4E Consequences: Being passive, cautious, or a loner is now unoptimized

[Rechan]

Good, the loner powergamer feels powerless. D&D is a game about being a member of a team.

Not just from a system perspective, but from a roleplaying perspective. One person wants to go left because everyone else wants to go right can wreak havoc to a game.

But I can certainly see where it butts up against playstyles that tend to a more "survivalist" or "strategist" mindset. You can't run a good game of slow attrition or sudden surprising death in 4e, and this was, I believe, entirely intentional.

Aye, it's not a game for the "simulationist" either. Different editions facilitate different playstyles.

 

[ExploderWizard]

1) Lrn 2 tank

2) Lrn 2 DPS

3) Lrn 2 Group

 

[Scribble]

If your not a team player, don't play DND play Xbox

Or Basketball...

The object of basketball always seem like "Quick everyone get the ball over to that one guy who's awesome."

 

[Negflar2099]

I'm with the other poster who said that this is all true and that's what I like about 4e. Since its inception D&D has always been a social game. I really have a hard time understanding people who all want to be the lone wolf badass of the group. I don't see D&D as that kind of game. I guess they have different ideas about D&D than I do, but personally if I wanted to play a game by myself I would. On the 360. To my mind a person saying they hate 4e because it forces them to work with others in their party is like a person saying they hate monopoly because it forces them to charge rent.

As for being afraid or passive well I know that it's very easy to become afraid for your character's life but you know Raise Dead isn't that hard to come by (unless your DM hates you) and the death penalty wears off. I have seen so many players who are well and truly afraid of their character's death even when death is just a part of the game, and a part that you can bounce back from easily. Plus well at the end of the day you are supposed to be playing heroes after all. I don't know too many cowardly, passive heroes.

 

[avin]

FIxed for ya

~ We don't do "fixed it for you" jokes here - thanks~

 

[Rechan]

To be fair, there is a time and place for "Lone Wolf" style tabletop.

After all, Batman did it solo, as does Spiderman, etc.

The time and place for that sort of thing is called a Solo Game. When your desire to "Go at it alone" is not counter-intuitive to the fun of everyone else.

There's even a few systems out there that can accommodate solo play well. D&D really isn't one.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

LOL! Does he also wonder why the cleric should heal him? Oy, you have my pity playing with that guy.

no infact if my cleric uses healing words on another player he shoots me dirty looks and says "You know I am getting my but kicked here"


example:

our warlock is down to single diget hp...our wizard has 2 monsters flanking her, and is bloodied...My cleric and our paliden are fighting an oger with threatning reatch and a fighter mark....the paliden wont challenge him, it is my turn...I used healing word on the warlock...and the paliden player blew up...."why wast it on a striker"

 

[Wormwood]

Rechan and others presented most of my points better than I could have. To further expand on Foundry of Decay's point: some classes suit outliers better than others.

The Feylock in my Sunday game is definitely a passive loner (and physical coward), who spends every combat flitting around the battlefield avoiding damage and taking the occasional advantageous shot when the opportunity presents itself.

She is not a risk-taker, and while she may not contribute as much to the party's success as our more aggressive players, she derives enjoyment from skulking in shadows and plinking minions. This player found a class which perfectly fits her play style, and everyone wins (even the players who need to kick just a little more ass to compensate---because they love being heroes).

 

[ryryguy]

Some interesting observations, thecasualoblivion.

As others have stated, it may well have been intentional on the part of the designers to discourage some styles of play, or if not to actively discourage them, to indirectly discourage them by encouraging others.

It's not clear from your post whether you think this is a bad thing. It does sound like it's making the experience less fun for certain of your players, so you probably want to address that.

One thing is that your players might find different characters more comfortably fit their styles. The "passive Rogue" for example might find a bow Ranger more to her liking. It wasn't clear whether you actually have a Defender who doesn't like getting hit all the time, but if so, that player too might benefit from a role switch.

The other way to approach it is to talk it over with them, to make sure they understand their characters and roles and how they might change their tactics and approach to get more enjoyment out of their characters. You could try to work with them by setting up "teaching encounters" where they are lead to tactics and decisions that play to their strengths. Not forcing them of course, just making it clear and giving hints. Like maybe an NPC who shouts to the rogue, "Now's your chance! Get up on the rock behind the guard and he won't have a chance!"

This latter approach is probably the only hope of addressing the issue with the lone wolf powergamer - frankly his preferred style sounds like it might reduce the fun for the rest of the group, anyhow. For the passive rogue player, she may just have to decide which she likes better, being a rogue or being passive.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'd note here that to the extent that this is true of 4e, it's also quite true of 3e, which heavily favors offense over defense, and encourages gambling maneuvers like casting save or die spells or tumbling into the middle of a crowd to get off a sneak attack.

I think there's a slight difference: In 3E, you favoured offence because it was the "offence is the best defence" strategy.

Basically, you tried to stay in a secure position, then drop them as fast as you can to avoid the risk of retaliation.

In 4E, you have to go offensive despite the fact that they will retaliate. You not only accept that - the defenders even want that.

That was also the reason for the offence clerics in 3E - healing was a losing strategy - hitting harder in the first place was better. You could say, in 3E, everybody tried to be a striker - move in, hit hard, pull out.

Cheers, LT.