4E is unacceptable

[Sunderstone]

So are you claiming that I am innocent or admitting that you are guilty?

more bait to add drama

 

[Umbran]

cinderember and jadrax - I foresee bad things coming to you if you continue along the line you are now on. Please abandon it.

We strongly suggest that you avoid making discussions personal - stick to the content of the post, and leave the character of the poster out of it, please.

 

[Fenes]

I call players like that lone-wolves, to each his own.

No. I just want to play with my friends so everyone has fun. No against them, or forcing them to play what we "need" instead of what they want to play.

It's not a team sport for me, but a cooperative game with no winner or loser.

 

[MrGrenadine]

I'm still scratching my head, trying to figure out how making effective characters can get in the way of good roleplaying.

-O

And I'm still trying to figure out how making a non-optimized character means that the character won't be effective.

Effective for what, exactly?

Its just silly to judge someone else's character concept unless you know everything about the character (good and bad), what kind of campaign he or she is playing in, and what kinds of challenges he or she is facing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Then I think you are setting your party up for failure... or again by using the type of characters they create as a blueprint, you can create the type of game they are interested in playing... you know like in 4e where they talk about the different types of players.

You seem to be of the mindset that you want to control the type of adventures the players will experience, yet you don't want to give the players enough of a guideline so that they know what to expect, and I find myself at odds with this.

I am more of the mind set that my group doesn't want to be nailed down to one type of adventure. We want a little bit of everything, and we don't find our characters unsuited for any particular adventure or storyline, despite us actually interested in exploring it.

I believe that by letting players create the type of character they want and structuring my adventures around them, it creates a more enjoyable play experience for us all. Or give them enough guidelines so that they know what will be stressed in the adventure so they know in a general sense what type of PC to create.

Either way, just like in 4e, a DM will have to construct his adventures to suit his particular players choices.

The thing is that the player choice doesn't have to be nailed down for an entire campaign or character lifespan.
Today, we explore the Goblin infested Keep and fight brutal combat after brutal combat. Next week, we'll have to figure out who really poisoned the Leader of the Traders Guild, and thwart of a civil war. The week after that, we'll have to find the way to the Lost City of Ambridge, deep into the Black Forest. After that, we'll have to enter the Shadowfell to stop some Cultists of the Raven Queen to unleash a magical plague...

Well we will just have to disagree here. I think it's cool that in 3.5 I could have two Rogues, who were actually better at different things outside of combat. One could be a "natural" at cracking mechanical and arcane devices (Nimble Fingers) while another could be specialized in bump and snatches (Deft Hands + Skill Focus). It gives the characters schticks in the game and niches outside of combat. In 4e, with the broader skills and general two ways of improving them (Training and Focus), it's much harder to do this. In general two rogues will be about equal in skills they both take.

Yet it's ok to be stuck in combat "roles" as niches. Why can't my rogue be a controller? Or my wizard or fighter be a striker? As long as the areas are covered. It's a double standard, no one will usurp your combat role... but any and everyone can usurp any niche you might have outside of combat.

It is still a class-based system. If i want to be someone that is defending his comrades, I play a Defender role class in the first place. If he is supposed to be "rogueish", then I pick up a few skills in that area. (As a Fighter, I could take Streetwise as one of my class skills, and pick up a Rogue multiclass feat for Thievery).
If you wanted to play a healer, did you play a Fighter in 3E? If you wanted to play a thief, did you play a Paladin?

In the end I think it's a difference of philosophies. I run my games so my players can have fun. For me the well oiled tactical swat team play is secondary to a player getting the chance to explore and have fun with the type of character they want to. I as a DM will gladly adjust my adventures so that my players are having fun, in the areas thay want to experience. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

You mean my philosophy is not that my players have fun? Or that I am unwilling to adjust the adventures to suite the preferences of my players? (That's a philosophy). Well, you are wrong on both accounts.
The thing is that I as a player and the members of my group do enjoy a lot of different themes - we have certainly a focus on enjoying combat, but we want and enjoy different themes, too, and limiting ourselves exclusively to one theme because of our character builds is unsatisfying.

On a more general notion, as you said, there are different types of role-players. And the appear in the same group. The best way to entertain them all is ensure that you can run a varied game, so that the butt-kicker gets to kick butts, and the immersive role-player gets to engage in complex negotations, without marginalizing the other characters. If a butt-kicker can still contribute to a social challenge with his Streetwise skill, he'll enjoy it far more as when he's hoping there will be violence along the road, too.
If the immersive role-player knows that he can pull his own weight despite having focused all character build choices on social NPC interaction, he will feel a lot more engaged.

Well, what if they are willing or want to sacrifice combat capability for capability in another area or even to have a niche outside of combat that the more combat focused character can't usurp. Should they have that choice if they want too?

No. I think I find this option inappropriate for a game where you play adventurers. Characters that "sacrifice" their combat ability for the sake of a niche outside of combat are NPCs, not adventurers. Being on an adventure always means facing the threat of life, and you better be able to deal with that. It also means having to make friends, gathering information, researching stuff, exploring the wilderness...

It is definitely against my (or my groups) intentions on how to play the game - free to run any type of adventure.

Agree with this... the problem for me is that with the wealth of 3.5 books I have available, I already have these types of things, and thus it is really hard for 4e to appeal to my groups playstyle.

Which 3E supplements actually gives interesting "story-telling"/narrative mechanics? I might want to have a look at that, because I might want to convert them to 4E or at least be inspired by it. So far, I think Exalted 2e and Torg gave me the most interesting ideas.

 

[Fenes]

No. I think I find this option inappropriate for a game where you play adventurers. Characters that "sacrifice" their combat ability for the sake of a niche outside of combat are NPCs, not adventurers. Being on an adventure always means facing the threat of life, and you better be able to deal with that. It also means having to make friends, gathering information, researching stuff, exploring the wilderness...

It is definitely against my (or my groups) intentions on how to play the game - free to run any type of adventure.

That's definetly not my view. PCs in my campaign are not limited to combat characters, nor is combat capability that important. Also, you seem to forget that PCs do not have to have much combat power to be able to survive combat - AC and saves and hitpoints still work for them. I don't really get how you can think that everyone needs to be able to kill stuff to be a viable adventurer. It runs counter to a lot of genre conventions, where several specialist "classes" are important without being able to kill a few foes.

I also have to add that in Shadowrun, an entire "niche" is the face, who deals with negotiations and social situations, and who doesn't have to be able to wipe the floor with enemies. So, even characters who routinely face off with superiour security forces know the value of non-combat specialists - and given the rules of Shadowrun, a face with not much cyberware or magical aid is far more vulnerable in combat than a "non combat" 3E trap specialist or support class that still has AC, hitpoints and saves on roughly the same level as the rest.

 

[AllisterH]

Personally, I"m not sure why "be allowed to suck in combat but shine in non-combat" is considered good game design.

You'll note that SHADOWRUN in its latest edition moved away from that and SR, moreso than any other game, had the hacker playing his own little sub-game while everyone else stood back.

Really, if a party consists of 6 characters, 2 of which are good in-combat and out of combat, 3 that are good in combat but poor out of combat and only 1 that is good out of combat and poor in combat, why wouldn't the DM focus more attention on combat.

 

[Imaro]

Personally, I"m not sure why "be allowed to suck in combat but shine in non-combat" is considered good game design.

Well, the only answer I can offer to this, is because players have different goals in an rpg... and the rpg should be able to accommodate those goals in so far as the genre of the rpg is concerned.

I mean as an example games like Call of Cthulhu are based around the very nature of combat being a bad idea and it's a pretty popular game.

Star Wars Saga edition is another example (and I think this is why I enjoy it's system better than 4e), a noble doesn't fight as well as a soldier or jedi... and they shouldn't. Someone who picks this class is interested in playing an archetype that doesn't fight as well as the others but can do other things they can't.

You'll note that SHADOWRUN in its latest edition moved away from that and SR, moreso than any other game, had the hacker playing his own little sub-game while everyone else stood back.

Don't have any experience with Shadowrun, so I won't comment. Played Cyberpunk though, and combat capability varied widely between the archetypes of that genre... and it made sense.

Really, if a party consists of 6 characters, 2 of which are good in-combat and out of combat, 3 that are good in combat but poor out of combat and only 1 that is good out of combat and poor in combat, why wouldn't the DM focus more attention on combat.

If this is the composition of his group, he should focus on combat, but he should also be aware of and facilitate chances for fun play with the characters who have chosen to focus on their out of combat abilities.

Again, on a personal note, I think a better play experience is achieved through the group as a whole hashing out exactly what type(s) of challenges they want to experience and what type of campaign the DM wants to run...compromising and creating characters that fit into the general scope of the game they come up with. I do this all the time with my nWoD games and it works great.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why, for concept-I-don't-believe-in sake, should a game force extra work on the DM? Why can't the game system just support the player that wants to focus his character on combat and the player that wants to focus his character outside of combat together in one game? WHy does the DM or the players have to prioritize what they want out this specific game? Why does the character build mechanic have to lock me into deciding between combat or non-combat? Why can't it support me to chose me a combat focus _and_ a non-combat focus?

Why do I have to decide between a campaign focusing on political intrigue vs. a campaign focusing on exploration vs a campaign focusing on combat?

it doesn't matter whether I as a DM accommodate for the players character build choices or whether the players character build choices accommodate for the DMs choice of campaign - in the end, one side is restricted by the mechanics of the game to using only a subset of the games possibilities. The game is not living to its full potential then.

Games with a strong theme like Call of Cthulhu doesn't (need to) have this problem because it generally doesn't assume a lot of combat. (And if it happens, its deadly for everyone).

 

[Imaro]

Why, for concept-I-don't-believe-in sake, should a game force extra work on the DM? Why can't the game system just support the player that wants to focus his character on combat and the player that wants to focus his character outside of combat together in one game? WHy does the DM or the players have to prioritize what they want out this specific game? Why does the character build mechanic have to lock me into deciding between combat or non-combat? Why can't it support me to chose me a combat focus _and_ a non-combat focus?

Why do I have to decide between a campaign focusing on political intrigue vs. a campaign focusing on exploration vs a campaign focusing on combat?

it doesn't matter whether I as a DM accommodate for the players character build choices or whether the players character build choices accommodate for the DMs choice of campaign - in the end, one side is restricted by the mechanics of the game to using only a subset of the games possibilities. The game is not living to its full potential then.

Games with a strong theme like Call of Cthulhu doesn't (need to) have this problem because it generally doesn't assume a lot of combat. (And if it happens, its deadly for everyone).

All I can really say is playstyles. I like games where choices are meaningful. If no matter what I choose, there is no sacrifice (as in I will always be good in everything)...what's the point of the choice?

I am finding alot of things about D&D 4e lean towards the "no fun to fail ever" spectrum. I mean look at the new skill challenges, super easy. Only time I hear about dangerous combat is when the monsters are 3 to 4 levels higher than the PC's. IMO, 4e is a "paper tiger" game.

I just have a preference for games where everyone isn't Superman...Where an archetype like Achilles as well as Aladdin (not much in combat skills) or Odysseus (more trickster or thinker than combat specialist) are both viable...not where everyone has to be Achilles at start.

As far as the game being restricted... it only has to be that way if you expect your players to always succeed. In life, there isn't always a happy ending and way more people die forgotten than remembered as heroes. If it was easy everyone would be a hero and thus it would be meaningless. In D&D 3.X, Warhammmer, Runequest, Reign, Stormbringer, L5R, etc. players are heroes but they aren't all combat capable uber-warriors. They struggle, sometimes have to think outside the box, and have to make choices with consequences on how to develop their character...and IMO, these games are a richer experience for that, especially when the players aren't coddled to. But this has become taboo with D&D and I find it disappointing to say the least.