4E, the Grind and Why I Play

[Ariosto]

In my case, it's not a matter of having a hard time manipulating the rules (the "learning curve") -- it's simply a matter of not liking them much, at least for what Dungeons & Dragons means to me.

Considering that 3E was released almost a decade ago, and pre-splat 2E almost two decades ago, a difference in basis for comparison becomes more likely among increasingly younger demographics.

Sameness of classes, length of combats, overall rules heaviness, and so on are matters of degree. Relative to what? is the question. And for every one who considers something a "feature" there's someone who considers it a "flaw" (and vice-versa). Witness all the hoopla over Optimal Fun®.

Some people like 4E a lot precisely because they loathed so much about D&D, so every difference is by default an "improvement" -- and it can only get better as the remaining D&D-isms are cast on the ash-heap of history.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just to pick out one uniqueness: Clerics in 4E have to worry about when to spend actions to heal and when to spend actions to boost attacks, for example. That's not a concern of the Wizard or the Fighter. The Wizard has to worry whether he has to target multiple foes or whether he better focuses on one and limits its maneuverability or offensive abilities.

Those are all variations on the "damage + effect" formula, though. "Damage + heal" and "damage + buff" isn't as significant a choice as "damage, or buff, or scry, or heal?" Likewise, "hit one guy or hit many" isn't as significant a choice as "deal damage, or fly, or teleport, or buff, or dispel."

There is variation, as Storminator points out. This variation just isn't nearly as significant, and therefore isn't nearly as meaningful, as it was in 3e (something multiple power-source mechanics helped encourage). It's all variation on the "damage + effect" formula, still contained within the "daily/encounter/at-will" resource management scheme, and still only capable of being used within the existing action economy....etc.

The classes still have their "mini-games". The resource pool they have might look the same, but the contents are different. I do not think a game is necessarily "enriched" (or even better) if it tries to make the resource pools different. Especially since even 3E already kept one common major resource pool the same - the number of actions each character had.

It's not a holistic good, but it's part of that whole "dumbing down"/"videogame"/"too simple" complaint against 4e, and part of why that has some weight behind it.

Any game, at it's core, is about acquiring whatever skill leads to success in that game. "Fun" is in learning and applying this skill. Different mechanics enrich a game because they allow different kinds of skills and different kinds of players to access it. 4e limits this. It makes it more simple. Like turning all the burger joints in to McDonald's, this has some good results, and some bad results. As the Slow Food movement can attest to, some people like things a little more complicated, a little less clinical, a little more interesting.

I'm one of those that think 4e goes a little too far. I think there's a middle ground that mitigates the problems while having many of the same benefits.

The "minigames" are the same game, really, just different ways of playing that game. They aren't very different from each other.

I might think differently if casting times in 3E where different. (And I think that would also have made the whole balance considerations a lot better - if you spend 5 rounds to pump energy into your fireball, it's totally justified to deal even 10d6 points of damage in a 20 ft radius burst.)

Fireball, I don't think, was ever the problem with 3e spellcasters. But even then, there were variations between wizard-fireballs (prepared, in advance, when needed) and sorcerer-fireballs (spammed at everything spontaneously) that were significant in play, in ways that the current system does totally lack.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

But I'll be the first to admit that I haven't given 4e a REAL try. Dabbling is all I've done. Part of the reason is that the PHB was a snoozefest, and this tired old brain of mine (<-- per Spinachcat ) had much difficulty attempting to get through it while awake.

I own literally hundreds of RPG books. From many different systems. One thing I can say with utter certainty is that it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to be entertained or get any sort of creative traction going just by reading through the 4e PHB. It's about as exciting as reading a cookbook.

With that in mind, and continuing with the cookbook theme, if you actually do all the work and create a finished product (i.e. play a 4e game) you will find the results are much more satisfying.

Kind of like eating a chocolate chip cookie is way more fun than reading how to create one.

DS

 

[Ariosto]

My thoughts on anti-grind:

1) Bring morale into play. The 4E players of my acquaintance (YMMV) seem not to "have a reverse gear", but I reckon that's because they get so little experience of being on the losing side. They are certainly free to bail out instead of sticking around for an inevitable butt-whooping. Figure the monsters at least have enough good sense to do that, and say goodbye to a lot of grind!

2) Up the ratio of damage to HP. In particular, keep it from falling so far at high levels. 4E fights are meant to last a while, so all the gimcrackery of powers can properly come into play -- but the designers' idea of long enough may be yours of too much.

3) Really challenge the players. Make the difference between victory and TPK depend on finding those differences among powers, and the differences between good and bad uses of deployment, maneuver and terrain. Recon becomes important when rushing in without it gets punished. Make finding out the hard way about the enemy's powers or reserve forces a very bad thing. "Grindy" is another way to say "boring" -- and a near-run thing is unlikely to be boring!

 

[Harlekin]

Those are all variations on the "damage + effect" formula, though. "Damage + heal" and "damage + buff" isn't as significant a choice as "damage, or buff, or scry, or heal?" Likewise, "hit one guy or hit many" isn't as significant a choice as "deal damage, or fly, or teleport, or buff, or dispel."

I think a lot of these options are just illusions set up by the game system.

However, in reality how often do you actually have that many meaningful options? Most mid-level (6-10) wizards/clerics have ~6-8 spells that actually change the course of the fight. Most of these spells are obviously when you should cast them and some are just false choices. It doesn't do you much good if your choices are Fireball, Dispel Magic, Flight, dimension door and Force Orb while your Fighters are in melee with a dire bear that is kicking their but.

Clerics are even worse, because it is often not as obvious which of your choices are bad choices. Most low level healing spells heal less than an average attack does damage, so the likelihood is high that a cleric healing just wastes his action. Moreover, I think most of us have seen battle clerics that buff themselves for the first 3 rounds of a battle only to realize that the fight is over by the time they are ready for action.

Of course there is a once in a blue mood situation where a minor spell can change the situation in an impressive way. And such an event is clearly memorable. But it happens much rarer in theory than in practice.

 

[I'm A Banana]

However, in reality how often do you actually have that many meaningful options?

Most significantly, at character/campaign creation. You can look at different mechanics and see which ones appeal to you, try something new and different, or hang particular role-playing quirks off of the mechanical quirks.

And then, at least in 3e, every time you leveled up (though, practically, that could have stood to be improved).

Of course there is a once in a blue mood situation where a minor spell can change the situation in an impressive way. And such an event is clearly memorable. But it happens much rarer in theory than in practice.

This is a flaw of individual effects, yeah. But it's not a flaw of including dramatically different PC abilities. Which is part of the baby-bathwater thing. You can improve on what 3e had without making everything work under the same umbrella mechanics. And you should.

 

[AllisterH]

I might think differently if casting times in 3E where different. (And I think that would also have made the whole balance considerations a lot better - if you spend 5 rounds to pump energy into your fireball, it's totally justified to deal even 10d6 points of damage in a 20 ft radius burst.)

One of my spiels about the power of magic in 3e was that by getting rid of the casting time from earlier editions, spellcasters made out like bandits.

When a longsword meant that you were beating level 5 spells and up no mage was going to be tossing them wily nily in battle.

 

[AngryMojo]

Honestly, anyone who really thinks that using the same basic mechanics makes two things the same, or even similar, needs to talk to a Warmachine player and claim that Cankerworm is like a Devastator. They're both warjacks, after all, and use the same basic mechanics. Yeah, their numbers are different, but they both still use the same resources, take damage the same way, and make the same rolls to hit and damage.

You can use this same analogy in just about any other game, roleplaying or otherwise. It's acutally considered to be good game design to have everybody use the same general mechanics, just use different applications of those mechanics.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's acutally considered to be good game design to have everybody use the same general mechanics, just use different applications of those mechanics.

Tell me who considers this good design, and I will welcome a spirited discussion about it.

It's elegant and simple, but elegant and simple and holistically GOOD are very, very different things.

I like cooking, but fast food is more elegant and simple.

 

[AngryMojo]

Tell me who considers this good design, and I will welcome a spirited discussion about it.

It's elegant and simple, but elegant and simple and holistically GOOD are very, very different things.

I like cooking, but fast food is more elegant and simple.

I'd say just take a look at the evolution of game design through the years. Take any given game and examine it's first edition. Then look at every edition that comes afterwards. Nearly every time, the rules become more streamlined, simpler, and more elegant. Unnecessary tables and rolls are eliminated, multiple ways to vary difficulty are tossed. Skill sets are generally condensed. Exceptions do exist, but pretty much every successful game does this.