You Never Get a Second Chance to Make a First Impression
Having now read through the functional parts of the 4e PHB and DMG, my thoughts continue in much the same vein...
My #1 gripe about the books at this point is the indexing. I used to think that original WoD books from White Wolf had poor indexing, but these have set the bar at a new low. Once play has begun, the book's primary value is as a reference work, and that demands logical organization displayed in the table of contents, and a solid index.
None of these volumes is well arranged. After reading the other two books, I flipped through the MM, looking for an old standard - the pseudodragon. It does not appear in the table of contents. There is no full alphabetical listing of all monsters. In order to find the pseudodragon, I have to wade through an index sorted first by monster level, then by role. Mind you, if I know the monster well enough to know it's level and role, I probably already know that it has been stuck away in the Drake section, and wouldn't have needed the index at all.
Similarly, I was looking at the Mind Flayer entry in the MM. A successful use of one of it's powers means the target is "Dominated". I've only read the rulebooks through once, so I don't recall everything, and I want to look up what "dominated" means in detail. It is not explained in the monster listing. It is not in the MM index. The term "dominated" does not appear in the index or table of contents of any of the core books. In order to find "dominated" you must yourself recall that it is a combat condition - and combat conditions, however important they may be, are not noted in the PHB's table of contents. They are instead only listed in the context-free index.
I originally felt that the core rulebooks were a bit opaque, and while the poor indexing didn't help matters, it is hardly the only issue on that score. I have managed to get a grasp on character abilities, but it took a goodly amount of work, reading, and re-reading to do so.
The sheer number of powers is part of the problem, along with their basic similarity in both function and presentation. So many of them are of the form "do damage and have some secondary effect" that they have no mnemonic presence whatsoever. The devil is in the details, here, and there are simply too many fiddly details to remember well on one or two readings.
My thought now is that the system is a bit too regimented. Uniformity makes it easier to balance, I'm sure, but aside from the mnemonic problem, there's the simple fact that idiosyncrasy flavors a system. In previous editions, people playing different classes did some mechanically different things. That is much less the case in 4e, and I think that leeches some flavor out of the classes, and thus out of the characters.
That being said, I am guessing the system is functional, and my players are good at colorful personalities. I am hoping my players find the mechanical sameness to be enough of an asset in game play that it overwhelms the loss of mechanical differentiation as role-play support.
My #1 gripe about the books at this point is the indexing. I used to think that original WoD books from White Wolf had poor indexing, but these have set the bar at a new low. Once play has begun, the book's primary value is as a reference work, and that demands logical organization displayed in the table of contents, and a solid index.
None of these volumes is well arranged. After reading the other two books, I flipped through the MM, looking for an old standard - the pseudodragon. It does not appear in the table of contents. There is no full alphabetical listing of all monsters. In order to find the pseudodragon, I have to wade through an index sorted first by monster level, then by role. Mind you, if I know the monster well enough to know it's level and role, I probably already know that it has been stuck away in the Drake section, and wouldn't have needed the index at all.
Similarly, I was looking at the Mind Flayer entry in the MM. A successful use of one of it's powers means the target is "Dominated". I've only read the rulebooks through once, so I don't recall everything, and I want to look up what "dominated" means in detail. It is not explained in the monster listing. It is not in the MM index. The term "dominated" does not appear in the index or table of contents of any of the core books. In order to find "dominated" you must yourself recall that it is a combat condition - and combat conditions, however important they may be, are not noted in the PHB's table of contents. They are instead only listed in the context-free index.
I originally felt that the core rulebooks were a bit opaque, and while the poor indexing didn't help matters, it is hardly the only issue on that score. I have managed to get a grasp on character abilities, but it took a goodly amount of work, reading, and re-reading to do so.
The sheer number of powers is part of the problem, along with their basic similarity in both function and presentation. So many of them are of the form "do damage and have some secondary effect" that they have no mnemonic presence whatsoever. The devil is in the details, here, and there are simply too many fiddly details to remember well on one or two readings.
My thought now is that the system is a bit too regimented. Uniformity makes it easier to balance, I'm sure, but aside from the mnemonic problem, there's the simple fact that idiosyncrasy flavors a system. In previous editions, people playing different classes did some mechanically different things. That is much less the case in 4e, and I think that leeches some flavor out of the classes, and thus out of the characters.
That being said, I am guessing the system is functional, and my players are good at colorful personalities. I am hoping my players find the mechanical sameness to be enough of an asset in game play that it overwhelms the loss of mechanical differentiation as role-play support.
Total Comments 12
Comments
-
Interesting observation.Quote:Uniformity makes it easier to balance, I'm sure, but aside from the mnemonic problem, there's the simple fact that idiosyncrasy flavors a system. In previous editions, people playing different classes did some mechanically different things. That is much less the case in 4e, and I think that leeches some flavor out of the classes, and thus out of the characters.Posted 2nd September 2008 at 01:49 AM by Wulf Ratbane
-
I think that's why power cards have become so popular. Spell Cards might seem similar, but many spells have become very "iconic" over time. No one looks in the PHB 3E for Fireball or Magic Missile. Everyone knows what these spells do. The spells are often used and they also have very unique properties.
4E powers we are unfamiliar with, and they share many properties, but also have some distinct unique effects. But you never have to have too many of them per character, hence a double page or a few cards are enough to organize them and to never look back into the PHB.Posted 2nd September 2008 at 10:28 AM by Mustrum_Ridcully -
"Never have to look back in the PHB" - if you are never going to level up the character, or never want to plan out character progression, or never want to start comparing and contrasting the abilities of 20th level characters of several different classes...
Doesn't seem like much of a "never" to me.Posted 2nd September 2008 at 04:28 PM by Umbran - Well, I was only talking about play-time, not "character leveling" time (which very often is between sessions). When I am advancing my PC, I don't really expect to not use the books. But re-reading rules, spells, feats or powers while playing the game has always been the most time-consuming and game-stopping event. And it happened often enough...Posted 2nd September 2008 at 04:33 PM by Mustrum_Ridcully
- I must be the only player who prints out spell and feat descriptions on the character sheet, and started doing that even pre-3E.Posted 2nd September 2008 at 04:55 PM by Fenes
- I fully accept that the "exception based design" allows one to create a character sheet that holds most of the things a player needs to know in one place. And that's nice.
However, in terms of getting to know what a member of a class can do, what you then have is a huge stack of exceptions for each and every class. Grokking in fullness becomes difficult.Posted 2nd September 2008 at 07:09 PM by Umbran - That's probably true. The class description and role gives a pointer, but I suppose you might already understand them before you understand what your class really does. (That's one of the cases where I really don't know how "real" newbies would think...Quote:However, in terms of getting to know what a member of a class can do, what you then have is a huge stack of exceptions for each and every class. Grokking in fullness becomes difficult.
)
Probably not the only player, but rare. I find writing down everything my Wizard or Clerics spell can do on a character sheet a little too much. Especially since I regularly have to update these details anyway.Quote:I must be the only player who prints out spell and feat descriptions on the character sheet, and started doing that even pre-3E.Posted 2nd September 2008 at 07:44 PM by Mustrum_Ridcully - Oh, I agree with that - it's a drawback of such designs. I was just musing about how power cards and such aren't really something new.
(Edit: Aimed at Umbran's post above)Posted 2nd September 2008 at 07:47 PM by Fenes
Updated 2nd September 2008 at 07:57 PM by Fenes -
Wouldn't all the exceptions of "exception based designed" be the idiosyncrasys that flavors the 4e system?Posted 3rd September 2008 at 03:07 AM by MichaelSomething - So far in my reading, the exceptions are all pretty formulaic across all classes, rather than idiosyncratic to individual classes, at least in how they are invoked.
As I said, it is pretty much "roll an attack, do some damage and have some side effect". The side effects make the tactics different, but not the game mechanic itself.Posted 3rd September 2008 at 04:10 AM by Umbran -
I have the impression they do that in purpose, trying to sell us the Compenium of DDI.Quote:My #1 gripe about the books at this point is the indexing. I used to think that original WoD books from White Wolf had poor indexing, but these have set the bar at a new low.Posted 5th September 2008 at 12:04 AM by Turbiales -
And because of the large font type and the amount of white space they can't make the it reduces the page count argument.Posted 8th September 2008 at 12:05 AM by Achan hiArusa
Total Trackbacks 0
And yet another word from our sponsors
