Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[Hussar]

Whereas other people choked on the fact that 4e forced a different playstyle, and did so, if anything, in a more direct fashion.

And for us 4e sucks because of it.

See, this is where I'm getting stuck. I'm telling you, flat out, that 3e forced a playstyle choice upon me that I did not like. You actually agree that it does so. So, why the constant claims that the problem is all about the DM and not the system?

I am not saying that you don't have a right to enjoy 4e, or even to enjoy it more than Pathfinder, but that there is a reason why others prefer Pathfinder.

I also very much do feel that the problems with the 15 MAD is a problem with the GM more than the system, but then my style of play, dating back to before 2e was a glimmer, does not have the problem, so hearing people whinge about it annoy me, especially when they try to say that I am the one playing it wrong.

No one, least of all me, is saying you're playing it wrong. OTOH, I'm being told repeatedly, including in this post, that I'm doing it wrong and that any 15 MAD problems are my own fault. The fact that your playstyle matches up with the mechanics nicely is great for you. But, that doesn't really help the problem does it? Again, you recognize that the problem exists, but, because it's not a problem for you, the rest of us should stop "whinging" about it?

If folks have a problem with Pathfinder then they should go play 4e, Fantasy Craft, or any of dpzens of other games, I'd rather hear folks going on about a game that they like, even if it is a game that I don't like, than to hear whinging about problems that really should not be problems if the GM is doing their job, followed by disbelief that it is not a problem for everybody.

See, right there. Nice. Anyone who has a problem with something is a whiner and piss poor DM not realy doing their job. Couldn't possibly be the system and anyone who disagrees is obviously just wrong. Can't you see how condescending this is?

Considering how much you bitch about the WOTC handling of the 4e marketing, I would think that being open to alternative playstyles would be high on your list of concerns.

It is not a problem for me, except for that one game, and I handled it in that one game by running the game exactly the same way that I always do. (And have heard one of the players in that game describe it as the best campaign that they have ever been in.)

Bully for you. That's fantastic. You have managed to surround yourself with like minded individuals who share your playstyle. That's certainly one way to solve the issue. Offers absolutely no help to anyone else, but, it works for you certainly.

If you don't want to change your style then find a game that supports that style, don't complain that every game does not cater to your style. Play the ones that do - there are plenty of excellent games that aren't 3.X/Pathfinder.

The Auld Grump

Yup. Agreed. I went to 4e to resolve the problem. But, now I get told by people that I'm not even playing D&D anymore and that I just hate D&D and that I've never really played D&D all the way along.

Me, I just prefer playing in a system that is more forgiving to other playstyles and doesn't dictate my playstyle to me. That others are groovy with having their playstyle dictated to them by the designers is great. No problems. I just find it astonishing that the same people who are telling me to basically piss off and find another game are the ones who constantly bitch about the fact that 4e isn't for them.

 

[S'mon]

I choose the latter. 15 MAD isn't an issue in AD&D because AD&D strongly de-emphasizes the effect of any given encounter. It's very unlikely that a single encounter will eat up that much of your resources that you have to stop - at least after very low level. 4e gets around the problem by removing the reliance on renewable resources.

I agree, very succinctly put. It's a particular problem with a particular game - 3e and its close derivatives.

 

[S'mon]

Ought the GM to kill the prisoner's offstage, or not? My strong preference is not to - because it is anticlimactic, and subordinates thematic concerns to operational concerns.

I'm definitely a Pulsipherist there - if the NPCs were going to kill the prisoners at midnight and leave, then that's what they'd do. I would probably twist the knife further when the PCs did eventually dawdle up by describing the slaughtered corpses of the prisoners in appropriately gruesome and dramatic terms, though I can't really do tristesse very well so I'd be grinning when I did it. I would not regard that as anticlimax; if done right the realisation of failure could be as dramatic as a big fight scene.

 

[pemerton]

I also very much do feel that the problems with the 15 MAD is a problem with the GM more than the system

<snip>

If you don't want to change your style then find a game that supports that style, don't complain that every game does not cater to your style. Play the ones that do

Well, quite, but as Hussar has said, you seem to be wanting to say both that it is GM and it is system.

I think it is a system issue - namely, a system in which (i) some PCs can nova and others can't, and (ii) nova-ing PCs overshadow the others.

One possible fix is to eliminate the incentive to nova via a certain approach to scenario design, scene framing, willingness to kill the hostages offscreen, etc. But not everyone like these playstyle options- and not just because they're bad GMs or players.

Another fix is to change either (i) or (ii) above. Over the years, I have sometimes changed (i) - either by having everyone play spellcasters (in an RM campaign) or by changing the way magic works (in my 4e campaign) - and I have sometimes changed (ii), by running a RM game using various options that made non-spell users as effective as nova-ing spell users.

I could choose a system that forces me to deal with a problem by constraining how I run my games, or I could choose a system where that problem is not inherent to the mechanics of that game.

Right. And like Hussar, I've stuck with my desired playstyle and changed systems in various ways.

I'm definitely a Pulsipherist there

I wanted to give you some XP for your skillful posting, but have to spread it around! You need to go hardcore Pulsipherian, and prompt others into making XP-worthy posts (and then lure me into reading them) so you can expedite the cycling of my S'mon XP meter!

 

[BryonD]

But, that's mostly irrelevant. Just because you like that playstyle doesn't change the fact that everyone who plays that system is forced into the same playstyle. That you like it is fantastic, for you. For anyone else, it becomes a serious problem.

Heh, thats two in a row.
You know I've describe in detail many times how 3E does a vastly better job of supporting differing play styles than 4E does. So, again, you make a resounding argument for why 4E had market issues.

But, and this is the crux of the issue, I will only get that quality of game if I like the same playstyle as you. I don't. I really, honestly don't. I have constantly chafed in 3e being forced into that playstyle. The groups I've played with have larged worked around the issue by adopting certain playstyles which mitigate things - the aforementioned wands of healing and non-Vancian classes.

So, how does that give me a better quality game experience?

You're basically saying that you recognize the problem, but, since it's not a problem for you, everyone who does have a problem with it should just shut up and play the way you like to play.

No, I'm not saying that.

I do concede, as I have before, that 4E is hyper focused on a niche playstyle. And if you happen to fall in that niche then the flexibility of 3E is not going to overcome that. 3E can't compete with 4E at being 4E.

But the claim that 3E doesn't support a wide range of play styles simply doesn't fit with history.

 

[IronWolf]

See, this is where I'm getting stuck. I'm telling you, flat out, that 3e forced a playstyle choice upon me that I did not like. You actually agree that it does so. So, why the constant claims that the problem is all about the DM and not the system?

Because your preference is not the determining factor as to whether a system is broken or not. It is simply the determining factor as to whether a system is or isn't right for you and your game.

I don't like Savage Worlds. Does that mean Savage Worlds is broken? Nope! It means the system doesn't match the type of game I want to play. For me to go to Savage World boards and complain that the system is broken is just silly. The mechanics and tools it provides aren't broken, it just doesn't match up with my gaming preferences.

It is just like me finding some mechanic that I don't like because it doesn't fit my style of preferred play and calling 4e broken for everyone. That simply isn't true.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Ok, the same people have to stop making clever and insightful comments that I want to give XP for over and over, because the system refuses to let me give you any more!

So, for the record, S'mon and Ironwolf sum up my own perspective quite well. The debate seems to be over whether, if I don't like a system, it's because there's a problem with the system or with my preferred way of playing. This is a debate no one will ever win, and the best course of action is to refuse to fight. In that regard, I think Ironwolf's comment is right on the money.

There is little about 4th edition that appeals to me. That's not because the system is in any sense "broken" or problematic. It just doesn't appeal to me as a player given what I want out of the game. I can state that without saying that the "problem" is located either in myself or in the system. The "problem" is located in the match between the two.

I've never had a real problem with the 15 MAD. When I've DMed, I've tried to remind players that they are often under some kind of time constraint that ought to prevent them from regularly resting, or else make resting a risky proposition. If time's not an issue, there's not much you can do on this front, since a small party and a well prepped Rope Trick will take care of most of the wandering monster problems at low levels.

That said, this is a role playing game. Players who want to treat it as an exercise in exploiting mechanics can always do so if the emphasis is placed on the mechanics. But if the emphasis is placed on story and character, then it's in the interaction between the player and the GM that problems like the 15 MAD can be overcome.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Well, quite, but as Hussar has said, you seem to be wanting to say both that it is GM and it is system.

I think it is a system issue - namely, a system in which (i) some PCs can nova and others can't, and (ii) nova-ing PCs overshadow the others.

One possible fix is to eliminate the incentive to nova via a certain approach to scenario design, scene framing, willingness to kill the hostages offscreen, etc. But not everyone like these playstyle options- and not just because they're bad GMs or players.

Another fix is to change either (i) or (ii) above. Over the years, I have sometimes changed (i) - either by having everyone play spellcasters (in an RM campaign) or by changing the way magic works (in my 4e campaign) - and I have sometimes changed (ii), by running a RM game using various options that made non-spell users as effective as nova-ing spell users.

Right. And like Hussar, I've stuck with my desired playstyle and changed systems in various ways.


I wanted to give you some XP for your skillful posting, but have to spread it around! You need to go hardcore Pulsipherian, and prompt others into making XP-worthy posts (and then lure me into reading them) so you can expedite the cycling of my S'mon XP meter!

The thing is that I have not liked any of the 'fixes' to game design that people have come up with to solve a problem that I don't have.

It feels like people giving cars square wheels to keep them from rolling downhill in San Francisco. I don't live in San Francisco, and think that square wheels are a bad idea, and would still be a bad idea if I did live in San Francisco.

The problem for some folks is pacing, as far as I can see it is GMs needing training wheels, then demanding that the game still have those training wheels even if they don't need them.

I don't need training wheels.

I do not have the 15 MAD, and if players think that going Nova is fun, well, they quickly learn otherwise. So, they conserve their spells, and try to use spells appropriate to the encounter.

And I run games pretty much that same way from Pathfinder, to Ars Magica, to Call of Cthulhu - time marches on. If you hole up and lick your wounds then the bad guys will steal a march on you. Failure is an option.

In all but one of my games I have never even seen PCs try to Nova - it has not come up! If not for that one game I would believe in it the same way I believe in golf bags of magic weapons, the tooth fairy, and the Easter Bunny.

And I handled it that one time by not changing anything. To say that I am not impressed by GMs that do have it as a problem would be pretty accurate. A problem that they inflict on themselves.

The Auld Grump

 

[billd91]

See, this is where I'm getting stuck. I'm telling you, flat out, that 3e forced a playstyle choice upon me that I did not like. You actually agree that it does so. So, why the constant claims that the problem is all about the DM and not the system?

Realistically speaking, a subset of play styles produce the 15 minute day. A subset of styles do not. If you don't want the 15 minute day, it's rather incumbent on you to eschew those play styles, isn't it? Is that somehow controversial? Isn't that something you'd have to do in any game system to avoid potential results you don't want?
.

 

[Azgulor]

The thing is that I have not liked any of the 'fixes' to game design that people have come up with to solve a problem that I don't have.

It feels like people giving cars square wheels to keep them from rolling downhill in San Francisco. I don't live in San Francisco, and think that square wheels are a bad idea, and would still be a bad idea if I did live in San Francisco.

The problem for some folks is pacing, as far as I can see it is GMs needing training wheels, then demanding that the game still have those training wheels even if they don't need them.

I don't need training wheels.

I do not have the 15 MAD, and if players think that going Nova is fun, well, they quickly learn otherwise. So, they conserve their spells, and try to use spells appropriate to the encounter.

And I run games pretty much that same way from Pathfinder, to Ars Magica, to Call of Cthulhu - time marches on. If you hole up and lick your wounds then the bad guys will steal a march on you. Failure is an option.

In all but one of my games I have never even seen PCs try to Nova - it has not come up! If not for that one game I would believe in it the same way I believe in golf bags of magic weapons, the tooth fairy, and the Easter Bunny.

And I handled it that one time by not changing anything. To say that I am not impressed by GMs that do have it as a problem would be pretty accurate. A problem that they inflict on themselves.

The Auld Grump

Good God, this whole post, +1!

(Apparently, the equal-outcomes XP fairy is saying I need to spread more XP around before giving you more. Great post.)