4E and "Old School Gaming" (and why they aren't mutually exclusive"

[mmadsen]

If everyone is special all of the time then there isn't really a moment for anyone to shine as an individual.

But we know that's not true. People consistently enjoy combat, because it actively involves all the players. As in real life, every extra fighter counts.

Every extra diplomat or lockpicker does not. That's why this complaint rings false:

The mentality of not participating in game events because your character isn't optimized for it is foreign to me.

Its fun for an aggressive outgoing barbarian to try and impress the folks at court.

Some tasks don't benefit from second- or third-rate help.

 

[mmadsen]

Good, tell me why your learned sage who would not lift a finger to harm a butterfly is travelling through the goblin and kobold infested tunnels of the ruins of Kalishar, and how he expected to survive.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Phaezen, but this complaint is pretty silly. We can come up with all kinds of good reasons for why a learned sage might get dragged into an adventure. I suspect we can also come up with some good reasons for why an aristocratic young hobbit and his gardener might get caught up in an epic quest too. Reluctant heroes are a staple of adventure fiction.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But we know that's not true. People consistently enjoy combat, because it actively involves all the players. As in real life, every extra fighter counts.

I don't ever recall saying that characters that are not optimized for an activity should avoid it. Everyone should participate, and yes every fighter should help. Its not very heroic to sit and watch friends being harmed while cowering because your fighting skills are not on par with eveyone else.

Every extra diplomat or lockpicker does not. That's why this complaint rings false: Some tasks don't benefit from second- or third-rate help.

Sure picking a lock is a single person activity, but social situations are not. The mistake is thinking that every character without a high enough bonus should shut thier trap while the "mouthpiece" does the work. Game systems designed to reward this type of play only reinforce this enforced "uselessness" that is so common these days.

This is the kind of attitude that comes from MMO's where its the players vs the machine and everyone had better get thier crap in order or they will be booted and replaced. Do we really need this in a tabletop RPG:

Player 1: " I would like to make a suggestion to the Baron"
Player 2: " Pfft. Whats your diplomacy bonus?"
Player 1: " Ummm.....1"
Player 2: " STFU you noob", to DM: " He says nothing"

I want to play a character and react to situations as the character, not simply push a mini around and choose the most tactically astute option.

4E may very well BE the wrong game.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Sure picking a lock is a single person activity, but social situations are not. The mistake is thinking that every character without a high enough bonus should shut thier trap while the "mouthpiece" does the work. Game systems designed to reward this type of play only reinforce this enforced "uselessness" that is so common these days.

Dangerous social situations often are. In my game, we have a player who is forbidden from speaking to NPCs(by the other players), because as a player, he is just that bad at it.

When a failed roll or saying the wrong thing gets you killed, social encounters can be a single person activity for the mouthpiece.

 

[FireLance]

4E may very well BE the wrong game.

It's just a problem with the skill challenge sub-system.

Can we fix it?

Yes we can.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Dangerous social situations often are. In my game, we have a player who is forbidden from speaking to NPCs(by the other players), because as a player, he is just that bad at it.

When a failed roll or saying the wrong thing gets you killed, social encounters can be a single person activity for the mouthpiece.

Thats whats so baffling. Huge gaping holes in logic are accepted as fine because its a GAME, but we have to gag someone and keep them from having fun and fully participating because make believe characters' lives are at stake?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Thats whats so baffling. Huge gaping holes in logic are accepted as fine because its a GAME, but we have to gag someone and keep them from having fun and fully participating because make believe characters' lives are at stake?

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. It is a game, and people play it. If actions don't have an appropriate response, its not much of a game. We have a player in our group who says things so stupid that he pretty much fails the encounter on the spot. I'm not alone in this assessment. I don't coddle people. If you blow things, things get blown.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you blow things, things get blown.

ROFL!!

This is priceless.

Keeping things grandma friendly though, is that a threat?

 

[justanobody]

says things so stupid that he pretty much fails the encounter on the spot

What? Am I alone thinking this doesn't make sense?

 

[MerricB]

What? Am I alone thinking this doesn't make sense?

Probably not, but I've certainly seen careful negotiations fail instantly because someone has said something so stupid that there's no recourse.

Or bluffing attempts...

Cheers!