D&D 4E 4E: The day the game ate the roleplayer?

[maggot]

nevermind

 

[Derro]

These days, the players are more exposed to programming - which is DnD in a nutshell. They've been exposed to dozens of computer games. And they know that different teams/sides/factions what-have-you are designed to be "balanced" against one another. Virtually equal. But that's not the sad part. The sad part of computer gaming is how incredibly transparent this is. They have played through these electronic scenarios over and over and over from every angle and it's always the same set of fairly predictable results. The player is sort of stuck in a mathematical box and can't break out.

I don't know why you guys are hacking. This seems like a pretty relevant point to me. I think that the transparency of balance is an important issue. Take the roles that are fulfilled by the party, striker, defender, etc. (forgive me, I can't remember the other two). Each one of those roles is fulfilled by two classes I believe. And it's a balance thing. They are things that need to get done in a party that is the complete package.

But why are they defined by class? Classes are by definition a role anyway. Do we need to get a finer grain than this. I'll use 3e as an example, not because I'm lauding the virtues of 3e over 4e but because it's a common language.

In 3e the rogue could fill a multitude of party roles and often did. They could be a face-man, a second tier combatant, a utility belt, a knowledge skill monkey, an so on. Now in 4e they are a striker. Which is not to say they are incapable of these other things only that they are built to be a striker and strike they shall with all other options being secondary at best.

So to continue the point of the OP, while we are given the supposition that our characters in 4e will have lots of options it seems to me they have these options only within the boundary of their prescribed role.

I'm sure a lot of you are thinking, "If you don't want to fight don't play a fighter," or whatever the case is and that is totally valid. What isn't valid is this illusion of versatility. When characters are only capable of filling that one role there is no versatility. No newness. Just the same old tricks with a different package.

The crime is not the "gameyness" of 4e, but it's potential to simply elicit similar experiences to these. The fear is that it simply won't be "different" enough. It won't feel NEW. It will yield predictable "curves" for just enough variables to feel synthetic, for lack of a better word. If the boilerplate for "class" is fixed, or if there are too few boilerplates in general, it will feel stale.

Again, relevant. Maybe not as coherent as intended but relevant. Predictability is the bane of exciting gaming. Class balance institutes predictability. And now you're thinking, "Did this jack-ass just say he prefers unbalanced classes?" It may have sounded like it but no. What I am saying is that cut and dried class balance formulated to fulfill roles will lead to less spontaneous and interesting characters. If you have 3 choices, A, B, and C and they all have the same potency of effect, whatever the effect may be, you're doing little more than choosing a color.

This is all part of the design plan from what I understand. Re-reading the preview materials I see the quote,

no accidental lame characters.

which in and of itself is great. But it also implies the mirror, no accidental discoveries that truly rawk. Which to some may mean no cheesy exploits. And I'll take that. But it's symptomatic of the player not the game.

For all the idiocyncracies of 1e and 2e, these qualities gave the player the feeling that it was possible to do something novel. Everything wasn't locked down tight -- and it was loose enough that one could regularly stumble into new territory. This player-experience coincided with the character's experience of an unpredictable world. Player-character parity could be achieved more easily and immersion was easier to obtain as a result.

I don't really agree with this 100%, the high-lit part anyway. I think that this sentiment is more illustrative of the evolution of the game. Earlier editions were much more narrativist than gamist right out of the box. I make no claim on which is better.

Now, one could certainly argue (successfully as Seerow has) that the idiosyncratic ripples in the fabric of 2e were exactly what broke the game down into a monotonous system of exploits, house rules, "leveraged" imbalances, and so forth. But the other side of the argument is this sense of hopeless, mechanistic systematization that threatens the feelings of exploration and discovery. Yeah, yeah, you've heard this about 3e....but 4e is 'better.' Better meaning smoother? More systematic? I imagine a very smooth, perfectly engineered steel cube....boring.

I have no idea because I haven't played the full game. I've got only the information I've gleaned from this site and it's posters (pro, con, and in between) but this is a genuine concern for me. I'm worried that for all its balance and smoothness and playability that 4e is going to lose its shine faster than the previous editions. Call me a skeptic or a doomsayer if you will but my gut rarely points me in the wrong direction.

If everybody else enjoys it that's great but gamers like myself may be disappointed.

I'd really like to get all this speculation over with. It's like taking an STI test after that drunken night at your brother-in-laws bachelor party.

 

[hong]

Again, relevant. Maybe not as coherent as intended but relevant. Predictability is the bane of exciting gaming. Class balance institutes predictability.

Lolwut?

And now you're thinking, "Did this jack-ass just say he prefers unbalanced classes?" It may have sounded like it but no. What I am saying is that cut and dried class balance formulated to fulfill roles will lead to less spontaneous and interesting characters. If you have 3 choices, A, B, and C and they all have the same potency of effect, whatever the effect may be, you're doing little more than choosing a color.

Somehow, I don't think that hitting someone for 1d8 with a sword, shooting them for 1d8 with a bow, and healing them for 1d8 with a spell, constitutes "little more than choosing a color".

 

[Derro]

Somehow, I don't think that hitting someone for 1d8 with a sword, shooting them for 1d8 with a bow, and healing them for 1d8 with a spell, constitutes "little more than choosing a color".

No but the power suites of the classes are very colored. Each is unique but equidistant in difference to their closest match. I'm sure that certain multi-classes are a lot more complimentary than others on a match for match basis. It's all very symmetrical and uniform.

...but 4e is 'better.' Better meaning smoother? More systematic? I imagine a very smooth, perfectly engineered steel cube...

You like M:tG or L5R?

 

[hong]

No but the power suites of the classes are very colored. Each is unique but equidistant in difference to their closest match. I'm sure that certain multi-classes are a lot more complimentary than others on a match for match basis. It's all very symmetrical and uniform.

I think you've lost track of what it is you're trying to argue.

 

[Halivar]

People don't want just another venue in which they are trapped in a mathematical box. This is part of the draw of splatbooks, after all. Imbalance is something humans are drawn towards like moths to flame.

You have shown me the future of 4th Edition. It is a game without cheesey exploits, min-maxing, or competitive number-crunching. It's a game without "my-wand-is-bigger-than-your-wand-and-does-300-d6-no-save." It is a game where my power-gamer friends will say, "Oh, you're not playing 3.5? I'll sit this one out." It's a game where I don't have to put up with people spending 2 hours to make a cardboard cut-out with abilities, bring it to the table, realize it isn't viable, write him out, and write up a new character every other month. It's a game where I don't have to sit through endless round after endless round as combat becomes a one-man show for whoever happened upon the perfect way to break out of the "mathematical box" of game balance.

Maybe you don't like it, but it makes me weep with joy.

 

[Stogoe]

You have shown me the future of 4th Edition. It is a game without cheesey exploits, min-maxing, or competitive number-crunching. It's a game without "my-wand-is-bigger-than-your-wand-and-does-300-d6-no-save." It is a game where my power-gamer friends will say, "Oh, you're not playing 3.5? I'll sit this one out." It's a game where I don't have to put up with people spending 2 hours to make a cardboard cut-out with abilities, bring it to the table, realize it isn't viable, write him out, and write up a new character every other month. It's a game where I don't have to sit through endless round after endless round as combat becomes a one-man show for whoever happened upon the perfect way to break out of the "mathematical box" of game balance.

Maybe you don't like it, but it makes me weep with joy.

\m/. Oh, heck, \mmm/. That was inspiring.

 

[hong]

\m/.

... are those breasts?

Oh, heck, \mmm/.

Yoicks!

 

[Wormwood]

It is a game where my power-gamer friends will say, "Oh, you're not playing 3.5? I'll sit this one out."

Oh dear sweet Jeebus let this be true.

 

[wolfen]

OK, waking up today, I see it probably was unwise to write a long-winded post right before bed as my last act in an otherwise exhausting day. At least one person got my intent...that's enough for me.

And also, I didn't say I wouldn't like it. I said it might be wonderful.

Lastly: there is a delicate balance between balance and oversystematization. I really think DM-rules and House-rules have always been what made DnD succeed or fail, and I think that will continue with 4e. You will still have powergamers and loopholes and everything else to contend with.