D&D 4E 4e and My Setting: Can You Convince Me To Convert?

[GnomeWorks]

Howdy, all. I've been lurking here on the 4e boards for awhile now, and I think that now - with a bit more information, and some more hopefully coming in the next month or so - is a good time to begin contemplating the big question: do I convert to 4e?

My setting is a hodge-podge of concepts. The basic premise is that there are nine "forces" in the world: magic, psionics, technology, the blue (world memory), time, chaos (entropy, free will, and randomness), divine, nature, and the void. These nine are then divided into Trinities - three groups of three forces, with each force in each Trinity opposed to the other two (so magic is opposed to psionics and technology, and so on).

Currently, I have thirty-some races allowed, and fifty-some base classes - and there are more yet to be written. I know it's a mess, but I'm slowly working on cleaning it up, to make it cleaner and more internally consistent.

I'm a fan of the simulationist view. In my mind, the world is alive, and I try to convey that in games. Monsters are relatively rare, and most combats are with humanoids of some kind or another. NPCs aren't there just to kill or be killed, and I try to ensure that anyone the party interacts with is at least not entirely two-dimensional. Their skills outside of combat can be just as important as their skills in combat.

So far, I'm not really certain what my personal opinions towards 4e are. There are a few things I like, but there are a number of things that I really am not a fan of (what they've done to halflings, removal of gnomes, the pit fiend only having combat-relevant abilities). However, I am willing to overlook my personal opinions when it comes to my setting: if it will fit better, if it will make more sense, if it will make the division between the various forces more defined... I'm willing to convert.

Here is a short list of what I view as pros and cons.

Pros

• "Power Sources" make the divisons between forces more definable, and might give each force niche protection.
• Lots of options for melee classes. While I'm not a fan of the magic parts of Bo9S, the non-magical disciplines were rather nicely done, IMO.
• Race matters. With so many races in the setting, making them different is sometimes difficult. I haven't heard much beyond "race matters," but if it does, that would be nice.
• Reduction of magic items. In the past couple years, I have become rather irritated with 3e's reliance on magic items. I like that that's (mostly) going away.

Cons

• Monsters have only combat-relevant abilities. Since I don't use monsters often, this is alright, but if I ever decide to change that, I want the creatures in the world to be a little more dynamic than simply there to be killed by the PCs.
• Halflings changed, gnomes gone. While the fluff on the halflings can be changed (and most definitely will be), the removal of gnomes hurts.
• Restriction on class design space. With the four roles, I think it will be difficult for any given power source to have more than four classes; while that should be enough, it sometimes just isn't. I like to tinker with the system, so this restriction on design space somewhat irks me. I haven't heard or read anything to contradict this point, but I'll be pleased if there is.
• Restriction on rings. In my mind, this is a ridiculous restriction; there is a solution that some other poster made that I really like (if I can find the post, I'll link it), but the "RAW" seems indicative of a general design philosophy that I don't like.
• "Per-encounter" abilities. From a design standpoint, I love the idea; from a world-building standpoint, I can't stand it. I know there are ways to rationalize them, but I don't like any of the solutions I've come across. If appropriate fluff can be made to explain it, I'm definitely down with it, but at the moment, not so much.

Regardless of what my stance is right now, and regardless of whether or not anybody out here manages to change my mind (one way or the other), I'll give the system a chance - I'm planning on a playtest when it comes out, and seeing if it suits me or not. But I am not excited about it, and I am not looking forward to the idea of a 4e game.

Anybody care to try to convince me?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Anybody care to try to convince me?

Not really.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Not really.

Thanks.

 

[Nymrohd]

I think that 4E is decidedly non-simulationist.
The main question for me as a DM is this: how does my regular player group feel about the new edition? If they are likely to enjoy the 4E approach I would switch. As a DM my first priority is that my players have fun; everything else is secondary.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Not until we see the new rules in their entirety, no.

 

[Khuxan]

Cons

• Monsters have only combat-relevant abilities. Since I don't use monsters often, this is alright, but if I ever decide to change that, I want the creatures in the world to be a little more dynamic than simply there to be killed by the PCs.

• 
  
  Monsters don't just have combat-relevant abilities, it's just that non-combat abilities are no longer listed in the statblock (c.f. pit fiend's once-in-99-years wish).
  
  

  [*] Halflings changed, gnomes gone. While the fluff on the halflings can be changed (and most definitely will be), the removal of gnomes hurts.

  
  Gnomes as a player race will be in the MM, released at the exact same time as the PH.
  
  

  [*] Restriction on class design space. With the four roles, I think it will be difficult for any given power source to have more than four classes; while that should be enough, it sometimes just isn't. I like to tinker with the system, so this restriction on design space somewhat irks me. I haven't heard or read anything to contradict this point, but I'll be pleased if there is.

  
  The four roles are metagame not ingame classifications. Just as Biggie is a martial or all-but-martial ranger (striker), the rogue is a martial striker (we've certainly seen no divine power from Biggie).
  
  

  [*] Restriction on rings. In my mind, this is a ridiculous restriction; there is a solution that some other poster made that I really like (if I can find the post, I'll link it), but the "RAW" seems indicative of a general design philosophy that I don't like.

  
  This is not difficult to house rule.
  
  

  [*] "Per-encounter" abilities. From a design standpoint, I love the idea; from a world-building standpoint, I can't stand it. I know there are ways to rationalize them, but I don't like any of the solutions I've come across. If appropriate fluff can be made to explain it, I'm definitely down with it, but at the moment, not so much.

  
  D&D is not a simulation of reality, it's a simulation of action movies - and in action movies you see trick shots, stunts and challenging maneuvers that aren't done round after round. From an in character perspective, there's nothing extraordinary about someone attacking with two weapons in six seconds - even if they only do that once or twice.

 

[Generico]

I think that 4E is decidedly non-simulationist.

I disagree.

Yes, the monster stat blocks that they've shown us don't have all kinds of non-combat relevant detail. However, that's not because the game is non-simulationist. That's because stat mechanics only matter in combat. Outside of combat, you can make the monsters do whatever you think makes sense for them. In fact, from what I've read in the monster related articles and in the preview books, it seems like monsters will have more non-combat related fluff than they did in 3.5. The difference is that this fluff comes in narrative form instead of stat-block form.

Restriction on class design space. With the four roles, I think it will be difficult for any given power source to have more than four classes; while that should be enough, it sometimes just isn't. I like to tinker with the system, so this restriction on design space somewhat irks me. I haven't heard or read anything to contradict this point, but I'll be pleased if there is.

Actually, there's far more design space per class in 4e than there is in 3.5. Classes get way more feats, and all of them have access to various powers. In many cases, it's better to just add a new set of power options to a class rather than make a whole new class. Also, it's not like those 4 roles didn't exist in 3.5. They've existed in all the iterations of D&D - 4e is just the first one to give them names and explicitly declare that each class fits a role. There's no reason to think you can't mix and match roles in 4e just as easily as you could in 3.5.

 

[Rechan]

No, I can't, because it's not my place to convince You to do something, and I don't have the rules, just like anyone else.

Want convincing? Wait for the core rules to come out, and see if they mesh with you.

 

[marune]

When a tree fall.. oops.. When a NPC tries to climb a tree with no PCs around, does he trow the dices ?

 

[GnomeWorks]

Monsters don't just have combat-relevant abilities, it's just that non-combat abilities are no longer listed in the statblock (c.f. pit fiend's once-in-99-years wish).

Which, in my mind, pretty much means they might as well not have them. If I have to figure out what they are, either whole-cloth or based on bits of fluff, that's more work.

It's not really a deal-breaker, for me, just something that irks me a bit.

Gnomes as a player race will be in the MM, released at the exact same time as the PH.

And will they be as mechanically fleshed-out as the ones in the PH?

The four roles are metagame not ingame classifications. Just as Biggie is a martial or all-but-martial ranger (striker), the rogue is a martial striker (we've certainly seen no divine power from Biggie).

Hrm... oh, I see what you're saying. Fair enough.

This is not difficult to house rule.

As I said, I found a solution I liked. I just don't like the design philosophy behind the decision on rings.

D&D is not a simulation of reality, it's a simulation of action movies - and in action movies you see trick shots, stunts and challenging maneuvers that aren't done round after round. From an in character perspective, there's nothing extraordinary about someone attacking with two weapons in six seconds - even if they only do that once or twice.

It's not supposed to be a simulation of reality, I agree. But my goal is to have a simulation of a reality.

Yes, the monster stat blocks that they've shown us don't have all kinds of non-combat relevant detail. However, that's not because the game is non-simulationist. That's because stat mechanics only matter in combat. Outside of combat, you can make the monsters do whatever you think makes sense for them. In fact, from what I've read in the monster related articles and in the preview books, it seems like monsters will have more non-combat related fluff than they did in 3.5. The difference is that this fluff comes in narrative form instead of stat-block form.

So if I want monsters to have uses outside of combat, I need to do all the work? As if I didn't have enough on my plate already. Yes, I realize that the majority of the fluff in 3.5 was ignored (hell, I ignored it a good deal of the time), but it was useful as a springboard for my own ideas.

No, I can't, because it's not my place to convince You to do something, and I don't have the rules, just like anyone else.

Want convincing? Wait for the core rules to come out, and see if they mesh with you.

I'm looking for more solid reasons to be leaning one way or the other. I want to know if I should continue working on the mechanical aspects of my setting (which is probably another good six to eight months' worth of work), or if I should wait for 4e to begin tinkering with that system.