I wasn't a huge fan of v3.5/d20 so I stuck with Alternity but I like the 4E rules and think they would make a nice "upgrade" for my sci-fi group.
My opinion it needs a lot of playtesting about the firearms and military vehicles. There are plans about a d20 superheroes setting, and a reboot of Urban Arcana, I suposse.
Super Heroes? Will it be the new version of Mutants & Masterminds or competing with it?
Huh?!?!!!
Last I checked, WotC did NOT published Mutants and Masterminds. The only contributions they made are the 3e SRD and OGL.
WotC WAS supposed to publish a d20 Modern Supers supplement titled d20 Spectaculars. It got shelved.
It's a pretty solid system, and at least as friendly toward modern day games as Alternity ever was. I'd take a thumb through it when you get a chance.
I would heartily encourage you to take a look at Saga Edition Star Wars.
Unfortunately, Lucasfilm Licensing would be annoyed if WotC make modern-rules supplements for their Star Wars RPG.
One can hope WotC look toward the Saga Edition as their game design template for a new modern-genre RPG rather than 4e. But I'm not holding my breath.
Somehow, I just can't imagine enjoying a full 4e Modern system as much as I enjoy a Star Wars Saga Modern system... which is sort of odd, because I definitely prefer the 4e system for heroic fantasy over the Star Wars Saga system...
Super Heroes? Will it be the new version of Mutants & Masterminds or competing with it?
I would heartily encourage you to take a look at Saga Edition Star Wars. The classes and powers have a very nice blend in feel between the feel of 4e and a more modern/sci-fi setting. Classes like Noble, Scoundrel, Scout and Soldier could exist anywhere really and there's some really nice new rules for taking the stock character and making them yours each level with customizable special ability trees and feats (you bounce back and forth each level, first an ability pick, then next level a new feat, next a new ability, and so forth.)
It's a pretty solid system, and at least as friendly toward modern day games as Alternity ever was. I'd take a thumb through it when you get a chance.
My personal feelings for Star Wars aside, I'll take your advice and flip through a copy the next chance I get. I can always pitch the setting and keep the mechanic, right?
The Star Wars Saga game system is amazing. Its on par with 4e. Worse for heroic fantasy... but much better for sci-fi. A great all around game system.
My personal feelings for Star Wars aside, I'll take your advice and flip through a copy the next chance I get. I can always pitch the setting and keep the mechanic, right?
Yeah, that's totally what I'm suggesting. I think if you just file off the serial numbers Star Wars would make an awesome modern 4e-type system. Granted I haven't really run it yet, but from reading it I really think it'll do what you're looking for. Hope it helps!
The Star Wars Saga game system is amazing. Its on par with 4e. Worse for heroic fantasy... but much better for sci-fi. A great all around game system.
First off, WotC needs to get the "fork thread" thing that they've got over on ENWorld. Anyway, this is slightly off-topic.
I've actually become dissatisfied with 4e already. I really hate the powers system. I am now planning on converting the Saga system into a fantasy game, so I'd lreally love to know why you think it's "worse for heroic fantasy" than 4e.
I actually think that Saga is the best system that WotC has ever put out (and it would seem that a lot of other people agree, considering that it won Best RPG at GenCon) ... In my opinion, the talent tree class system is the best class system out there for d20. I admittedly plan to modify a few things with Saga -- such as taking the best bits of the 4e movement/combat resolution rules as well as rejigging the way Force powers (reskinned as magic spells, obviously) work. I'm also going to be using some, but not all, of The Gneech's "Swords & Sorcery Saga" conversion.
First off, WotC needs to get the "fork thread" thing that they've got over on ENWorld. Anyway, this is slightly off-topic.
I've actually become dissatisfied with 4e already. I really hate the powers system. I am now planning on converting the Saga system into a fantasy game, so I'd lreally love to know why you think it's "worse for heroic fantasy" than 4e.
I actually think that Saga is the best system that WotC has ever put out (and it would seem that a lot of other people agree, considering that it won Best RPG at GenCon) ... In my opinion, the talent tree class system is the best class system out there for d20. I admittedly plan to modify a few things with Saga -- such as taking the best bits of the 4e movement/combat resolution rules as well as rejigging the way Force powers (reskinned as magic spells, obviously) work. I'm also going to be using some, but not all, of The Gneech's "Swords & Sorcery Saga" conversion.
Ok... I really don't want to get into another edition war or anything like that: these are my opinions, and that is all. If you don't agree, whatever. They are still my opinions.
1) I think the power system works amazingly well for a heroic fantasy style game. I think it adds a lot of cinematic flair. This cinematic flair is sometimes over the top... but I think that is what heroic fantasy is all about. Also, the fact that the really over the top powers are not repeatedly usable is a very nice touch. Its the sort of thing a character does once in a scene, and that is all.
2) Saga does not balance, in terms of combat, the class powers against each other perfectly. Its not so big of a deal for Saga. In a sci-fi universe, at least in the games I run, I find that non combat powers often play a far more important role. That is not to say that skills are not important in heroic fantasy as well... but in the sort of sci-fi games I run, you can hack the spaceship and take it out of order. Hell, you can hack the life support systems and kill everyone on that ship! So, taking hacking style powers at the cost of regular combat ability is ok. Basically, I find that in sci-fi games it is far more common to be able to choose whether an encounter can be bypassed by skills or combat, and thus its more acceptable to have characters which are sometimes far better at one or the other. In heroic fantasy games, usually, though not always, this is far less true. As a result, I find that 4e system of "two pools of power," utility powers, and combat powers, gained separately, and in equal measure by all classes, works better for a heroic fantasy style game.
3) In sci-fi games, I like gritty health rules. That means a condition track. But, for heroic fantasy games, you have to tone this down a bit. Make a game to gritty, and it sort of stops people from being heroic. Instead they run for duck and cover. Works well for sci-fi. Not so well for heroic fantasy. Though, I must admit, Saga's condition track as written is not so bad (I added house rules to make it "feel" more gritty-duck and cover for my sci-fi games, and I added a couple house rules to slow down healing surge recovery and make the bloodied condition feel like it "hurts" a little more for 4e).
4) If a game is very duck and cover heavy, and ranged weapon heavy, then some amount of tactical combat will be added into the gameplay from these elements. Star wars saga has this element of combat. But, if you remove this aspect, and go with mostly melee weapons, star wars saga melee range combat is (by and large) almost as boring as 3e melee range combat. Thats to say, there is not so much to do but run up to a person and wack him as much as possible. Maybe run up and wack him, after which he wacks you and moves away, after which you run up and wack him, and over and over again. Its ranged combat and the ability to duck and cover that really makes the games combat system work well. In D&D style games, while some opponents do used ranged weapons, most will use melee combat. 4e slide and push mechanics add a LOT to making melee combat more fun. Saga does not have nearly as many mechanics of this sort.
The long and short of it is, I find that the Saga mechanics work exceptionally well for modern/sci-fi style games. But, I find that 4e mechanics work better for heroic fantasy style games. 4e really gives you the opportunity to slowly slide in power from a lowly caravan guard to a demi-god. This works great for heroic fantasy. It would be awful for sci-fi... at least if you like dystopian hard boiled dark-tech sci-fi as I do... but its very fantasy. On the other hand, Saga's system really allows, with a few tweaks, for more urban/gritty style games where a character might get better as he levels, but a bunch of guys with guns still really feels like a threat if you are standing out in the open. I think they are modeled to be used for two different style games, and I think each runs its style of game better than the other.
Ok... I really don't want to get into another edition war or anything like that: these are my opinions, and that is all. If you don't agree, whatever. They are still my opinions.
Thanks. You've raised some good points. I didn't know you could have an edition war between D&D and Saga (usually it's 3.x vs 4e) but I do see your point and I don't really want to get into that kind of argument either.
1) I think the power system works amazingly well for a heroic fantasy style game. I think it adds a lot of cinematic flair. This cinematic flair is sometimes over the top... but I think that is what heroic fantasy is all about. Also, the fact that the really over the top powers are not repeatedly usable is a very nice touch. Its the sort of thing a character does once in a scene, and that is all.
The long and short of it for me is that I don't like the powers system at all. I have found it to be too contrived and artificial for my taste. It offends my simulationist sensibilities, I guess.
2) Saga does not balance, in terms of combat, the class powers against each other perfectly. Its not so big of a deal for Saga. In a sci-fi universe, at least in the games I run, I find that non combat powers often play a far more important role. That is not to say that skills are not important in heroic fantasy as well... but in the sort of sci-fi games I run, you can hack the spaceship and take it out of order. Hell, you can hack the life support systems and kill everyone on that ship! So, taking hacking style powers at the cost of regular combat ability is ok. Basically, I find that in sci-fi games it is far more common to be able to choose whether an encounter can be bypassed by skills or combat, and thus its more acceptable to have characters which are sometimes far better at one or the other. In heroic fantasy games, usually, though not always, this is far less true. As a result, I find that 4e system of "two pools of power," utility powers, and combat powers, gained separately, and in equal measure by all classes, works better for a heroic fantasy style game.
I can see what you're saying here, but I think it's possibly to make fantasy games more "skill-based" than D&D (and more specifically 4e, which is very combat heavy) does.
3) In sci-fi games, I like gritty health rules. That means a condition track. But, for heroic fantasy games, you have to tone this down a bit. Make a game to gritty, and it sort of stops people from being heroic. Instead they run for duck and cover. Works well for sci-fi. Not so well for heroic fantasy. Though, I must admit, Saga's condition track as written is not so bad (I added house rules to make it "feel" more gritty-duck and cover for my sci-fi games, and I added a couple house rules to slow down healing surge recovery and make the bloodied condition feel like it "hurts" a little more for 4e).
I dislike gritty health rules all together. SWSE's healing rules are the most annoying feature of that game, but I have to say that I don't really like 4e's any better. Neither rules system has really done anything to address the "15 minute adventuring day" syndrome. If anything, 4e makes it worse since you literally have to stop once you run out of surges.
4) If a game is very duck and cover heavy, and ranged weapon heavy, then some amount of tactical combat will be added into the gameplay from these elements. Star wars saga has this element of combat. But, if you remove this aspect, and go with mostly melee weapons, star wars saga melee range combat is (by and large) almost as boring as 3e melee range combat. Thats to say, there is not so much to do but run up to a person and wack him as much as possible. Maybe run up and wack him, after which he wacks you and moves away, after which you run up and wack him, and over and over again. Its ranged combat and the ability to duck and cover that really makes the games combat system work well. In D&D style games, while some opponents do used ranged weapons, most will use melee combat. 4e slide and push mechanics add a LOT to making melee combat more fun. Saga does not have nearly as many mechanics of this sort.
Thanks for pointing this out. This will probably be the biggest issue. To be honest, though, my group is not very tactically minded and were playing 4e pretty much the way you've described above (stand still and wack each other).
Anyway, thanks for your response. It was very well thought out and has given me some things to think about. I might have to look into figuring out ways to port 4e's forced movement mechanics into Saga. I suppose I could turn some powers into talents, but I wouldn't necessarily know how to do that.
Thanks. You've raised some good points. I didn't know you could have an edition war between D&D and Saga (usually it's 3.x vs 4e) but I do see your point and I don't really want to get into that kind of argument either.
Excellent.
As long as we are both free to enjoy whichever system we like, and neither of us is empirically putting down games that the other person likes, then this conversation will be enjoyable. I'm totally cool with people not liking 4e. I can understand why they don't. That doesn't mean I am in the wrong for enjoying it either though!The long and short of it for me is that I don't like the powers system at all. I have found it to be too contrived and artificial for my taste. It offends my simulationist sensibilities, I guess.
Makes sense. A simulationist sensibility would make 4e an awful system to play. I think what it boils down to for me is this: for sci-fi games I have a simulationist narrative sensability. I feel that when dealing with technology motivated themes you want to ground the rules in something that feels "realistic," or else the game starts to feel magical. But, when dealing with fantasy, this is not necessary. The setting is magic! The themes are magical! Thus, I don't mind throwing simulationism out the window in favor of something that works better for building games: gamism. Of course, I require a healthy dose of narrativism one way or another, and 4e has an awesome narrative quality to it (due, in large part, to the 4e DMG).
I can see what you're saying here, but I think it's possibly to make fantasy games more "skill-based" than D&D (and more specifically 4e, which is very combat heavy) does.
I think 4e actually does a fairly good job of making the game more skill based via skill challenges, and opening up the accessibility of skills. But, I feel that the narrative strategies of fantasy makes it a lot harder to simply avoid combat through these skills, or more specifically, the powers which makes use of these skills. Thus, while I am ok with a sci-fi allowing you to choose between taking a non combat talent or a combat talent in order to strengthen your characters in different ways, I just don't feel it works out as well for D&D. Again, this is purely my perspective. I can totally see how a "game of thrones" style setting could be set up to feature skills as a more prominent and powerful feature of the game. It is just not the sort of thing I enjoy in my personal fantasy games as much as I do in my sci-fi games.
I dislike gritty health rules all together. SWSE's healing rules are the most annoying feature of that game, but I have to say that I don't really like 4e's any better. Neither rules system has really done anything to address the "15 minute adventuring day" syndrome. If anything, 4e makes it worse since you literally have to stop once you run out of surges.
Totally fair. What I did for 4e is say that a character only heals 2+their con modifier healing surges on an extended rest, and all characters suffer a -1 to all d20 rolls while they are blooded. I find this works well all around for me...
Thanks for pointing this out. This will probably be the biggest issue. To be honest, though, my group is not very tactically minded and were playing 4e pretty much the way you've described above (stand still and wack each other).
Have your characters take the bantha rush feat. It allows them to push a character 1 square if they hit a target with a melee attack. There is also a feat or talent in one of the splat books which turns that into 2 squares. The extra attack feats also add a bit of decision to the combat process (do I want to attack once with a high attack bonus, and move, or do I want to get up close and whack a bunch of times with a lower attack bonus). The pin/throw/crush feats are a nice way of adding some melee range tactics as well. However, 4e is still leaps and bounds ahead with mechanics like marking, status effects, and the need to pick and choose between abilities that don't stack, can't be used at the same time, and can only be expended once per combat. To be honest, your best bet if you want to add some melee range combat, add in a "combat maneuver" system. Something like the use force mechanics, but for martial melee character. Then a character would have a "force suite" of martial powers, and could expand these powers at opportune times during combat... but this mechanic might be a bit too close to the 4e power mechanic for your tastes.
Anyway, thanks for your response. It was very well thought out and has given me some things to think about. I might have to look into figuring out ways to port 4e's forced movement mechanics into Saga. I suppose I could turn some powers into talents, but I wouldn't necessarily know how to do that.
Huh... I actually responded to this paragraph with the above paragraph... anyways... good luck and have fun!
Excellent.
Quite so. It's amazing how many people can't just agree to disagree. They have to go for the "I'm right, therefore you are wrong" approach.
Makes sense. A simulationist sensibility would make 4e an awful system to play. I think what it boils down to for me is this: for sci-fi games I have a simulationist narrative sensability. I feel that when dealing with technology motivated themes you want to ground the rules in something that feels "realistic," or else the game starts to feel magical. But, when dealing with fantasy, this is not necessary. The setting is magic! The themes are magical! Thus, I don't mind throwing simulationism out the window in favor of something that works better for building games: gamism. Of course, I require a healthy dose of narrativism one way or another, and 4e has an awesome narrative quality to it (due, in large part, to the 4e DMG).
This is definitely a matter of taste, because I've always struggled with wanting my fantasy games to "make sense" and be "believable" if not "realistic". But I can easily see why some people might not.
I think 4e actually does a fairly good job of making the game more skill based via skill challenges, and opening up the accessibility of skills.
My group didn't really like skill challenges. And the fact that WotC made such massive changes to skill challenges and skill DCs in general just ended up confusing me. I didn't know which way was better and didn't really like either.
But, I feel that the narrative strategies of fantasy makes it a lot harder to simply avoid combat through these skills, or more specifically, the powers which makes use of these skills. Thus, while I am ok with a sci-fi allowing you to choose between taking a non combat talent or a combat talent in order to strengthen your characters in different ways, I just don't feel it works out as well for D&D. Again, this is purely my perspective. I can totally see how a "game of thrones" style setting could be set up to feature skills as a more prominent and powerful feature of the game. It is just not the sort of thing I enjoy in my personal fantasy games as much as I do in my sci-fi games.
I guess the thing is that you can actually make a distinction between D&D and fantasy. D&D has always been geared toward a particular kind of fantasy, and I agree that the Saga rules may not work well to emulate it ... but I think I'm starting to get sick of D&D and I want to start exploring other kinds of fantasy. For instance, I'm thinking of being bold (for me) and injecting a bit of steampunk into my fantasy.
Have your characters take the bantha rush feat. It allows them to push a character 1 square if they hit a target with a melee attack. There is also a feat or talent in one of the splat books which turns that into 2 squares. The extra attack feats also add a bit of decision to the combat process (do I want to attack once with a high attack bonus, and move, or do I want to get up close and whack a bunch of times with a lower attack bonus). The pin/throw/crush feats are a nice way of adding some melee range tactics as well.
Yes. Good points.
However, 4e is still leaps and bounds ahead with mechanics like marking, status effects
These were actually some of the things that no one in my group - not just me - particularly liked about 4e.
and the need to pick and choose between abilities that don't stack, can't be used at the same time, and can only be expended once per combat.
I don't mind the /encounter and /daily thing in theory, but I don't like some of the specifics of the 4e system, particularly with the Martial powers. I can understand putting these "artificial" limits on magic but putting it on physical actions (with the justification that a PC may well be trying to pull off these maneuvers repeatedly "in the background" and only succeeds when the player consciously chooses to use it) just doesn't sit well with me.
To be honest, your best bet if you want to add some melee range combat, add in a "combat maneuver" system. Something like the use force mechanics, but for martial melee character. Then a character would have a "force suite" of martial powers, and could expand these powers at opportune times during combat... but this mechanic might be a bit too close to the 4e power mechanic for your tastes.
Indeed. See above.
You know... I think I really hit gold with this "martial power" mechanic idea! I have been thinking about, and it would work really well for any type of Saga based game! They already use this mechanic for space fighter powers, and force powers, so why not martial powers? Throw in some abilities like "head shot" (for snipers), "assassination" (a close range head shot), steamroller (some sort of move/attack and forced push/status effect power) style powers would really add to that game!
Again, this kind of thing just doesn't sit well with me. To put it in perspective, since you mentioned head shots, I used to love playing Unreal Tournament and getting head shot after head shot after head shot. I don't like the idea of saying, "You can only do this once a combat or once a day." It just doesn't make sense. A sniper may not be able to get the head shot every time, but they should at least be able to consciously attempt to get one with every shot ...
Again, this kind of thing just doesn't sit well with me. To put it in perspective, since you mentioned head shots, I used to love playing Unreal Tournament and getting head shot after head shot after head shot. I don't like the idea of saying, "You can only do this once a combat or once a day." It just doesn't make sense. A sniper may not be able to get the head shot every time, but they should at least be able to consciously attempt to get one with every shot ...
Just for arguments sake, I was pretty good at Counter Strike. I could get an occasional head shot on. I could not realistically manage to get a head shot in with every try. I see nothing wrong with a player having to take the ability as a power, and being able to pull it off a number of times per encounter equal only to the number of times the power is taken in their "martial power suite." I couldn't manage to get more then a couple in per skirmish, and I see no reason why my character should be able to either. Of course, in between skirmishes, that's a 5 minute rest. So, even in fight after fight, as long as there are 5 minutes between the fight, you will recharge your ability to get some more head shots in.
But, like you said, its a matter of taste. Each their own. I think I will be adding some to my Land of Nod though...
Just for arguments sake, I was pretty good at Counter Strike. I could get an occasional head shot on. I could not realistically manage to get a head shot in with every try. I see nothing wrong with a player having to take the ability as a power, and being able to pull it off a number of times per encounter equal only to the number of times the power is taken in their "martial power suite." I couldn't manage to get more then a couple in per skirmish, and I see no reason why my character should be able to either. Of course, in between skirmishes, that's a 5 minute rest. So, even in fight after fight, as long as there are 5 minutes between the fight, you will recharge your ability to get some more head shots in.
But, like you said, its a matter of taste. Each their own. I think I will be adding some to my Land of Nod though...
For me, the issue isn't how many times I can pull it off. Heck, even if it was something I could do at will, I'd miss a good number of times. For me, the issue is being told by the rules that I cannot even attempt to do it more than once an encounter or once a day. I just can't get past that and no amount of justification helps.
Anything I am physically or mentally capable of doing, I should be able to at least consciously attempt to do as many times as I possibly can. With magic, it's not such a big deal. It's more the martial abilities.
And with Saga, in the instances where the use limits appear, it makes sense to have them because there's always either an element of luck or the Force involved or there is a very obvious undertone of "this will only work once on the same group of enemies" (like the noble's demand surrender talent -- if it didn't work on someone the first time, it's probably not going to work on them a second time). In 4e, a lot of the specific things the designers limited to encounter and daily powers just don't make sense, especially with the martial powers. Why should a rogue only be able to attempt to garrote someone once a day? He should be able to attempt it every chance he gets. Does that mean he'll pull it off every time? No. But he should at least be able to try.
I do understand the argument of having it this way for the sake of balance and cinematic action. Movie heroes don't pull off their best moves repeatedly, and if they did, they would start to lose their specialness. However, I'm a powergamer. Having cool abilities lose their specialness is not an issue. :P ;)
On a side note: my apologies to the OP for hijacking the thread.
For me, the issue isn't how many times I can pull it off. Heck, even if it was something I could do at will, I'd miss a good number of times. For me, the issue is being told by the rules that I cannot even attempt to do it more than once an encounter or once a day. I just can't get past that and no amount of justification helps.
Anything I am physically or mentally capable of doing, I should be able to at least consciously attempt to do as many times as I possibly can. With magic, it's not such a big deal. It's more the martial abilities.
And with Saga, the few encounter and daily talents that exist all have either an element of luck or the Force or are very obviously something of a "this will only work once on the same group of enemies" type of thing involved, so in every instance of the use limit mechanics in Saga, it makes sense. In 4e, it doesn't. Why should a rogue only be able to even attempt to garrote someone once a day? He should be able to attempt it every chance he gets. Does that mean he'll pull it off every time? No. But he should at least be able to try.
Cinematic flavor and having the "cooler" abilities lose their specialness with overuse really isn't an issue for me. I'm a powergamer. :P ;)
Yea. You definitely have a simulationist attitude about things. I'm actually surprised that the starship maneuver rules of Saga don't bother you!
I understand where you are coming from, but its not an issue for me. I care more about narrative then simulation. If you can try and do a thing as often as you want, but you won't succeed too often, then the narrative ends up as being realistic. If you can simply only choose to use the ability once every so often, then you can obviously only preform the ability once every so often, and so the narrative ends up being realistic. I care more about the end result of the narrative, and less about the mechanics used to get there. So, both these options are ok with me. But, since the game is also a game, what I do care about is that the mechanics used to create a narrative are unique and fun IN play. That is why I like the 4e mechanics. Not very simulationist, not realistic in the sense of simulating reality, but they end up with a "realistic" and cinematic narrative after the fact of use. And, what is more, they do so in a way that is mechanically fun (due to their added tactical elements during play). Making the choice to use a power more important due to the limit of the powers use is mechanically fun, due to the addition of a requirement in skillful strategy, from the point of view of gaming.
Basically, I lean very heavily towards the narrative and gamist approach, and most heavily towards the narrative approach. I want a set of rules that will create a narrative that looks realistic after its creation (even if the methods used to create it do not simulate the methods of reality). And, following this desire, I want a set of methods that are fun to use. When I say fun to use, I specifically mean fun in the terminology of "game" fun: balanced, equal value options, blah, blah, blah, blah, the usual rhetoric.
But, now I digress. I see your point. I understand it. I respect it. I just don't share it... :P
P.S. I wanted to add one little example. Its not to try and convince you that my way is better, but just to show you why I personally prefer my way. I was just thinking about it, and I thought it might be nice to write it down. Help people see things from other peoples perspective as it were! It also answers your original question about why I feel 4e works better for heroic fantasy rather nicely. Indeed, a good bit better then any of my other responses on this thread have: the key goal to creating any style of role playing game is creating a set of rules that create a narrative that adequately contains the tropes of the narrative genre the game is trying to emulate. In the case of heroic fantasy, such as 4e, what you want to achieve is the sort of crazy over the top heroics of Beowulf at the end of the animated movie (which came out recently). You want to ride your horse over the ridge, grab the beast, climb over the beast, and mess it up with over the top maneuvers. That's the end goal of heroic fantasy. But, you can't make these sort of stunts too common or easy to use. We don't see heroes do this sort of thing in every fight. You see heroes do this sort of thing rarely... as in, at the climax of a film or novel. Now, if we use a simulationist mode, you achieve this by making the stunt very hard to perform. Chances are you will fail the roll needed to perform it, and as such, it won't actually happen so often. But, because of the way games work, if chances are that you will fail your roll to perform the ability, then you probably won't ever choose to use it. Instead you will choose to do something that you have a fairly high chance of success in. The simulationist method, thus, does not actually make these stuns happen rarely: in most games, the simulationist method actually stops such stunts from ever happening at all. That is kind of what happened in 3e, and why most people felt that 3e martial heroes sucked. An alternate approach is to make such stuns very easy to use, but this will just cause another problem. If such stunts can always be tried, and are easy to succeed at, then they will begin to happen far to frequently. In fact, if they become easy enough, a character will use them with every attack. While it might be ok for you as a power gamer, it sort of kills the heroic narrative by making the heroic mundane. With a gamist approach, however, a character can automatically succeed at the stunt. The character just can't use the stunt more than once per day, or encounter. This means that the narrative will contain an appropriate quantity of such heroic stunts. They will happen rarely enough that they remain heroic, but are easy enough to use that they will be present. This succeeds at creating a heroic fantasy narrative, in my opinion, in a far better way then the rules system of Saga edition. It also makes the games very not sci-fi, because such over the top stunts are usually not a trope of sci-fi (unless its a heroic sci-fi, and that is not the sort of sci-fi I like). This is the key reason why I believe that 4e is better for heroic fantasy, and Saga is better for sci-fi.
Yea. You definitely have a simulationist attitude about things. I'm actually surprised that the starship maneuver rules of Saga don't bother you!
Probably because my character's not the pilot and also the GM tries to avoid starship encounters now because he's made a few mistakes with them in the past (like not realizing no one is automatically proficient with starship weapons).
*snip*
OK. You've explained your point of view very well.
Just a couple of things:
1) I think that if I had a more tactically-minded group, I might not have such an issue with 4e's gamist approach. However, my group is not very good with tactics. As I said to one of them, in and of itself, 4e may not be so bad as I'm making it out to be ... but I do think it's bad for our group. It doesn't play to the group's strengths. It only seemed to amplify the group's weaknesses. Saga, on the other hand, seems to work well for us - and I don't think it's just because it's sci-fi instead of fantasy.
2) I think it's also possible that I have grown bored of what you classify as "heroic fantasy" and am searching for something else. As I said earlier, I am considering going with a bit of a steampunk thing.
3) With regard to the narrative, I too feel that the story is very important. But I think that I approach it from the other direction. I'm not sure if that makes any sense - it's late and I need to go to bed.
4) While I agree that the approach of making things possible but difficult may in fact be more of a deterrent than anything else, I feel that the 4e approach of artificially limiting use can also backfire in that players end up choosing to use their big guns not because of any cinematic potential but simply because they give them the most bang for their buck - which, in my opinion, is the wrong reason to choose to use a particular power. Even as a powergamer, I would only choose to use something if it seemed appropriate to my character or to the story ... but I can easily see people using encounter and daily powers at every opportunity simply because they can (and because they want to kill the monster as quickly as possible because the damn things now have so many hit points). The point I'm getting at is that with the gamist approach, it becomes very easy to completely lose sight of any sort of narrative and just become lost in the mechanics and it ceases to be an RPG and ends up being a glorified board game or something. That is really the feeling I was getting with the last couple of sessions of 4e that I ran. That I wasn't running an RPG so much as an amped up version of the DDM Skirmish game. (For the record, it wasn't just because of the powers. It was also because of things like minions. They seemed like a great idea on paper, but every time I used them, the guys were just like, "Oh ... minions ..." and wouldn't bother much with them. One guy just stopped using his powers all together because he didn't see the point of "wasting" them on minions. It really killed the narrative - for me at least ...).
5) I'm also not convinced that /encounter and /daily limits on "cool" abilities is really all that cinematic. Having just watched Return of the Jedi for the first time in quite a while, I can say that Luke, Vader and the Emperor are not bound by any sort of game mechanic in terms of their use of the Force. They have no limits on the number of times they can block shots with their lightsabers or take great leaps around the place. They just do it as many times as the story requires ... whereas in the game, you can't do that. OK, maybe they're spending Force points left and right or something but still ... Yes, it would be unbalancing to have Force powers be useable at will, but I guess the point is - how much can you really make a game's mechanics emulate cinema and still maintain a semblance of balance?
Anyway ... I'm starting to babble incoherently. I'm glad that 4e works for you. In fact, I wish it was working for me but it isn't (and not necessarily because of the mechanics), so I am searching for something else. Still, you have given me some things to think about and helped me define what I want a bit better, so I thank you for that. I acknowledge that my approach to gaming is quite possibly an exercise in futility, but doing it any other way just seems to offend my sensibilities too much.