D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[GMforPowergamers]

So basically, your character made up a backstory which required the other PCs to act as his assistants. And then discovered that he liked adventuring enough to keep doing it, but not enough to proactively seek it out. At least, that's the impression I get.

I've seen worse. A character who carried on not wanting to be an adventurer, but would have to go when something came up that actually interested his boss (also a cleric, interestingly; I suspect it's one of the few places D&D players will accept a hierarchy). Of course, this made it a game about the interests of the boss of the cleric. Anything that didn't interest the NPC meant the party was short one cleric and one player was going to sit in the corner of the room doing nothing for four hours.

I played a Ranger (Spellfire) in 2e who depsretly wanted to be a farmer (and told everyone that regularly) I was't an adventurer I was a guy being protected byt the party ad dealing with it...

the best moment (for me) was when I was given the chance... Mystra would remove my spell fire and let me go home to my family farm... except those people who for 9 levels had been helping me would not have me there to help when the draco lich came... at 9th level ranger I became an adventurer

 

[Imaro]

And this is totally valid! @pemerton proved to me long ago that his style of scene framing and fictional positioning are well-supported in 4e, and allow for the kinds of player narrative control he enjoys.

The problem, as you discovered Imaro, is that the baseline 4e physical presentation shifted the focus dramatically towards gamist combat resolution. If all of the "narrativist goodness" is actually in 4e and could be grasped as @Manbearcat described, then we should have seen a dramatic shift to adopt 4e as a radically improved overall D&D play experience---because now not only was the tactical gamism improved through balance and ease of preparation for "step on up," but the narrative elements should have created a broader play experience that was superior, or at least comparable to what prior-edition players wanted in the non-combat areas.

That didn't happen.

And it's my postulate that this was because ultimately 4e failed to serve ANY of the desired masters. The gamists, while finding 4e enjoyable, probably felt like they were having to fight against the whole "Why do I have to pretend to be an elf to do this exactly?" To a gamist, the choice of race and class has little to do with "their character's place in the fiction," it's about challenge optimization. The D&D "sacred cows" and conceits of the RPG as an entertainment medium were getting in the way of their fun. Even as tailored to "step on up" as 4e is, playing D&D is an awful lot of hard work if all you're really interested in is character-building for tactical encounter challenges. There's lots of other easier gamist paths with less time investment, and more immediate payoff than an RPG.

The narrativists, except in some rare cases with talented GMs, a la @pemerton and @Manbearcat, kept banging their heads against the gamist overtones and presentation, wondering why the "delve" format sucked so bad.

And the simulationists just threw their hands up in the air and said, "Because 'Come and Get It,' and Justin Alexander FTW."

Compare this to Fate, which has gamist elements, but makes almost zero attempt to make the gamists "feel good about themselves" while playing it. Fate makes its narrativist aspirations known, up front and center. It's very unambiguous the type of game you should ostensibly be having with Fate.

I've put forth this same theory before on these boards... especially since 4e design is often lauded as very focused, and I don't really believe it is. I agree with what you've said above, that basically instead of being very focused, 4e is (IMO) a pretty incoherent game which seems to shine when people bring experience/advice/etc. from other games to supplement and drift it towards their favored style (though I do believe some styles are harder to drift it towards then others). I mean look at [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] 's example, who that hasn't read DitV would even know what he's going on about or draw those types of conclusions? How about we analyze what is actually in the book without referring to DitV, HQ, BW or other games... IMO if you need to reference other games (or future supplements beyond the first 3 books) to "get" 4e... then it failed somewhere in it's design and/or presentation.

I feel there is definitely incoherence in the rules... some DC's are static and aren't tied to level but instead to actual "things"in the game world (Yay!! process-sim) but wait there's a whole slew of them that are based purely on character level (Huh, what?). We got tactical combat, quests and skill challenges for the gamist player (where the book tells us that XP and treasure are to be assigned and given out for success!!) but then posters like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] make the claim that XP/treasure/etc. aren't actual rewards... they're devices to continue the "D&D narrative"... huh??

I've watched encounter play, the WotC officially sanctioned play to introduce beginners to 4e, and it bears no resemblance to the type of play I have seen described by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and a few others... am I saying they aren't playing the way they claim? No not at all. Do I think that's the default style of play for 4e or even that common a play style among players of 4e... No, not at all. The most common style I've seen 4e played in is a strongly gamist style, almost exactly as you describe above where the point is to earn experience for defeating encounters loosely tied together by a thin narrative... and it's not just encounters, this is also the formula for most of the official 4e adventures. I don't see thematic relevance, I don't see much to any notice of the keywords and fictional positioning, what I see is players creating maximized "builds" (jhust like in 3.x) by using the handbooks on the WotC site and in play spending most of their time looking for the best power or highest rated skill they can use to help contribute to defeating a DM balanced encounter, almost always theme and fiction are secondary.

 

[Luce]

From SRD:
"
[h=3]Suffocation[/h] A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The save must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.
When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she suffocates.
"
CR24 red dragon has Con 31, so he can wait 67 round before being in danger of dropping (31*2+5 for (+15 modifier)
Therefore the Big Red could wait out the spell choking him. Also if PCs are sniping him from safe distance all out defense would be a logical choice.
Also considering high INT(24) the dragon may well be aware of "tracheotomy" and has some idea how to go about it.
Now I do not dislike what you did, the players had fun, felt clever and did not get a disproportionate reward out of the incident. I comes down to my believe that every table have its own style to some extend and it is up to the individual GM to customize his/her game to the group.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

From SRD:
"
[h=3]Suffocation[/h] A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The save must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.
When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she suffocates.
"
CR24 red dragon has Con 31, so he can wait 67 round before being in danger of dropping (31*2+5 for (+15 modifier)
Therefore the Big Red could wait out the spell choking him. Also if PCs are sniping him from safe distance all out defense would be a logical choice.
Also considering high INT(24) the dragon may well be aware of "tracheotomy" and has some idea how to go about it.
Now I do not dislike what you did, the players had fun, felt clever and did not get a disproportionate reward out of the incident. I comes down to my believe that every table have its own style to some extend and it is up to the individual GM to customize his/her game to the group.

I totally could have looked all that up in a book... But instead just rolled with it since you agreeed it worked out Ok I'm not sure what your point was... Nor am I sure what outcome is better then "we had fun and it was one of our most fun campaigns"




Edit: if forced to put mechanic to it today I would rule be could not hold his breathe and immditaly start makeing con checks... I could see an argument eaither way though... So at best I would start makeing checks on a held dragon well pcs ran or dog piled or buffed

 

[Ratskinner]

[/QUOTE]

I would have used it as a shorthand label, yes. It certainly doesn't mean I have participated in their forums (I haven't, because I prefer to post pseudonymously); it means I find their general approach helpful.

Precisely! Apply that same logic to the labeling of the games! That's exactly the language gap we're talking about. I mean, I don't personally care all that much how we use the term "Forge" game, but I certainly would lean towards it meaning more than "there was a forum for this game there once" by default (at least in connotation, if not denotation.) Especially with additional superlative language magnifying the connection.

But that approach is (roughly) the approach of sincerity and clarity I mentioned above: I could add to the stress on honest actual play reports, analytic clarity. But GNS isn't the only contribution of the site to analytic clarity, and is not the one that I <snippage>

I'm not trying to cast doubt on the intentions, merits, or even the utility of what folks did at the Forge. All I'm suggesting is that for the vast majority of posters, their first introduction to the Forge likely happens by being directed at those articles (previously the forums as well, I would presume.) I know that when I first encountered the Forge, its purpose as an incubator was lost behind the fact that most of its games seemed to be testing or presenting the theories they were exploring in the forums. I think, for a lot of people, that theory is much more of what the Forge "is about" than the incubator stuff, especially as the theory still echoes around the 'net discussions like these after the Forge ceased functioning.

It may because I am used to drawing some of these distinctions in my day job (I am an academic lawyer and philosopher) <snippage>

Maybe something to that. I know that my training and professional experiences can often color how I see things. For instance I view things like the GNS theory with a great deal of skepticism simply because they do not have what I consider clear foundations in mathematics.

I'll admit that the line between analysis and principles or advocacy is not always clear cut, but my interest in The Forge <snippage>

I don't reallly know what it would mean for a game to adhere to GNS theory. (Or to not adhere to it, for that matter.) GNS theory is a theory about the possible forms of aesthetic payoff from RPGing, and how certain techniques might help contribute to, or get in the way of, that payoff. Whereas a particular RPG is a set of rules and techniques for enabling multiple participants to construct and evolve fictional situations, with at least some of the participants having special responsibility for some of the persons within those fictional situations (that's the "role playing" bit). It makes sense to analyse a RPG in GNS terms (eg Can we explain what sort of payoff it is hoping to deliver?

Sorry, bad choice of wording on my part. I was intending to direct that at the design process for a game. By that, I mean that within their explorations of what eventually became GNS theory, the Forge participants often created games that ranged from practical to experimental and barely playable. That thin line between principles and advocacy is, IMO, very blurred to the casual (if there is such a thing for such dense texts!) reader when essays and posts often include discussions of game as "dysfunctional", "drifted", and many other (quasi)judgemental terms. Certainly, game designers have employed varying levels and aspects of GNS theory/awareness to their games since the theory was developed.

Note also that this sort of thing changes over the history of the site, depending on random circumstance as well as the stage of development in the theory. There were times when a plethora of games (or modifications to other games) would explode on the site just to try and see what impact various mechanics had on play, and other times when discussion was almost exclusively about play at table of other games.

However exactly a designer thinks about the point of their game, and how their rules contribute to that point, I wouldn't particularly expect their game to make it clear how they framed their thinking. I don't particularly want the rules to be a design diary in any literal sense. I want them to tell me how the designer thinks I can best put their system to work! - but that's independent of any GNS analysis.

For a lot of the small games that I consider to be clearly "Forge games"...there's not a lot of that independence to go 'round.

 

[Ratskinner]

@pemerton proved to me long ago that his style of scene framing and fictional positioning are well-supported in 4e, and allow for the kinds of player narrative control he enjoys.

Same for me, and the fact that I was dumbstruck when he did would add further evidence to the "4e doesn't present itself that way" charge.

<snippage>
And it's my postulate that this was because ultimately 4e failed to serve ANY of the desired masters. The gamists, while finding 4e enjoyable, probably felt like they were having to fight against the whole "Why do I have to pretend to be an elf to do this exactly?" To a gamist, the choice of race and class has little to do with "their character's place in the fiction," it's about challenge optimization. The D&D "sacred cows" and conceits of the RPG as an entertainment medium were getting in the way of their fun. Even as tailored to "step on up" as 4e is, playing D&D is an awful lot of hard work if all you're really interested in is character-building for tactical encounter challenges. There's lots of other easier gamist paths with less time investment, and more immediate payoff than an RPG.

The narrativists, except in some rare cases with talented GMs, a la @pemerton and @Manbearcat, kept banging their heads against the gamist overtones and presentation, wondering why the "delve" format sucked so bad.

And the simulationists just threw their hands up in the air and said, "Because 'Come and Get It,' and Justin Alexander FTW."

<snippage>
I've watched encounter play, the WotC officially sanctioned play to introduce beginners to 4e, and it bears no resemblance to the type of play I have seen described by @pemerton , @Manbearcat and a few others... am I saying they aren't playing the way they claim? No not at all. Do I think that's the default style of play for 4e or even that common a play style among players of 4e... No, not at all. The most common style I've seen 4e played in is a strongly gamist style, almost exactly as you describe above where the point is to earn experience for defeating encounters loosely tied together by a thin narrative... and it's not just encounters, this is also the formula for most of the official 4e adventures. I don't see thematic relevance, I don't see much to any notice of the keywords and fictional positioning, what I see is players creating maximized "builds" (jhust like in 3.x) by using the handbooks on the WotC site and in play spending most of their time looking for the best power or highest rated skill they can use to help contribute to defeating a DM balanced encounter, almost always theme and fiction are secondary.

I must say that these descriptions match my experience and observations of 4e "in the wild" much more than the type of game that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] describe. I think I very much fit the description of the frustrated narrativist that [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] describes. Which in a way is kinda sad. Since having talked with them on these forums, I would like a chance to see if I can pull it off. However, my local rpg community seems so profoundly soured on 4e (with the exception of an extremely gamist group that does encounters and meets at the game shop down the street) that I don't find that likely. I would be unceremoniously drummed out of my current group if I seriously suggested playing it there (and that's an OSR group that looks like its going to let me run Fate for a few months!)

 

[Luce]

I totally could have looked all that up in a book... But instead just rolled with it since you agreeed it worked out Ok I'm not sure what your point was... Nor am I sure what outcome is better then "we had fun and it was one of our most fun campaigns"


Edit: if forced to put mechanic to it today I would rule be could not hold his breathe and immditaly start makeing con checks... I could see an argument eaither way though... So at best I would start makeing checks on a held dragon well pcs ran or dog piled or buffed

The point I was trying to make that different groups will handle it differently, since fun can be derived in different ways. You know your group and there was an understanding that this trick is one time thing. On other tables such a ruling would have been an open season invitation.
Heck, in D&D lore we have Flame (since Dungeon #1) a dragon who has a contract to get chain resurrected.
So the chain of eventsC kill dragon, two days latter dragon came back and it has brought some friends. TPK ensues. This may be perfectly valid on same tables.
There are multiple ways spells can be creatively used with DM adjudication.
Cast a silent image of a Medusa head, creature that does not disbelief think they have turned into stone.
Stone shape- encase an enemy's head into stone, no SR no saving throw.
Using the major/minor creation spells to make enough contact poison (such as black lotus extract a vegetable matter) to kill an army.
and so on.
Some groups may find a game of clever thinking saving the day enjoyable, others may engage in constant one upsmenship with the DM and have fun. Once again, I am of the believe that a group should trust their DM and s(he) in part should feel free to deviate from the RAW if that enhances the enjoyment of the game. IME the rules are good starting point, a common base if you will, from which the individual group deviate making the game their own. I do think there should be an example play style, but limiting to only that style is an unrealistic expectation.

For example, I enjoy low magic game, where the PC are saving their resources for the "bad times". A wand with 10 charges may last 3+ levels before being depleted. At the same time I like the idea oscillating challenge as I see it in 2e- "run from the wolfs to fight the bear". That is the PC will occasionally get 1-2 use items that are very powerful, but cannot be replaced without going in a long quest if at all. For example the dying breath of a god of war trapped into a specially made crystal sphere, which when broken acts as a "hellball" epic spell. A good thing to have as a back up, but once you use it you are out.
Not the standard approach to gaming, but it works for my table.

tl;dr: sometimes it is better to ignore the rules and just have fun, but acknowledging when you do so is good policy in forum discussions.

 

[Mistwell]

On the Wall of Force in the Dragons Throat, killing it:

It's an awesome new idea, so I'd allow it the first time as a reward for creativity, because it would be fun.

But I'd say, "That's awesome, I am going to allow an auto-crit this one time. You have tremendous luck, hitting the dragon precisely at the point where his mouth is open to the maximum, and the dragon panics rather than think it through. But next time you try this, you're going to have to roll, and roll well, to pull off the same trick".

And then in the future if the player tried it, I'd make them roll against a rather high AC.

 

[Dausuul]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfForce.htm

he was within 25ft+5ft per 2 levels (way closer really)

he had line of sight (the dragon was talking and you could look in it's mouth...)

The wall is anchored on all sides (the sides of the throat)

I'm not sure you can argue if it works RAW or not... but I could have had ways around it... I could have done a lot different. However when the whole table cheered and my jaw dropped, I was pretty inclined to give it to him.

A wall of force can't move. The dragon just has to open its mouth extra wide and back up.

This would be a clever tactic and I would probably let the player do it, but I would never allow it to be an auto-kill. If I did, the wizard would then go around casting wall of force to kill everything that breathes. I'd say you could use this trick to buy yourself a round in which the dragon can be attacked with advantage and can't use its bite attack or breath weapon; or you could ready the spell and use it when the dragon tries to use its breath weapon, negating it. It's a smart move, not a guaranteed win.

There's also the verisimilitude question: If this is a viable tactic, why hasn't anyone ever used it before? If they have, why are there any ancient dragons left in the world? And if there are ancient dragons left, why would any of them be so stupid as to open their mouths wide when talking to a wizard?

 

[Savage Wombat]

While I agree with the "not bloodly likely" crew on the Throat of Force trick, I have to point out a correction:

The spell says the Wall must be anchored on all sides - in this case, the throat. Ergo: the Wall is attached to the throat of the dragon and moves with it, OR the wall is immobile and the dragon can't move without tearing his own throat out. If the dragon is capable of simply moving away from the wall, then by definition the wall wasn't "anchored" to anything and couldn't be cast in the first place.