Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DDNFan" data-source="post: 6308248" data-attributes="member: 6776483">Let's not let facts intrude on the "it's the players' fault for playing the game by the rules and realizing their own powers are always strictly better than the max benefit of improvisation" -argument.It was absolutely a systemic rules problem. Improvising should have a chance of killing an enemy outright, otherwise your normal abilities will probably kill the monster anyway within a round or two. As a guy who loves D&D improv and stunts, it was mathematically undeniably inferior to not use your own powers, which were often augmented by feats, class features, magic items, and synergy with class features, feats, and magic items owned by other members of your party.If the enemy had received cold vuln last round, are we expected that anyone in their right mind wouldn't take advantage of that? Part of being a team player is working with the team. Bypassing the normal rules for powers often just means you are throwing away 100% of the synergy you could have had.This is bad game design, IMO. The problem was an overly complex inter-locking set of benefits that build upon one another, like when you do a basic attack you gain this benefit with this weapon after you took this feat and class feature, so that the warlord grants you a basic attack it will trigger all those things. If the warlord doesn't do that, he's throwing all that possible optimisation away. The quote from the 4 DMG doesn't even come close to realizing all the lost synergy. It was poorly thought out. Players aren't stupid, they were playing the game well, from not only a meta-game optimisation standpoint, but also an in-game party synergy "team player" standpoint, by not using P42.Picking an inferior mechanical choice repeatedly (even ever) doesn't make you a better roleplayer, it just means the system is badly designed, objectively speaking.The whole point of improvising as a PC (unless you need to, say, you don't have your weapon or are in an anti magic zone), is to get a leg up on the enemies over and beyond what you can do with your normal attack routine. If that means bypassing the fight entirely, that's great. But if it means throwing a rock on the switch and the Rancor dies instantly, because you noticed that it was standing under it, then that's something that should have instant auto-kill written all over it. Nowhere on page 42 does it mention that type of creativity being rewarded, all in the name of "balance". The occasional brilliant idea that kills all the enemies in the next room should work, without the DMG telling the DM to worry about oh this was supposed to be a balanced encounter, not a walk in the park because one player came up with a killer idea and executed it properly.Monte Cook wrote an article on this exact topic recently. ("When boring is good")"Balanced encounter" design prevents smart play overcoming unbalanced odds, which are far more exciting and heroic to overcome. (Never tell me the odds). There is no such thing as a million to one scenario in a 4th edition combat or adventure, because the system not only doesn't encourage it, it actively prevents it. It was designed that way on purpose. Balanced encounter design breaks several core assumptions of D&D through the ages, such as that there are unwinnable-by-straight-combat scenarios presented to players in standard modules. If you set up a combat, players are told that they stand a good chance of winning it, by the rules. This means they do not need to even try to improvise, further reducing their incentive to even bother. Ever hear of "necessity is the mother of invention?" Well, if the players don't need to ever improvise in order to win all these "balanced" encounters, then they don't need to invent, thus they won't. This is just common sense, man. Don't waste the entire group's time trying to improve outcomes that are strictly (as per the DMG, p42) worse mechanically than your AEDU. It's hogging the spotlight to achieve an inferior result, which is not only poor teamwork, but annoying as hell.</blockquote>

Verification