General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
4E Consequences: Being passive, cautious, or a loner is now unoptimized
One emergent property of 4E I have noticed as I have been playing and running it is that it tends to reward certain tactical playstyles, while penalizing others. The general flow of the game rewards being aggressive, taking risks to achieve greater results, and to make the most out of what your character can do. Certain behaviors, such as being cautious and trying not to die, being passive and not making the most out of what you can do, or going solo and behaving with no regard for what everybody else is doing, achieve bad results and can even result in a TPK. I have individual players who are either cautious, passive, or loners, and these players have had some problems with the game where others have not, and their playstyle didn't have as big of a negative impact when we were playing 3E.
Some further comments on these in specific instances:
1. I've noticed some people get really discouraged when playing Defenders. Defenders get hit, get hit a lot, and get knocked unconscious a lot. A lot of players, especially those who are used to how 3E ran, just don't like getting beat on to the extent that 4E Defenders get abused. You really have to like being hit to play a Defender. Cautious players don't last as Defenders.
2. Passive players have real problems with certain classes. You have to take risks and put yourself in harms way for you to accomplish anything as a Rogue. Our most passive player previously preferred the Rogue above all other classes, and she just hasn't been doing well with the 4E Rogue at all. I've seen that passive Rogue players can't consistently achieve combat advantage, and that the Rogue class is powerless without it, while I've seen aggressive players with no regard for life and limb keep combat advantage applied 90%+ of the time. I've also noticed that the 4E Warlock lacks obvious power, but can equal the other characters by taking risks, provoking opportunity attacks to move and attack at point blank range, drawing enemy fire, and being a general pest. People playing Warlocks as being stand back and shoot characters have been very disappointed, while an insane Halfling Starlock who spent most of his time in melee range running around at full speed was often the most effective character we had. On the other hand, classes like Laser Clerics and Wizards are well used by passive players.
3. Our loner player has a real problem with 4E. He isn't a team player, and he isn't getting the same results he got with 3E. In 3E, he was a powergamer who had all the big guns and dominated combat. In 4E, he doesn't synergize well with what everyone else is doing, and feels powerless.
One of the most cautious, selfish players I've ever encountered was very successful in the games I ran and played in with him. I'm talking someone who will have all his healing surges and a healing potion whilst the entire party is on 0 healing surges and have all used their dailies and action points and he'll insist on taking on the boss whilst staying at the back and ensuring he has an escape route. He even goes to the extent of pre-preparing escape routes and tactics, noting specifically to the DM areas he will be able to hide or escape from so that it's not an issue later on when he attempts to use them.
He did, however, think tactically.
He actually had the gall to whine at me once when there was a combat where enemies came in the third round from the rear. He claimed it was unfair and I was only doing it to hit his character. So he used his eladrin teleport to get out of danger and watched the rest of his team cop hits and deal with the extra enemies whilst he spent turns repositioning himself in a more tactically advantageous (ie. safe for his character) position.
I only wish there was a way I could've killed his character without DM fiat.
That's a pretty accurate view of a lot of 4e combats, I think. Indeed, I'd wager that many of these were intentional: the 4e designers WANTED to encourage active, dangerous, group play.
I'm not sure it crossed their minds very often that people might not like to play D&D this way.
I mean, I personally prefer a game that encourages risk and danger like 4e does. But I can certainly see where it butts up against playstyles that tend to a more "survivalist" or "strategist" mindset. You can't run a good game of slow attrition or sudden surprising death in 4e, and this was, I believe, entirely intentional.
Better to stick with earlier editions or other games for that stuff, if it's your style.
One emergent property of 4E I have noticed as I have been playing and running it is that it tends to reward certain tactical playstyles, while penalizing others.
I agree it is easier to get by in any game if you fit the patterns the game was based on
Quote:
1. I've noticed some people get really discouraged when playing Defenders. Defenders get hit, get hit a lot, and get knocked unconscious a lot. A lot of players, especially those who are used to how 3E ran, just don't like getting beat on to the extent that 4E Defenders get abused. You really have to like being hit to play a Defender. Cautious players don't last as Defenders.
I agree I describe Defenders as Bruce willis, and Jacki Chan...NOT youur typical action hero...they get hit...and should expect that...I still have a player who wants to be a paliden who complains "Why should I mark him...then he will attack me" play with me every week...seriesly play a diffrent class then....
Quote:
3. Our loner player has a real problem with 4E. He isn't a team player, and he isn't getting the same results he got with 3E. In 3E, he was a powergamer who had all the big guns and dominated combat. In 4E, he doesn't synergize well with what everyone else is doing, and feels powerless.
tell him to grow up...playing team games means putting up with being part of a team...or as was said better:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarwinofMind
If your not a team player, don't play DND play Xbox
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
In 4e I have found that my cautious players have done well with Wizards, Warlocks, Bow Rangers, and Ranged Clerics so far. Our Warlock in particular has been happy with her ability to stay back, keep moving and get out of tight spots with teleport abilities.
As far as Defenders so far my players have been less frustrated in 4e tha 3e where it was harder for fighters etc. to keep enemies pinned down.
As to the third point I really have no problem that the team needs to be a team to do well. Synergy is a great thing IMHO. Soloists in my experience have had easier times with the striker classes that do not need a set up like rogues. So far IMC they have been happier playing two-weapon Rangers and Barbarians.
Admittedly, yes, you generally do have to be very team oriented in 4e to be successful. You need to work with others' abilities to really make the most of your own.
While passive players can achieve success (Unless they're utterly paranoid about being in any kind of harm whatsoever), usually with ranged types. Bow Rangers, Wizards, Invokers, Warlocks, etc are best most likely, it has to be remembered that old habits need to be changed with the new system.
The only one that I see becoming nearly extinct is the solo/lone-wolf style characters. I personally was driven to near hair-pulling, screaming distraction by the whole 'look how dark and powerful I am' style of characters that one of my players tried to sneak into the game in 3e, so I see the fact that they aren't as viable in 4e as a bonus, where others might not. I still don't understand the reasoning behind creating/playing the angry anime-loner style characters in a sociable game, but to each their own.
From what I've heard, the Avenger would be good for a solo-style player though. Something about them being able to pick off the guys in the rear, and beat the daylights out of them while everyone else is handling the front liners. But again, I'm going by the random bits that I remember from reading up on the PHB2 classes.
__________________ Marshmellows.. The tofu of candy!
The general flow of the game rewards being aggressive, taking risks to achieve greater results, and to make the most out of what your character can do.
I'd note here that to the extent that this is true of 4e, it's also quite true of 3e, which heavily favors offense over defense, and encourages gambling maneuvers like casting save or die spells or tumbling into the middle of a crowd to get off a sneak attack.
OTOH, some people just love the fact that their characters just won't go down. A friend loves Paladins (and Rogues, those are his two favorite classes), and hated how on 3.X, a Paladin was just a Fighter with a sprinkle of Divine Spells.
When we first played, he was amazed how his Paladin kept tanking everything and getting hit protecting the rest of the party, and being surrounded by enemies, and he still wouldn't go down.
Suffice to say, he fell in love with 4E for making Paladins so resilient.
I still have a player who wants to be a paliden who complains "Why should I mark him...then he will attack me" play with me every week...seriesly play a diffrent class then....
LOL! Does he also wonder why the cleric should heal him? Oy, you have my pity playing with that guy.
Good, the loner powergamer feels powerless. D&D is a game about being a member of a team.
Not just from a system perspective, but from a roleplaying perspective. One person wants to go left because everyone else wants to go right can wreak havoc to a game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
But I can certainly see where it butts up against playstyles that tend to a more "survivalist" or "strategist" mindset. You can't run a good game of slow attrition or sudden surprising death in 4e, and this was, I believe, entirely intentional.
Aye, it's not a game for the "simulationist" either. Different editions facilitate different playstyles.
I'm with the other poster who said that this is all true and that's what I like about 4e. Since its inception D&D has always been a social game. I really have a hard time understanding people who all want to be the lone wolf badass of the group. I don't see D&D as that kind of game. I guess they have different ideas about D&D than I do, but personally if I wanted to play a game by myself I would. On the 360. To my mind a person saying they hate 4e because it forces them to work with others in their party is like a person saying they hate monopoly because it forces them to charge rent.
As for being afraid or passive well I know that it's very easy to become afraid for your character's life but you know Raise Dead isn't that hard to come by (unless your DM hates you) and the death penalty wears off. I have seen so many players who are well and truly afraid of their character's death even when death is just a part of the game, and a part that you can bounce back from easily. Plus well at the end of the day you are supposed to be playing heroes after all. I don't know too many cowardly, passive heroes.
To be fair, there is a time and place for "Lone Wolf" style tabletop.
After all, Batman did it solo, as does Spiderman, etc.
The time and place for that sort of thing is called a Solo Game. When your desire to "Go at it alone" is not counter-intuitive to the fun of everyone else.
There's even a few systems out there that can accommodate solo play well. D&D really isn't one.
LOL! Does he also wonder why the cleric should heal him? Oy, you have my pity playing with that guy.
no infact if my cleric uses healing words on another player he shoots me dirty looks and says "You know I am getting my but kicked here"
example:
our warlock is down to single diget hp...our wizard has 2 monsters flanking her, and is bloodied...My cleric and our paliden are fighting an oger with threatning reatch and a fighter mark....the paliden wont challenge him, it is my turn...I used healing word on the warlock...and the paliden player blew up...."why wast it on a striker"
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
Rechan and others presented most of my points better than I could have. To further expand on Foundry of Decay's point: some classes suit outliers better than others.
The Feylock in my Sunday game is definitely a passive loner (and physical coward), who spends every combat flitting around the battlefield avoiding damage and taking the occasional advantageous shot when the opportunity presents itself.
She is not a risk-taker, and while she may not contribute as much to the party's success as our more aggressive players, she derives enjoyment from skulking in shadows and plinking minions. This player found a class which perfectly fits her play style, and everyone wins (even the players who need to kick just a little more ass to compensate---because they love being heroes).
As others have stated, it may well have been intentional on the part of the designers to discourage some styles of play, or if not to actively discourage them, to indirectly discourage them by encouraging others.
It's not clear from your post whether you think this is a bad thing. It does sound like it's making the experience less fun for certain of your players, so you probably want to address that.
One thing is that your players might find different characters more comfortably fit their styles. The "passive Rogue" for example might find a bow Ranger more to her liking. It wasn't clear whether you actually have a Defender who doesn't like getting hit all the time, but if so, that player too might benefit from a role switch.
The other way to approach it is to talk it over with them, to make sure they understand their characters and roles and how they might change their tactics and approach to get more enjoyment out of their characters. You could try to work with them by setting up "teaching encounters" where they are lead to tactics and decisions that play to their strengths. Not forcing them of course, just making it clear and giving hints. Like maybe an NPC who shouts to the rogue, "Now's your chance! Get up on the rock behind the guard and he won't have a chance!"
This latter approach is probably the only hope of addressing the issue with the lone wolf powergamer - frankly his preferred style sounds like it might reduce the fun for the rest of the group, anyhow. For the passive rogue player, she may just have to decide which she likes better, being a rogue or being passive.
I'd note here that to the extent that this is true of 4e, it's also quite true of 3e, which heavily favors offense over defense, and encourages gambling maneuvers like casting save or die spells or tumbling into the middle of a crowd to get off a sneak attack.
I think there's a slight difference: In 3E, you favoured offence because it was the "offence is the best defence" strategy.
Basically, you tried to stay in a secure position, then drop them as fast as you can to avoid the risk of retaliation.
In 4E, you have to go offensive despite the fact that they will retaliate. You not only accept that - the defenders even want that.
That was also the reason for the offence clerics in 3E - healing was a losing strategy - hitting harder in the first place was better. You could say, in 3E, everybody tried to be a striker - move in, hit hard, pull out.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
