Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[jgbrowning]

I'm not interesting in creating a game where my players will go "Oh, man, I just like to sit back and think about what it'd be like to be in that world." I want one where my players go "Oh man, when are we playing again?"

Perhaps I didn't state my point clearly enough, but I believe the main reason why someone goes "Oh man, when are we playing again?" in response to a particular game (as opposed to just playing any game to hang out and have fun with friends) is because of what exists in their mind when away from the table, because they don't want to do what happened last session all over again, they want to do something different, something that they are imagining could happen. This desire to play does not come from the table, it comes from the imagining of what they could do in addition to what they have already done.

And I think that the "game" that exists in their mind is very important when determining the power of a particular role-playing game. The more people who are, to use your term, prepping for a game, the more powerful the game is because it has more sticking power in the minds of the players. As a game designer, I must focus heavily upon getting the world and the possibilities of the world to stick in peoples head when they are not at the table because that will bring them to the table to play my game, not just any game.

So when I say, "not-playing ,but thinking about it" play this is what I mean. Without this imagining of what you could do next session, a game dies.

From my perspective, it sounds like the "not-playing, but thinking about it" parts are more important in your approach than the parts with people, together, at the table. I have not in the past found play that resulted from such methods to be satisfactory to me.

It is more important if you want to get people to keep playing your game. Having fun at the table is very dependent upon the people you're playing with, but the desire to play a particular game at the table is independent of other people, and it is what keeps a game alive. The desire to play a particular system will keep people trying to find a table for that game.

I think the "thinking about it" part is what drives people to particular systems and games, while "at the table" is what drives people to roleplaying in general. I think "thinking about it" is the more important aspect when figuring out why individuals prefer one game over another, be that because the mechanics are helping making the table top experience more fun, or in some cases, even when the mechanics make it harder. It's not hard to find people who say, "I love game X, even though it's system is wonky."

So yeah, pretty much we just have a fundamental difference in approach as to the entire purpose of the hobby, no biggie.

It is possible. I think I just think of "prep" and "thinking about the game" as an integral part of the gaming experience while you don't. But as you say, it's no biggie. In the end, it just may seem semantic.

joe b.

 

[ST]

Don't sweat it; we're just talking past each other at this point.

Very little of my personal experience with prep is about the world anyway; for my games, setting is a source of situation and color, and NPCs with their own goals that'll contend against the PC's goals. That kind of stuff is a different style of prep, but it's definately still prep.

I've also only had two players in my group at any time in the last five years that particularly cared about the exact, precise description of setting apart from what was relevant to a given scene. And I don't really care about it either. That didn't hurt the game or make it less evocative, because the stuff I was relegating to Color was stuff that nobody at the table was particularly interested in. That doesn't mean there weren't lots of other things at the table we were intensely interested in.

 

[BryonD]

IMO, there's nothing wrong with anyone's preferences in role-playing. To me it's like one person liking pepperoni pizza and someone else disliking it while liking mushroom and onion pizza. Arguing which is better is kinda like arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Now, discussing if certain mechanics do what they're designed to do and if there are unintended consequences is a bit more interesting. That's game design, and learning how to make things work for my version of better is always cool with me.

joe b.

Just to be clear, I'm agreeing with you completely.

I just get amused when I'm the mushroom and onion guy and I'm being told that pepperoni is just as good a vegetarian pizza.

 

[ST]

One more point:

It is more important if you want to get people to keep playing your game. Having fun at the table is very dependent upon the people you're playing with, but the desire to play a particular game at the table is independent of other people, and it is what keeps a game alive. The desire to play a particular system will keep people trying to find a table for that game.

I can see why you feel this way as a game designer, but this particular advice is about getting people to use your product, as opposed to what they do during play. It was a very popular model in the 90's, say with Vampire's metaplot-heavy supplements, and much has been written on the disconnect between thinking about play and actual play in that context. I do find it interesting that there aren't any major publishers who find it economically viable these days.

To put it another way: I don't care about keeping a particular system or ruleset or setting alive. I care about, when I host a group of people to play, that we all have a good time and are creatively invested in what's going on. That's my only interest, so the other issues don't factor into it for me.

 

[MrMyth]

AFAICT, the butterfly can do 0 hp damage, and the effect be the same in 4e.

"A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of damage."

I'm not entirely sure how to read that statement as implying that 0 damage butterflies can kill minions.

You are apparently under the impression that if a party consists of 4 PCs and 2 NPCs, the NPCs cannot kill minions the way that the PCs can. I am curious as to where I can find this in the RAW.

Is it a combat encounter? Has the DM statted out NPCs that are explicitly designed to be relevant to the combat? Then yes, they can certainly kill minions, if he is essentially treating them as backup characters.

But determining whether a tribe of Ogres can threaten a village - that doesn't require rolling out an explicit combat that doesn't involve the PCs, that takes place off-screen, and which is motivated by the DMs story to begin with.

The minion rules are there for combat relevant purposes. Generally, that means the PCs. If the DM really decides something else is combat relevant to the minions, sure, he can use them then. If he does so in the fashion you are describing - deciding that a butterfly needs to be combat relevant to an Ogre minion, he is making a bad judgement call, and one that goes against the intent of the minion rules to begin with.

You seem to be advocating using common sense to interpret rules. I have a thread I'd like to see you make that claim in.

And yet, I'm making it in this thread, since this is the one where you are making arguments based on misinterpretations of the rules and spontaneously invented fake rules. But yes, some common sense is coming into play. The fact it is backed up by the intent and direct instruction of the 4E designers certainly helps, though.

The PCs are fighting the ogres while the NPC farmers throw rocks. According to RAW, what happens to the ogres?

Why are the NPC farmers there? Do you, as a DM, intend for them to be a threat to the Ogres? If so, you can assign them stats capable of killing the Ogres. If you desire them to instead only be able to hinder the Ogres, you can probably treat them more as some sort of terrain or obstacle that only hinders the Ogres. If you simply have a bunch of level 1 commoners and roll for 20s to kill minions, I suggest you are ignoring the explicit instruction and intent of the minion rules.

They sure did, but the DM was also admonished to use common sense when determining what an effective attack was. Indeed, pre-WotC-D&D, rules were intended as guidelines to aid the DM in making reasonable rulings.

If the rules suggest wacky things, as all rules do, but the DM adjudicates to remove the effects of those wacky things, then the system can work. If the rules suggest wacky things, as all rules do, but the DM is not supposed to adjudicate to remove the effect of those wacky things, then large problems can ensue.

I will grant you freely that playstyle is the largest determinant as to whether wacky things will occur.

So what precisely is your issue with the minion rules in 4E, which the designers have clearly stated are only intented to come into play for combat-relevant context with appropriate level PCs.

Where should I look for that in the books? If not, it is your assumption that this is an assumption of the game.

Folks have already pointed out earlier in the thread where to find the rules that prove you can't deal fractional damage. (Namely, you always round down. One of the few big rules put forward in the very beginning of the PHB, I seem to recall. Thus, fractional damage less than 1 = 0 damage.)

I could likewise say that, because PC gnomes didn't come out in the 1e PHB, 4e assumed that there would be no PC gnomes. Of course, we know that to be false, and we knew (or should have known) that it was false then.

Indeed, that is a perfectly valid comparison! Or, alternatively, not remotely so.

We know new content will appear, since that is an underlying assumption of the game. Assuming that new mechanics will appear that completely contradicts all previously seen mechanics and core fundamentals of the system is a lot less reasonable.

Inventing a hypothetical butterfly that does 1/10000 of a damage at a time is blatantly preposterous, and attempts to treat it as a serious possibility within the context of the game only serve to demonstrate an unwillingness to genuinely engage in this discussion on a reasonable level.

 

[Fifth Element]

AFAICT, the butterfly can do 0 hp damage, and the effect be the same in 4e.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. The minions in my MM all have 1 hp. 1 hp - 0 hp = 1 hp, not 0 hp.

 

[Fifth Element]

And yet, I'm making it in this thread, since this is the one where you are making arguments based on misinterpretations of the rules and spontaneously invented fake rules. But yes, some common sense is coming into play. The fact it is backed up by the intent and direct instruction of the 4E designers certainly helps, though.

Indeed.

RC: Use common sense when using the minion rules. Problem solved.

As long as you let the players know you're going to be overriding the rules at times, and as long as it doesn't gimp someone's character significantly, I don't see how it's an issue.

 

[ST]

My wife and I were discussing this thread, and her take was "You guys are arguing about the difference between an art gallery and an art class."

I was like, "Uh, gonna need you to explain that to me."

Her point was that, having only played in a few games, there were only a few folks she'd trust to create a full, detailed world to play in. Her exact words were, "I don't want another Lord of the Rings ripoff". That a world is insanely detailed is not in any way a selling point to her, if it doesn't provide compelling situations for play.

But, she said, there were lots of people she'd be happy to have GM if it's a smaller scope, more "let's create as we go" situation, which may very well have a specific constrained setting and situation, but the focus is not on all that detail. The focus in that kind of game is squarely on the characters, color-heavy, and usually much more about what's introduced at the table than what was pre-prepped.

So in other worlds, if she signs up for an art class, but is instead taken to an art gallery, it doesn't matter how detailed those paintings are -- it wasn't the activity she signed up for.

 

[jgbrowning]

I can see why you feel this way as a game designer, but this particular advice is about getting people to use your product, as opposed to what they do during play. It was a very popular model in the 90's, say with Vampire's metaplot-heavy supplements, and much has been written on the disconnect between thinking about play and actual play in that context. I do find it interesting that there aren't any major publishers who find it economically viable these days.

You'll may find it funny, but I'm not a fan of metaplot nor rulebooks with a lot stories and a lot of detail. I prefer broad and bold strokes, with the details left up to individual GMs to fill in depending on what their player's prefer. Something more along the line of the gaming equivilent to an earworm song.

joe b.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Is it a combat encounter? Has the DM statted out NPCs that are explicitly designed to be relevant to the combat? Then yes, they can certainly kill minions, if he is essentially treating them as backup characters.

So, in other words, your argument is not based upon the RAW, but rather upon how you would like the RAW to be interpretted.


RC