What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[NoWayJose]

Makes sense to me. Warlord is good at reading people and knowing what will really rile them up, and get them back on their feet.
If I were knocked out, and someone was yelling "Dude get up- you have to get up- the finale of The OC is on in a few minutes if you don't get up you'e gonna miss it!!! Now FIIIIGHT"
It's going to have much less of an effect on me then if someone were yelling "Get up! Get up now, if you don't get up they're going to kill your wife! She needs you now don't you dare give in- you get up and FIIIIGHTTT!!!"
Addmitedly this is an over the top scenario (I like to go for the funny) but my point is simply that the Warlord is just better then most at knowing what will inspire you, without having to really have been a part of your life for a long time.

You still support my point. A natural born leader can yell "Get up! Get up now, if you don't get up they're going to kill your wife! She needs you now don't you dare give in- you get up and FIIIIGHTTT!!!". Gandalf or Sam can say that, an ultra-charismatic lawyer can say that, your the spouse or child of the wife who is about to die can say that. I can't imagine why ONLY a Warlord can say "Get up! Get up now, if you don't get up they're going to kill your wife! She needs you now don't you dare give in- you get up and FIIIIGHTTT!!!" and everyone else can only come up with "The OC is on in a few minutes"

And this is where we go back to what we were talking about earlier I think... That this is where RPGs shine. The ability of the DM to take a good framework and bend it to whatever fits best for the campaign.

I think RPGs shine when the framework is good enough so that the DM doesn't have to refer to page 42 so much.

Sure there isn't a rule for every corner case imaginary, and I applaud that.

But I wasn't asking for a rule for every case. I was asking for less arbitrariness in the crunch to fluff. There are many other examples of arbitrary allocation and effects of powers, other than just this one specific example, all of which add up for me.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I agree with Mallus that the answer is yes (applying p 42) although it woud have to be handled in such a way that it doesn't mechanically overshadow the Heal skill, second wind and class features. My thought was that the check should be Moderate or Hard based on the relationship, and that a failure should cause psychic damage to the one attempting the check. LostSoul also suggested granting combat advantage when making the check - as a balancing factor, and understood in the game as resulting from the emotional state in response to the injury of the PC being healed.

I would say yes too, but I'd hew closer to existing rules. The Heal skill already allows anyone to revive a dying character, stabilize them if they've used their Second Wind, or give them a +2 bonus on their next death save. As DM I have some leeway in providing a circumstance bonus. Emotional family ties? +2 circumstance bonus. Stirring speech using Diplomacy? +2 circumstance bonus. The rules are there to support non-Warlords, Warlords are just better at it.

 

[pemerton]

The first supports role-playing (in that the choices of the players correspond to the actions of the characters), the second story-creation (in that a story is created, but not necessarily because the choices of the players pertain to the characters).

<snip>

Both can be interesting types of games. Once Upon A Time is my personal fav story-creation game, though. I would rather play a role-playing game that is more focused on the player making choices that correspond to the actions of the character......to me, that is what role-playing is.

I think there's an intermediate position - but maybe it's just a species of your "non-roleplaying" option - where the player is not always choosing for his/her PC, but the PC is still the overwhelming focus of the player's choices and the pivot about which those choices turn. Even when using a power is more like spending a metagame token, the way that the player spends it is still directed overwhemingly by the player's interest in promoting or advancing the position of his/he PC. So it's still very much like playing one's PC.

I think this is the sort of game that 4e is - and feel that it's still pretty close to roleplaying, maybe even close enough to enjoy the same label.

But that's not to deny that it's different from playing a game where the player is the PC and the player's choices are the PC's choices, end of story.

 

[NoWayJose]

Are you really saying we need, somewhere in the rules, an actual power or feat to represent a family member's ability to call back a loved one from the brink of death in a moment of epic inspiration? Isn't that absolutely the sort of corner-case - informed by character motivations and not any mechanics - that it is useful to have some guidelines for the DM to use, rather than just having to make a decision and say 'yes' or 'no'?

Of course not. I think it is clear from my posts that what I am saying is that it doesn't make sense that a warlord and only a warlord has a monopoly on bringing everyone back from death's door.

Well, I did say upthread that the 4e-style approach may not be appealing to those who dislike it's strong metagame element. But once you accept that element, it answers your question - the reason non-Warords can't do the same is because the player of a non-Warlord doesn't get the "fate points"/"metagame tokens" that let one do this.

Agreed, 4E is perfectly reasonable to those who accept the metagame element as you say.

But going back to the OP, WoTC would win back some of the disenfranchised if more conscious effort was made to reduce or at least smooth over the "metagame-ness".

 

[Scribble]

You still support my point. A natural born leader can yell "Get up! Get up now, if you don't get up they're going to kill your wife! She needs you now don't you dare give in- you get up and FIIIIGHTTT!!!". Gandalf or Sam can say that, an ultra-charismatic lawyer can say that, your the spouse or child of the wife who is about to die can say that. I can't imagine why ONLY a Warlord can say "Get up! Get up now, if you don't get up they're going to kill your wife! She needs you now don't you dare give in- you get up and FIIIIGHTTT!!!" and everyone else can only come up with "The OC is on in a few minutes"

To me it sounds like your issue really isn't with the warlord, but with class based games in general.

As others have asked, why can't a fighter cast a spell?

That's fine... Classes aren't your thing.

I happen to like class based games. I find games like GURPS with no class structure, inevitably have less of a "WOOHOO" moment when I level up.

To each his own.

I think RPGs shine when the framework is good enough so that the DM doesn't have to refer to page 42 so much.

I guess we disagree on this... I find it to be a great framework. (Maybe I don't have as many fathers following the party to heal sons? )

It handles just about everything I need it to, in a quick and efficient way whenevr I run the game. In the odd corner cases "42" ends up giving me great guidelines on how to apply the framework to my unique situation.

But I wasn't asking for a rule for every case. I was asking for less arbitrariness in the crunch to fluff. There are many other examples of arbitrary allocation and effects of powers, other than just this one specific example, all of which add up for me.

You were pointing out a random corner case to argue against a mechanic as a whole. It only seems to be arbitrary when you base the whole thing on that corner case. (Or so it feels from your posts...)

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Of course not. I think it is clear from my posts that what I am saying is that it doesn't make sense that a warlord and only a warlord has a monopoly on bringing everyone back from death's door.

He doesn't. A Warlord has a 100% chance. The little boy with an 8 Wis appealing emotionally to his father to get up has a 60% chance (presented in the rules as a DC 10 Heal check with a +2 circumstance bonus). His chances only drop to 50% if you discount the circumstance bonus. The Warlord is just better at it, he doesn't have a monopoly.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm advocating that rules shouldn't be added to the game to make the setting feel unique, as that's the flavor's job, and I'm also saying that if rules are created for one setting, and they are good for the game they should be added to the game as a whole.

Like the rune-casting you mentioned. Ok, sure, it's expected in a Norse setting, but why separate that from other areas? It seems like a useful thing for any game setting.

I think, at some point, it is better to have an actual Core, and a series of additions that can be added to the Core. If everything is Core, then one presumably has to master everything to run the game. As the game evolves, the amount of Core material becomes staggering, and people who don't have the time to read thousands of pages of material are going to find something else to play.

The philosophy I am describing -- that which was foundational to previous editions -- is that flavour defines setting, and the mechanics are intended to support the flavour. I.e., setting-first design.

In the case of Runecasting, I did use that in non-Norse settings. I also used several other setting-specific rules in order to craft my own setting. And I would agree that it would be useful to have compendiums of options, which a prospective GM can use to craft a setting....or to inspire his/her own house rules to craft a setting.

"Everything is Core" seems, to me, to exist only to ensure that most players will either get a DDI subscription, or will buy (almost) everything. Options are things you don't necessarily need to buy. This might be a good business decision (if players buy into it, it is a good business decision), but it is a poor game design decision IMHO.

Frankly, not every setting needs rules for casting spells through djinn, for three moons of magic, or for Gothic horror.


RC

 

[NoWayJose]

He doesn't. A Warlord has a 100% chance. The little boy with an 8 Wis appealing emotionally to his father to get up has a 60% chance (presented in the rules as a DC 10 Heal check with a +2 circumstance bonus). His chances only drop to 50% if you discount the circumstance bonus. The Warlord is just better at it, he doesn't have a monopoly.

I''l rephrase. It doesn't make sense to me a warlord has a monopoly on bringing EVERYONE AND ANYONE back from death's door ALL OF THE TIME (in-game, assuming versimilitude, simulation, and all other applicable disclaimers for the semantically nitpicky)

 

[TheYeti1775]

Why can't an AD&D wizard teach his buddy the fighter, who he's spent years looting and camping with, one single 1st level spell?

He can.

See rules on Dual Classing if he is Human.

 

[Mallus]

Why can't a computer programmer or digital artist teach his buddy the plumber, who he's spent years looting and camping with, one single PerlCGI script or Photoshop faux-Impressionist image.

No reason. They surely can. But the last time I checked, the real world didn't operate under D&D rules (any edition). I though we we're talking about imagery worlds, constructed wholly or in part, using various D&D rule sets.

And you'll note the worlds constructed using the various editions of the D&D rule set don't closely resemble our would of computer programmers and plumbers. For example, I (a computer programmer, in fact) would almost certainly die if I jumped of a tall cliff, and aging certainly hasn't made me smarter nor, sadly, wiser (also, much to my chagrin, I can suffer from limb-loss and cancer).

I think you know the definitions of verisimilitude, gamist, simulationist, etc. so let's not waste our time on this.

Sure. But I think they hurt discussion more than help (though I'm guilty of using them myself...). Honestly, I don't really know what people mean by 'simulationist'. No edition of the game, considered from the standpoint of the actual mechanics, prioritizes simulation of a fictional world (and I say this as someone who once wished they did). The needs of the game (ie, playability, goal/reward structures, balance) have always won out.

Which isn't to say people haven't brought sim-like elements to D&D at their own tables, in their own campaigns. They surely have. But the operative words are 'brought to'.

Where's the simulation in prior editions of D&D? And what's it of?

Ah, page 42. Who needs rules about anything, where every possibility is covered under page 42.

I was offering a specific and practical suggestion, the long form of which is 'allow the loved one to make a CHR attack against the injured person, if successful, heal an amount of damage a la page 42 damaging stunts'.

It's an example of how to model the situation you described using 4e.