Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

4th ed is a roleplaying game.

It is just further on the "Game" scale then most pen and paper games you are used to. (FateRPG and MechWarrior make the two sides of the scale. Where FateRPG is a very rule light game where the rules are just there as an excuse for roleplaying... where MechWarrior is a game that has roleplaying tacked onto it... And MechWarrior is a GREAT Pen and Paper RPG)

Mind you it isn't all the way to the MechWarrior side of things... but still.

If anything the largest flaw 4th ed has beyond "It should be a side game not the 4th edition of dungeons and dragons" is that it is beholden to roleplaying tropes.

It could have been an awesome squad building pen and paper game

[Sergarr]

Yeah, that's why I said it wasn't a role-playing game - because for me, a role-playing game should be a system for making internally believable stories. 4th edition really sucks in terms of making internally believable stories, partially because of the language it uses for describing what classes can do (striker? controller? are we talking about robots? and I'm not even touching the myriads of "I move the opponent 1 tile to the side" abilities), partially because of the greatly limited scope of "things the adventurers can do", partially because of the loot system where the DM is directly advised to ask you for a wish-list of items you want and then insert them in the loot piles.

It would make for a pretty decent war-game, though. It's got a lot of fun interactions and it's actually somewhat balanced.

[Cptn Kaladin Anrizlokum]

Apparently people consider talking a sign of confidence? I think that's weird... I only talk when I'm nervous, when I'm feeling confident I take time to stop and analyze what's happening before I talk.

I find talking a lot can be quite useful for making people ignore me, which seems odd but it really reduces people's curiosity.

Also my heart rate is apparently 123bpm at rest. I don't think that's very healthy, is it?

[Tiruin]

Apparently people consider talking a sign of confidence? I think that's weird... I only talk when I'm nervous, when I'm feeling confident I take time to stop and analyze what's happening before I talk.

I find talking a lot can be quite useful for making people ignore me, which seems odd but it really reduces people's curiosity.

Also my heart rate is apparently 123bpm at rest. I don't think that's very healthy, is it?

If anyone here knew my past--I'd state that the orange portion is very meaningful.
I couldn't speak a lot in public or on many things due to not being 'confident', as a general notion.
Also do note, the blue part still means you talk and I think yu could note that to others who mentioned that to you so they can get a clearer picture.


And on the next bit...that depends on what you talk about ._. also social etiquette and such.

And..not really. If you're concerned with your health, go for a check up.

[Graknorke]

I reckon Cptn's right about talking, on both counts. If you talk without thinking it makes it sound like you know exactly what you want to say, which translates to being confident. If you stop and think then you seem unsure or indecisive, which is not confident.
And the art of talking codshit in such a way that people stop paying attention to your words is a thing too. At most they'll register that you're talking and a general subject.

[GiglameshDespair]

It generally shows confidence, so long as you're not babbling. Many politicians have mastered the art of saying very little in a lot of words.

[Flying Dice]

What it basically means is that you'd need to roll two attack rolls for every attack you make, one to see if you land a hit, and another to see if the hit does damage.

So, for example, instead of AC 20, you would have DAC 5 and AAC 15. Any attack that roll higher than AAC but lower than AAC+DAC would count as hitting the armor.

I've already accounted for that issue. You only need a single attack roll, it's just that there's more granularity in the list of possible results. Granted, there are bound to be some edge cases where the system would start to behave weirdly, but it's better that what we have now.

I don't really see how that's better, unless you want to start modeling armor damage. Both systems would output the same result, unless you're going to complicate things further with different damage types getting partial armor penetration, shock damage, &c., which again is needlessly tedious for a roleplaying game. As he said, what you're asking for is the sort of thing that would fit right in to a wargame. RPGs aren't about perfectly simulating every aspect of combat, they're about creating a good enough combat system such that it has versimilitude, so that it can be worked into the story they're building.

Again, you're trying to create a mechanic to make up for lazy roleplaying. If an attack was just below the target's AC, rather than saying "You miss," when they're attacking a slow, armored target, give a brief description of them denting the armor, or their blade skittering off scarcely an inch from a vulnerable joint. If you get to the point where people stop caring about the descriptions and just want to get on with it, the mechanic becomes redundant as well but can't simply be dropped for convenience.

[Fniff]

I really wish people would take into account how difficult some systems are to roleplay at the table.
Yes, your system that requires 30d10s per player does model a bellcurve excellently! But how in Camelot am I supposed to get hundreds of 10-sided dice? And yep, your combat does manage to model every single outcome that could happen when an arrow hits someone, but that requires me to spend half the night describing it to my friends.
Note, these examples are exaggerated, unless you're playing FATAL.

[Graknorke]

And yep, your combat does manage to model every single outcome that could happen when an arrow hits someone, but that requires me to spend half the night describing it to my friends.

The arrow hits you in the
*roll*
left ear, and pierces through to the
*roll*
left kidney.

[Fniff]

And yep, your combat does manage to model every single outcome that could happen when an arrow hits someone, but that requires me to spend half the night describing it to my friends.

The arrow hits you in the
*roll*
left ear, and pierces through to the
*roll*
left kidney.

"I, uh, try to remove the arrow?"
You try to pull it out,
*roll*
which causes your intestines to spill out,
*roll*
and gives you brain damage,
*roll*
you now have aphasia...
*roll*
Specifically, finger aphasia. You can no longer recognize your own fingers, other people's fingers, or even drawings of fingers.
"... Shit."

[BlackFlyme]

Specifically, finger aphasia. You can no longer recognize your own fingers, other people's fingers, or even drawings of fingers.
"... Shit."

That reminds me of something that can't recognize fingers.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Sergarr]

What it basically means is that you'd need to roll two attack rolls for every attack you make, one to see if you land a hit, and another to see if the hit does damage.

So, for example, instead of AC 20, you would have DAC 5 and AAC 15. Any attack that roll higher than AAC but lower than AAC+DAC would count as hitting the armor.

I've already accounted for that issue. You only need a single attack roll, it's just that there's more granularity in the list of possible results. Granted, there are bound to be some edge cases where the system would start to behave weirdly, but it's better that what we have now.

I don't really see how that's better, unless you want to start modeling armor damage. Both systems would output the same result, unless you're going to complicate things further with different damage types getting partial armor penetration, shock damage, &c., which again is needlessly tedious for a roleplaying game. As he said, what you're asking for is the sort of thing that would fit right in to a wargame. RPGs aren't about perfectly simulating every aspect of combat, they're about creating a good enough combat system such that it has versimilitude, so that it can be worked into the story they're building.

Again, you're trying to create a mechanic to make up for lazy roleplaying. If an attack was just below the target's AC, rather than saying "You miss," when they're attacking a slow, armored target, give a brief description of them denting the armor, or their blade skittering off scarcely an inch from a vulnerable joint. If you get to the point where people stop caring about the descriptions and just want to get on with it, the mechanic becomes redundant as well but can't simply be dropped for convenience.

I still think that game mechanics should support roleplaying directly without hand-waving things.

The system as it is cannot actually support the "strong guy misses the quick one" literature archetype and in fact, punishes people for doing it. And you're not hand-waving that one. It's a problem which is really apparent when you try to make a character around the idea of dodging big dudes instead of tanking their super-strong blows with armor.

[Orange Wizard]

Specifically, finger aphasia. You can no longer recognize your own fingers, other people's fingers, or even drawings of fingers.
"... Shit."

I desperately want to play this game.

[Fniff]

Specifically, finger aphasia. You can no longer recognize your own fingers, other people's fingers, or even drawings of fingers.
"... Shit."

I desperately want to play this game.

I think I do too.
... How would 'Chunky Salsa' sound as a name? Good?

[GiglameshDespair]

You have dexterity bonus limits for heavier armour. So yes, a quick fighter can be harder to hit than a heavily armoured fighter. Full plate makes you very hard to injure because that's what it was meant to do and did[/].

Armour Class is more abstract- its the difficulty of an effective blow rather than hitting.