idea here is that I and many folks I know have played Monopoly, as adults, and more than once. It's fun and simple and familiar.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361545The hand wringing and tears of rage over whether or not Darkfire (AKA Faerie Fire!)  should be allowed to melt ice is great because .. 6 months ago, people were arguing that 4E forces DMs to only say "yes" and "constantly pamper the privileged players". Chris Perkins doesn't allow Faerie Fire to melt ice and now, some of the same fucking people are all up in arms because he said "no".

Can someone just do an honesty check at this point and admit that all of this outrage has nothing to do with 4E? I mean.. I get it; worlds are spinning out of control and someone, somewhere has hurt feelings, somewhere there is some discontent in the universe that must be tapped into by a bunch of teary-eyed used-to-be gamers.

But that has nothing to do with a game.

Oh, and dice pools suck!

You're using selective reading to make your argument sound better AM. What was specifically said was not that the GM said no, but that the GM said no by reading and emphasizing the wording on the power card rather than just make a ruling or explain that drow fire is just faerie fire and illusory. This kind of deliberate omission (unless you're saying you truly don't understand the difference) is why folks give you such a hard time.

Quote from: Sigmund;361555What I love about the post he made though is the delusion that young=relevant and old=irrelevant.

Yeah, I felt like I was at a Who concert in the 60s or something.

"People try to put us down...  Just because we get around..."

Quote from: Sigmund;361555What I love about the post he made though is the delusion that young=relevant and old=irrelevant.

Don't forget the meme of new=better.