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

[RFisher]

The only class with a choice seemed to be the wizard...

(Ignoring that in earlier editions the trade-offs were mostly in your choice of class.)

And it is with the Wizard—which happened to be the 4e class I’ve played—that I feel unsatisfied.

And if the game is going to make the Fighter follow mechanics more similar to the Wizard, then I’d like the possibility of those trade-off to now be available to him too.

Maybe if I didn’t feel like my first level Wizard was combat-heavy and utility-light. Maybe if you started out combat-heavy and utility-heavy, maybe then I would’ve enjoyed it more.

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

While I have no doubt that the 4e design works great for some groups, there’s no denying that not a single person in my group really enjoyed it. While I think it deserves us giving it more time, I doubt anyone is ever going to care enough for that to happen.

 

[pemerton]

The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.

As others have stated, this is not true. Some utility powers help combat competence. Some do not (eg various skill-boosting powers). Some feats help combat competenece. Some do not (eg skill training, skill focus). These are all trade-offs between combat and non-combat effectiveness. And the 4e character-building rules suppport them.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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!

This. Every single time he opens his mouth. It really is that bad. He goes through characters like toilet paper, since he often plays characters so obnoxious that the party kicks them out in game. Gamers are not the most socially adept people.

 

[justanobody]

^ A case of verbal diarrhea then?

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!

True, but it just may have been the way it was worded in that post that seems a bit off.

So it is only meaning social encounter, rather than voicing some tactical opinion for a combat encounter that just by speaking the idea causing the success rate of the combat to drop dramatically?

 

[WalterKovacs]

Its a concept that just doesn't work for a game where everyone has to be in the spotlight at every moment. If everyone is special all of the time then there isn't really a moment for anyone to shine as an individual.

Combat specialists who "sleep" when the non-combat roleplaying is going on are missing a lot of fun. 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. Its also fun for a bookish yet clever wizard to use magic in a scrape that doesn't involve blasting things.

Then how is having productive things to add make things less fun? I've had fun in games doing "goofy things", regardless of whether my character was good at it or not. My little halfling warlock was trying to bluff/diplomacy a captured orc into splitting the loot, killing the party, I just needed to know where the loot was being kept, because I knew a fence ...

When he finally caught on that I was lying, he laughed, so I immediately switched to intimidate, sticking a finger up his nose and asking if he'd ever seen an eldritch blast from that close.

Everyone being good at combat doesn't mean that every combat everyone is going to contribute the same things. Certain monsters have resistances/vulnerabilities, defenses they attack, or defenses they have, etc, etc, etc that makes certain characters shine and other characters get beat up. Depending on the dice, certain characters can be the hero ... for example a bronze warder, which is just plain nasty, became a cake walk due to a combo of a warlock daze (save ends) power and HORRIBLE rolling on my part as a DM. The Warlock got to shine as he dazed an elite monster into being pretty ineffective for the entire fight.

Same group, different day, the wizard single handed changed the way the fight would play out by hitting with the Sleep spell and having an unlucky roll on my part cause the elite to fall asleep. I didn't roll as badly as the other case, but it only took one failed saved for all the martial guys to pile on and coup de gras the HP away. By the time he was awake he was killed before he had a second turn to get up and fight back.

Just because everyone has good combat skills doesn't mean no one shines in combat. Just because everyone has good out of combat skills doesn't mean no one shines out of combat. There are still people with skill sets better suited for certain skill challenges. There are still people with combat skills better suited for certain combat challenges.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

But do all of these examples really work in the game? And won't the reluctant and unprepared hero not learn how to become more effective in combat? The hobbits certainly do learn to hold their own eventually.

Is there anything in 4E that makes the rogue actually better at thievery than another character assuming the same race and stats?

If another character invests into Thievery, yes, he can achieve the same as the Rogue. But in a way this is just the same as a 3E character multiclassing into Rogue to get Trap Sense. (Of course, 3E is a bad example since it already has the Ninja version of the Rogue )
The Rogue class has some utility powers that make him better at being a thief - not necessarily improving his Thievery skill itself, but improving his ability to be stealthy and move unnoticed, or to help the breaking in part (powers that improve his Athletics or Acrobatics).

 

[Betote]

This. Every single time he opens his mouth. It really is that bad. He goes through characters like toilet paper, since he often plays characters so obnoxious that the party kicks them out in game. Gamers are not the most socially adept people.

I feel your pain

Player: "Can I be an Evil character?"
DM (me): "You're going to be anyway, so at least write it down on your sheet"

 

[ExploderWizard]

This. Every single time he opens his mouth. It really is that bad. He goes through characters like toilet paper, since he often plays characters so obnoxious that the party kicks them out in game. Gamers are not the most socially adept people.

It sounds like you have a player who simply lives to rain on the parade of everyone else. This a purely a player issue and I would imagine that such a player would be a PITA using any rules. Its a shame that the behavior of a bad player gets to influence the entire approach to the game.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It sounds like you have a player who simply lives to rain on the parade of everyone else. This a purely a player issue and I would imagine that such a player would be a PITA using any rules. Its a shame that the behavior of a bad player gets to influence the entire approach to the game.

Its not as bad as all that. He isn't doing it intentionally, he's just that socially inept. In game, he's perfectly fine running a character in combat or in noncombat situations that don't involve talking to NPCs. He's a contributing player in those situations. We also get along fine with him out of game. Its just that he puts his foot in his mouth in an epic fashion whenever he attempts to talk to NPCs.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Its not as bad as all that. He isn't doing it intentionally, he's just that socially inept. In game, he's perfectly fine running a character in combat or in noncombat situations that don't involve talking to NPCs. He's a contributing player in those situations. We also get along fine with him out of game. Its just that he puts his foot in his mouth in an epic fashion whenever he attempts to talk to NPCs.

In that case it sounds like you have a rare treasure.

Story time:

Several years ago, a new guy started gaming with us. I was running a 3.0 Scourge of the Slavelords adventure and he joined the group and played a cleric of Kord.

The party had a roadside encounter with a group of slaver agents led by a nasty dwarf (one of the Ruvik brothers). The encounter turned to combat and the PC's defeated the bad guys and took thier stuff. The PC's decided to drag the bodies off the road and bury them to conceal evidence of the struggle. (The cleric had no trouble wearing the dwarf's armor though )

The next day the PC's reached town and went to the local pub ( controlled by slaver agents) to start looking for clues. After sitting down and ordering drinks, a dwarf was seen on the balcony above. Upon spotting the party, he came trotting down the steps towards thier table.

The dwarf ( the other Ruvik brother) made a complimentary remark about the cleric's armor. The party noticed something faintly familliar about his facial features. After a couple pointed questions the dwarf fixed menacing eyes upon the cleric and asked: " Where exactly IS my brother?" to which the cleric replied: " We buried him."

Initiative was rolled a second later

After we recovered from the fits of laughter, a major battle took place, sparked by that response. I wouldn't trade that moment for anything.

What made it so funny was that it was in no way an attempt at intimidation. He had formulated a story in his mind that involved the party discovering his brother's corpse, and laying him to rest peacefully. The line was delivered innocently and in a tone that conveyed "our condolences".

End story.

Sometimes you have to appreciate those moments and make lemonade from the lemons.