Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I should get my own fishing showGen X = 80's teenKinda - most define GenX and being born in the years 1965-1980 (ish). Though some define it more narrowly as 1965-1975. But basically it is the generation that "came of age" in the late 80s and early 90s.
I must say, I am very impressed with your angling skills.
It would only be easier if I had them in a barrel.
|
But I think it is somewhat overstepping your bounds to try and push that upon others who aren't looking forward - especially when, in doing so, you actively take away the elements they had been enjoying about the game.Isn't it up to the DM to run the game? Now if every single scythe in the known universe fell down that pit, I'd be upset, or maybe if it was a unique artifact that fell down, ok, be mad.
If I know that module, the rope bridge is early in the dungeon, and a 2 day round trip to buy a new one weapon (maybe get a masterwork scythe) is a gentle reminder of the player to be more careful. If the DM doesn't include the risk of dying or doing a critical fumble - then where is the challenge? I think the DM in this situation gave a suitable challenge.
I personally would've restocked the orc lair to include a scythe or give the ogre leader a magical one to allow the player to 'restock'. I hate running back to town to restock when players (or myself) forget a piece of equipment.
yep, and if you know that scenario, the place you fall from the rope bridge drops you 1 (??...if memory serves) level down into an area that the scythe, could be and was recovered in...As it was the players, after the tantrum, helped him recover the scythe by roping together and climbing down chasm to pick it up.
Going back to an earlier bit of the thread...
I've never played, or encountered, a character that was interesting because of what they did in combat.
Even if they could carve sonnets in an opponents chest they still weren't as interesting as a character who was interesting out of combat.
The barbarian one-trick-pony bard who can fart folk-songs is still more interesting than "Sonnet-Carver!"
maybe that's just me - but i'm neither young nor old - the cusp is obviously where it's at.
Hilarious!!!
And I would have to wholeheartedly agree.
Hilarious!!!
And I would have to wholeheartedly agree.
Don't believe him, GeraintElberion! He's baiting you!
Ooh! Another shiny!
Looking over the early posts in the thread, I see a few common views:
1) Giving interesting options to characters, both in character creation and in encounters (both combat and non-combat.)
2) Having monsters that are easy to run, but with unique and interesting abilities and flavor.
3) Simplified mechanics, allowing for more emphasis on story and character.
4) Ease of design for the GM, both in creating adventures and running them.
Sorry to chime in so late, but I disagree with the positives of #3 and #4. I feel like they've actually put a straitjacket on a lot of design elements to a degree that if you're adventure doesn't fit into the mold they've created, you're not playing D&D.
For example, as I understand it, 4e intends for DMs to design around the "encounter" concept so that players can distinguish when they can and can't use powers. Previous editions did not have this. I feel like it's a bit like forcing me to create separate mobs for the players to take on one at a time to garauntee game flow.
Sorry to chime in so late, but I disagree with the positives of #3 and #4. I feel like they've actually put a straitjacket on a lot of design elements to a degree that if you're adventure doesn't fit into the mold they've created, you're not playing D&D.
For example, as I understand it, 4e intends for DMs to design around the "encounter" concept so that players can distinguish when they can and can't use powers. Previous editions did not have this. I feel like it's a bit like forcing me to create separate mobs for the players to take on one at a time to garauntee game flow.
I'm not sure where you got that impression veec. Characters can use powers at any time (assuming the power is available).
Cheers! :)
For example, as I understand it, 4e intends for DMs to design around the "encounter" concept so that players can distinguish when they can and can't use powers. Previous editions did not have this. I feel like it's a bit like forcing me to create separate mobs for the players to take on one at a time to guarantee game flow.
How would you encounters are designed in 3.x? Isn't it basically select an EL and pick some grouping of creatures whose CRs will give the selected EL?
I don't think I understand the point you are making here.
For example, as I understand it, 4e intends for DMs to design around the "encounter" concept so that players can distinguish when they can and can't use powers. Previous editions did not have this. I feel like it's a bit like forcing me to create separate mobs for the players to take on one at a time to guarantee game flow.How would you encounters are designed in 3.x? Isn't it basically select an EL and pick some grouping of creatures whose CRs will give the selected EL?
I don't think I understand the point you are making here.
You don't need to design specific encounters in 3.5, but in 4e it seems like a necessity given the following situation:
Adventurers walk into a kobold lair, they fight an "encounter" with two kobold guards. The five kobolds in the next room hear the fight, they come running to help. The kobolds feel they are outmatched, so a few of them run away to call for help. The adventurers begin a running battle against the kobolds who are fighting defensively, fleeing, and calling for help all at the same time. More kobold reinforcements show up.
This is all 1 combat. Is it one encounter? Forgive me if I've simplified or used kobolds in a way they wouldn't normally react, I'm just trying to understand the way this would have been handled in 4e.
You don't need to design specific encounters in 3.5, but in 4e it seems like a necessity given the following situation:Adventurers walk into a kobold lair, they fight an "encounter" with two kobold guards. The five kobolds in the next room hear the fight, they come running to help. The kobolds feel they are outmatched, so a few of them run away to call for help. The adventurers begin a running battle against the kobolds who are fighting defensively, fleeing, and calling for help all at the same time. More kobold reinforcements show up.
This is all 1 combat. Is it one encounter? Forgive me if I've simplified or used kobolds in a way they wouldn't normally react, I'm just trying to understand the way this would have been handled in 4e.
I think that It would all be one encounter. As I understand it, a single encounter in 4E is basically everything that happens until the party takes a five minute rest/break/whatever. This resets the encounter powers.
Without taking that break, the party's encounter powers do not reset, so it is possible, as in your running battle example, for a party to be chased and harassed for hours and still not get their encounter powers back.
Also, just so I'm clear about my original post, it was comments like the one below that really bothered me enough to post the link:
"People are able to be more in depth with their characters because in past you would to worry about your character's build and if you didn't have the perfect build for that character, then you would never have a fun time. Instead you don't have to worry about your character's build as much since even a warlock who wanted to be more of a tank and deal a lot of ranged damage and not worry about charisma would be able to do that."
I think that It would all be one encounter. As I understand it, a single encounter in 4E is basically everything that happens until the party takes a five minute rest/break/whatever. This resets the encounter powers.
Right, so wouldn't characters naturally complain that the system of "encounter" powers is broken because the DM decided, possibly "unfairly", to take other encounters and mesh them with the current one.
I think that It would all be one encounter. As I understand it, a single encounter in 4E is basically everything that happens until the party takes a five minute rest/break/whatever. This resets the encounter powers.Right, so wouldn't characters naturally complain that the system of "encounter" powers is broken because the DM decided, possibly "unfairly", to take other encounters and mesh them with the current one.
I don't think the party would complain any more than 3.x spellcasters would complain if a DM didn't let them get enough rest to regain their spells.
In any edition of D&D, characters generally don't want to bite off more than they can chew when it comes to combat. A party that runs through the Fire Giant encampment makes a lot of noise and drawing lots of attention to itself will be in trouble both in AD&D and in 4E.
In any edition of D&D, characters generally don't want to bite off more than they can chew when it comes to combat. A party that runs through the Fire Giant encampment makes a lot of noise and drawing lots of attention to itself will be in trouble both in AD&D and in 4E.
I agree with that. However, it's the once-per-encounter concept that bothers me. This is taking a game mechanic "encounters" and applying that design element to the free-flow of time which has up until this point, been considered constant. In other words, I feel arguments like this will come up again and again because the definition of encounter doesn't extend beyond the challenge that is most immediately in front of you. It doesn't have any boundaries.
Leaving this up to interpretation by different DMs can results in different play styles, UNLESS, you play by the encounter templates that WotC encourages.
I agree with that. However, it's the once-per-encounter concept that bothers me. This is taking a game mechanic "encounters" and applying that design element to the free-flow of time which has up until this point, been considered constant. In other words, I feel arguments like this will come up again and again because the definition of encounter doesn't extend beyond the challenge that is most immediately in front of you. It doesn't have any boundaries.Leaving this up to interpretation by different DMs can results in different play styles, UNLESS, you play by the encounter templates that WotC encourages.
You've lost me again. I'm not trying to be obstinate, I really don't understand the argument you are making. Are you saying that the definition of 'encounter power' is vague? That the time needed for rest to regain powers is poorly defined? That people might think that the game rigidly requires that only a certain number of specifically selected monsters can interact with PCs at any given five minute block of time? Something else?
Out of curiousity, what are your views of roleplaying that you feel are so different from this 'younger' generation?Looking over the early posts in the thread, I see a few common views:
1) Giving interesting options to characters, both in character creation and in encounters (both combat and non-combat.)
They had that. It was called skills, feats, and background.
2) Having monsters that are easy to run, but with unique and interesting abilities and flavor.
Umm... i don't know about any of you, but I don't hold conversations with the goblins before I kill them. Why do they need interesting abilities, flavor, and to be unique. Has anyone stopped to ask their motivations before they're ambushed by the little buggers?
3) Simplified mechanics, allowing for more emphasis on story and character.
We had that. It's called White Wolf WoD
You've lost me again. I'm not trying to be obstinate, I really don't understand the argument you are making. Are you saying that the definition of 'encounter power' is vague? That the time needed for rest to regain powers is poorly defined? That people might think that the game rigidly requires that only a certain number of specifically selected monsters can interact with PCs at any given five minute block of time? Something else?
I don't think you lost me at all. Basically all of the things you mentioned come into play.
Another example:
The characters are tracking a monster through the woods. One character, thinking the monster is close by, wants to use an encounter power to buff themselves in preparation for the fight with the monster. The characters track the monster for an hour before meeting it face to face. The DM could rule either way as to how long the encounter power should last.
I personally think the move away from real-world scales of time leave you having to create new definitions. Given that these definitions also hinge on designing challenges for the players, IMO, this breaks the suspension of disbelief.
In my opinion, this changes the game from one of "I'm playing a fantasy character in another world" feel to that of a "I'm playing a role within my party in a game" feel.
Just my 2 cents.
Oh, also just to make sure people don't think I'm picking on 4e rules, the rules for car chases in d20 Modern have the same idiotic simplification of time.
Car chases in d20 Modern have all the fun of watching grass grow. The solution? I borrowed the "closer to real world" mechanics of Car Wars and adapted them slightly to fit into a d20 System game round. The result? Characters actually have to make split second decisions AS they're driving.
|
|
But I think it is somewhat overstepping your bounds to try and push that upon others who aren't looking forward - especially when, in doing so, you actively take away the elements they had been enjoying about the game.
um, mike was dming his game, kid sat at mike's table. mike runs the game the way he runs the game. kid couldn't cope. mike overstepped no bounds i can see...
my 2cp...
|
Now, reading the thread, and going from experience presented all over, I'll sum up the 'generational difference' for you, as a general trend...
Old > I tell stories of what my characters do and have done.
New > I talk about how powerful my characters are.
Hardly - the term "munchkin" started popping up back in 2e. Powergamers have been around since the first guy showed up at the table with an 18 00 strength.
|
|
Hardly - the term "munchkin" started popping up back in 2e. Powergamers have been around since the first guy showed up at the table with an 18 00 strength.Now, reading the thread, and going from experience presented all over, I'll sum up the 'generational difference' for you, as a general trend...
Old > I tell stories of what my characters do and have done.
New > I talk about how powerful my characters are.
like the kid who came to play with my group in '82. who had SIX swords of kas on his character sheet. yeah, munchkins had to exist before they could name them...
|
|
The characters are tracking a monster through the woods. One character, thinking the monster is close by, wants to use an encounter power to buff themselves in preparation for the fight with the monster.
There are no "buff" powers that I am aware of that would need to be invoked before combat begins.
In your first example the quick lesson learned by the players should be to stop small fights from becoming big ones.
I can understand your dislike of "encounters" but very few adventures (be they from WotC or any third party) rarely strayed from the encounter model. 4e simply acknowledged that it works that way and based some mechanics on a concept that has been there since D&D was brand spanking new.
|
|
like the kid who came to play with my group in '82. who had SIX swords of kas on his character sheet. yeah, munchkins had to exist before they could name them...
LOL - we actually had a game back in 1979 or 1980 where we each took turns picking artifacts written on index cards. Six of us divided the list then fought each other. That was a blast.
But SIX? wow
I teach 18 yo college freshmen. I teach a composition class that requires them to analyze the "so what" element of their own personal experiences and requires them to state AND justify what they think. My colleagues and I have actually had some of our students say "tell me what I think, and I'll write that". So I'm not at all shocked that the ability to find something for a fighter to "do" is lacking. They seem to like their pigeonholes and their compartmentalized stereotypes where previous generations fought against becoming "just like everyone else" much more readily.
Yeah, me too. I'm physically pained every time a student tells me they don't like to read because it's "boring." About half the critiques of essays from the book I get complain that the author "took too long to get to their point." *sigh*
Hardly - the term "munchkin" started popping up back in 2e. Powergamers have been around since the first guy showed up at the table with an 18 00 strength.
Looks around nervously.
|
|
Hardly - the term "munchkin" started popping up back in 2e. Powergamers have been around since the first guy showed up at the table with an 18 00 strength.Looks around nervously.
LOL - No worries. I actually rolled an 18 STR and was so psyched until I rolled the percentile dice - 16. I had an 18 16 STR. That was seriously embarrassing so I flipped it to an 18 61. Then I felt so guilty after my first game that I charged right into a pack of a dozen orcs and died a glorious death.
The schools changed a LOT in the past decade, haven't they? My daughter is often frustrated by how passive students in her class are about things - but will demand that 'their feelings be heard'!
Could be related, I suppose.
It's most definitely related. I have to keep telling them that I don't want their feelings or their opinions; I want their thoughts, and for that they need to be thinking. Then 75% of the class simply reguritates something they've seen on the news or heard someone else say.
Last quarter, one guy decided he was the clever one in the class by attempting to espouse various conspiracy theories. I simply sighed, pointed out the numerous logical fallacies he used in the paper, and suggested he research Occam's Razor...
The discussion on this link doesn't make me feel old. What makes me feel old is talking about one of my first characters. DM got us to roll stats in order using 4d6 discard lowest. Roll for Charisma was 2,2,1,1. The PHB at the time said that my character could only be an assassin.
Became a half-orc, Charisma modifier of -2. I played a half-orc assassin with 3 Charisma for some years, until he lost 2 Charisma in an unfortunate accident. I then played a half-orc assassin with 1 Charisma.
First edition used to have rules that limited your choices. It certainly didn't limit the fun. I don't know if I can create a character under 4th edition that are remotely like those that were the most fun when I started playing the game. That makes me feel old.
|
The discussion on this link doesn't make me feel old. What makes me feel old is talking about one of my first characters. DM got us to roll stats in order using 4d6 discard lowest. Roll for Charisma was 2,2,1,1. The PHB at the time said that my character could only be an assassin.
Heheh. Every once in a while I have my players make characters using those rules. Heck, my FR campaign even uses the 3d6-in-order method. My idea of leniency was rerolling a total modifier of +1 or less. If you save it for the roleplay-based campaigns, I find my players really enjoy not being superheroes.
Hardly - the term "munchkin" started popping up back in 2e. Powergamers have been around since the first guy showed up at the table with an 18 00 strength.Looks around nervously.
Yeah, sure you rolled that 100! Just like I rolled that crit confirm!!! :)
On the topic of munchkins and other systems, playing Marvel FASERIP recently, the Judge and I watched my brother roll his abilities and get the following percentile rolls in a row: 90, 85, 45, 95, 94, 74, 97. For those who know FASERIP, he also happened to be rolling on the Alien table (the best table for generating scores). Of course, then he rolled a 12 on the Powers/Talents table, so he got 1 power. But his character is still hilariously broken.
|
|
Wow. My post got eaten. Well enough, as it would probably pass for one of those essays.
In short, a young gamer here (finishing up high shool), saying that the rules of a pen and paper RPG should be used as props to ensure that the scenario your playing acts out as you want it to, rather than an exercise in character optimization. Because if I want that, I'll go play Final Fantasy or WoW.
|
|
Wow. My post got eaten. Well enough, as it would probably pass for one of those essays.
In short, a young gamer here (finishing up high shool), saying that the rules of a pen and paper RPG should be used as props to ensure that the scenario your playing acts out as you want it to, rather than an exercise in character optimization. Because if I want that, I'll go play Final Fantasy or WoW.
Hurray! Well representing your generation! Coherent, complete sentences, and a stance that makes a grognard cry tears of joy.
There are no "buff" powers that I am aware of that would need to be invoked before combat begins.
Um, that's not really the point. The point is with ambiguity in the definition of what the encounter is, the time at which the spell would end becomes an issue.
In your first example the quick lesson learned by the players should be to stop small fights from becoming big ones.
Sometimes that's out of their control.
I can understand your dislike of "encounters" but very few adventures (be they from WotC or any third party) rarely strayed from the encounter model. 4e simply acknowledged that it works that way and based some mechanics on a concept that has been there since D&D was brand spanking new.
I don't disagree that the term has been around forever, but basing a game mechanic on something that has nothing to do with the way the real world works breaks the suspension of disbelief for me.
You are aware that we're discussion a fantasy roleplaying game here, right? If you threw out everything that didn't work the way the real world works, you'd have a very slim set of tools to work with.
"Duration: encounter" works just fine from a game standpoint. It's just a formalization of what we've been doing for decades anyway.
I understand that some people will find this easy to accept, but for me and my games, it won't be. I need to know a duration based on time, not on situation.
Forgive my previous statement. I do understand that it's a fantasy game. Game mechanics exist so that players who live in the real world can have some idea as to how to adjudicate actions in the fantasy world. Basically laying out the rules of this world.
If I invent a new spell system, and I decide that the term "combat zone" is a legitimate entry for the area of effect of a spell, I need to define what the "combat zone" is. Unless I know exactly what the combat zone is, where it begins and ends, you're likely to have disagreements.
...and I can spend my weekends drinking with Brazilian girls instead...
Word, man.
|
|
There are no "buff" powers that I am aware of that would need to be invoked before combat begins.Um, that's not really the point. The point is with ambiguity in the definition of what the encounter is, the time at which the spell would end becomes an issue.
Well, out of combat "encounter" powers can be used freely and recharge after a 5 minute rest. If a power has a duration outside of combat it will be listed on the power.
In your first example the quick lesson learned by the players should be to stop small fights from becoming big ones.Sometimes that's out of their control.
If it is truly out of their control then the GM should design the encounter with the rules in mind regardless of the system being used. If it would overwhelm the players in that system then it should be re-engineered to be as challenging as it needs to be and no more.
I can understand your dislike of "encounters" but very few adventures (be they from WotC or any third party) rarely strayed from the encounter model. 4e simply acknowledged that it works that way and based some mechanics on a concept that has been there since D&D was brand spanking new.I don't disagree that the term has been around forever, but basing a game mechanic on something that has nothing to do with the way the real world works breaks the suspension of disbelief for me.
There are plenty of mechanics that break the way the real world works, and I am not talking about magic and high fantasy elements. I gave up on D&D as simulation long ago - for me it was hit points. They have never made any sense to me at all.
I want to reiterate that I completely understand where you are coming from and I can see the powers system as a barrier for a lot of gamers. I think you have a legitimate complaint in that the introduction of powers is a big step away from the way the game has been played. To me that is a good thing but I can see why some would not agree.
Like I said, I definitely understand where you're coming from, I just don't take D&D that seriously after 25 years of playing. 4e is perfect for me because it's streamlined, extremely powerful, and I can spend my weekends drinking with Brazilian girls instead...
Hey, we all have time constraints. I've been playing for 25 years as well and have never had the disagreements about time you mentioned. I just think the definitions need to be clearer to keep the rules lawyers from crying foul.
And I definitely know 4th edition isn't my game. I'm running a Pathfinder game currently.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
You are aware that we're discussion a fantasy roleplaying game here, right? If you threw out everything that didn't work the way the real world works, you'd have a very slim set of tools to work with.
"Duration: encounter" works just fine from a game standpoint. It's just a formalization of what we've been doing for decades anyway.
I understand that some people will find this easy to accept, but for me and my games, it won't be. I need to know a duration based on time, not on situation.
Forgive my previous statement. I do understand that it's a fantasy game. Game mechanics exist so that players who live in the real world can have some idea as to how to adjudicate actions in the fantasy world. Basically laying out the rules of this world.
If I invent a new spell system, and I decide that the term "combat zone" is a legitimate entry for the area of effect of a spell, I need to define what the "combat zone" is. Unless I know exactly what the combat zone is, where it begins and ends, you're likely to have disagreements.
I agree with you on the time issue. I liked the durations stated in minutes/hours/etc. Even durations stated in rounds were easy to determine if the spell lasted longer than a single combat encounter. My group has never had an argument or issue with keeping track of spell or ability durations.
I also have a concern with movement in 4E being termed as squares instead of feet. My group plays quite a bit without a battle mat, and this part of 4E is really a dealbreaker for my group.
Sorry, I'm an old guy and I dozed off. (besides, fishing is always better in the morning hours) What have I missed?
OH ... I see.
I think one of the things trying to be pointed out is the shift from the game being based on "there's a story going on. what are your characters going to do about it" style of design and the "this string of encounters will lead you to your goal and XP/loot" style of play.
Also, one of the things that always dismays me is the apparent need to say "it's a fantasy game. it's not the real world". No, really? Seriously?
Here's the thing ... there are certain laws of the universe that apply to both real world and fantasy world, stuff like physics and an individual's percetion of the passage of time. It used to be some of the best, funniest, most memorable moments of the game were those freaky things that would happen as you were trying to get somewhere and someone would do something "unwise". I've been feeling that slipping away for years. Now, I feel it has been mitigated away as a function of the core rules.
Used to be a group would be given a situation, and they were given open free reign to react to it however they wanted: "A princess has been kidnapped. Decide how you're going to handle it." I see to many things now that lead the players reactions for them: "A princess has been kidnapped. You must go to NPC X to gain information about it. He will give you what you need." What ever happened to the freakishly bizarre creativity that made things hilariously fun to play?
Nibble away, fishies.
Used to be a group would be given a situation, and they were given open free reign to react to it however they wanted: "A princess has been kidnapped. Decide how you're going to handle it." I see to many things now that lead the players reactions for them: "A princess has been kidnapped. You must go to NPC X to gain information about it. He will give you what you need." What ever happened to the freakishly bizarre creativity that made things hilariously fun to play?
When was it like this in a published adventure? Seriously. I've seen old frayed adventures from the 70s and even they match the 'collect a plot token' format (that you deride) more often than not.
|
|
like the kid who came to play with my group in '82. who had SIX swords of kas on his character sheet. yeah, munchkins had to exist before they could name them...Yeah, and probably also had the Head of Vecna....
That kid started the DM vs Player arms race, which of course ended with the Tarrasque and Rule 0. ;)