D&D 4E, Split from The Great CGL Rumors and Speculation Thread Options

[Kovu Muphasa]

I have 1 real problem player and one player that is having problems with 4th.
The problem with them is they walk into the game with the "I hate 4th edition" thinking before they ever get their. When you enter a game like that, you cannot enjoy the game.

This goes back to this

The System is Unimportant
The System is All Important

If you want to run around and bash monsters: you want 4e
If you want a game with dramatic over the top Hollywood moves: you want 4e
If you want a game where team play is the goal: You want 4e
If you want to run a game were it is all intrigue and simple skill usage: You want 4e

If you want a run around an possible kill monsters in one swing with your Min/Max Character: you want 3e
If you want a game with a complex skill system that can be easily abused: you want 3e
If you a random group of characters to go on adventures and one had better be a cleric: you want 3e
If you want to run a game were it is all intrigue and slow advancement unless the DM is really nice: You want 3e

It is all about the flavor

If you like 4e great, spread the word
If you like 3e [or any other edition] great, but relies that 4e is here to stay and quit giving us that like it grief.

BTW: if there are any groups in the Riverside aria that want a 30+ Veteran player who hates 4e let me know you can have him.

[rumanchu]

I feel exactly the opposite. From the time I first started playing D&D4, there was something about the character sheets that made me deeply unhappy, and it took me a little while to figure out what it was: almost every single thing on it pertains to combat. Although, in the specific example you give (a PC who is a former chef taking a job as a short-order cook) I would not require die rolls, and would disapprove of any GM who did, I emphatically do not subscribe to the school of thought which holds that every single interaction other than combat should be handled purely through roleplaying. I believe that clear rules for non-combat activities richen and deepen the game. Roleplaying is certainly good and desirable, but if I, the socially awkward player, am playing a slick-as-oiled-glass con man, I definitely don't want to have to rely on my own (nonexistent) fast-talk abilities to sway an NPC. That's what dice are for.

There are rules in 4E for just that situation - Diplomacy, Bluff, etc are all skills that you can roll dice to resolve situations with. While I can understand why you might find this to be lacking when you compare it to the amount of rules that cover combat, most of the complaints about D&D4E being "combat heavy" that I've read online have dealt with the fact that there isn't (for example) a set of rules for crafting items, or cooking a meal, or pretty much anything that isn't typically used in direct opposition to someone else.

Ultimately, Dungeons and Dragons *is* focused (mechanically) towards combat situations...it would be foolhardy to argue otherwise. It did, after all, begin as an optional set of rules for a tabletop wargame. I find it lazy and disingenuous, however, to say that the *only* thing that you can do in D&D4E is fight things -- though I agree that someone who wants deep mechanics for non-combat situations would be better served to find another game system to use.

[Bull]

Complaining about a lack of dedicated, deep RP rules is like copmlaining about the lack of dedicated, deep RP rules in your average Halo or Mario game. It's simply not what they're designed for. If I want to play an RPG video game, I'm gonna go grab Mass Effect or Final Fantasy. If I want to simply blow things up, I grab Halo. If I want to stimp on turtles and collect coins, I play Mario (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bull

[tete]

I think the main problem with D&D 4e from a roleplaying angle is that most people looking for the options they had in 3.X only bought or read the core D&D line. Which is designed for noobs. PHB2, MM2, and DMG 2 is where all those options your used to start showing up. Then you have WOTC claiming "we changed everything but its the same game" WHAT??? how can, brain melting... On top of that you watch the DM commentary on the Robot Chicken and his example of 4e roleplaying is TERRIBLE!!!!! apparently anything that isnt covered by the rules is roleplaying! WTF! and this from the CREATIVE DESIGNER of 4e. This just shows me that there is a disconnect between the designers and some fans. Those fans just need to wake up and try other games, honestly the D&D they want will never exist as long as the same people are designing it. There are a 1000 systems out there get out and try one.

Complaining about a lack of dedicated, deep RP rules is like copmlaining about the lack of dedicated, deep RP rules in your average Halo or Mario game. It's simply not what they're designed for. If I want to play an RPG video game, I'm gonna go grab Mass Effect or Final Fantasy. If I want to simply blow things up, I grab Halo. If I want to stimp on turtles and collect coins, I play Mario (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bull

And this is exactly why I don't want Shadowrun to use the D&D 4e rules.

[Dwight]

Personally, the more things that a game system requires that I put points into or roll dice for outside of confrontations, the more limited I feel as both a player and a gamemaster.

Sure, but what is the "confrontation"? D&D, although 4E is a smidge better than previous editions IMO, is infamously anemic in the area of rolling dice inside a confrontation other than when the confrontation is combat.

Because cooking can indeed be a confrontation.

Shadowrun is sort of getting there, too. It was an early adopter of allowing for a character focused on something other than hurting people. But it's still confused and it's implementation is uneven and clunky. IMO that's the core problem with the Matrix rules [in the core]. It has all those nitty-gritty detailed rules about comlink Response and System and agents and program levels etc. that prior SR editions are gummed up with, but it failed to deliver the framework (lightweight or otherwise) to use those details or the Matrix. More framework (the basic Skills section is a start) and less detailed crap that gets is the way and serves as fodder for rules lawyering and other arguments and time wasted flipping pages.

Yes, there is a another way other then the control freak of SR and the shrug of D&D. A solid, extensible framework that is a tool to use rather than an enclosure.

[Dwight]

If you want a game with a complex skill system that can be easily abused: you want 3e

D&D 3rd edition? I'm not exactly sure how that qualifies as a "complex skill system"?

[rumanchu]

Sure, but what is the "confrontation"? D&D, although 4E is a smidge better than previous, is infamously anemic in the area of rolling dice inside a confrontation other than when the confrontation is combat.

Because cooking can indeed be a confrontation.

While I concede that there are indeed situations where you might need to compare the ability of two people when cooking, weaving, or dancing, D&D4E does a reasonably good job of ensuring that most of the time when you are going to want to contest something with someone else there is a rule on how you should roll dice to determine the outcome. (Personally, I thought that they should have included rules for things like crafting and other "noncombat" abilities in PHB3 rather than the Hybrid Class rules).

Like Bull said, though, D&D is probably not the system for people who don't want to spend a significant amount of game time fighting...and it never really has been. In a similar vein, the original Changeling would be a poor choice for running hypertactical combat stories.

IMO that's the core problem with the Matrix rules [in the core]. It has all those nitty-gritty detailed rules about comlink Response and System and agents and program levels etc. that prior SR editions are gummed up with, but it failed to deliver the framework (lightweight or otherwise) to use those details or the Matrix. More framework (the basic Skills section is a start) and less detailed crap that gets is the way and serves as fodder for rules lawyering and other arguments and time wasted flipping pages.

I feel pretty much the same way with the implementation of the Matrix in SR (and this is coming from someone who plays the hacker type in both of my SR groups). If I were to nail down where I think that the Matrix rules go wrong, though, it's in trying to make the Matrix work in a manner consistent with how computers work now. Imagine how someone in 1950 would write rules for how Computer Warfare Specialists would operate in the year 2000...IN THE FUTURE!!! Odds are that they would have very little in common with how computers *really* operated 10 years ago. Hell, look at how archaic (overall) the Matrix rules were in SR1 compared to how computers actually worked in 2005 (I need to be PHYSICALLY PLUGGED IN?!?), and that was a difference of only 16 years.

[Dwight]

Like Bull said, though, D&D is probably not the system for people who don't want to spend a significant amount of game time fighting...and it never really has been. In a similar vein, the original Changeling would be a poor choice for running hypertactical combat stories.

You can actually have your cake and eat it too...if you are willing to open wide. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Having that solid support for non-combat skills (my experience has set the bar much higher than what D&D provides) doesn't preclude very tactical combat. But to keep it manageable most people have to be willing to acknowledge that there is a difference between having a tactical sub-game and a very rules bulky sub-game, and be willing to sacrifice the later.

it's in trying to make the Matrix work in a manner consistent with how computers work now.

I think it is pretty generous to describe the Matrix as anything approaching consistent with how computers work now. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

But the root of the problem is still in delving into those hard nuts and bolts details. Keep it a level up from there, keep it to what it can do, not how it does it. Then leave it up to the players at the table to imagine (or ignore) the details in the way that suits them the best.

That way you don't need to make the trade off between trying to describe something that a computer user of 2005 can relate to it and some computing paradigm that is alien to the computer user of 2005 (and probably the laws of physics to boot) but somehow makes sense to the author.

[Kovu Muphasa]

D&D 3rd edition? I'm not exactly sure how that qualifies as a "complex skill system"?

You haver sepent an hour and a half wating for someone to spend his skill points.
We had one guy who would always make his INT his first or second highest stat and then put 1 point here and one point there. It only got worse when he got our group to say that if you put 1 point into a Cross Class skill it becomes a "Level-0" Skill, but you are now considered "Trained" in it.
or
The Elf Rouge with a 20 Dex, Trained in Stealth and then manages to gets a Cloak of Eleven Kind at 4th level.


With 4th there are only Trained Skills and Untrained Skills and only 2 Require Training
1] Acrobatics: You are Required to be Tained in it to avoid Falling Damage
2] Arcana: You are Required to be Tained in it to Detect Magic

[Dwight]

You haver sepent an hour and a half wating for someone to spend his skill points.

That is true. Now given that I played a number of years of 3e/3.5e, shouldn't the question occur to you as to why I have never spent an hour and a half waiting for someone to spend those points? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

It is a bit fiddly with character creation (limiting it to allocating in blocks of 4 points during character creation and the number of decisions to make drops drastically). But that + a painfully indecisive player hardly constitutes a "complex skill system". Overall I'd argue it is the opposite, there isn't much to the system overall to justify having even a marginally fiddly Skill point allocation. D&D 4E has just acknowledged this and brought character creation/advancement more in line with the rest of it.

[tete]

I feel pretty much the same way with the implementation of the Matrix in SR (and this is coming from someone who plays the hacker type in both of my SR groups). If I were to nail down where I think that the Matrix rules go wrong, though, it's in trying to make the Matrix work in a manner consistent with how computers work now. Imagine how someone in 1950 would write rules for how Computer Warfare Specialists would operate in the year 2000...IN THE FUTURE!!! Odds are that they would have very little in common with how computers *really* operated 10 years ago. Hell, look at how archaic (overall) the Matrix rules were in SR1 compared to how computers actually worked in 2005 (I need to be PHYSICALLY PLUGGED IN?!?), and that was a difference of only 16 years.

That and the Matrix rules dont fall inline with the rest of the rules... With Star Wars Saga at leased hacking works the same as bluff. I'm actually working on a list of changes I want to make to SR4 most of which are based on the Ubiquity rules. My new non-combat Matrix test is Logic+Computers+Program vs a Threshold = System, successes count against the threshold and failures count for moving the system up to passive alert. I should point out the TN has been moved from 5 to 4 in this hack as Ubiquity uses 50/50 dice.

[Kovu Muphasa]

You haver sepent an hour and a half wating for someone to spend his skill points.
We had one guy who would always make his INT his first or second highest stat and then put 1 point here and one point there. It only got worse when he got our group to say that if you put 1 point into a Cross Class skill it becomes a "Level-0" Skill, but you are now considered "Trained" in it.
or
The Elf Rouge with a 20 Dex, Trained in Stealth and then manages to gets a Cloak of Eleven Kind at 4th level.


With 4th there are only Trained Skills and Untrained Skills and only 2 Require Training
1] Acrobatics: You are Required to be Tained in it to avoid Falling Damage
2] Arcana: You are Required to be Tained in it to Detect Magic

He is one of the reasons we started when it comes to character creation in SR we started to say "Whats Your Concept?" and then make the character gor him.

[Dwight]

My new non-combat Matrix test is Logic+Computers+Program vs a Threshold = System, successes count against the threshold and failures count for moving the system up to passive alert.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding your post; You propose rolling the same pool multiple times, at least System times, just to get in, before trying to actually accomplish anything? I've found extended tests the weakest part of skills core of SR4. By weak I mean "rolling-rolling-rolling before anything of note happens, slowing down my game" weak. Your suggestion, as I read it, sounds even worse.

Generally no real action happens till I get into the system so single pass/fail roll, and outside of situations that I can't actually imagine at the moment he's getting in no matter what is rolled. Because generally speaking outside = *snore* and inside = the action.

What do you plan to do for in-combat rolls? SR4 is closer to melding the two but it didn't come together.

[tete]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding your post; You propose rolling the same pool multiple times, at least System times, just to get in, before trying to actually accomplish anything? I've found extended tests the weakest part of skills core of SR4. By weak I mean "rolling-rolling-rolling before anything of note happens, slowing down my game" weak. Your suggestion, as I read it, sounds even worse.

Generally no real action happens till I get into the system so single pass/fail roll, and outside of situations that I can't actually imagine at the moment he's getting in no matter what is rolled. Because generally speaking outside = *snore* and inside = the action.

What do you plan to do for in-combat rolls? SR4 is closer to melding the two but it didn't come together.

You have to understand Ubiquity. 4+ is a success and you need 1-5 successes depending on the average, you can always take the average rather than roll in Ubiquity.

So take my example a system is generally rated 1-6 (not System + Firewall, just System) so you will need 1-6 successes on your dice to do the thing you want to do in one action.
Your dice pool is your Logic+Computers+Program Rating. So a really good Hacker with a good program should be around 15+ dice giving you 7+ successes and more than enough to beat your rating 6 system.

Example I want to find the files on the top secret project for X. The system is a rating 6 our hacker gets 7 successes finds the data and begins to download it in one roll and one turn.
The thing I am adding that is not part of Ubiquity would be to count the failures. I'm not sure how the chart would work yet but perhaps after 20 failures the system goes to passive alert.

For in-combat rolls I plan to make it work exactly as the meat world after Ubiquity modification, which basicly just lowers the dice pool on defense and combines dodge+soak into the same roll.

I'm trying for unified quick rules so we can get on with the mission.

[edit] note my example above assumes you already logged on to the system with enough permissions

[Dwight]

You have to understand Ubiquity. 4+ is a success and you need 1-5 successes depending on the average, you can always take the average rather than roll in Ubiquity.

Nope, that's not the issue. I read the other thread where you mentioned Ubiquity, generally speaking no problem with that (not having to roll for a roughly 50/50 test does strike me as odd but I'm giving that a free pass *shrug* ). The issue is the potential for multiple die rolls where the result of each is "nothing happens". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif) EDIT: Especially when the net result of a bunch of rolls can be a cockblock for the meat of the action ever happening.

For in-combat rolls I plan to make it work exactly as the meat world after Ubiquity modification, which basicly just lowers the dice pool on defense and combines dodge+soak into the same roll.

What I mean is non-combat Matrix actions happening during non-Matrix combat action. Or, put another way, how do you do the conflict from the SR 1e/2e cover? If that isn't handled well, and I'm not convinced any edition of SR has yet, you are coming up short. This rolling, rolling, rolling might work there (EDIT: although issues with cockblocks may still apply). Is it a countdown, or they just have to beat the Threshold on a single roll and they succeed?

[tete]

The issue on the cover

1. Roll Initiative
2. Go in Initiative order
3. On the hackers turn he can attempt the hack, if he gets enough successes he gets in, if not count those success toward the total needed and he can try to add more on his next initiative pass. So I would call it a countdown

[edit] I wouldnt seporate the hacking from the normal game, just have the ICE insert itself into the normal combat initiative order if triggered.

[edit2] to answer your other question, the success would stack, so nothing may happen for one round but each round you should be making progress. In most cases if your competent and not on an Ultraviolet system you should be able to just take the average and move on without rolling.

[Dwight]

[edit] I wouldnt seporate the hacking from the normal game, just have the ICE insert itself into the normal combat initiative order if triggered.

What if there was no ICE triggered?

I don't understand what "I wouldnt seporate the hacking from the normal game" means?

[tete]

Well lets say Dodger needs to download a file but they get caught in a firefight while hes plugging in. Assuming he can take the average to beat the threasholds it would be 2 tests, 1 to logon and 1 to find the file in question. That would require 2 combat action phases + whatever time the GM decides he needs to actually download the whole file. If he cant take the average to beat the system it may take more than one round to logon or find the file in question but the thresholds should not be set so high that this happens to a competent hacker.

What I ment by the previous statement is there is no mini-game. The Hacker doesnt get his own mini-game on his combat phase and everyone sits around, combat happens during the hacking, its all one initiative cycle. If the hacker only got one pass he'll have to wait to find that file till everyone rolls initiative again.

[Synner667]

Well lets say Dodger needs to download a file but they get caught in a firefight while hes plugging in. Assuming he can take the average to beat the threasholds it would be 2 tests, 1 to logon and 1 to find the file in question. That would require 2 combat action phases + whatever time the GM decides he needs to actually download the whole file. If he cant take the average to beat the system it may take more than one round to logon or find the file in question but the thresholds should not be set so high that this happens to a competent hacker.

What I ment by the previous statement is there is no mini-game. The Hacker doesnt get his own mini-game on his combat phase and everyone sits around, combat happens during the hacking, its all one initiative cycle. If the hacker only got one pass he'll have to wait to find that file till everyone rolls initiative again.

Do you treat Decker rounds the same as meatspace rounds ??
ie, Deckers don't do things in Decker timescales, which is usually faster than meatspace time [thoughtspeed being faster than meatspeed]

[tete]

Yes

[Synner667]

He is one of the reasons we started when it comes to character creation in SR we started to say "Whats Your Concept?" and then make the character gor him.

It's my standard character design method...
...Concept -> wordy description for attributes -> attributes -> wordy description of skills -> skills

[Dwight]

What I ment by the previous statement is there is no mini-game. The Hacker doesnt get his own mini-game on his combat phase and everyone sits around, combat happens during the hacking, its all one initiative cycle. If the hacker only got one pass he'll have to wait to find that file till everyone rolls initiative again.

What I've done, and keep in mind combat is a little different an actions are scripted ahead to a degree and resolve simultaneously (have you played Wings of War? a lot like that), is that it is a mini-game intruder vs system/human admin countdown (on both sides, winner is the one that reduces the other side to zero, first). The actions are in lockstep with the meat combat but meat combat can, and often has multiple discrete steps/hacker action. This isn't to say that the meat characters are doing more, in fact the opposite is likely to be coloured as so. So it is just that the scale of discrete game mechanic actions to in-game world actions is different between Matrix and meat, with the Matrix actions somewhat more visualized to allow the people at the table more leeway to describe what is going on, fitting with how they are comfortable with envisioning the nuts and bolts of the computer tech (see my post above).

Also the outcome of the mini-game is reduce the other side to zero and you get what you wanted (plus unwanted side-effects scaled to how much you were reduced, like some level of injury from a fried brain or an inconvenient twist such as the opponent gained a clue about the meat behind the icon and is going to show up inconveniently later or you missed some piece of the paydata that you came for), partial success before you bailed or were reduced to zero gets you something good and something bad again in rough proportion. Again, much more a framework, a tool for the GM and the players at the table rather than numerous dictated details encoded in the rules.

If you are familiar with the Mouse Guard RPG, I shamelessly ripped the core concept of the mini-game from there and then adapted it to work along side more detailed combat plus some different partial victory/defeat consequences. EDIT: Had to make some modifications/tweaks to up The Scary some, too. Mouse Guard isn't aimed at evoking in players the gut wrenching and grim mood that I envision for a dystopian future. On the other hand I kept the team aspects, so lesser skilled tag-alongs aren't tourists but aren't total boat anchors either, thus more opportunity for whole party excisions with detailed action in moderately dangerous regions of the Matrix.

This mini-game is the same as if there was no meat combat going on when the GM makes the director decision to focus in on the action and draw out the scene. Otherwise the whole conflict, to accomplish what the player wants, is single roll or single versus roll and move on.

P.S. As a bonus a ripped down version, where the opponent isn't rolling and there is only you counting down the 'opponent', is included for 'dumb' tech. So you can use it for contemporary, and even 20th century levels of tech, in combat. I wouldn't bother with it outside combat though, just one roll and move on, as in combat it's just a pacing mechanism to keep meat combat and 'hacking' in sync.

[Kovu Muphasa]

I thought this was about D&D 4e

[Dwight]

I thought this was about D&D 4e

A thread naming oversight by Redjack. The discussion originated as a discussion about a hypothetical post-CGL company replacing SR4 with another system, D&D 4e was mentioned.



But if you want it to be about D&D just treat my last post as the bar for solid support of non-shooting-people-in-the-face to measure D&D's relatively anemic support up against, and therefore why D&D would be a poor fit for SR. *cough* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Mesh]

Why we chose not to go to 4e

Will never play 4e. It's a video game version of D&D based off MMOGs.