Screw Nostalgia

[Dragonblade]

AWESOME is when the 15th level Sorcerer in our Pathfinder game won initiative and cast Quickened Chain Lightning and Prismatic Spray as the opening salvo and pretty much ended a dramatic combat encounter against the CR 15 BBEG and his lieutenants with those two spells while the rest of us stood around, watched, and wondered why we were even there.

Awesome is when we had a nailbiting 4e combat against the troll king, his shaman, and his guards, where teamwork and choices beyond simply deciding to play a caster at level 1 actually mattered.

 

[Imaro]

I find a challenging encounter by the book (ECL +2 or +3) is one that will reduce one PC to below 0hp. And that is about what it should be - a challenge that seems scary without too serious danger of death. (I have one former DM who faked the rolls behind the screen to protect the party and then wondered why we stomped things). PCs can take much, much more than that especially at level 9+ before deaths stop being the result of carelessness or vicious use of a coup de grace.

Eh, I don't see this regularly. IME a +2 or +3 combat is (on average) good enough that a party with the roles covered and a cleric for a leader will win soundly as long as no one does anything blatantly stupid. That's not challenging IMO.

On another note... if the guidelines work... why don't you often discard them?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Eh, I don't see this regularly. IME a +2 or +3 combat is (on average) good enough that a party with the roles covered and a cleric for a leader will win soundly as long as no one does anything blatantly stupid. That's not challenging IMO.

Depends on the level of focus fire. Any time IME the PCs go below 0hp they get scared. That's the level challenging should hit.

On another note... if the guidelines work... why don't you often discard them?

Because I want to do something else? My PCs have recently been waging an asymmetric warfare campaign against three dozen ogres. Victory for them wasn't winning the battle. It was killing a couple of ogres and getting away. Running ECL-appropriate encounters with standard win conditions is a decent framework for a solid campaign, but my players had a ball planning and executing the asymmetric warfare in a more Combat-as-War fashion.

 

[Imaro]

Depends on the level of focus fire. Any time IME the PCs go below 0hp they get scared. That's the level challenging should hit.

Well like I said, with a cleric in the group I don't see any of my PC's dropping below 0 with a challenging encounter. I'll concede that both focus fire and party composition have an effect on whether the guidelines actually work... but that's backing my point up further... the guidelines can provide wildly varying results for different groups.

Because I want to do something else? My PCs have recently been waging an asymmetric warfare campaign against three dozen ogres. Victory for them wasn't winning the battle. It was killing a couple of ogres and getting away. Running ECL-appropriate encounters with standard win conditions is a decent framework for a solid campaign, but my players had a ball planning and executing the asymmetric warfare in a more Combat-as-War fashion.

So then why did you state this in reference to the question of whether the encounter guidelines work properly or not? From your explanation of why you're not using them it seems irrelevant to the discussion, except maybe insofar as it highlights the fact that you may have less experience with them and thus less practical knowledge of whether they work or not.

 

[Imaro]

Awesome is when we had a nailbiting 4e combat against the troll king, his shaman, and his guards, where teamwork and choices beyond simply deciding to play a caster at level 1 actually mattered.

I just wish the majority of 4e combats actually felt like this in play for my group.

 

[Zustiur]

Well like I said, with a cleric in the group I don't see any of my PC's dropping below 0 with a challenging encounter. I'll concede that both focus fire and party composition have an effect on whether the guidelines actually work... but that's backing my point up further... the guidelines can provide wildly varying results for different groups.

Indeed, party composition counts for a lot because it includes character optimisation. Also, player/party strategic or tactical knowledge counts for a lot. I seem to be the only player in my group that has any sort of background in playing tactical games (ala Warhammer), as a result I cringe at some of the decisions they make in game.

That said, roleplay within combat plays a part too. There's a difference between playing your character with sound tactics, and playing your character with 8 intelligence and 10 wisdom. Would such a character even understand about focus fire without say, a warlord guiding his actions?

 

[howandwhy99]

Nostalgia is a word that hasn't been fashionable since the 70's and early 80's.

Most of what passes for nostalgia today is everything that has ever happened even the smallest fraction of a second ago.

I think what we are talking about is Identity and frankly it's very hard to brand something that has had dozens of varying identities, often without continuity. What I think we are going to get in terms of "nostalgia" is stuff like a list of spell names most people remember as D&D spells. And stuff like that.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Nostalgia is a word that hasn't been fashionable since the 70's and early 80's.

Most of what passes for nostalgia today is everything that has ever happened even the smallest fraction of a second ago.

Yeah, that whole "nostalgia" thing used to be so much cooler, back in the day...

 

[TimA]

There. I said it. There is one thing that will kill 5e for me, and that is if all it does is commit Wizards of the Coast to the abyssal plane of Remakes.

I'm fully aware that isn't WotC's intention, but some of the feedback they receive could push them in this direction. It's the difference between Transformers: Armada/Energon and Bayformers 3. Okay, yes, they're both terrible, but Armada/Energon ticked off the fanbase while trying to appeal to them (aka they emulated the wrong part of the G1 franchise) - Bayformers 3 cobbled together several memorable G1 plots and brought back Leonard Nemoy (the second best voice actor ever to voice a TF, defeated only by the planet eating Orson Wells) and pulled off a bit of awsome along side the annoying Sam Witwicky (humans are suppose to be annoying in Transformers compared to the giant alien robots of doom).

Or the J.J.Abrams Star Trek reboot, in which TOS and casual fans loved it, but hardcore TNG+ Trekkers hated what it did to a sizable chunk of history. I wholey support what J.J.Abrams did, but then again Trekkers I've met have personified the very stereotypes they are trying to avoid (Trekkies, though, seem to be awsome fun-loving people).

Now this is where someone points out "but - they're still appealing to nostalgia!" And I'm sure someone will reply without reading the rest of the post because their brain is hung up on this one apparent contradition. And yes, I am feeling a little beligerate with the sizable amount of simmering nerd rage floating around that our gracious moderators have been doing a good job keeping a lid on.

The difference is in the execution.

Just putting something in only for the sake of nostalgia will fail every time. Rather, the rule of cool should be applied first, followed by does it work with what we want to do (both are needed, not one over the other). Through the upcoming process I expect that there will be vocal objectives to some of what is created. Monte or not (and some people are overreacting with the drama he wished to avoid), the current design team certainly appears to understand that. Do the customers? Probably most of us. But those in the minority are often the most passionate and the most vocal.

I just hope WotC knows when to say "No" so we don't end up with another snafu like Skill Challenges (for those who don't remember, Skill Challenges started as a last minute ad hoc to 4e because people demanded rigidly defined out-of-combat rollplaying rules).

Nostalgia carried D&D for 40 years.

4e killed it in 3.

We WIN.

/end topic.

 

[Henry]

Nostalgia carried D&D for 40 years.

4e killed it in 3.

We WIN.

/end topic.

Poor Tim - you think an argument on the Internet can be WON? If we could hook motors to the discussions on this board, we'd have perpetual motion