D&D 4E Just played my first 4E game

[Raven Crowking]

Video-Gamey

From my point of view, "video-gamey" refers to a failure to meet simulationist goals, particularly the "reasonable man" standard. In a video game, I cannot take just any action that a resonable person with the skill set of my character could take; I am limited in my actions by the imagination of the designer.

The inability for a character to use mundane tactics more than once per day, or once per encounter, even though the tactics might be both reasonable and appropriate violates the "reasonable man" standard. Combined with this is the idea of aggro mechanics that can force my opponents to also violate the "reasonable man" standard, and it seems more like the action is limited by the programmer than by the participants.

I readily admit that this is not an objective criteria for defining "video-gamey".

Moreover, I admit that being able to control one's opponents' actions to some degree (using extraordinary, though mundane, methods) may make sense (from a simulationist standpoint). It is not the presence of these elements, but the degree to which they are present, that I dislike.


RC

 

[phloog]

While I am not saying he is more versatile than a 3.X wizard he defiantly retains much versatility. Yesterday we had a session that proved that, in our group, the wizard is the king of versatility.

I had a player who had started out as a warlock. After three sessions that left him unhappy with the character (It was a teifling Warlock), I suggested the wizard. In yesterdays session he did the following.

Used prestidigitation...(snip_ Used prestidigitation to produce the smell of meat ...(snip)...Used mage hand to open a few suspect doors...(snip)...
Used ghost sound to distract a group of goblins they were sneaking up onto...(snip) Used comprehend languages while in dungeon to understand goblin.
(snippage)
JesterOC

I'd be interested in hearing your take on this then in more detail. It sounds like as it's playing out in your campaign, the wizard was able to deceive, open doors (stealing thunder from the rogues), distract enemies, and understand languages (thus stealing thunder from those with language skills).

What is your opinion then of this thunder stealing?

People mention that one of the big and wonderful things that 4E was putting forth was solving a problem I never encountered - wizards being good at so many things they steal the show. But based on your description it sounds like this is still the case for those people who saw this as a problem...do you think wizards are still hogging the limelight?

In fact, if these utilities are still around, and are more freely accessible (less picking of things to memorize), then if you saw uber-wizards as a problem before hasn't it gotten worse now, because they are extremely versatile...but in prior version where they didn't really dominate many combats, now they are versatile in non-combat situations, and never have to step back out of the spotlight.

It's just that your post seemed different than a lot of what people are saying about removing this 'problem'.

 

[Celtavian]

re

You'd say it's not bogus and you'd be wrong.

Example: What video game? You never bothered saying - just like I said in my post. Thanks for making this so easy

Neglecting out-of-combat aspects how? Again, no example. Fourth edition is the only edition thus far to have fast-and-hard rules for rewarding roleplaying with experience points. Then there's skill challenges (exp for non-combat). There's quest rewards (narrative exp). Too easy

What are you missing? It feels like an MMORPT like WoW or the like. Is it exactly the same? No. Is it very, very similar? Yes, it is.

No one failed to name what video game it feels like. People who have playd MMORPGs like WoW and EQ know what a video game design looks and plays like. This game looks and plays like a MMORPG. If you don't think so, then you've never played an MMORPG.

Striker = DPS class
Defender = Tank class
Controller = Crowd Control Class with DPS
Leader = Healer/Buff class.

Not a single friend I know say this game isn't designed around similar mechanics to WoW and other MMORPGs. They even refer to the character classes in WoW fashion such as calling the Defender the tank and the Leader class the healer.

It is what it is. They took some video game mechanics and rendered them in Pen and Paper RPG form. Video games did the same thing with RPGs.

 

[LostSoul]

PLAYS LIKE A VIDEO GAME:
STORYTELLING

I have no doubt that it did play like a video game for you, but I want to ask why that is. Here are a whole bunch of questions!

• How much focus did you put on in-character role-play?
  • Was this more or less than in your other games?
  • How did the mechanics affect this?
• How did you describe the actions taken by the characters in combat?
  • How did these descriptions differ from those in your other games?
  • How did the mechanics affect this?
• What goals did the PCs have?
• What ways did the PCs have to achieve these goals?
• Did you use the Quest mechanics?
  • If so, what were the Quests?
  • How did the players get the Quests?
• Did you use the skill system?
  • If so, what kinds of things were you making checks for?
  • Did you use the Skill Challenge system?

 

[Brennin Magalus]

6. This makes me want to bash my head into the wall. 4e is nothing like a video game. 4e uses a fair amount of DM judgment, and simplified math. A video game would use zero DM judgment, and would have no need to simplify the math so that mere humans could comprehend it. 3e was the one that played like a video game, because only a computer could calculate all the different types of bonuses you could get, and assure that you never accidentally stacked two divine ac bonuses or something.

4e most certainly is like a video game. A limited number of classes and powers and monsters that are the same except for being tougher with different names immediately jump out at me. It reminds me of Diablo II, which was a great CRPG but not a P&P RPG. Your argument that 3e is like a video game is ridiculous. If 3e D&D is a video game because it requires a lot of behind the scenes calculations then SAS, R, and every other program I use for my statistical analyses are video games too.

 

[LostSoul]

The inability for a character to use mundane tactics more than once per day, or once per encounter, even though the tactics might be both reasonable and appropriate violates the "reasonable man" standard. Combined with this is the idea of aggro mechanics that can force my opponents to also violate the "reasonable man" standard, and it seems more like the action is limited by the programmer than by the participants.

What kind of mundane, reasonable, and appropriate tactics can't you use more than once per day or once per encounter?

How do the "aggro" mechanics make your opponents inable to use mundane, reasonable, and appropriate tactics more than once per day or once per encounter?

 

[ExploderWizard]

What kind of mundane, reasonable, and appropriate tactics can't you use more than once per day or once per encounter?

Trip and disarm come to mind.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I personally think the Pro-4E people exaggerate the power of the wizard to try to downplay what 4E did to the wizard.

But that being said, I also think alot of people played with DMs that allowed 3.5E wizards to do too much. They allowed wizards to abuse every loophole they could find with spells like shapechange andgate. They incorporated every broken spell 3.5 put out like avasculate and solipsism. They played with wizards prior to the 3.5 fix to archmage. Things like that.

The wizard in the 3.5 PHB was fine. The wizard after all the splat books was a danger to balance if the DM didn't keep abreast of what was going on and was willing to put the kibosh on overpowered spells and combinations as soon as he saw them. That would mean arguing with your players, something I know quite a few DMs don't like to do.

The funny thing is you mention how Wizard broken in the first paragraph and than claim, "The wizard in the 3.5 PHB was fine. "

Core was the most broken thing about 3.5. Splats actually balanced the game more than they broke it sadly.
Shapechange/Gate are broken. There are no buts about it.
You can claim rule Zero, but that doesn't mean it isn't broken. That proves it is: because it requires you to change the rules to fix it.

It would be like claiming the parrot is alive when it took its last breath. It made the trip to the land of the underworld. It is no more! (similar to a Monty Python sketch).

 

[phloog]

What kind of mundane, reasonable, and appropriate tactics can't you use more than once per day or once per encounter?

Fighter Level 1 Daily Power Brute Strike, described as shattering armor and bone with a ringing blow.

"Aha! I have struck you a mighty blow with my mundane weapon, using only my martial skill....and if you should dare come back to this place at about the same time tomorrow, I will be able to strike mightily again!"

Level 5 Rain of Steel also comes to mind as something that is seemingly meant to not have any sort of magical source, but if at 8am in the morning you 'swing your weapon about, slashing and cutting into nearby enemies', you need to realize that at 8pm you won't be able to do it again, even if it's a good idea.

The only way your point has any strength in the face of these is if you introduce the idea that these daily powers are NOT mundane, and are drawing upon some mystical source that replenishes with the rising sun or some other daily event.

Also look at Trick Strike (Rogue Daily Level 1) - Through a series of moves, feints, etc. you maneuver a foe right where you want them...but only one time per day.

Most of these are not only seemingly mundane, but described in ways that make them seem like things you could and SHOULD want to do in nearly any fight...."Well, in this fight I'd prefer to not fool my foe, and I'd like him to move wherever HE wants"

I would say that striking in a mighty fashion, lashing out against multiple enemies, and using deception/feints in combat to receive an advantage are reasonable and appropriate in any fight.

All that might possibly remain in question is whether or not they are mundane. If they are not, then this is a valid justification without hand waving of why they are daily, but then D&D becomes a game where ALL characters have magical powers, regardless of role and regardless of your type of campaign or the type of character the player wants to run.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

The funny thing is you mention how Wizard broken in the first paragraph and than claim, "The wizard in the 3.5 PHB was fine. "

Core was the most broken thing about 3.5. Splats actually balanced the game more than they broke it sadly.
Shapechange/Gate are broken. There are no buts about it.
You can claim rule Zero, but that doesn't mean it isn't broken. That proves it is: because it requires you to change the rules to fix it.

It would be like claiming the parrot is alive when it took its last breath. It made the trip to the land of the underworld. It is no more! (similar to a Monty Python sketch).

When fixing your high end BMW, you could replace some malfunctioning components, or you could completely gut it, take some of the parts, and put them into a Lifan frame. I know which I prefer.