Back to the doorway?

[n00bdragon]

This is, of course, all assuming people are willing to stand down and let other players/characters have their time in the spotlight

This is a mode of thinking that I believe creates the dangerous problem in the first place. You're not just leaving it up to the DM to fix the system's problems (which is a bad idea in itself), you're leaving it up to ALL the individual players as well. When the only way to let the BMX Bandit (regardless of whether he actually rides a BMX, it's a level of comparative problem-solving ability) have the spotlight is to have Angel Summoners step aside and LET him solve the problem it really cheapens any sort of victory he might achieve. No one wants to be a B-list superhero that kicks ass and takes names only when the A-list decides it isn't worth their attention.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is a mode of thinking that I believe creates the dangerous problem in the first place. You're not just leaving it up to the DM to fix the system's problems (which is a bad idea in itself), you're leaving it up to ALL the individual players as well.

A system that requires the DM and the players to deal with its problems? Ooh, sounds dangerous.

What system doesn't?

The only way out of that that I can see is to have a system whose problems are so ingrained that they can't be fixed by anyone without throwing out the system.

No one wants to be a B-list superhero that kicks ass and takes names only when the A-list decides it isn't worth their attention.

Well, you might not, but you'd be surprised how few alpha dogs there are in this world. There are many different personality types, which is why the diversity of D&D characters is critical to its sucess.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Or a third, much more reasonable choice: EVERYONE does not have to be equally capable in all things; and that in different situations different characters in a party will (or will have the opportunity to) take the spotlight and run away with it.

[...]

In all these cases other will (usually) contribute what help they can, but it'll be just that: help and support.

The same by-class distinctions can be made for the exploration and interaction pillars as well.

This is, of course, all assuming people are willing to stand down and let other players/characters have their time in the spotlight. But if someone's always trying to hog it by being a jack-of-all-trades, or always has to be doing something now-now-now, or has the attention span of a chicken, those are different issues the game mechanics shouldn't even be trying to fix.

Lanefan

I have to agree the middleground between AS&BMX is far more reasonable than one of the extremes.

At the same time I think the game should fix the problem that one player can build a char that is indeed a jack-of-all-trades. At least if he can perform all of those activities on the same level as a dedicated char.

And the feeling you get for shining in the spotlight is different if
a) you shine because of you own power.
b) you shine because someone else chose to not shine on purpose.

I think there is something wrong if you can only shine if someone else lets you shine.

A system that requires the DM and the players to deal with its problems? Ooh, sounds dangerous.

What system doesn't?

The only way out of that that I can see is to have a system whose problems are so ingrained that they can't be fixed by anyone without throwing out the system.

Well, you might not, but you'd be surprised how few alpha dogs there are in this world. There are many different personality types, which is why the diversity of D&D characters is critical to its sucess.

I assume your ironical tone regarding 'dangers of a system' stems from your long gaming experience. I'd like a system to be easy understandable and without adjustments playable by newbies. And I, myself, am happy if I don't have to first figure out if I have to adjust something or not.

And regarding the alpha dog numbers. I don't have to be in charge all the time but not being in charge does not mean I play a character that is several power levels behind the current alpha dog char. I just let someone else handle most of the talking/etc.
But at the end of the evening I want to be sure that my contribution was meaningful being the alpha dog or not.
My quintessence is, regardless of being the alpha dog or not, I think, most players don't want an underperforming char or being constantly outperformed (3E FTR vs. WIZ).

 

[BobTheNob]

One of the major issues I liked about 4e was the move away from static doorway fights. In 3e and before the only way of holding a battle line was bottlenecks such as doorways and corridors, especially for front-line types. Fighting in an open space was close to suicide for everyone as the frontliners risked being surrounded, and a single monster could circle and beat up one of the squishier PCs. And the full attack mechanic made for a very static battle style of five foot stepping to victory.

4e made for bigger, more mobile fights, with tougher PCs, marking mechanics and other features that pulled combat encounters out of the doorways and gave reasons for mobile fights.

The biggest impression I got from the first playtest was a sense of disappointment of being stuck back in the doorway again. I don't want to go back.

I agree, 4e did do this, but only because the tank was, mechanically, "the doorway".

Since 4e I have got for more philosophical about these things. Im not convinced that mechanical alterations are the solution to every problem, and I dont think its the solution to this one. I see other approachs to this, like

• Dungeon design that doesnt favor doorway use every time.
• Smarter Enemies. Not everything in the dungeon needs to be dumb as plank and march into certain death on the parties blade in every single scenario. Imagine if an Orc sais "Hang on, they are holding the door. If we continue on, they will masacre us. That room has no other exits and we have supplies, lets starve them out" or "Lets smoke em out!". (For the record, if you think Orcs are too dumb, fine, substitue in another race thats a little smarter)
• Accept the fact that certain enemies are as dumb as a plank and accept door funneling as a valid tactic.

But more than anything else on this point...I want to see combat be a far far far far smaller proportion of the game experience anyway, so micro analyzing its mechanical implications is (for me) about creating the lightest implementation possible, and analysis of how 4e solved the door problem mechanically is (again for me) the wrong way to project thought for 5e.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Just a note: though I get the gist of it, when you all are saying Angel Summoner or BMX Bandit I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Just a note: though I get the gist of it, when you all are saying Angel Summoner or BMX Bandit I have no idea what you're talking about.

While I think the phrase is really overused, the skit is pretty funny (their whole show usually is):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbzUfV3_JIA]BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner - Mitchell & Webb - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Ahnehnois]

I assume your ironical tone regarding 'dangers of a system' stems from your long gaming experience.

It does.

I'd like a system to be easy understandable and without adjustments playable by newbies. And I, myself, am happy if I don't have to first figure out if I have to adjust something or not.

Understandable is good, but every system requires adjustments to be right for a particular group. The odds that an insular group of rpg designers created rules that perfectly match one particular DM's style or are balanced for one particular group of players are infinitessimal. The key with beginners is showing them where the decision points are and how to use the rules, not trying to get them to play without adjustments.

And regarding the alpha dog numbers. I don't have to be in charge all the time but not being in charge does not mean I play a character that is several power levels behind the current alpha dog char. I just let someone else handle most of the talking/etc.
But at the end of the evening I want to be sure that my contribution was meaningful being the alpha dog or not.
My quintessence is, regardless of being the alpha dog or not, I think, most players don't want an underperforming char or being constantly outperformed (3E FTR vs. WIZ).

I think I'm using the word in a deeper sense. I don't just mean leadership, I mean some people really want their characters to be less strong, in the powergaming sense. Some people just want to be wallflowers and get called on for support occasionally. Others want to be healers or sages or spies and don't care whether they can fight effectively or not. Others just want to smash things and don't care if some wizard is summoning angels as long as there are still enemies to smash. Some people want to play wizards that just cast fireball all the time, even though that isn't close to being the "best" tactic available. Frankly, I find that this is actually more people than not, and the ones who ride the charop boards for builds are a small minority and easy to control, but this is a personality thing, such that YMMV.

Also, some DMs use the rules such that 3e wizards and their ilk do not overshadow fighters and their brethren. If anything, I've had closer to the opposite experience, in over a decade of running 3.X at a wide range of power levels. Some people report that, but it's really a style thing; I don't take that idea as being a given at all.

 

[howandwhy99]

It really isn't about one or the other for me. I would not like a game where a doorway could never be used as a chokepoint in a fight. Nor would I like one where narrow chokepoint fights are exclusively had. I get that the "Wall of" spells are very useful, but they're hardly the only aspect to combat.

I want the players to decide (when they're not being ambushed) where they choose to fight. Let them understand that knowing their environment is vital to altering the probabilities of combat. Let them learn when to run before the first swing because the enemy has the advantage. Let them learn where to lead their enemy to have an advantage over them (btw, fighting at the bottom of a hole is a Dead End^TM).

For me, it isn't that the environment may play a larger role again in combat. It's that adventure designers need to understand when they are getting boring in their design and how their designs affect the outcome of the games.

 

[billd91]

This is a mode of thinking that I believe creates the dangerous problem in the first place. You're not just leaving it up to the DM to fix the system's problems (which is a bad idea in itself), you're leaving it up to ALL the individual players as well.

Isn't this exactly the way a functional gaming group should behave? Cooperating on not only the action within the campaign but on setting the scope of it, making characters that work together and have reasons to associate with each other?

When the only way to let the BMX Bandit (regardless of whether he actually rides a BMX, it's a level of comparative problem-solving ability) have the spotlight is to have Angel Summoners step aside and LET him solve the problem it really cheapens any sort of victory he might achieve. No one wants to be a B-list superhero that kicks ass and takes names only when the A-list decides it isn't worth their attention.

That speaks to elements of the campaign design. If you're dealing with superheroes that are different from each other in any way, the DM and the other players need to accommodate those differences. If they won't, the group is dysfunctional already. The main problem with Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit is they have nothing to bind them together - no commonalities. A similar power level could be a commonality that links the PCs, but it's actually a really weak one. Should they be associated simply because they can both put out a 10d6 primary attack and have 30 points of defenses? No. But an Angel Summoner who is a religious-oriented member of an extreme sports team who can call upon miraculous powers might fit in with a BMX Bandit, a character with more developed BMX biking skills and equipment, who is the leader of the sports team. And that can be true even if Angel Summoner has a lot more power potential.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A system that requires the DM and the players to deal with its problems? Ooh, sounds dangerous.

What system doesn't?

No system doesn't, some just have fewer and less severe problems than others.


Really, it seems like there's a debate here between the idea that games should't have to be good, because you should only game with perfect players & DMs, and the idea that players & DM shoudn't have to be good because the system should be perfect.

Those are both pretty ridiculous. Obviously, you should try to be the best player/DM you can be, and try to get together/into the best group you can. And, just as obviously, you should choose a game that minimizes the problems it presents you with.