[4e] Sword & Sorcery

[rabindranath72]

Thanks for the analysis treeplanter.

4ed is a pretty balanced system and with an average Playability. However, the versatility offered by the system is awful. After the character creation you're basicly stuck with your package for the campain. You can't multiclass, skills are limited, and power are basicly all the same.

Why are you telling you can't multiclass in 4E ? I agree it's more difficult to grasp how to do it properly than in previous version but it's there.

W.

I actually prefer strong archetypes, so I prefer the 4e way of dealing with multiclassing. Since skills are now widely available, one of the reasons in d20 games for picking multiclassing is gone. The acquisition of powers makes the character focused on his class, with just a smattering of powers from other classes. For example, in 4e I do not see Conan as multiclassing with Rogue. I think he is a Fighter with skill training in some side skills, and perhaps later in his career he acquires the mantle of leadership (so, multiclassing as a Warlord). If I have time I will post my idea of Conan in 4e.

Cheers,
Antonio

 

[warzen]

well you "can" but you basicly just take a feat. I guess it's better than nothing

It seems, may be I'm mistaken, that you misunderstood, like me, how it's working.
Multiclassing in 4E is completly different than in previous version but it gives you a lot of versatility. After all, you'll be able to pick up powers from another class at nearly all levels.
I need to find you some multiclass build to show you what can be done.

But I agree, as a first reading, it happears completly crap

W.

 

[kintire]

Am I reading a different thread? I don't see Herve d20 bashing or claiming the system is inferior to RQ (or anything else) in this thread.

I was referring to this:

My feeling about your post is that you're falling again in "D20 fascism",

That's hiss code for "claiming D20 Conan isn't rubbish, and refusing to admit you're wrong even when I, Herve, say you are".

But, I wonder why people is so offended when d20 Conan is compared to d20 D&D? Is it so terrible? I suppose this is the same people than thinks that D&D 3.x is crap?

I, for one, was not offended that you compared it to 3rd edition. My p[roblem was that whenever I replied talking about one edition, your response referenced a totally different one!

RE encounter and daily powers...I would say player autorship (the concept is best explained in the Sorcerer & Sword book). This means that, since we do not accept that martial powers are magical in some way, we can provide an in-game explanation, well knowing that we are doing it to further the creation of an interesting story.
Off the top of my head, the encounter and daily powers would simply represent the chance openings which happen during combat. Take the d20 Conan maneuvers for example. They are always conditional on some Circumstance, so you are not guaranteed that you can pull one every round, or even every combat; some you cannot attempt at all if you are not of a given level, or you do not have the right feat.

The problem is that this explanation is completely unconvincing. Why is it that these openings come up once per encounter, or once per day, never more, never less? What about the abilities that don't NEED "openings": utility powers, defensive powers, ranged powers? Why is a five minute rest needed between encounters if its all based on random openings? Conan is a relatively realisitic world, compared to the high fantasy stuff, and if you aare going to keep internal world consistancy you cannot get away with handwaves like this. Feats and maneuvers can be pulled off whenever the prerequisites are met, which might be ten times a fight, or not at all. 4e powers look like magic, act like magic, ARE magic. Or at the very least, not learnt physical techniques.

 

[rabindranath72]

The problem is that this explanation is completely unconvincing. Why is it that these openings come up once per encounter, or once per day, never more, never less? What about the abilities that don't NEED "openings": utility powers, defensive powers, ranged powers? Why is a five minute rest needed between encounters if its all based on random openings? Conan is a relatively realisitic world, compared to the high fantasy stuff, and if you aare going to keep internal world consistancy you cannot get away with handwaves like this. Feats and maneuvers can be pulled off whenever the prerequisites are met, which might be ten times a fight, or not at all. 4e powers look like magic, act like magic, ARE magic. Or at the very least, not learnt physical techniques.

Well, as I said, it's just an instance of player autorship, which is just a roleplaying technique, and it's just a matter of taste. I and my players never had problems with different roleplaying techniques, like author stance, for example. Handwaves are the prerogative of the GM anyway.
I do not see that huge a difference with Maneuvers or feats which cannot be done unless it's written so on the character sheet and the prerequisites are not satisfied. Everything which is acquired by level advancement is learnt by definition (experience).
The "five minute encounters" can be also rationalised as "these things cannot be pulled off so frequently". It's as much a schematisation as
the "standard action", "move action", "free action" etc. in d20 Conan.
Much like you cannot perform more than one Maneuver in a turn also if you have multiple attacks. Or why healing happens only after a night's rest, considering that hit points are abstract by definition. It would be also realistic that one starts recovering as soon as one starts catching his breath (again, given the abstract nature of hit points; a thing which in 4e works just fine).
With 4e we see a paradigm shift for many things, and if one does not learn to think out of the box, things seem strange.

You can find this article by Robin Laws very interesting for the above concepts:
http://www.pelgranepress.com/SeePageXX/April2009-robin.html

Anyway I do not want to convince anyone; a game's interpretation can differ from people to people. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree

 

[kintire]

Well, as I said, it's just an instance of player autorship, which is just a roleplaying technique, and it's just a matter of taste. I and my players never had problems with different roleplaying techniques, like author stance, for example. Handwaves are the prerogative of the GM anyway.

I'm a great believer in internal consistency, especially in the system, which represents the world's laws of physics after all. Player handwaving is all very well for roleplaying and player based things (why AM I hanging out with these psychos?...) but it grates on me when something makes really actually no sense at all.

I do not see that huge a difference with Maneuvers or feats which cannot be done unless it's written so on the character sheet and the prerequisites are not satisfied. Everything which is acquired by level advancement is learnt by definition (experience).

The difference is in the answer to the question "why can't I do it again?" with maneuvers and feats, there is a physical circumstance which prevents you, or you CAN do it again.

The "five minute encounters" can be also rationalised as "these things cannot be pulled off so frequently".

Yes, but the problem is that if they are physical learnt skills, they CAN.

With 4e we see a paradigm shift for many things, and if one does not learn to think out of the box, things seem strange.

Once again let me clarify: I am not saying that 4e is a bad system. I actually like it. But you are right that it is a paradigm shift, and its a shift away from the Conan S&S paradigm, and towards high fantasy.

 

[rabindranath72]

Well, it's not that "physics defying" logics do not happen in the d20 Conan game mechanics (and D&D3.x).
There are a number of feats and abilities in d20 Conan which are either "enabling", or work a limited number of times per units (of something) (and they are not magical), for example: Cleave, Combat expertise, Combat reflexes, Dabbler (once per month), Stunning attack (once per day), Fighting madness (works only once per day) or the Crimson Mist ability of Barbarians (once per day), the Ally (request) ability of Nobles (once per month) or the living expenditure for nobles or scholars (once per month). And probably I missed some more.

How do one justifies these? They have no physical justification except in-game, and some level of authoring is necessary to make them work (for what is worth, I am not troubled by these at all, but they may irk people with sensibility for "internal consistency" like you)

For what is worth, I am not interested in running a 4e game right now. Elric! and Call of Cthulhu together work exceedingly well for Hyborian Age games.

 

[treeplanter]

Powers suck. I start laughing every time our ranger uses his Dire wolverine thing or the rogue use his daily shuriken swarm or whatever (don't remember the real name)

 

[rabindranath72]

Powers suck. I start laughing every time our ranger uses his Dire wolverine thing or the rogue use his daily shuriken swarm or whatever (don't remember the real name)

:lol: I agree many of the names and descriptions are ridiculous!

 

[Clovenhoof]

Some of these examples are very well justifiable without a lot of rationalization.
Cleave: your arm is only so strong and your technique only so good. Consider actual sword cutting tests: maybe you're good enough to cut two targets in one blow, but that doesn't automatically mean you can cut three, four or eight targets in one cut. So I find that totally logical. (What I find illogical about Cleave is how it works with non-slashing weapons.)
Crimson Mist / Fighting Madness: a rage is very tiring and you are so exhausted afterwards that you can consider yourself lucky to keep fighting without penalties.
Ally / Horde etc: you can pull those favours only so often before you start getting on your allies nerves.
As for the living expenditure - that's the most typical thing in a capitalistic world. Do you suddenly get twice your paycheck just because you _wish_ so? Then I want to have your job.

However, I do agree some of those limitations are just stupid. Stunning Attack for instance - I can see no justification for this limitation (once per four levels iirc) and I refuse trying to find one. Trying to invent one would be just apologetic rationalization. Personally, I get around that dilemma by not taking the feat.

As for those 4E powers, I agree with the point that has been made previously: it's easy to rationalize why a character can throw a lighting bolt only once per day. It's causing brain damage trying to rationalize why he can throw a knife only once per day. But I confess that everything 4E is just hearsay for me, I've only downloaded the Quickstart rules today to get a better idea.

 

[rabindranath72]

Some of these examples are very well justifiable without a lot of rationalization.
Cleave: your arm is only so strong and your technique only so good. Consider actual sword cutting tests: maybe you're good enough to cut two targets in one blow, but that doesn't automatically mean you can cut three, four or eight targets in one cut. So I find that totally logical. (What I find illogical about Cleave is how it works with non-slashing weapons.)
Crimson Mist / Fighting Madness: a rage is very tiring and you are so exhausted afterwards that you can consider yourself lucky to keep fighting without penalties.
Ally / Horde etc: you can pull those favours only so often before you start getting on your allies nerves.
As for the living expenditure - that's the most typical thing in a capitalistic world. Do you suddenly get twice your paycheck just because you _wish_ so? Then I want to have your job.

However, I do agree some of those limitations are just stupid. Stunning Attack for instance - I can see no justification for this limitation (once per four levels iirc) and I refuse trying to find one. Trying to invent one would be just apologetic rationalization. Personally, I get around that dilemma by not taking the feat.

As for those 4E powers, I agree with the point that has been made previously: it's easy to rationalize why a character can throw a lighting bolt only once per day. It's causing brain damage trying to rationalize why he can throw a knife only once per day. But I confess that everything 4E is just hearsay for me, I've only downloaded the Quickstart rules today to get a better idea.

Well, the rationalisation you have given above (tiredness, strength and technique) could apply perfectly well "as is" to 4e's martial powers. That was the point I was trying to underline.
I would also add "luck" to the equation (much as it works w.r.t. Hit Points, which have not changed since when Gary Gygax defined them).

The explanation for the noble power is frankly lame: not everyone reacts the same at the same intervals of time; this would be best left to the individual GM's portraying of NPCs. In fact, I discarded that ability when my players used nobles and handwaved it.

The living expenditure...well, I would leave all the economics firmly in the background. Besides, all the coin counting is quite contrary to the pulp spirit anyway (we never see Conan going shopping!)

Quite incidentally, I see that in those two cases have been put limits where rules should not exist at all. This is quite frustrating.

The other limitations...well, I suppose I could accept them for game's sake, but I would probably ditch them completely.

I suppose that if we should count all things that do not make any sense in a game, we would end all giving up playing and find another hobby

 

[treeplanter]

I don't see any problem justifying martial power in Conan. But you have to understand that in a 4ed Conan you'll loose the favlour of the different class. Sure the Noble would be the leader and the Barbarian the tank or striker, but still this is unidimensional, ie only axed on combat.

Also, you'll loose the fast and brutal atmosphere present in Conan. 4ed combat are pretty laborious and get longer and longer as you go up in level.

 

[rabindranath72]

I don't see any problem justifying martial power in Conan. But you have to understand that in a 4ed Conan you'll loose the favlour of the different class. Sure the Noble would be the leader and the Barbarian the tank or striker, but still this is unidimensional, ie only axed on combat.

Also, you'll loose the fast and brutal atmosphere present in Conan. 4ed combat are pretty laborious and get longer and longer as you go up in level.

I agree totally. The flavor in d20 Conan is unique. One would at least need to define backgrounds to make things work in 4e.
On the other hand, I recall the games I ran 15 years ago with the AD&D Conan modules. Therein you only had fighter and thieves available (or magic-users and illusionists if you wanted to be exotic), no skills, no feats, no nothing. You had the basics of a class which most often only focused on combat, and all the rest you had to build with RPing. It seems with 4e they are aiming at the same "feel": just provide the rules for adventuring and combat, all the rest should stay on the player's shoulders. I too am not fond of the skew of combat rules vs. all the rest in 4e, but at least there are the basic elements for a S&S game. Perhaps not Conan S&S, but closer to Elric.

 

[Clovenhoof]

no skills, no feats, no nothing. You had the basics of a class which most often only focused on combat, and all the rest you had to build with RPing.

Oh yes. I also started out with that ilk, and have always disliked it even before there were any alternatives available. For me, describing an elaborate combat stunt that had absolutely no effect in the system just didn't cut it. The alternative was the GM saying "You can't" to anything that was not covered by the rules.
That was one of the reasons why I was immediately sold on D&D 3.0 when it first came out. First it fixed all (well, most of) those things that were utterly stupid in AD&D 2nd (like THAC0 etc), and the feats finally let you do the things you always wanted to but never dared to ask, clad in proper rules and all without GM fiat.

 

[Spade]

Every game falls somewhere between Gamist and Simulationist. 4E is very Gamist, with the pacing of special abilities a matter of story-building rather than character-building.

Simulationist designs take more time to act out, but give player decisions the character of a roleplayed, tactical choice.

4E is a bit too far on the Gamist end of the spectrum for my take on S&S roleplaying. I prefer to feel the consequences are the result of my decisions as a player. The railroading tradition of the genre combined with artificial limitations would back me into an un-fun corner.

Now, in a genre where Deus Ex Machina has a broader streak, such as a Supers setting, that one use of a death-laser for dramatic impact is fine.

- Spade

 

[Spongly]

If you have to start "rationalising" why particular things work the way they do, the rule probably doesn't make much sense.

 

[kintire]

Well, the rationalisation you have given above (tiredness, strength and technique) could apply perfectly well "as is" to 4e's martial powers. That was the point I was trying to underline.

But it can't. Tiredness means you can't rage anymore. But if you use a 4e power, you can't use THAT POWER again. You can still use more strenuous powers just fine. Why does using your first level smack with sword encounter power make you too tired to use that power again, but you can use your higher level encounter powers and daily powers just fine?

The explanation for the noble power is frankly lame: not everyone reacts the same at the same intervals of time; this would be best left to the individual GM's portraying of NPCs.

Its a fact that I do have some reservations about several of the "social" powers, for exactly that reason. But they are minor powers, easily corrected. 4e powers are the basis of the whole system.

Quite incidentally, I see that in those two cases have been put limits where rules should not exist at all. This is quite frustrating.

Its always dangerous reducing NPCs to mechanics. These rules work well as a quick and simple system for those who don't want to go into the details, but attempting to make them firm rules wasn't a good idea, its true.

For me, describing an elaborate combat stunt that had absolutely no effect in the system just didn't cut it. The alternative was the GM saying "You can't" to anything that was not covered by the rules.
That was one of the reasons why I was immediately sold on D&D 3.0 when it first came out. First it fixed all (well, most of) those things that were utterly stupid in AD&D 2nd (like THAC0 etc), and the feats finally let you do the things you always wanted to but never dared to ask, clad in proper rules and all without GM fiat.

4e still has the combat feats. Its the out of combat rp stuff that has gone: and I'm not sure that's a bad idea. System for the physics, roleplay for the people.

Every game falls somewhere between Gamist and Simulationist. 4E is very Gamist, with the pacing of special abilities a matter of story-building rather than character-building.

Simulationist designs take more time to act out, but give player decisions the character of a roleplayed, tactical choice.

I am deeply suspicious of labels like this. You say that 4e is "Gamist" and not "Simulationist", but it simulates 4e style high fantasy very well. And the combats are highly tactical, to the point where you really can't play them without a map. The limited powers mean that every power used has to count. What's more, they have revolutionised the front line fighter, so that they can now actually hold a front line, and party formations actually mean something. 4e is highly tactical, far more so than 3e. And yet it is also Gamist as it has a lot of handwaves, and very little out of combat, leaving you to take it and run.

I always have a slight suspicion that by "simulationist" people mean "realistic", ie Simulating OUR reality. 4e nor Conan is that, and thaank goodness!

 

[rabindranath72]

But it can't. Tiredness means you can't rage anymore. But if you use a 4e power, you can't use THAT POWER again. You can still use more strenuous powers just fine. Why does using your first level smack with sword encounter power make you too tired to use that power again, but you can use your higher level encounter powers and daily powers just fine?

Every game falls somewhere between Gamist and Simulationist. 4E is very Gamist, with the pacing of special abilities a matter of story-building rather than character-building.

Simulationist designs take more time to act out, but give player decisions the character of a roleplayed, tactical choice.

I am deeply suspicious of labels like this. You say that 4e is "Gamist" and not "Simulationist", but it simulates 4e style high fantasy very well. And the combats are highly tactical, to the point where you really can't play them without a map. The limited powers mean that every power used has to count. What's more, they have revolutionised the front line fighter, so that they can now actually hold a front line, and party formations actually mean something. 4e is highly tactical, far more so than 3e. And yet it is also Gamist as it has a lot of handwaves, and very little out of combat, leaving you to take it and run.

I always have a slight suspicion that by "simulationist" people mean "realistic", ie Simulating OUR reality. 4e nor Conan is that, and thaank goodness!

Well, he would not be able to rage anymore, but he could still fight without fatiguing for hours. If the objection to Rage is that it is fatiguing, then fatigue must be taken into account also for combat. Sorry but we are getting into physics here, and BOTH systems (d20 Conan and 4e) are going to collapse quite miserably if we start do double-check the facts. To me it's enough to see that both in d20 Conan and 4e there are things which cannot be justified except with in-game logic, which is fine by me when they do not intrude in the realm of RPing (like noble abilities above).

But I am curious, how do you handle the "verisimilitude" (I am not going to say "realism") of 4e martial powers?

 

[Clovenhoof]

I am deeply suspicious of labels like this. You say that 4e is "Gamist" and not "Simulationist", but it simulates 4e style high fantasy very well.

That's not what it means. These terms originated in the s.c. "Threefold Model"in RPG Theory, with the third branch being "Narrativist". Today this approach is simply known as "GNS", coined by Ron Edwards.
The terms in their original highbrow definition are a bit counterintuitive, as not to say misleading (especially NAR).

The Wikipedia entry on the topic is acceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory

Very short and (over)simplified summary:

GAM means that the players see the game as a challenge they have to master by clever use of their character's abilities. Random elements (dice) are heavily used to determine success or failure.
D&D or D20 in general is indeed a typical example for a Gamist system.

NAR may or may not involve dice-based mechanics and is generally centered around the question "What needs to happen now to make a good story?". Typically, the random element in such a system does not determine success or failure, but just varying degrees or implementations of success.
(I can confirm the Wiki info that most Indie games are NAR centered)

SIM means the simulation and exploration of the _game world_, not necessarily a realistic physics engine. Indeed these systems are often rules-heavy slugs, but theoretically they don't need to be.
Examples: GURPS, The Dark Eye, Midgard, RuleMonster etc.

Also, SIM-focused games typically demand the separation of player knowledge and character knowledge, while GAM and NAR are less strict about that (or don't enforce it at all) to improve game flow.

In closing, I should clarify that most RPGs are not 100% pure, though they usually do lean heavily towards one side.

 

[rabindranath72]

If you have to start "rationalising" why particular things work the way they do, the rule probably doesn't make much sense.

Agreed.
Not only that, but the most important element which requires adjudication and in-game rationalisation has the same impact in both games: HIT POINTS. If one is willing to adjust his view of the game for hit points, I cannot see why the same cannot be done for other, probably less essential, things.
It's quite interesting that HPs are rather abstract in 4e, in view of how leader-type classes and "second wind" works.
A bit less abstract in d20 Conan, but I always interpreted them according to the original Gygaxian definition: skill, luck, favor from the gods etc.

 

[kintire]

Well, he would not be able to rage anymore, but he could still fight without fatiguing for hours.

Perhaps in theory, but in practice Conan combats rarely last a minute, never mind an hour. If one ever looked like doing so, you might have to ad hoc something.

Like rebuilding your adversary from scratch!

Sorry but we are getting into physics here, and BOTH systems (d20 Conan and 4e) are going to collapse quite miserably if we start do double-check the facts.

Not internally. Conan's not perfect, of course, but all your efforts to pick holes have produced nothing, except Hit Points, and even there you can appeal to a degree of innate magic. Which is a little weak, but better than 4e which has nothing.

But I am curious, how do you handle the "verisimilitude" (I am not going to say "realism") of 4e martial powers?

Easy. They are magic. Not Arcane Magic perhaps: more like Ki. A 4e martial character is not just someone who has trained in pure physical moves: their Kung Fu is powerful, and they can use their Ki for various powerful moves. Spells, some might call them.