Quote from: jeff37923;361490I think it was defined well earlier in the thread.

4E is a Tactical RPG while previous editions were Immersive RPGs. Still RPGs, just a different focus for the game play in RAW.

I dunno' about the "defined well" part. I mean, who is doing the defining in these edition wars ?

I do think that 4E is more tactical but I'm not too sure about previous editions being immersive RPGs. The folks who do like it (4E) and play, still find the game extremely immersive.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jeff37923;361490while previous editions were Immersive RPGs.

Bollocks.

The game's not the thing, the snacks, players and then system are. Kyle's having an aneurism right now. Won't anyone think of Kyle?

Since when were all the older editions about immersion?  You ever read anything by Gygax?  As often as he talked about world-building and immersion, he threw down a bunch of meta-game beans.  I don't think meta concepts and immersion are always at odds, it just depends what the group likes.

Quote from: jeff37923;361486To you, Aos. With love from my Traveller games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08LfHAh0jAY

Derek Wildstar, reporting for duty, sir!

I recently watched the first two seasons of that on DVD at a friends house. I also have it on VHS (taped from the broadcast) in a box somewhere.  Pot is the best low budget special effect.

Quote from: RPGPundit;361476Ok dude, its been a good run but I think the jig is up. I think we'd best admit to people that you're a guy I've hired to generate traffic here...

Fine. Where's my check? I'm assuming I'll be getting that bonus we spoke of...

Seanchai

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361382So wait, would a rule whereby a character with the arcane power source is allowed to automatically set fire to buildings be new school or old school? I consider that kind of an innovation.

Any character with a torch can set fire to buildings, what would they need arcane power sources for? Hell, throw in a flask of oil and we can even make it automatic.

Edit: Late I know, but ya'all have more time to follow threads around here than I do, so I respond to 'em when I read 'em.

Quote from: David R;361488I disagree with this, man. I disagreed with it, when I heard the RQ guys say the same thing about D&D back in the day. I don't play 4E, but I know a number of people who do play the game. It's a different game, no doubt, but it still plays like any other rpg. For most people (at least around here) it's just another version of D&D.

Regards,
David R

Sure, it is more successful with some groups than others, but the video of the Robot Chicken guys belies the designers' intent.

Instead of something like "Sorry, Darkfire makes a creature's soul burn from the inside" (taking a cue from Ghost Rider), or "Well, it isn't a real fire, so it will only weaken the ice" and granting a bonus to the Strength check, or best of all, "Clever.  Ok, after a few minutes of Darkfire, the ice appears to have melted away from the door" and continuing, the lead designer gets the power card, and reads "Affects one creature" and decided the rules are iron clad and it can't possibly affect the door, because the door isn't a creature.  Shutting down the player's attempt at actually role playing, as in, thinking as their character would; and further discouraging it by referencing the rules instead of making up a sensible in-game explanation.  It was no different than reading off a Chance or M:tG card.

Of course, that isn't the official way to play it.  He could have easily used any of the above, but for the fans watching that video, his actions and ruling will become the de facto official method.  Which leads directly to a fireball not really being made of fire, because the target is 'each creature in burst'.  Hence, it is a damage effect that has the keyword 'fire'.  Traditional Japanese houses can be bombarded with fireballs and suffer nary a scorch.

My contention remains that the role playing exists in the gaps, rather than as an extension of the rules.  That doesn't necessarily make it inferior to any other game.  But the underlying rules are certainly not geared to make it any easier.

Stormbringer, I'm sure your reply was nuanced and all but I have no idea what you're talking about. This is probably my fault, as I was responding to a specific part of your reply to AM. Now, I still don't see how the roleplaying in 4E "exists in the gapes" because to me, either the rules get in the way (of role playing) or they don't and all this very much depends on the group.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;361517Stormbringer, I'm sure your reply was nuanced and all but I have no idea what you're talking about. This is probably my fault, as I was responding to a specific part of your reply to AM. Now, I still don't see how the roleplaying in 4E "exists in the gapes" because to me, either the rules get in the way (of role playing) or they don't and all this very much depends on the group.

Regards,
David R

More likely my fault, as I rather like to hear myself speak.  What were you referring to specifically?

Quote from: StormBringer;361331You are arguing in bad faith and you know it.

You're absolutely correct. I'm arguing in bad faith and I am absolutely aware of it.

In case you weren't aware, and I've given this disclaimer at least a few times here: I post here to entertain myself, because my viewpoints generally don't reflect the popular opinion of the board at large and that makes it more fun than going to RPGNET where everyone plays nicey-nice and below the belt blows get you banned right quick.

So yeah...I'm more interested in getting in verbal scraps than engaging in a high school debate competition...because I don't have much talent in expressing myself with tact and delicacy...so let me preface the following points by first reiterating, with as much diplomacy as I am able to muster, IMLegend's previous sentiment:

"So take your imagined argumental high-ground and shove it up your pompous ass."

Quote from: StormBringer;361331And you have every type for every spell and magic item memorized?

AD&D is even simpler.  There is no stacking, so add in all your bonuses and roll a d20 to see if you hit.

Unified challenge resolution mechanics are not really unified, so you are incorrect.

Still not buying it.

Perhaps the purest expression of post TSR D&D's core mechanic, minus the minutiae added by the myriad of character options, is found in Castles & Crusades, which would be my go-to system for a 1e-style game (read: boring)

The rules, all told, boil down to this: roll once, roll high.

Simple, elegant and I should have mentioned this particular attribute from the outset: intuitive.

Much, much more intuitive than AD&D's roll high for this, roll low for this, roll percentage for this, stand on your head and maturbate while singing the score from Pirates of Penzance for this.

The aforementioned D20 system challenge resolution mechanic IS unified, because it's the same type of roll, though the individual modifiers may differ.

Quote from: StormBringer;361331No, it's subjective in every sense, and that is the point.  But thanks for conceding that.  Now go back to your Candyland M:tG MMO on paper ruleset, the adults are having a discussion.

Here's the problem with your objectivity/subjectivity argument:

There ain't no such thing as "objective"

Case in point, most of us would agree that having a spiked heel ground into our scrotum to be an unpleasant experience, but some masochists dig it. So it's technically subjective.

Hell, I've had "discussions" with wacky, metaphysical philosophy nuts (The one's who try to get you to watch "What The BLEEP! Do We Know in the same way Jehovah's Witnesses try to get you to read The Watchtower) who don't believe in math.

So yeah...everything is subjective to someone.

Doesn't mean it makes a lick of goddamn sense.

And thank you, I will enjoy my Candyland, M:tG MMO on paper.

Likewise, I hope that you enjoy your dusty, boring, lifeless, endlessly retread, Tolkien-fellating campaigns. Old man.

Quote from: StormBringer;361331It's the same reason people upgraded their iPods when they came out with new ones, too.  It's human nature.  Sadly, your argument is utterly false, relying on people's innate neophilia to assume something is better because it is popular.  I can't help you with your miserable high school years of never being popular, but perhaps you can start a support group around here, there seem to be several people suffering from the same delusion.

Except for the resurgence of vintage style rules that you are unable to comprehend.  It must be baffling that some people don't want the new shiny just because it is new and shiny, but none of this matters, because you have utterly failed to show how a new ruleset is objectively better than an older one.  Remember Monopoly?  Aside from re-arranging the properties and moving it to Atlantic City, it hasn't changed in over 100yrs.

Monopoly 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.

So yeah...maybe some people have been perfectly happy playing OD&D since the 70's and have never moved on...if they're boring, and have no friends, and people's eyes glaze over when they talk to them, and they're my dad...but sexy and exciting people...like your mom...like to see things that are fresh new and exciting. (paraphrasing Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw)

In the same way that modelers don't want to rebuild the same scale B-17 again and again, gamers eventually get tired of playing their Fighting-Man and move on to Basic/AD&D...and eventually they tire of that and buy Unearthed Arcana...then they get tired of that and move on to GURPS or Warhammer.

In this way the hobby can be advanced...by creating something new. By innovating.

People like you are antithetical to this because you don't want innovation, you want drag the game system kicking and screaming back to the 70's when you were still a relevant and contributing member of the community.

Quote from: StormBringer;361331Take your angsty, hate your parents, emo whining elsewhere.  You haven't stumbled on the coolest thing EVAR which will garner you the popularity the other kids in your class cruelly denied you.  The more you insist it is objectively better, the less credible your argument becomes.  It doesn't help that you only offer opinion and positive assertions, I promise.

I don't hate my parents...I hate yours. Oh snap! No I didn't.

Quote from: StormBringer;361331So, none of the movement effects in a couple hundred pages of power listings are really there?  Or are you saying they aren't actually movement effects?  Or are you trying to deny their impact because you know looking all those up is far, far more involved than a couple of 'to hit' charts from older editions?

4E movement effects:

Push= Forces target to move a numer of squares away from you.
Pull=   Forces target to move a number of squares towards you.
Slide= Forces target to move in a number of squares in any direction.
Shift= Allows target to move through hostile spaces without being subjected to attects.
Teleport= Instantaneously moves target from one square to another within range.

For all those hundreds of powers, the movement effects boil down to these 5.

I won't blame you for not having realized this...afterall, I've never read the HERO system or Dogs In The Vineyard.

Quote from: StormBringer;361516Sure, it is more successful with some groups than others, but the video of the Robot Chicken guys belies the designers' intent.

Instead of something like "Sorry, Darkfire makes a creature's soul burn from the inside" (taking a cue from Ghost Rider), or "Well, it isn't a real fire, so it will only weaken the ice" and granting a bonus to the Strength check, or best of all, "Clever.  Ok, after a few minutes of Darkfire, the ice appears to have melted away from the door" and continuing, the lead designer gets the power card, and reads "Affects one creature" and decided the rules are iron clad and it can't possibly affect the door, because the door isn't a creature.  Shutting down the player's attempt at actually role playing, as in, thinking as their character would; and further discouraging it by referencing the rules instead of making up a sensible in-game explanation.  It was no different than reading off a Chance or M:tG card.

Of course, that isn't the official way to play it.  He could have easily used any of the above, but for the fans watching that video, his actions and ruling will become the de facto official method.  Which leads directly to a fireball not really being made of fire, because the target is 'each creature in burst'.  Hence, it is a damage effect that has the keyword 'fire'.  Traditional Japanese houses can be bombarded with fireballs and suffer nary a scorch.

My contention remains that the role playing exists in the gaps, rather than as an extension of the rules.  That doesn't necessarily make it inferior to any other game.  But the underlying rules are certainly not geared to make it any easier.

Actually, in this case the Drow's Dark Fire racial ability is a 4E reskin of "Faerie Fire" which the race got as a spell-like ability in previous editions.

The reason it wouldn't work on the door is that Faerie Fire is an illusory effect and doesn't, in fact, generate heat.

Of course, Mr. Perkins could have done a better job of explaining this to the players than simply saying "No...because the text says the abiltiy targets a creature.

However, if a player wanted to use something like "Scorching Burst" (1st level Wizard spell that actually does fire damage) and the DM said "No...because the spell targets a creature" then said DM would be utterly full of shit.

Quote from: kryyst;361453Mages spamming magic missile with no risk and in virtually the same mechanical state that archers shoot arrows.  That just takes away from the story element of being a spell caster.  But more then that it also diminishes some of the benefits of being an archer.

Ehhh...it diminishes what is unique about an archer...

But the way 4E differentiates is by making the prototypical archer class (Ranger) do a shit ton of damage, while the Wizards oft spammed at-will spells are ideally supposed to do more controller-y things (like rob enemies of options)

in this way, I think that the 4E iteration of magic missile is poorly designed, because all it does is straight damage without promoting what it is the Wizard is supposed to be good at.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361523You're absolutely correct. I'm arguing in bad faith and I am absolutely aware of it.

Then you wasted a lot of time typing this response.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361526Of course, Mr. Perkins could have done a better job of explaining this to the players than simply saying "No...because the text says the abiltiy targets a creature.

Perkins 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.

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

But Johnny....can't you see that I love you???