As it becomes more and more obvious that our group isn't going to stick with 4E I've started to look back at why it failed.
Maybe "failed" is the wrong word. I don't want to imply that it's some sort of sweeping failure like the Zune. There are certainly fans of the game out there, people who love it and have a lot of fun playing it. To each their own. I've never bought into the whole "edition war". Everyone should play whatever game they find to be fun. Whether that game is 4E, 3.5, AD&D, Gurps, WoD or whatever else. It makes no difference to me what you enjoy playing. I certainly don't expect you to switch after reading my half-assed opinions. The bottom line is that games should be fun and DnD 3.5 was fun for me.
But why isn't 4E fun for me?
At its very core it's not really different from any other version of DnD. You create a character with some stats and a class, and you battle monsters in a world of swords and magic.
The really fun stuff is in the roleplaying. In becoming that burly warrior or busty sorceress (whaddya mean they aren't all burly or busty?) and overcoming all obstacles on the way to a goal. Really, roleplaying is completely independent of any gaming system. You could roleplay in a game of Monopoly if you really wanted to.
So my problem must lie with the mechanics of the 4E system. After all, roleplaying in a good and engaging story is not the only aspect of DnD. A big chunk of every game night is spent in combat, and combat relies almost solely on the character sheet and the game mechanincs. So, where did 4E go wrong for me?
Rather than re-hash the gripes from my various posts here, I'll put them at the very bottom of the post. Those who care to, can read them there. Those who don't care, I'll spare you the agony of scrolling past them. You're welcome.
There is one thing that's not really part of the game mechanics. In fact it's something that was almost totally within my own control. The game setting.
Granted, when 4E came out there was no official setting beyond a generic "points of light in the midst of darkness". Eberron was still there and unchanged. I guess. I never really got into Eberron as a setting. We knew that the Forgotten Realms were getting re-worked to better fit the new system. In hindsight, we could have simply continued to use the 3rd edition version of FR, if only for the names and dates. Instead we just gave a nod to the gray generic world and went with the standard storyhook in the first published module.
That was all well and good at the time, but here's that hindsight again, it really didn't do my character any favors. I never bothered to put any thought into his background. I just rolled him up and got swept away by the game mechanics. I was so blinded by making my storm themed warrior/mage work within the confines of the ruleset that I ignored the really important thing. His place within the world. His motivations. His hopes and hates. His family roots. In short, in my effort to create a unique character I ignored everything that makes a character truly unique.
So really, 4E was hamstrung from the start because I forgot about the most important part of the game. The roleplaying. I didn't invest in his background and so I never invested in him. At least, not in any meaningful way beyond making a set of stats and powers that worked for my concept.
Sorry about that 4E. Your failure is also my failure.
********
Here's that summation of my previous gripes as promised earlier.
Certainly in the very beginning I was turned off by the restrictive feeling of 4E. I always felt like the character I really wanted was either impossible or only vaguely realized after a series of roadblocks and compromises. That was somewhat fixed by the Hybrid rules, and the ongoing laxity in Implements seems to be improving. Give it a few more years and this might not be an issue at all.
Another peeve was with the powers. Not that it wasn't a novel idea or well done. It just wasn't executed quite right. I'm not even sure what that means but there's just... something... about the powers that bugs me. Maybe it's how they make all the classes feel like every other class, with only the overarching roles to really seperate one character from another. Or maybe it's just in the numbers of them you get. For the first 5 levels I definitely felt like I had a few interesting whammies but used my lame At-wills ninety percent of the time. That's not so bad at the Paragon level where the number of Encounter powers means that At-wills only become repetitious in the longest battles. Still, it made the first half of the Heroic level so boring that it was all but unplayable for me.
The neutering of Feats and Magic Items has also bothered me. Maybe I'm just too stubborn to let go of them, but I miss the days when feats and magic items meant something. Something more than a piddly bonus to a power or an extra healing surge. I want magic items that can be pulled out at the last moment and turn disaster into triumph. Feats that give a character a distinct flavor and make him something more than just-another-fighter.
There are a lot of good things about the 4E system too. I'm a big fan of how traps, disease, and poison are handled. I also like that monsters aren't handcuffed to the same rules as player characters. That makes encounter design easy and gives the DM more room to tailor battles however he/she sees fit.
Showing posts with label roleplay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label roleplay. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Keep out! Really.
Not sure why, but I got to thinking about a brief episode in the first official module, "Keep on the Shadowfell".
Our party had just come to a large door covered with slime and mold. Colorful.
The really important detail was that carved into the slime were the words "Keep out. Really."
This caused a memorable stir amongst our gaming group (and one that surely amused our dastardly DM Crwth). The gist of the debate was whether or not to go through aforementioned door. I was the lone dissenter.
My argument was the emphasis created by the word "Really". To me, that meant there was something not to be trifled with beyond that doorway. To everyone else, it just piqued their curiousity.
Naturally, in the end I was shouted down and in they went. Naturally, there was a nasty monster in there. Naturally, there was an important clue to the mystery hidden amongst the loot.
Good, memorable encounter but at it's most basic this was a poorly written section of the adventure.
At first blush, that seems counter-intuitive. I just said that it was a memorable encounter that sparked furious debate and ended with a fun battle and interesting loot. What's not to love?
The fact that we were baited into it by the writer.
Now, most adventures are basically dungeon crawls at some point where the party is obliged to kick open every door it sees. As players we're almost conditioned to do exactly that. A door causes us to practically salivate. Add the cryptic warning to "Keep out. Really." only throws more gas on the fire. It's like telling a five year old to stay out of your closet. The results are utterly predictable.
Yet that thinking goes against role-playing.
Adventurers live on the edge and explore incredibly dangerous places in the hopes of finding gold and treasure. They go where others fear to tread. They risk life and limb on a daily basis. Opening doors and fighting monsters is their gig. I get that.
However, the adventurers who want to retire someday should also be expected to show some prudence now and again.
Rock climbers risk their lives for the sheer thrill of it but they still listen to warnings. If a cliff face is icey after some freezing rain they don't climb. At least the ones who aren't mentioned on the local news don't climb.
That slime covered doorway was the same thing. From my point of view, or more accurately from the point of view of my character, someone took the time to carve a warning into that doorway. That sorta shit ain't to be taken lightly.
As a dnd player however, I'm expected to go through the door. It's a must. Hell, there's no question about it really. There's a door. We open it. Worst case scenario we roll new characters and know what to expect when our new party reaches that door.
To me that's a failure for the writer. He knew that we'd ignore the dire warning and go in regardless. He even placed a quest advancing token inside. A token/clue we wouldn't have found if not for our Pavlovian need to go through every door. A fact that as a player sitting at a table I was well aware of. Even as I argued against it, I knew that meta-game-wise there was something to fight and some loot to find.
Therein lay the problem. The entire encounter forced me to divorce myself from my character and do something he wouldn't want to do. All for the sake of using our miniatures and rolling some dice. So much for escapism.
Our party had just come to a large door covered with slime and mold. Colorful.
The really important detail was that carved into the slime were the words "Keep out. Really."
This caused a memorable stir amongst our gaming group (and one that surely amused our dastardly DM Crwth). The gist of the debate was whether or not to go through aforementioned door. I was the lone dissenter.
My argument was the emphasis created by the word "Really". To me, that meant there was something not to be trifled with beyond that doorway. To everyone else, it just piqued their curiousity.
Naturally, in the end I was shouted down and in they went. Naturally, there was a nasty monster in there. Naturally, there was an important clue to the mystery hidden amongst the loot.
Good, memorable encounter but at it's most basic this was a poorly written section of the adventure.
At first blush, that seems counter-intuitive. I just said that it was a memorable encounter that sparked furious debate and ended with a fun battle and interesting loot. What's not to love?
The fact that we were baited into it by the writer.
Now, most adventures are basically dungeon crawls at some point where the party is obliged to kick open every door it sees. As players we're almost conditioned to do exactly that. A door causes us to practically salivate. Add the cryptic warning to "Keep out. Really." only throws more gas on the fire. It's like telling a five year old to stay out of your closet. The results are utterly predictable.
Yet that thinking goes against role-playing.
Adventurers live on the edge and explore incredibly dangerous places in the hopes of finding gold and treasure. They go where others fear to tread. They risk life and limb on a daily basis. Opening doors and fighting monsters is their gig. I get that.
However, the adventurers who want to retire someday should also be expected to show some prudence now and again.
Rock climbers risk their lives for the sheer thrill of it but they still listen to warnings. If a cliff face is icey after some freezing rain they don't climb. At least the ones who aren't mentioned on the local news don't climb.
That slime covered doorway was the same thing. From my point of view, or more accurately from the point of view of my character, someone took the time to carve a warning into that doorway. That sorta shit ain't to be taken lightly.
As a dnd player however, I'm expected to go through the door. It's a must. Hell, there's no question about it really. There's a door. We open it. Worst case scenario we roll new characters and know what to expect when our new party reaches that door.
To me that's a failure for the writer. He knew that we'd ignore the dire warning and go in regardless. He even placed a quest advancing token inside. A token/clue we wouldn't have found if not for our Pavlovian need to go through every door. A fact that as a player sitting at a table I was well aware of. Even as I argued against it, I knew that meta-game-wise there was something to fight and some loot to find.
Therein lay the problem. The entire encounter forced me to divorce myself from my character and do something he wouldn't want to do. All for the sake of using our miniatures and rolling some dice. So much for escapism.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Revenants
Last month's Dragon had a Features article on an Insider-only race, the Revenant. I've always liked the idea of a revenant, a figure brought back from the dead for a sole purpose, driven to accomplish it. The novels that introduce the well-known drow Drizzt Do'urden have him chased by a revenant (his father? It has been years since I've read them), and the MMO Ultima Online had the revenant as a summonable creature that doggedly followed its target, outsmarting invisibility and teleportation.
Allowing players to play this race is definitely an interesting idea, though not likely a choice that is going to work for a casual campaign. While I'm sure DMs would be accommodating to a player that wanted to try it out for a lark, I think the whole concept of the revenant -- the back-from-the-dead, single-minded driven creature -- requires a campaign that has this idea interwoven into the plot, instead of just something that might come up once in a while.
I think the revenant would work well for a single-player campaign, providing a great hook into why the character adventures alone, and also providing the motivation to advance through the adventure (if you have problem players that like to (jokingly?) NOT follow the hints that the module provides.) The revenant can provide a basis for a single-session game, being brought back to take down this cult stronghold or that evil warren, and upon success or failure, returning to the afterlife from whence he or she came.
Of course, it works well for a whole party, too: a whole campaign could be based around some of the ideas hinted at in the article, with the party being pawns in the games of gods, or representing a party that, in service of one deity or another, was wiped out, and brought back as a favour to the deity for another try. In fact, the idea of bringing a group's party back from the dead after a Total Party Kill works well if you really wanted to see a campaign to the end. In fact, the 3.5 Ghostwalk sourcebook was useful for this, and was a backup plan that I had had for a few adventures in the past.
One of the interesting ideas of the revenant is that you choose a race that you were before, and gain benefits based on that race, most importantly, satisfying prerequisites that require the race. This applies most directly to most of the revenant feats, which specify both "revenant" and an additional race as the prereqs, such as the "Soul" feats which let you dabble back into lost racial powers, such as the Human Soul to get a +1 bonus to your defenses, or the Halfling Soul, to use your second chance power in an encounter instead of the dark reaping one that you get as a revenant. This can be especially useful if you are playing a previous character, returning for a second time around, and got used to certain racial abilities.
The racial Paragon and Epic Destiny paths are interesting, though I'm not sure the latter compares in "strength" to other epic destinies. The Paragon path touches on your pseudo-undead nature, and the Epic Destiny sure plays on the idea of "destiny", and "fate" and how your life, such as it is, has been reclaimed for yourself, allowing some interesting bonuses to saving throws.
I'd be curious to try this race out. As it stands, I don't see race mattering too much in the grand scheme of things - the initial racial traits, the occasional use of a racial ability, and the role-playing aspect of NPCs dealing with your character's race don't amount to that much compared to class selection and power choices. This is too bad, because one of the ideas in 4e was that race was going to matter a little more. In fact, if our current party was to switch to all revenants instead of two humans, a halfling, an elf, an eladrin and a dragonborn, I wonder how much we'd notice. I think the storyline reason for playing a revenant would be the most noticeable change.
Allowing players to play this race is definitely an interesting idea, though not likely a choice that is going to work for a casual campaign. While I'm sure DMs would be accommodating to a player that wanted to try it out for a lark, I think the whole concept of the revenant -- the back-from-the-dead, single-minded driven creature -- requires a campaign that has this idea interwoven into the plot, instead of just something that might come up once in a while.
I think the revenant would work well for a single-player campaign, providing a great hook into why the character adventures alone, and also providing the motivation to advance through the adventure (if you have problem players that like to (jokingly?) NOT follow the hints that the module provides.) The revenant can provide a basis for a single-session game, being brought back to take down this cult stronghold or that evil warren, and upon success or failure, returning to the afterlife from whence he or she came.
Of course, it works well for a whole party, too: a whole campaign could be based around some of the ideas hinted at in the article, with the party being pawns in the games of gods, or representing a party that, in service of one deity or another, was wiped out, and brought back as a favour to the deity for another try. In fact, the idea of bringing a group's party back from the dead after a Total Party Kill works well if you really wanted to see a campaign to the end. In fact, the 3.5 Ghostwalk sourcebook was useful for this, and was a backup plan that I had had for a few adventures in the past.
One of the interesting ideas of the revenant is that you choose a race that you were before, and gain benefits based on that race, most importantly, satisfying prerequisites that require the race. This applies most directly to most of the revenant feats, which specify both "revenant" and an additional race as the prereqs, such as the "Soul" feats which let you dabble back into lost racial powers, such as the Human Soul to get a +1 bonus to your defenses, or the Halfling Soul, to use your second chance power in an encounter instead of the dark reaping one that you get as a revenant. This can be especially useful if you are playing a previous character, returning for a second time around, and got used to certain racial abilities.
The racial Paragon and Epic Destiny paths are interesting, though I'm not sure the latter compares in "strength" to other epic destinies. The Paragon path touches on your pseudo-undead nature, and the Epic Destiny sure plays on the idea of "destiny", and "fate" and how your life, such as it is, has been reclaimed for yourself, allowing some interesting bonuses to saving throws.
I'd be curious to try this race out. As it stands, I don't see race mattering too much in the grand scheme of things - the initial racial traits, the occasional use of a racial ability, and the role-playing aspect of NPCs dealing with your character's race don't amount to that much compared to class selection and power choices. This is too bad, because one of the ideas in 4e was that race was going to matter a little more. In fact, if our current party was to switch to all revenants instead of two humans, a halfling, an elf, an eladrin and a dragonborn, I wonder how much we'd notice. I think the storyline reason for playing a revenant would be the most noticeable change.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Role play or Role-play
I'm beginning to come around on 4E. That is to say that I'm starting to see the forest for the trees. While it still feels very generic and has some annoying restrictiveness there are some elements that are welcome and enjoyable. With enough time and a few more books like "Arcane Powers" etc... it could turn into a thoroughly enjoyable game. For sure it'll have some flaws but 3.5 was flawed in numerous ways but it was still fun to play. It's not hard to imagine that 4E will be the same.
However, I'm beginning to feel like we're running out of time. We've been playing 4E for over a year now and we're only just barely 4th level. In other words, we've only just begun to scratch the surface of what 4E can really be. To really plumb the depths of the game will take us several years, at which point WotC will be releasing 5th edition. We're toying with a couple of solutions. Either double xp from now on, or sampling one-night adventures of various levels.
In the meantime, I thought I'd do a series of posts about each of the major issues I have with 4E. I do this because it helps me to reason these things out in written form. Plus, I can often go back and re-read what I wrote and see where my logic left the rails. Finally, any feedback I get from different viewpoints can be very enlightening.
The first of my grips with 4E is the whole irrelevance of character class.
I have written on my character sheet that Tycho is a fighter/wizard, but in play neither of those words ever really matter. The wizard part is especially meaningless to me. I mean, other than having a spellbook and an orb, he never does anything "wizardy".
Oh, he "casts" (to use the term very loosely) Chill Strike and Thunderwave, buys up rituals and components whenever he gets the chance, and identifies magic items thanks to his training in the Arcana skill, but so what? Every class has powers that can do essentially the same things as Chill Strike and Thunderwave. That is daze or push opponents while dealing some modest damage. With feats or skills chosen at 1st level anyone can use the Arcana skill and cast the same rituals.
Therein lies the problem. Nothing really feels exclusively "wizardy" or "spellcasty".
To be fair, there are a couple of real differences between his wizard powers and his fighter powers. The former are opposed by the target's Reflex, Will, or Fortitude while the latter are versus AC. The wizard powers have longer range (10 squares or burst 3) while the fighter powers are all pretty much adjacent targets only. Another difference is that the wizard powers can provoke attacks of opportunity.
Yes, I'm aware that there are lots of differences between the fighter and wizard classes. The Hit Points, healing surges, defense bonuses, etc... are not universal and do have an impact on the game. However, in my opinion the real heart of the 4E class lies in the powers and those don't seem to have any concrete ties to the actual class. In fact, I think that the powers are more strongly related to the role than the class.
So much so that I would argue that instead of picking a character class, one could pick a Role and perhaps a power source. Powers would then be selected from whatever classes fell under that role and power source. An arcane striker would pick from the lists of both the sorcerer and warlock. A martial defender would have the fighter and paladin (I think?) lists to chose from. The end result would be a much more satisfying and customized character.
As it stands now, I find that when creating my character I undergo a series of trade-offs just to fit my concept. A swordmage might be more accurate but the powers don't quite fit the image I have in my head. A wizard doesn't fit either but the powers do. In the end I'm left with a character that's still fun to play but less than satisfying in a number of ways.
Then again, I might be placing too much emphasis on the powers.
At any rate, while I can understand the reasoning behind the whole any-character-can-do-anything philosophy of 4E. No one likes sitting there doing nothing while the player of the rogue searches the hallway for traps and disarms them all. Or while the wizard casts a bunch of Dispel Magic spells. Or while the fighter rolls five attacks and checks for criticals. It can be tedious and boring.
However, there's something to be said for having specialists with an expertise that only they can have. It makes a choice of class meaningful. It gives one a feeling of real contribution. It gives one a moment to shine. Shine on you crazy diamonds. Shine on.
However, I'm beginning to feel like we're running out of time. We've been playing 4E for over a year now and we're only just barely 4th level. In other words, we've only just begun to scratch the surface of what 4E can really be. To really plumb the depths of the game will take us several years, at which point WotC will be releasing 5th edition. We're toying with a couple of solutions. Either double xp from now on, or sampling one-night adventures of various levels.
In the meantime, I thought I'd do a series of posts about each of the major issues I have with 4E. I do this because it helps me to reason these things out in written form. Plus, I can often go back and re-read what I wrote and see where my logic left the rails. Finally, any feedback I get from different viewpoints can be very enlightening.
The first of my grips with 4E is the whole irrelevance of character class.
I have written on my character sheet that Tycho is a fighter/wizard, but in play neither of those words ever really matter. The wizard part is especially meaningless to me. I mean, other than having a spellbook and an orb, he never does anything "wizardy".
Oh, he "casts" (to use the term very loosely) Chill Strike and Thunderwave, buys up rituals and components whenever he gets the chance, and identifies magic items thanks to his training in the Arcana skill, but so what? Every class has powers that can do essentially the same things as Chill Strike and Thunderwave. That is daze or push opponents while dealing some modest damage. With feats or skills chosen at 1st level anyone can use the Arcana skill and cast the same rituals.
Therein lies the problem. Nothing really feels exclusively "wizardy" or "spellcasty".
To be fair, there are a couple of real differences between his wizard powers and his fighter powers. The former are opposed by the target's Reflex, Will, or Fortitude while the latter are versus AC. The wizard powers have longer range (10 squares or burst 3) while the fighter powers are all pretty much adjacent targets only. Another difference is that the wizard powers can provoke attacks of opportunity.
Yes, I'm aware that there are lots of differences between the fighter and wizard classes. The Hit Points, healing surges, defense bonuses, etc... are not universal and do have an impact on the game. However, in my opinion the real heart of the 4E class lies in the powers and those don't seem to have any concrete ties to the actual class. In fact, I think that the powers are more strongly related to the role than the class.
So much so that I would argue that instead of picking a character class, one could pick a Role and perhaps a power source. Powers would then be selected from whatever classes fell under that role and power source. An arcane striker would pick from the lists of both the sorcerer and warlock. A martial defender would have the fighter and paladin (I think?) lists to chose from. The end result would be a much more satisfying and customized character.
As it stands now, I find that when creating my character I undergo a series of trade-offs just to fit my concept. A swordmage might be more accurate but the powers don't quite fit the image I have in my head. A wizard doesn't fit either but the powers do. In the end I'm left with a character that's still fun to play but less than satisfying in a number of ways.
Then again, I might be placing too much emphasis on the powers.
At any rate, while I can understand the reasoning behind the whole any-character-can-do-anything philosophy of 4E. No one likes sitting there doing nothing while the player of the rogue searches the hallway for traps and disarms them all. Or while the wizard casts a bunch of Dispel Magic spells. Or while the fighter rolls five attacks and checks for criticals. It can be tedious and boring.
However, there's something to be said for having specialists with an expertise that only they can have. It makes a choice of class meaningful. It gives one a feeling of real contribution. It gives one a moment to shine. Shine on you crazy diamonds. Shine on.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Is this all there is?
We had another gaming session on Friday night, and it went well enough; no one died, new creatures were encountered and their "special traits" were seen. The players (and characters) used some good tactics, but weren't taxed - it was a good night for experience gains.
But it was also a night of combat. And combat. Oh, and a little clue found there in that pile. But that's it, and that's what this module has started to feel like - just a dungeon crawl.
Not that there's anything wrong with a dungeon crawl; fighting monsters, especially ones that are new, or that challenge you to fight with some strategy, is definitely something core to 4e D&D. And, yes, the characters assume that there's a reason they're muscling through the area, seeking the right wrongs and such, as heroes often do.
And I know that previously, I've commented that these combats have been welcome, because we needed to learn the new combat system of 4e, to get a feel for moving from saving throws to defense attacks and for the plethora of powers we now have to manage.
But I want something more. Yes, this adventure has a story in it, and there are hooks that have the characters' motivations fueled, and they have a goal, and a name of some baddie out there, but it just feels very off-balanced towards combat combat combat. We had some roleplaying in earlier sessions, but there's only so much you can do with a mindless opponent, one that doesn't seem ready to parlay.
I know that, as the DM, I can add whatever I like - but I'm trying to follow this adventure as close to written as I can, just to leave it in someone else's hands to invent this time around as we all learn the new rules. I guess I had hoped that a published Wizards of the Coast module would be a little more balanced in such things, since they're the professionals. I like to think that my own adventures mix things up a bit. Perhaps the characters are just going the wrong way, the hack-and-slash way, instead of mixing it up the way the adventure expects.
That's right - always blame the players.
But it was also a night of combat. And combat. Oh, and a little clue found there in that pile. But that's it, and that's what this module has started to feel like - just a dungeon crawl.
Not that there's anything wrong with a dungeon crawl; fighting monsters, especially ones that are new, or that challenge you to fight with some strategy, is definitely something core to 4e D&D. And, yes, the characters assume that there's a reason they're muscling through the area, seeking the right wrongs and such, as heroes often do.
And I know that previously, I've commented that these combats have been welcome, because we needed to learn the new combat system of 4e, to get a feel for moving from saving throws to defense attacks and for the plethora of powers we now have to manage.
But I want something more. Yes, this adventure has a story in it, and there are hooks that have the characters' motivations fueled, and they have a goal, and a name of some baddie out there, but it just feels very off-balanced towards combat combat combat. We had some roleplaying in earlier sessions, but there's only so much you can do with a mindless opponent, one that doesn't seem ready to parlay.
I know that, as the DM, I can add whatever I like - but I'm trying to follow this adventure as close to written as I can, just to leave it in someone else's hands to invent this time around as we all learn the new rules. I guess I had hoped that a published Wizards of the Coast module would be a little more balanced in such things, since they're the professionals. I like to think that my own adventures mix things up a bit. Perhaps the characters are just going the wrong way, the hack-and-slash way, instead of mixing it up the way the adventure expects.
That's right - always blame the players.
Friday, August 24, 2007
From Indifferent to Friendly
Dave Noonan's latest post about "social challenges" hit home with me as a DM. In many of my encounters, I try to provide an alternative to sword-swinging and spell-slinging, though I'm not bothered either way if the party decides to talk or fight.
As in Noonan's group, some in our group might roleplay their discussion with the NPC, rolling dice when they felt they really needed the game system to step in and do some persuading; others would roll and either roleplay their speech accordingly, or take a third-person approach to what their character would have said. A third option, not mentioned in Noonan's group, is where the player roleplays their character's speech until I decide that a diplomacy check is necessary.
I disagree with his point 4) about the playstyle that hates social interaction with a die roll. While I have no problem with my players taking on their role and speaking for their characters (this is a role-playing game, after all), there are going to be times where a player just can't roleplay well enough (that is, if as the DM I have to judge their speech from the NPC's point-of-view), or too much (our overly-eloquent player should not be able to wile the prince with his 6 Charisma half-orc.) The role-played speech lets the game flow better and keeps immersion, but I feel the dice are a required part of any conversation that could be considered a "turning point" -- something that branches the flow of the game in one way or another.
Not mentioned in Noonan's post were other social interactions, such as the intimidate skill, which I feel is underutilized, or the bluff skill; and the whole Attitude system always seemed a bit too rigid for use. Perhaps there aren't enough levels, or it shouldn't be so cut-and-dry with Hostile, Unfriendly, etc. I hope we get to see some insight into other aspects of social influence in 4.0 as the months pass.
I didn't think I'd care for these Playtest Reports columns, but they do give insight into the game, and into the playstyles of the developers; I'm liking Noonan's DMing style already -- quite like my own.
As in Noonan's group, some in our group might roleplay their discussion with the NPC, rolling dice when they felt they really needed the game system to step in and do some persuading; others would roll and either roleplay their speech accordingly, or take a third-person approach to what their character would have said. A third option, not mentioned in Noonan's group, is where the player roleplays their character's speech until I decide that a diplomacy check is necessary.
I disagree with his point 4) about the playstyle that hates social interaction with a die roll. While I have no problem with my players taking on their role and speaking for their characters (this is a role-playing game, after all), there are going to be times where a player just can't roleplay well enough (that is, if as the DM I have to judge their speech from the NPC's point-of-view), or too much (our overly-eloquent player should not be able to wile the prince with his 6 Charisma half-orc.) The role-played speech lets the game flow better and keeps immersion, but I feel the dice are a required part of any conversation that could be considered a "turning point" -- something that branches the flow of the game in one way or another.
Not mentioned in Noonan's post were other social interactions, such as the intimidate skill, which I feel is underutilized, or the bluff skill; and the whole Attitude system always seemed a bit too rigid for use. Perhaps there aren't enough levels, or it shouldn't be so cut-and-dry with Hostile, Unfriendly, etc. I hope we get to see some insight into other aspects of social influence in 4.0 as the months pass.
I didn't think I'd care for these Playtest Reports columns, but they do give insight into the game, and into the playstyles of the developers; I'm liking Noonan's DMing style already -- quite like my own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
