4E Dungeons & Dragons - Verdict?

[msa]

True, but without the dice you're not really playing anything. Now I'm not saying it is all about the dice, but the dice are still very important in my mind.

I don't know... I've had a very good time in the past with diceless games like Amber. Its definitely not for everyone, but you can do very interesting things without dice. It becomes more about storytelling, elaborate descriptions, and creativity when you remove them. Dice add elements of unpredictability, suspense, and damage control, but considering many games only go right because the DM fudges the roles, are often as much a problem for the story than an indispensable part of tabletop gaming.

Of course... mostly, I play with dice! Yay tactics!

[Alecthar]

Well, you sort of said youself what it would mean. I agree with GP, and it seems from my research that a lot of other far more serious 4e players do as well. What really matters in 4e is your class role, but class is really just flavor. Like you say, the difference between a pally and fighter is that each has slightly different mechanics for playing the defender role. Slight is the key word here: there difference between two classes with the same role is marginal at best.

I think that it's a good idea for me to clarify the way I think about "fluff" or "flavor." I play Magic: the Gathering, and on the cards there is text in italics. It's often a quote or something that's cool or makes reference to the story at play in the set of cards, but regardless of its content it has no mechanical significance whatsoever. So when I'm hearing about "flavor" being the difference between classes, I'm hearing that the only distinguishing characteristics between classes in a role are ones that have no mechanical implications, which is not accurate. Your choice between Fighter and Swordmage, or Paladin and Warden, or any other permutation you care to name about Defenders (in this case) is a mechanically significant one. The way they function, the powers they possess, and the differing options (particularly during character creation) can have effects in both combat situations and other areas of the game. Your choosing to play a Charisma Paladin over, say, a Fighter means you'll deal automatic damage to marked enemies that flee you, and you'll have some ranged powers at your disposal that might aid you, something a fighter lacks (unless he spends a lot of time throwing Javelins). Aside from that, your Chaladin will probably be the "face" of your party, managing Diplomatic interactions, or attempting to Bluff or Intimidate enemies. On the other hand, a Fighter would have more powerful Opportunity Attacks, as well as additional attacks on marked targets. He might not be able to do so repeatedly, but at times the Fighter can mark multiple targets, depending on what powers he is using. A Fighter will never be the face of your party, but he will be at home with Endurance or Athletics checks.

Now, I can't argue that when you choose a role, that locks you into a certain kind of play-style. If you roll a Striker, it doesn't matter if you go melee Rogue, charging Sorc, or archery Ranger, your primary mission as a party member in combat is to make sure things get super-duper dead. But how you accomplish that will vary, and I (at least) have found that the variance is significant.

One thing about 4e that does bother me slightly, though, is the fact that the powers system, which I generally like, essentially eliminates the differences that defined the Sorcerer and Wizard classes in 3.5

[Talroth]

I don't know... I've had a very good time in the past with diceless games like Amber. Its definitely not for everyone, but you can do very interesting things without dice. It becomes more about storytelling, elaborate descriptions, and creativity when you remove them. Dice add elements of unpredictability, suspense, and damage control, but considering many games only go right because the DM fudges the roles, are often as much a problem for the story than an indispensable part of tabletop gaming.

Of course... mostly, I play with dice! Yay tactics!

Honestly, I think if the DM has to fudge the rolls much, then he isn't doing that great of a job. Parties should have the chance to fail, I'm a strong fan of having backup characters in mind while playing. One group I played with had a player go through five or six characters before the end of the campaign. Of course he pushed the dice to the edge every chance he could, and we had an amazing time with it.

Example. One character he had was a halfling, who was overly proud of his iron gut. When bet that he couldn't drink a shot of a magic potion that would turn a weak man into a demon skeleton,... He downed five shots before he failed his save,...

The story teller has to be as flexible as the players after all.

[NeonKnight]

For, regardless of System, sometimes a DM MUST Fudge the Dice. And sometimes I do...BLATANTLY. I like to run combats for my players (and we have a group that is sometimes 7 players!) that have feelings of Tension and at least one moment of "OH MY GOD! Are we gonna LIVE!). Now, sometimes that may not happen, and sometimes I will fudge the dice a little (tell the PCs they miss when they should have hit, tell the PCs they are hit when they were really missed) to give the fight a little more tension.

On the flip side, if a fight is going good and suddenly 50% or more of the party is restrained, taking ongoing damage they fail to negate, etc., then I will fudge the combat the other way (Monsters Miss when they should have hit, PCs hit when they should have missed etc). I find players are attached to characters. That's fine. My group is mature enough to handle a PC death or two but to kill 60% or more of the party in a single combat, is not fun.

[Gamerprinter]

As for the role-play argument, I've got to be honest: I don't get it. My best RP experiences come from games with very few rules, and even very few dice. Rules are, in my experience, unrelated to role-playing, and are often a trap that allows you to avoid role-playing through dice. In 3.5, there was nothing preventing this exchange:

DM: you encounter a kobold. He is hostile.
Rogue: I roll diplomacy.... ummm... 13 + 8 = 21.
DM: ok, he is unfriendly now.
Rogue: I ask him to let us pass.
DM: he says 'no'. roll initiative.

That's not role playing. Enforcing role playing has always been up to the players and the DM, and often too many rules get in the way. The simplified skill rules in 4e don't really take much away, and there are ample house rules and PHB2 rules that allow for things like backgrounds and professions to add flavor and unusual skills to a character. You also are no longer forced to divert points away from skills with a defined combat role (tumble, bluff, etc) to take skills with little use outside RP (profession, perform).

The difference between the two versions breaks down as such in my mind. In 3.5, you have maximum flexibility, lots of special rules systems, and limited tactical interest in combat. In 4e, you have highly constrained combat roles, consistent rules for most everything, and highly tactical combat. Do you want a game where the rules will not get in the way of your imagination? Play 3.5. Do you want a game where the rules will not get in the way of gameplay? Then 4e.

I want to be clear again: I am a 3.5 player, and with my serious group always will be. I prefer flexibility, and the cumbersome rules and poor balance are not concerns given the way we play and our level of knowledge. So I'm not advocating for 4e by any means, I just don't necessarily agree with the problems many people state with it.

In our games roleplaying is on the average 75% of the game, with combat and situation specific actions that require dice rolling as the remainder. When a PC requires a DC on a skill, its always on the higher end of difficulty, because I don't even request skill checks unless the situation deems difficulty necessary. If my PC's eyes are open and not concerned with the party, but traveling forward, I tell one PC with the higher Spot/Perception check that he notices some movement on the forested hill to the south they are passing, and blend it into a story like fashion.

If a camoflaged trap or entrance to an underground warren meant to hide its existence is encountered, then I insist on a Perception check - for example.

I don't require a roll for every nuance of the game.

My games focus on a player's creative ideas on overcoming obstacles in game within the restrictions of what their character knows based on class and background, more so than specifc "powers", feats or skills. Only when an obstacle is more challenging and would require the use of special powers is when the dice hit the table. Or in the case of combat as well.

I didn't mean to imply that my view of roleplaying was meant as "roll playing".

So, MSA, I perfectly agree with you on not being rules-centric for much of the game, only when a situation applies. I don't need a rules lite game for playing RPGs - as roleplaying is at the heart of the D&D games our group plays.

GP

[NeonKnight]

What it's sounding like is everyone has a style of play that has 'evolved' to fit their group.

[msa]

So, MSA, I perfectly agree with you on not being rules-centric for much of the game, only when a situation applies. I don't need a rules lite game for playing RPGs - as roleplaying is at the heart of the D&D games our group plays.

Oops... I hope I didn't suggest that I thought you were "roll playing" as it were. I was just saying that I don't think 4e hurts or helps role playing particularly compared to other versions. Mostly on account of I don't think that having lots of crunchy rules for every possible action adds "role" and removes "roll".

As for DMs being bad if they fudges rolls? I don't agree. I'd say that, in general, very few players are ok with their characters dying... its not fun for them. And playing a game first and foremost is about fun. So mostly the dice are there to create the illusion of tension and threat. I happen to be that guy that is ok with losing a characters, and as a result I've been killed for dramatic effect a few times. But I am definitely not in the majority, and for most people it seems to be a serious problem.

[pickaboo]

Oops... I hope I didn't suggest that I thought you were "roll playing" as it were. I was just saying that I don't think 4e hurts or helps role playing particularly compared to other versions. Mostly on account of I don't think that having lots of crunchy rules for every possible action adds "role" and removes "roll".

As for DMs being bad if they fudges rolls? I don't agree. I'd say that, in general, very few players are ok with their characters dying... its not fun for them. And playing a game first and foremost is about fun. So mostly the dice are there to create the illusion of tension and threat. I happen to be that guy that is ok with losing a characters, and as a result I've been killed for dramatic effect a few times. But I am definitely not in the majority, and for most people it seems to be a serious problem.

When need be, I usually fudge the rolls in a way that makes the player think the character had a near death experience as I often know their hit points and so on. The excitement thus comes from the possibility of dying though I prevent it when i can

[Greason Wolfe]

There is a time and place for fudging the rolls. In my experience, it doesn't happen often, but I can say that I've had characters saved by fudged rolls just as much as I've lost characters from rolls that weren't fudged. All in all, about the only times I ever fudged rolls was at critical moments that could make or break a campaign or gaming session.

And you can count me in that group with msa. There's always a bit of an attachment to well crafted characters, but losing them isn't the end of the world. I think, at least for me, some of my best (most creative?) moments in RP have come when I lose a character. As a point in case, I lost an earth mage in a Fantasy Hero campaign to a critical head shot. As it so happened, I had also rolled a critical success on a spell. As a result, I lost the character, but the energies released by the spell (which technically failed) I managed create an escape route for the rest of the party and even had the chance for a few "last words." It was, for everyone involved, one of the best sessions we had in that campaign. In the end, it was a combination of dice and creativity that allowed us to role play at our finest.

GW

[maxnichols]

For most players in my experience, it's not a question of whether or not they live or die; it's the manner of that death, if it comes about. If by some off-chance reason my player's mighty, elite character is in danger of getting offed by a minor kobold at the beginning of the playing session, then I will fudge to try and ensure his survival. Sometimes even if it means resorting to blatant deus ex machina.

On the flip side, if we're in an important battle with a real sense of tension and gravitas, preferably at the end of a session, then it's very rare for me to hold back; most players don't mind losing a character if it's done in a suitably spectacular, well-told, or otherwise impressive fashion.

One of my favorite moments in a campaign I'm playing was when my wizard got absorbed by some sort of swamp beast and things were going badly for my party. When my turn came up, I cast grease, and since I was inside this creature the DM allowed my plan to work, and the innards of this thing got saturated with grease. I then spent an action point and cast scorching burst inside it's body. The result? The swamp beast exploded from the inside, caught on fire, and quickly died, turning the battle in our favor. My character, of course, died with it. Bam. A character I was attached to died, and it was awesome.

Exceptions exist for every rule, of course. There are always going to be some players who just do not want their character to die, in any situation, and the DM should always carefully consider what sort of impact it would have on said player to kill it off.