I would have to agree that the PRESENTATION of 4e with character builder, DDI, and such is certainly modern. Yet if that was included with any game out there including AD&D we could say the presentation and thus the game is modern.
At least when I think of a design as modern, I think of the improvements and betterment. Like better fuel consumption or better aerodynamics. New ways of designing houses to aid in energy efficiency and consumption. Better recoil systems and material that makes weapons lighter.
In video gaing there is a definite improvement over Intellivison Utopia to Civilization V. Or the Final fantasy series. in video games the Benefit of the modern video game vs. the original is apparent. Operations happen faster, graphics are better. I have met few people that like load screens. Faster loading times is a modern improvement, it is quantifiable. There is nothing in 4e that is a quantifiable improvement. It is just another way of doing things. In RPG's a 'modern RPG' is just another system that some people like.
Education is a good model to compare to RPG design. It has to adapt to technology, but is society really educating better than it was 30 years ago. The jury is still out on that.
I agree, as there are quantifiable means to show improvement in those areas (houses, cars, and other such things that deal with technology). Education, while having the measurment of student success, is far far different since each class and student differ from one another, which makes standard teach practices very Hit-or-Miss. Espically when there are just some kids who can't learn or don't have the support at home that, no matter what the teacher does, can't pass. This is worsened due to an influx of Standardized Testing which IMO is worthless Data that only forces teacher to teach that criteria instead of actual stuff kids need to know to become successful in life.
RPGs really don't have "better" mechanics, just different styles and, like you said, adapts with technology but has no real indicator of improvement. So from my perspective, I think 4E heralded the digital aspects of the RPG community with the start of on-line tools for the lay-person. That is their main aspect of modernizing and how it applies to the RPG community as a whole.
4e is a different system that does some things better for other people. If it was REALLY innovative it would have improved the game for the majority. It failed to do that. Yet if the DDI was available for all RPGs THAT would be a marked improvement on gameplay, which is independent from the rules.
Agreed. The idea for the 3D-platform for online play is hopefull usable by those that like to play any square-based RPG game and can use those mechanics in conjunction with their online tools. This could be a great marketing ploy to expose people that are uneasy or unused to 4E and other WotC products. If anything, WotC will get their money for the service of the tool, even if they're not playing their games.
You can make a case for the monster labeling and character roles I suppose. That is where I have said many times the designers wrote 4e with video game sensibilities in mind. The roles mirror the roles common in CoH or WoW pretty well, but I am not sure how that has IMPROVED tabletop games in mass. it makes 4e nice for those that like it, but if it was an improvement, the market would not have fought back. Those things I suppose improve video gameplay, or help players strategize, and give developers more quantifiable variables. Perhaps 4e can be called modern because it was designed with the sensibilities that video game designers invented. I do not see this as an improvement which makes 4e any better to play over an older game.
Yes, I think the terminology is derived from MMOs and even some design ideas came from there. But those aspects were pretty much already there to being with, aspects that MMOs derived from RPGs first. The paladin has always been a plate-mail warrior able to heal his allies with his hands and smite creaturs. 2E to 4E all espouse this trend and have quirks that work with each edition. Certain classes got a hand up in role, such as the Fighter being able to defend better, the Ranger finally finding his nichè as a damage dealer/skirmisher, or the differences between Sorcerers and Wizards. I "feel" this are improvements on those classes as well as the attempts to draw closer the disparity between spellcasting and non-spellcasting classes.
In video gaing there is a definite improvement over Intellivison Utopia to Civilization V. Or the Final fantasy series.
The roles mirror the roles common in CoH or WoW pretty well, but I am not sure how that has IMPROVED tabletop games in mass. it makes 4e nice for those that like it, but if it was an improvement, the market would not have fought back.
These two sentiments demonstrate exactly why, despite 4e being an actual improvement and modernization of the game, the market can still resist. People are averse to change, naturally. There are people for whom Final Fantasy 6 or 7 will always be the best Final Fantasy game, no matter what is released in the future.
4e is more modern. It embraces the idea of a digitally-integrated gaming group. It's an improvement. The rules are tighter and it is easier to both prepare and run. Some people don't like some of the more subjective changes in the game (that's to be expected), and others don't like 4e precisely because of some of the steps taken to modernize it.
The proof will be in the pudding. Twenty years from now it will be crystal clear that 4e moved tabletop gaming forward, because by then we will understand what many of us already suspect: There is no going back to the way things used to be done.
These two sentiments demonstrate exactly why, despite 4e being an actual improvement and modernization of the game, the market can still resist. People are averse to change, naturally. There are people for whom Final Fantasy 6 or 7 will always be the best Final Fantasy game, no matter what is released in the future.4e is more modern. It embraces the idea of a digitally-integrated gaming group. It's an improvement. The rules are tighter and it is easier to both prepare and run. Some people don't like some of the more subjective changes in the game (that's to be expected), and others don't like 4e precisely because of some of the steps taken to modernize it.
The proof will be in the pudding. Twenty years from now it will be crystal clear that 4e moved tabletop gaming forward, because by then we will understand what many of us already suspect: There is no going back to the way things used to be done.
Yep, which is why Monte's weekly articles scare the hell out of me. Much of the things he talks about dates way back to 2E in terms of how games should be run, how "Legos" PC/game creation should be, and leaving the more intricate aspects of the game as "add-ons" instead of core, integrated parts of the game. I think if he had his way, we'd be rolling 3d6 for ability scores in a row for character generation *rolls eyes*
Hopefully it's just an attempt at gauging how people react to his wild and far-fetching ideals and not a glimps into the future. I just fear we're heading back to the days of "If your smart in real life, then the wizard class is for you. If your not, well there's always the fighter. Oh, and who's gonna play the gimped cleric?" I just hope the days of Wizard™ and Cleric™ required parties are a thing of the past.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no going back to the way things used to be done.
That's not really true in a blanket sense. All things, especially what is deemed "popular" cycles continuously...
Fashions from the 1960's and 70's has been back in style for quite some time. Music from the 80's is also quite popular (especially with the younger generation)...
And while not as popular as Pathfinder or 4th edition, the various retro-clones are hugely popular, with many gamers going so far as to pull their old editions of D&D out of moth-balls or going so far as to spend the time (and money) to hunt down copies of the game on site like eBay...
My point is, you can't paint that in such a broad stroke...
There is no going back to the way things used to be done.That's not really true in a blanket sense. All things, especially what is deemed "popular" cycles continuously...
Fashions from the 1960's and 70's has been back in style for quite some time. Music from the 80's is also quite popular (especially with the younger generation)...
And while not as popular as Pathfinder or 4th edition, the various retro-clones are hugely popular, with many gamers going so far as to pull their old editions of D&D out of moth-balls or going so far as to spend the time (and money) to hunt down copies of the game on site like eBay...
My point is, you can't paint that in such a broad stroke...
Well said. I agree!
There is no going back to the way things used to be done.That's not really true in a blanket sense. All things, especially what is deemed "popular" cycles continuously...
Fashions from the 1960's and 70's has been back in style for quite some time. Music from the 80's is also quite popular (especially with the younger generation)...
And while not as popular as Pathfinder or 4th edition, the various retro-clones are hugely popular, with many gamers going so far as to pull their old editions of D&D out of moth-balls or going so far as to spend the time (and money) to hunt down copies of the game on site like eBay...
My point is, you can't paint that in such a broad stroke...
Yes, there are fads.
Yes, there are temporary influences.
Yes, there are holdouts.
No, those things will not define what tabletop gaming twenty years from now looks like, on the whole.
I can paint with a broad brush because I am speaking broadly.
There is no going back to the way things used to be done.That's not really true in a blanket sense. All things, especially what is deemed "popular" cycles continuously...
Fashions from the 1960's and 70's has been back in style for quite some time. Music from the 80's is also quite popular (especially with the younger generation)...
And while not as popular as Pathfinder or 4th edition, the various retro-clones are hugely popular, with many gamers going so far as to pull their old editions of D&D out of moth-balls or going so far as to spend the time (and money) to hunt down copies of the game on site like eBay...
My point is, you can't paint that in such a broad stroke...
Yes, there are fads.
Yes, there are temporary influences.
Yes, there are holdouts.
No, those things will not define what tabletop gaming twenty years from now looks like, on the whole.
I can paint with a broad brush because I am speaking broadly.
I think what he might be trying to say, is 4e was not innovative enough and did not change gameplay enough in the positive direction to make everyone switch over. I think the ressistance to 4e is much more than a holdout. It is half the people of a niche market do not want to go in the direction of the 'new shiny.' That is not a defining direction. It will influence yes, but probably ONLY on how, as you say, it addresses the digital gaming group. That will be the improvement 4e brings, and a valuable one at that. It will not however be its alternate rules system, any more than White Wolf help redefined TTG on mass.
I was a 4e fan since the beginning up until this summer. I used to say I'd rather eat glass than play PF/3.5 again because I had a lot of 3.5 campaigns busted by power gamers who made tweaked out and broken characters (a lot of that was my fault because I let them use powers from non-core books and things got stupid)
Anyway, after eating the crow and coming back to 3.5 through PF, I have found that this is the version that I like best. 4e is a good game. There are two main issues I have with 4e and why it's not for me though that could be fixed:
1) the giant bag of hit points. Our encounters would run 2-3 hours. And when you only get 3 hours a week to play that meant that most of the time our night was an encounter. So our campaign was basically encounter-night, because it took forever to grind the monsters hit points down.
There are ways around this yes, but there needs to be a better way to handle monster durability other than giving each one 300 hit points and PCs having the equivalant of 1000 hit points after surges etc.
2) the game is default to easy-mode. Death is rather meaningless and it's hard to die anyway. The game actively encourages the DM via the DMG wording and adventure wording to not kill players and go easy on them if things start looking bad. Players expect that all encounters are meant to be defeated in combat and sets the mindset that you are a bad DM if the players die.
I'm not for killer-DMs. But neither am I for foregone conclusions. Why bother rolling dice if you know you are going to win already? Yes again there are ways to circumvent this, you don't have to kill, you can capture, etc etc etc but even still there is a negative vibe that hits the DM if his party is "captured".
Not only do they feel annoyed that they lost and were "over powered in an unbalanced encounter", but the chincy "you are all captured" seems contrived and fake if not pulled off right; a glaring neon sign that says "the DM is pulling strings to save you here" which ruins immersion for many people.
Sub issues I have is that the game is essentially a super-hero game of fantasy, magic items are doled out like candy, and the power system, while overall I like it and approve of it, encourages analysis paralysis (contributing to encounters that last 2-3 hours each) and ultimately also comes off feeling a little TOO vanilla.
Every power does X damage, just dress it up how you want. I actually enjoy the various magical effects in classic D&D and how they used different mechanics. I understand one mechanical system to rule them all speeds things up, but it also contributed to me the feel of blandness and also felt that way to my players.
I hope that 5e can incorporate more of a classic feel using the newer innovations of 4th that I liked. I hope that there can be multiple settings, much like PF does with slow progression, or low magic, instead of everything being super-hero power level... because not everyone wants to play a game where at level 1 you are still uber and super heroic. If the option existed to play heroes that were a cut above but not dressed in colored spandex and masks, that would go a long way to me.
And of course... ratchet up the danger a little bit. It doesn't need to be a walking gygaxian pit of death, but neither should it be care bears and nerf swords, which is what I feel most encounters in 4e were.
There of course is "fourthcore" which is D&D 4e on hard difficulty, but I found when trying to incorporate that that my players did not like that, because it seemed to clash with 4e's intrinsic "this game is meant for you to carve through it like a hot knife through butter"...
In my opinion the worst thing that has happened to the "Role-Playing Game" is the attempt to define "roles" for character's based upon class.
This whole, Cleric-Leader, Fighter-Tank, Rouge-Striker, is simple pigeon holing, and nothing more.The fighter, when I started playing, was the class you chose when you wanted to rely on strength, how you played the character, what role he fulfilled, was what happened when you played the game. I remember one player who played a cowardly fighter, and the sort of guy who could win a fight, but always tried to talk his way out of one instead. What role is that, exactly?
These games are at their most playable when players are given tools to create a character in the vision of thier imagination, and pretend, play, at trying to make that character into a hero. Doing what ever you want to try to do, being whatever you want to try to be.
The most current versions of these games, both 4e and Pathfinder, in my opinion, emulate, to a degree, the video game experience in this way. You start the game as a predefined Hero "Type" and aftet that it's just munchkin (kill the monster, take its loot, wash rinse repeat).
Now I have seen some very interesting Pathfinder story lines, in a few of their adventures, and 4e does have an occasionally interesting setting, but it is still my opinion that the game, as it is played now, assumes that the players are creating Pre-defined Hero types, not just characters destined to become heroes.
I suppose I have a sort of built in prejudice because so many of the games I played thirty years ago, started with players who had no idea how their characters were going to turn out, at even fifth level.
Things are much more codified now. The treasure has now become an expectation instead of a reward. Monster design accounts for gear now, but I do not like that philosophy even within pathfinder.
In AD&D you just new when gear was over powered, when it should be doled out, when it should not be doled out. Running pathfinder for pickups i have come to realize that there is an expectation of receiving gear. I am not the gear friendly DM. I allow magic shops but don't just place the item the character wants.
I think this, like roles, is largely the influence of the video game mentality which is often the gateway to Table Top Games. The psychology of RPG players is changing, and it is being shaped by the easily accessable video games.
1) the giant bag of hit points. Our encounters would run 2-3 hours. And when you only get 3 hours a week to play that meant that most of the time our night was an encounter. So our campaign was basically encounter-night, because it took forever to grind the monsters hit points down.
There are ways around this yes, but there needs to be a better way to handle monster durability other than giving each one 300 hit points and PCs having the equivalant of 1000 hit points after surges etc.
Have you ever though about just letting monsters die after a certain amount of time? If it's taking that long then maybe adopt a "next hit kills it" rule. But having played 4E since it debuted, I've not really come across this problem. Battles can take long, like 45 minutes sometimes, but even 2-3 hours. This may be because they're facing creatures a few levels higher than them and thus, can't hit their AC or other defenses on an average level (50-55% of the time). Also, it might have to do with party make up. In an ideal party, you'd want one of each role plus a second Striker for more damage output.
2) the game is default to easy-mode. Death is rather meaningless and it's hard to die anyway. The game actively encourages the DM via the DMG wording and adventure wording to not kill players and go easy on them if things start looking bad. Players expect that all encounters are meant to be defeated in combat and sets the mindset that you are a bad DM if the players die.I'm not for killer-DMs. But neither am I for foregone conclusions. Why bother rolling dice if you know you are going to win already? Yes again there are ways to circumvent this, you don't have to kill, you can capture, etc etc etc but even still there is a negative vibe that hits the DM if his party is "captured".
I don't know why you would think the DMG can't be counter-minded. Besides, the DMG suggests to have a good time and that needless deaths aren't very fun. Saying "Ok, you walk into a dungeon but the floor falls away and your character falls on poisoned spikes. You die. Roll up a new Character." Not that encounters should not be dangerous or always-win scenarios. I've had 2 characters die in 4E and watched another player's character die as well. And that was with a balanced party and some optimization going on. It resulted from bad die rolls, poor tactics, and 3 of us missing on our "Daily" attacks. Character death should happen then this occurs. Well that or a full retreat, something PCs are very much against....hehehehehe.
Not only do they feel annoyed that they lost and were "over powered in an unbalanced encounter", but the chincy "you are all captured" seems contrived and fake if not pulled off right; a glaring neon sign that says "the DM is pulling strings to save you here" which ruins immersion for many people.Sub issues I have is that the game is essentially a super-hero game of fantasy, magic items are doled out like candy, and the power system, while overall I like it and approve of it, encourages analysis paralysis (contributing to encounters that last 2-3 hours each) and ultimately also comes off feeling a little TOO vanilla.
There are rules in the DMG2 for non-enchantment bonus to magical items. This relieves DMs of requiring PCs to have such-and-such +X weapon by this level as it's scaled in with PC advancement. This also helps people who want to retain their special weapon instead of forcing them onto something different just because the enchantment bonus is bigger.
As for the captured PCs, I've always thought it depends on how much damage the party inflicted and what the over-all plot of the story is. If the enemey needs sacrifices, they'll probably capture them OR if the PCs are needed for torture to obtain information then capture is also acceptable. If the PCs slaughter most of the monsters yet one or two get lucky hits in and drop them, they may just kill them outright for slaying their friends. Point being, this is more of a game-play or style problem than a problem with the inherent rules of 4E.
About powers, it comes down memorization and quick references. The ability to print out the cards with all the modifiers on them and the math done "should" make this process easy. I use a power! I roll X die, add Y bonuses and get Z result. Next player. And the more times the powers are used should make the encounters go quicker.
Every power does X damage, just dress it up how you want. I actually enjoy the various magical effects in classic D&D and how they used different mechanics. I understand one mechanical system to rule them all speeds things up, but it also contributed to me the feel of blandness and also felt that way to my players.
Personally, I felt that this was very liberating. Take, for example, the idea of a wizard who wants to be more "Necromantic" in his style. He's able to reflavor all his powers and the like with an Undead theme yet it all has the same mechanics as it had prior. The description and actual role-play of the character make it unique, not hard mechanics that might or might not be balanced. Compare this to 3.5 as there was a feat that could allow you to do this, but you had to spend a feat to do so which is sorta stupid IMO. So I'm not really sure what your getting at with the "different effects in classic D&D". Hypnotism allows a wizard to move a target X squares or attack an adjacent enemy (or itself) with a bonus. Magic Missile is auto-hit damage from 20 squares away. Scorching Burst creates a small fiery-explosion in a burst. They're all different in that they deal different damage, different effects, different ranges, different schools......but you have to make attack rolls against the creature instead of the creatur "saving" against them. Slight shift, but not really that bad.
I hope that there can be multiple settings, much like PF does with slow progression, or low magic, instead of everything being super-hero power level... because not everyone wants to play a game where at level 1 you are still uber and super heroic. If the option existed to play heroes that were a cut above but not dressed in colored spandex and masks, that would go a long way to me.
Not sure how your getting this aspect really. My characters never felt superhero-ish because encounters have been pretty much life or death a good portion of the time. Fight against undead and they're relentless. My tempest Fighter gave his life so that the other 3 party memebers could escape the underground tombs while being attacked by lumbering zombies and a few skeletons with blades. Tactics of the monsters playes a role, sure, but it often came down to a roll of the dice and hoping your big attacks hit.
I will say that 4e is modern, not because of math but because of the direction and philosophy of the game as a whole. YMMV, opinions and all that. I feel like I've talked in circles with a few of you essentially dismissing me as whiny and entitled for liking 4e (despite the fact that I play Pathfinder and just about any other game). As such I will say this on the matter as my final thought. I like where 4e is currently and do not wish for it to take a step backwards. I feel like those are bad goals and that if you want an experience like OD&D then play that. Different strokes and all that. Enjoy whatever game you like, and I hope you have fun hiding in the closet from kobolds, I'm going to go clobber some god-spawn...
Have you ever though about just letting monsters die after a certain amount of time? If it's taking that long then maybe adopt a "next hit kills it" rule. But having played 4E since it debuted, I've not really come across this problem. Battles can take long, like 45 minutes sometimes, but even 2-3 hours. This may be because they're facing creatures a few levels higher than them and thus, can't hit their AC or other defenses on an average level (50-55% of the time). Also, it might have to do with party make up. In an ideal party, you'd want one of each role plus a second Striker for more damage output.
The system is already easy enough. Yes I've thought about letting them die after a certain amount of time, and in fact used it, but the end result was we didn't even need to roll dice.
Combat was already a foregone conclusion, it's just a matter of wading through the hit points. I shouldn't have to edit the system to get to the end, you can just divide everyone's hit points by 5 or something and abbreviate it.
I don't know why you would think the DMG can't be counter-minded. Besides, the DMG suggests to have a good time and that needless deaths aren't very fun. Saying "Ok, you walk into a dungeon but the floor falls away and your character falls on poisoned spikes. You die. Roll up a new Character." Not that encounters should not be dangerous or always-win scenarios. I've had 2 characters die in 4E and watched another player's character die as well. And that was with a balanced party and some optimization going on. It resulted from bad die rolls, poor tactics, and 3 of us missing on our "Daily" attacks. Character death should happen then this occurs. Well that or a full retreat, something PCs are very much against....hehehehehe.
Style differences. I enjoy games where I can die like that. I do not enjoy games where I know that I cannot die unless I really really do something stupid. Adventuring is supposed to be hazardous. Walking into a dungeon, I know that there is a risk I could walk on the wrong pressure plate and get splatted.
4e is against that. So it's basically a style difference. I like games where you can die from what others consider needless deaths. To me it ratchets up the excitement. 4e does not really cater to that.
There are rules in the DMG2 for non-enchantment bonus to magical items. This relieves DMs of requiring PCs to have such-and-such +X weapon by this level as it's scaled in with PC advancement. This also helps people who want to retain their special weapon instead of forcing them onto something different just because the enchantment bonus is bigger.
To me this is still basically the same thing. I tried this variant, and found it to be much the same as just giving them their item. Also a couple of our players had relic weapons that they wanted to keep so we just boosted their to hits when they hit certain levels.
This is not a *bad* thing, however things like wish lists, and just the oodles of items people expect are a style difference with me. I like low-magic campaigns. So the DMG2 variant fit me more, but the mindset was still there. Game systems to instill certain mindsets (talk to a warhammer player sometime lol)
As for the captured PCs, I've always thought it depends on how much damage the party inflicted and what the over-all plot of the story is. If the enemey needs sacrifices, they'll probably capture them OR if the PCs are needed for torture to obtain information then capture is also acceptable. If the PCs slaughter most of the monsters yet one or two get lucky hits in and drop them, they may just kill them outright for slaying their friends. Point being, this is more of a game-play or style problem than a problem with the inherent rules of 4E.
It's not an issue with the rules of 4e, its an issue with the mindset that I see instilled by the rules of 4e. That mindset being... its a combat encounter, and I should be able to kill any combat encounter that comes my way, or you are a bad DM punishing me for something. If I die, you are a bad DM for letting me die when you should have pulled punches. Being captured humiliates my character. You are making the game us vs you. Etc etc etc.
I've heard this before on the boards and in other groups I know, plus my players have groaned at it as well because I roll the dice in the open so its very much let the dice fall where they may, and they do not like it when the dice fall on their characters getting pummeled. That's part of, again, the 4e mindset that a character is not supposed to die, and should win at all times overall.
That's a style clash with me. Read Walking Dead or Game of Thrones lol. Main character death is a part of life, and I think I like those books more because it fits more with my own personal style and likes.
About powers, it comes down memorization and quick references. The ability to print out the cards with all the modifiers on them and the math done "should" make this process easy. I use a power! I roll X die, add Y bonuses and get Z result. Next player. And the more times the powers are used should make the encounters go quicker.
That is good in theory, has never worked for any of my groups in practice. As a player, I can take a turn in less than 30 seconds usually. However there are always two or so players in a group who agonize over their powers for 10-15 minutes. I've had to instil timers in my game because they stare at their cards for a long time trying to calculate the best damage output and when you have say 5 players, and each one is taking 5-10 minutes... that's almost an hour per turn. Even if you have three players who take one minute and two players who take 5-10 minutes, you're talking about 20-30 minutes a turn (with DM turn thrown in) and for a 5-6 round combat that gets problematic.
Essentials was a good step towards combating that, but I still prefer classic "i swing with my sword, next".
Personally, I felt that this was very liberating.
It does make it easier, and is not all bad, but in the end after 3.5 years of playing it, it got to be very dull to me (and to my players who all complained about that very thing: everything seemed the same)
Not sure how your getting this aspect really.
The aspect comes from two parts:
1) The mechanics of the system (which can be tailored in any system really so it's not a 4e only issue, but rather is encouraged by 4e). It assumes the players are more than just heroes. They are living legends at level 1.
2) The challenge system is skewed towards easy. An at-level encounter in 4e is most of the time not even worth rolling dice over. At least for my groups. They would carve through it. If I wanted to challenge them I had to use a +3 level encounter. Challenge being that they would use quite a bit of resources. A hard encounter was +4 or +5 levels.
I think to me that at level encounters should be definitely beatable more often than not, but not to the point where there's really no challenge at all.
Most of my issues with 4e come from combat length and that mindset that the rulebooks instill. The latter is an emotion and cannot really be objectively be argued against, because you can't argue against how something makes you feel. I've wrestled with this for the entire year.
I will say that 4e is modern, not because of math but because of the direction and philosophy of the game as a whole.
Clarify please. Do you think 4e is modern because of the DDI? What about the philosophy makes it modern compared to older design philosophies? Again is this the digital philosophy or something inherent in the system?
The system is already easy enough. Yes I've thought about letting them die after a certain amount of time, and in fact used it, but the end result was we didn't even need to roll dice.Combat was already a foregone conclusion, it's just a matter of wading through the hit points. I shouldn't have to edit the system to get to the end, you can just divide everyone's hit points by 5 or something and abbreviate it.
I think your contradicting yourself here a bit. You state that the game mechanics are cake, your players wade through monsters of appropriate level like butter.....but it takes 2-3 hours for that to happen? Knifing through monsters sounds like it should be little work. Are the players not getting hit at all? Are the monsters doing appropriate level damage and are you factoring all the details of monster's traits such as extra damage when flanking or concealed, or dazing/stunning/knocking prone your PCs? Because, I can say that while some of my encounters end quickly with little damge to the PCs, they've had to resort to using some important powers and the like. It just doesn't seem like easy battles should take more than 20 to 30 minutes, at most.
Style differences. I enjoy games where I can die like that. I do not enjoy games where I know that I cannot die unless I really really do something stupid. Adventuring is supposed to be hazardous. Walking into a dungeon, I know that there is a risk I could walk on the wrong pressure plate and get splatted.4e is against that. So it's basically a style difference. I like games where you can die from what others consider needless deaths. To me it ratchets up the excitement. 4e does not really cater to that.
Well yea, I feel it's counter-intuitive for a DM to kill a PC just...because. It makes me not want to put any effort at all into character creation, background, or concept and just make the most beefed up Char_OP character I can to break games. Or, keep the same sheet and rename the character Bob from 113 Strawberry Lane. But to each their own. Also, you can kill PCs in such random ways, but it's never like the rules "supported" this game style in previous editions either.
This is not a *bad* thing, however things like wish lists, and just the oodles of items people expect are a style difference with me. I like low-magic campaigns. So the DMG2 variant fit me more, but the mindset was still there. Game systems to instill certain mindsets (talk to a warhammer player sometime lol)
There are rules in the DMG2 for non-enchantment bonus to magical items. This relieves DMs of requiring PCs to have such-and-such +X weapon by this level as it's scaled in with PC advancement. This also helps people who want to retain their special weapon instead of forcing them onto something different just because the enchantment bonus is bigger.
To me this is still basically the same thing. I tried this variant, and found it to be much the same as just giving them their item. Also a couple of our players had relic weapons that they wanted to keep so we just boosted their to hits when they hit certain levels.
Wish lists are just that...wishes. Sometimes you don't get that special sword that just "fits" your build perfectly. The problem I'm seeing is that the PCs feel that ALL the books are open for plundering and that, as DM, you HAVE to accomidate them. Try some random generated treasure. Make your PCs strive for special items, make them search and look for LORE on those items, or have them research said items so they can make it themselves (via Rituals). No wonder things are cake, you allow the PCs the exact build (equipment and all) that probably breaks games. There aren't many builds out there that do this, but there are a few and they're heavily dependant on specific magical items for their combos to work. This is more of a play-style problem than a 4E problem (rules wise, anyways).
It's not an issue with the rules of 4e, its an issue with the mindset that I see instilled by the rules of 4e. That mindset being... its a combat encounter, and I should be able to kill any combat encounter that comes my way, or you are a bad DM punishing me for something. If I die, you are a bad DM for letting me die when you should have pulled punches. Being captured humiliates my character. You are making the game us vs you. Etc etc etc.I've heard this before on the boards and in other groups I know, plus my players have groaned at it as well because I roll the dice in the open so its very much let the dice fall where they may, and they do not like it when the dice fall on their characters getting pummeled. That's part of, again, the 4e mindset that a character is not supposed to die, and should win at all times overall.
Your going to find that with this group no matter what edition you play. It'll just happen quicker with other editions as their 11 HP wizards gets killed by a Kobold sling that crits on a nat 20. I roll in the open too and if I land 2 nat. 20s then that's what happens, YOU should become less of the enemy and the DICE should become more.
That's a style clash with me. Read Walking Dead or Game of Thrones lol. Main character death is a part of life, and I think I like those books more because it fits more with my own personal style and likes.
Yea, I've read the first book of GRR Martin and a few of the Walking Dead (I wikipediad Walking Dead to find out what happens) and truthfully, I found it sorta boring. The characters were uninteresting as I couldn't gain any sort of connection due to me knowing that they'll probably die in the next few chapters. Sure, it's realistic, but that why I play fantasy games, to get away from realism and the nitty gritty of Ho-Hum life.
From reading what you've said, I think E6 (E8 for Pathfinder) is the best type of game for you. It's low-magic, it's balanced enough that classes don't get broken. Monsters at ALL levels are dangerous and most traps can kill a PC right-quick. Fighters get, at most 4 attacks if they go TWF, but for the most part just swing once or twice and they're done. Wizards and other spellcasters have a very finite about of spells that force them into "safe" mode of hiding and using crossbows practically their entire lives and even a lowly peasant can kill your PCs with a luck dagger critical.
There's no contradiction. It's 2-3 hours of a foregone conclusion typically.
If I construct an encounter of partyLevel +1, they are going to take minimal resource drain, and win 95% of the time. There really is no point in rolling dice, but we do for the sake of the game, and it's a night gone when we could have abbreviated it by saying "you encounter X, you defeat X, you get this stuff from X, lose an encounter / daily power of your choice and lets move on".
It takes 2-3 hours because while it is easy, I've always had a couple of players who take 10-15 minutes to do a turn. Two players taking 10-15 minutes = 30 minutes per round just on them. We can say the player is at fault, but to me they are just using the system, which can lead to 10-15 minute turns.
Well yea, I feel it's counter-intuitive for a DM to kill a PC just...because. It makes me not want to put any effort at all into character creation, background, or concept and just make the most beefed up Char_OP character I can to break games. Or, keep the same sheet and rename the character Bob from 113 Strawberry Lane. But to each their own. Also, you can kill PCs in such random ways, but it's never like the rules "supported" this game style in previous editions either.
That's style difference. It's perfectly valid, but much like baseball compared to football, I prefer one over the other.
The old rules don't "support" it explicitly but the mechanics make it easier to play one style over the other.
In 4e, traps , monsters, etc... at their level can't really hurt them much. In prev editions, crits can happen, and their hit points are so much less than in 4e. So in 4e, a trap or something goes off, it singes their toe nail, they move on. In previous editions, a trap goes off, there is a chance it's going to do some serious damage.
Wish lists are just that...wishes. Sometimes you don't get that special sword that just "fits" your build perfectly. The problem I'm seeing is that the PCs feel that ALL the books are open for plundering and that, as DM, you HAVE to accomidate them. Try some random generated treasure. Make your PCs strive for special items, make them search and look for LORE on those items, or have them research said items so they can make it themselves (via Rituals). No wonder things are cake, you allow the PCs the exact build (equipment and all) that probably breaks games. There aren't many builds out there that do this, but there are a few and they're heavily dependant on specific magical items for their combos to work. This is more of a play-style problem than a 4E problem (rules wise, anyways).
I don't allow whatever in my game, but that leads to grief from certain players, who expect that this is allowed (wishlisting giving them everything they want, random treasure is lame and bad etc). And if they don't find what they want, the item-creation rules are easy enough to circumvent the DM and create what you want. And if the DM disallows that, certain players scream that you are a bad DM...
While this isn't edition-specific, I find that 4e lends more to that mindset than other editions.
I've done every edition since first to last. It's just that the mindset of the game has moved in this direction, and I prefer an older mindset I suppose.
I think what he might be trying to say, is 4e was not innovative enough and did not change gameplay enough in the positive direction to make everyone switch over.
100% adoption rate is clearly a reasonable and not in any way crazy standard.
I think the ressistance to 4e is much more than a holdout. It is half the people of a niche market do not want to go in the direction of the 'new shiny.' That is not a defining direction. It will influence yes, but probably ONLY on how, as you say, it addresses the digital gaming group. That will be the improvement 4e brings, and a valuable one at that. It will not however be its alternate rules system, any more than White Wolf help redefined TTG on mass.
I think you will find that tightened and streamlined rules will be a defining feature of the hobby going forward.
Oh, and the digital stuff, of course.
|
Clarify please. Do you think 4e is modern because of the DDI? What about the philosophy makes it modern compared to older design philosophies? Again is this the digital philosophy or something inherent in the system?
I can't talk for him, but I can for me. The system seems to be designed for people who have things to do at the weekend other than work to create the next session. It doesn't assume you are a teenage nerd with nothing else to do, like 3e in particular does, but seems designed to be played and enjoyed by people who are busy adults, making the whole experience easier and quicker. That strikes me as a pragmatic appeal to the same demographic who were teenage nerds when they started playing D&D, but aren't anymore. That's not a DDI thing - it was there before, with the simplified rules on creating monsters and NPCs, for example.
It also acknowledges that actually some ideas coming out of other media (1) exist and (2) may actually improve the game, like (in particular) computer games. 3e really references virtually nothing outside other pen-and-paper RPGs - that puts in in a particular time and place - pre-interenet, pre-modern (that word again) PCs.
And DDI, to some extent comes into the picture. CharGen, funnily enough, is just a tool, but the constantly updated rules set in the Compendium are probably moving more to bringing tabletop RPGs to the potential of modern web-based computing than most other games I am aware of, potentially replacing books in their entirety.
So, yeah, there is a plausible case to say 4e is more modern than 3e. I'm sure you'll go and split some hairs over this...
I don't allow whatever in my game, but that leads to grief from certain players, who expect that this is allowed (wishlisting giving them everything they want, random treasure is lame and bad etc). And if they don't find what they want, the item-creation rules are easy enough to circumvent the DM and create what you want. And if the DM disallows that, certain players scream that you are a bad DM...
While this isn't edition-specific, I find that 4e lends more to that mindset than other editions.
I've done every edition since first to last. It's just that the mindset of the game has moved in this direction, and I prefer an older mindset I suppose.
It seems a little odd that you have come away with this mind set since its quite clear that the design elements behind the 4E magic item delivery system where built to get around the issues with the Magic Item Shoppe from 3.x. In other words the system places almost all the the choices for handing out Magic Items in the hands of the DM compared to 3.5 where it was felt that most groups most of the time simply sold the items and bought what they really wanted.
|
|
You don't need to use anything other than what is in the book to prep a session. Now, if you want to say it's quicker to homebrew elements for your game, I can maybe see that. But quite honestly, running right out of the monster manual is pretty darn easy.
Except you don't always want to do that. Want to use goblins, but with a 5th level party? You have work to do in 3e, much less in 4e. That's my point - sure, you can run using the book, but that might not be what is appropriate to the feel and the mechanics of what you are trying to do. In fact, for my PF PbP I actually gave up trying to create a level approrpiate dragon using the PF rules, it was agony, and used the one the next age category up that was in the book. Of course, I nearly killed the party... But the point is, it was hard, not fun, and a waste of time. I could do it in about five minutes in 4e, assuming I stopped to make a cup of tea halfway through.
I can't talk for him, but I can for me. The system seems to be designed for people who have things to do at the weekend other than work to create the next session. It doesn't assume you are a teenage nerd with nothing else to do, like 3e in particular does, but seems designed to be played and enjoyed by people who are busy adults, making the whole experience easier and quicker. That strikes me as a pragmatic appeal to the same demographic who were teenage nerds when they started playing D&D, but aren't anymore. That's not a DDI thing - it was there before, with the simplified rules on creating monsters and NPCs, for example.
It also acknowledges that actually some ideas coming out of other media (1) exist and (2) may actually improve the game, like (in particular) computer games. 3e really references virtually nothing outside other pen-and-paper RPGs - that puts in in a particular time and place - pre-interenet, pre-modern (that word again) PCs.
And DDI, to some extent comes into the picture. CharGen, funnily enough, is just a tool, but the constantly updated rules set in the Compendium are probably moving more to bringing tabletop RPGs to the potential of modern web-based computing than most other games I am aware of, potentially replacing books in their entirety.
So, yeah, there is a plausible case to say 4e is more modern than 3e. I'm sure you'll go and split some hairs over this...
I want to add to what Aubrey's saying here by pointing out that D&D has, since 2nd, generally followed other trends in the RPG market. Sometimes it uses its resources to identify a trend and then jump ahead - this being what happened with the 4E character builder - the trend was for computerized character builders, they have been a growing phenomenal since the really elaborate excel spread sheet character builders at the start of 3rd edition. What happened with 4E was that a trend was taken up and massive resources where pumped into taking it to the next level.
In the past we have seen how this trend following mindset meant that Vampire the Masquarade would heavily influence the direction D&D would take (and what it would emphasize) through out large parts of 2nd edition. In the smae vein 4E would never have existed in the present form it has if games like Savage Worlds and Spirit of the Century had not started cleaning up awards from right and left and heralded in the modern 'rules light' era of RPGs. Even great games like Spirit of the Century probably would not have made the splash they did a couple of decades ago...they could only be seen as the great games they are in light of demographic trends that say that the modern RPG player is married, has a career and 1-2 rug rats meaning that the amount of time he has to prep is dramatically less then the all night beer and pizza fueled games of his college days.
In this sense 4E is a modern game - its a product of its time just as 3rd was a product of its time and 2nd was a product of its time.
And I could do it in the same time in 3E. I don't see the problem.
But would you do that with a Dragon? I mean I perfectly understand that if you really want the DM can just pretend to make d20 rolls and arbitrary decide if the monster hit or not and you don't really need hps the DM can simply decide when he feels its a good time to say that last hit killed the creature. In the end stat blocs are not really needed and can be used just to jog the DMs mind for ideas.
Not sure I'd ever do it but I can understand the concept...but I can't say I understand doing that with something like a Dragon.
It seems a little odd that you have come away with this mind set since its quite clear that the design elements behind the 4E magic item delivery system where built to get around the issues with the Magic Item Shoppe from 3.x. In other words the system places almost all the the choices for handing out Magic Items in the hands of the DM compared to 3.5 where it was felt that most groups most of the time simply sold the items and bought what they really wanted.
Check the 4e forums sometime. There have been over the years numerous threads on how to circumvent the DM by using the item-creation rules, and flames against those that would stop this and say no to it for being one of those "douche bag DMs".
I had a couple of players try this route as well. If I wouldn't hand out what they wanted, they would simply craft it.
|
|
It seems a little odd that you have come away with this mind set since its quite clear that the design elements behind the 4E magic item delivery system where built to get around the issues with the Magic Item Shoppe from 3.x. In other words the system places almost all the the choices for handing out Magic Items in the hands of the DM compared to 3.5 where it was felt that most groups most of the time simply sold the items and bought what they really wanted.
How so? I mean in 4e, the magic items are located in the Player's Handbook. It seems that if the "delivery system" for handing out magic items was more in the DM's hands, wouldn't it have made more sense to keep the magic items within the DMs guide like all the editions previous?
|
|
Check the 4e forums sometime. There have been over the years numerous threads on how to circumvent the DM by using the item-creation rules, and flames against those that would stop this and say no to it for being one of those "douche bag DMs".
I had a couple of players try this route as well. If I wouldn't hand out what they wanted, they would simply craft it.
You need residuum to craft items, and you don't get much by disnchanting what you are given (unless the DM changes those rules) or selling it for cash. So it sounds potentially difficult to do without some connivance (accidental or otherwise) from the DM.
|
And what if it's a boss monster or NPC? That's what I'm talking about - not a mook.
An occasional occurance. One that doesn't need constant attention. And can be built up over time.
Heck, I've winged 18th level drow wizards. Not too hard if you've been playing a while, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone new to the hobby.
How so? I mean in 4e, the magic items are located in the Player's Handbook. It seems that if the "delivery system" for handing out magic items was more in the DM's hands, wouldn't it have made more sense to keep the magic items within the DMs guide like all the editions previous?
Just because it's there doesn't mean it's for the players to decide how and when they get it. The PHB is a resource for the players, so if one is given a Duelist's Short Sword +3, and lvl 12 Bracers of Mighty Striking, they won't need the DMG for the description or abilities of their new gear.
The DMG is for the DM, how to run, how to build encounters, obstacles, etc.. not for lists of gear. It was that way in the older editions because the mindset was that there tended to be one dedicated DM and all else players. The DM had all the secrets at his disposal, and the DMG was forbidden to the eyes of players. There came a time, however when the mantle got passed around more and more, and before long the players knew as much about the different items as the DM. Nowadays, a lot of players take a much more active role in what they want for their characters than most DM's worrying about what they will give out. Sometimes, it's just quicker and easier to have a pre-fab list of what they want, and you can hand out what you feel comfortable with them having, and fill in the gaps where you see fit.
Even in 3.5/PF if you look at most of the builds there is the exact same assumption that they will have the certain gear they want by a certain point, or will be able to buy it. Heck, I have seen instances where players have disregarded the current events because they were going to wait in town and finish the item that they had commissioned/crafted
Personally, I had to find a random treasure generator for 4E. Mainly because I'm a fan of the older days of, *dice clatter* "you find a Frost Glaive of Returning, Oh, no one uses Glaives, or throws them. "Hmmm, maybe someone will hold onto it." and the players keep it "Just in Case", and maybe the fighter changed his style because it was more powerful than his Long sword of nothing. You used what you found, not coincidentally found what happened to be just right for you. I LOVE random treasure tables, and it is probably my biggest complaint about 4E, that they don't have them. I didn't wait long before someone built one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no contradiction. It's 2-3 hours of a foregone conclusion typically.
If I construct an encounter of partyLevel +1, they are going to take minimal resource drain, and win 95% of the time. There really is no point in rolling dice, but we do for the sake of the game, and it's a night gone when we could have abbreviated it by saying "you encounter X, you defeat X, you get this stuff from X, lose an encounter / daily power of your choice and lets move on".
It takes 2-3 hours because while it is easy, I've always had a couple of players who take 10-15 minutes to do a turn. Two players taking 10-15 minutes = 30 minutes per round just on them. We can say the player is at fault, but to me they are just using the system, which can lead to 10-15 minute turns.
So, you have players that, using the system, take 10-15 minutes on their turn for fairly clean-cut, keyworded mechanics, with a streamlined ruleset. Do you think they will be any faster when using a read the half page on how to use the particular power, and try to maintain both RAW and RAI, type of abilities? Or will you limit them to only classes than have nothing more than multiple swings of a weapon abilities?
I like the removal of long-winded discussions on how certain spells were supposed to work, because the half page description had numerous statements that countered the RAW and RAI, and you had to try and find the delicate balance. "It says the missles fly through the air, but what about Wind Wall?" "Wind Wall doesn't reference these types of missles." "This spell came out after Wind Wall." Yes, as the DM I am able to make the call, but the player entitled "The rules say this so you have to do it or your a bad DM" arguments can be irritating. Especially when it's a rule you particularly disagree with (3.0's Blind-Fighting feat mechanics), or one they are trying to exploit via a loophole.
See, for me, they said 4E was the "Say YES" model of DMing, but I have always been a "Say NO" DM. So you know how I reconciled. I didn't change the way I DM'd. Almost everything they introduce in the book, that wasn't a game mechanic, I took as advice for how the new system may run smoother. Since most of it was advice I have heard before, or have disregarded before, it doesn't affect how I run my games. If a player says "I want to be a Dragonborn Paladin." I say NO, there's no such thing as Dragonborn in my games. I don't care if it's in the PHB. It's the same reason I didn't allow Monks in my 3.5, they don't fit in my game world, not as written. Players only have access to what I as a DM allow for the game I'm running
|
|
An occasional occurance. One that doesn't need constant attention. And can be built up over time.
Heck, I've winged 18th level drow wizards. Not too hard if you've been playing a while, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone new to the hobby.
Winging it isn't applying the rules. Any idiot can hand-wave, irrespective of how experienced they are. All you are really saying is the rules are a pain, so you ignore them, or do a best estimate. Which sort of makes my point. Sure, winging it is possible - it's not like I haven't done it - but the point is the ruleset we are winging it with, and why we are winging it rather than creating actual accurate NPCs and monsters. With 4e, that winging it aspect is less necessary, because of the way the rules have been streamlined, making it easier to create something accurate to the rules in a shorter period of time. Which means both the players and the DM are less likely to be shortchanged by the necessary arbitrariness of wnging it. And if the rules are so cumbersome that you don't create interesting boss monsters except as "an occasional occurrence", then surely one of the big supposed draws of 3e (the detailed ruleset linking together monster creation and character generation) is actually not even being used. And most people don't really like to spend weeks creating an NPC the PCs could kill in a round.
|
|
How does knowing a BBEG has 15 ranks in, I don't know, Craft: Doohickies, make him "more interesting"? Or that he or she might have six other feats that mean nothing?
Yeah, and you're right. I'm doing it wrong. That I can actually make an interesting game without figuring out every rank of Perform: Navel gazing my NPCs have is an indictment of the 3x rules set.
And, weeks? Seriously? If I needed to stat up a 15th level BBEG completely, it would take 30 minutes, 45 if it were a spell caster.
Leave the hyperbole at home.
|
|
How does knowing a BBEG has 15 ranks in, I don't know, Craft: Doohickies, make him "more interesting"? Or that he or she might have six other feats that mean nothing?
Yeah, and you're right. I'm doing it wrong. That I can actually make an interesting game without figuring out every rank of Perform: Navel gazing my NPCs have is an indictment of the 3x rules set.
And, weeks? Seriously? If I needed to stat up a 15th level BBEG completely, it would take 30 minutes, 45 if it were a spell caster.
Leave the hyperbole at home.
No, it wouldn't say ranks in non-relevant skill matters - but then again, the 3e rules say it matters. 4e, you will be glad to know, doesn't care (which, oddly, a lot of 4e-dislikers say bothers them). But you chose a trivial example. How about changing a creatures size in 3e, considering how many impacts that has? Consider feats, which you also dismiss - there are plenty which can have quite a big impact, especially for non-spellcasters. Consider spell choice - what is currently running, even at low levels, can impact on some things quite significantly. Throw in some extra class levels, with associated abilities. Now add a template. Or just try and create a dragon using the truly god-awful rules in the PF book (at least the 3e MM actually gave you stats).
Sure, like I say, it can all be hand-waved. You can ignore tranches of the rules to speed things up. But that doesn't actually mean they are good rules, it means they are cumbersome with lots of redundancy, which sort of equates with bad rules (certainly badly designed). 4e takes that away, and when you create a monster or NPC, you don't have to ignore it - it isn't there. So what you get is, quickly, a rules-complaint foe for your PCs, without all the arbitrariness of a quick and dirty 3e character.
Oh, and Derek - calm down. It's only a game.
So, you have players that, using the system, take 10-15 minutes on their turn for fairly clean-cut, keyworded mechanics, with a streamlined ruleset. Do you think they will be any faster when using a read the half page on how to use the particular power, and try to maintain both RAW and RAI, type of abilities? Or will you limit them to only classes than have nothing more than multiple swings of a weapon abilities?
I can give you the raw numbers.
I ran three 4e groups since 2008. Every one of them took forever to get through combat. My last group took average of three hours per combat. The group before that was online so we can chalk it up to the fact that it was online and took longer. The first group took about two-three hours per combat.
That same exact group in Pathfinder/3.5 that took three hours in 4e takes on average 20 minutes to get through an encounter. The last 3.5 group I ran pre-4e in 2008 took about 20-30 minutes per combat encounter.
Same people. Same basic character concepts ranging from fighters to paladin to cleric to druids with spell lists.
The last game that I was a player in (4e) we were third level and with five players combat took on average Ninety minutes to two hours. After a couple of months of that the DM wrapped up the campaign and they switched to 3.5/PF and I at the time wasn't interested in PF so took my leave, but they cited combat length as a reason for quitting 4e (among other things, to include the generic powers system)
So for my group it would seem that PF/3.5 is the best option when it comes down to time spent in combats.
I typically don't say NO to players (which has led me to issues in the past with broken characters). I still don't restrict from the core rulebook. I restrict the splat books.
|
|
Just like his post.
I think he's saying, why would you hand-wave a big encounter like a dragon? You'd want to get that one right - for yourself, you see you can challenge the the PCs appropriately and fairly, and for the PCs, so they can feel they weren't either killed or bailed out by DM fiat but prevailed (or otherwise) because of the the dice and their (hopefully good) play and tactics. I mean, I understood that, and so did you, I get the impression, since your response was, we play with Kirth (who is anal about rules, and probably handwaves nothing). Which begs the question as to what we are talking about here unless you are a very different DM to Kirth.
|
Luckily, 3.5 has multiple versions of dragons, much like 4e has multiple versions of goblins. If you've got MMIV, it's even got multiple versions of monsters like 4e does.
I took his post as insinuating that I hand wave everything, which anyone who has read my discourse on the forum know is completely false.