Dragon Editorial: Fearless

[Ipissimus]

I stopped playing AD&D 2E because there was an Assassin character backstabbin the other PCs in their sleep, and the DM was giving the Assassin XP for it!!! [I guess it was the teenage factor]

Ouch, I feel for you there.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn is a Wii game. It is not Nintendo Hard, because it is fair. If you approach it intelligently, you will win most of the time, but it is widely accepted as being quite difficult because it does take a lot of effort, planning, creativity, and preparation in order to succeed.

Heh. The tvtropes entry for Nintendo Hard actually cites the Fire Emblem games -- and Radiant Dawn in particular -- as being examples of Nintendo Hard. I might agree with them on the series in general; I have a lot of memories of taking control of a battle, only to have enemy reinforcements bamf in out of nowhere and instagib one of my units who, prior to this unwelcome interruption, had been well out of harm's way. I haven't tried Radiant Dawn, though.

The ideas are still the same though. One could pretty easily point at the Tomb of Horrors, for example, as being Nintendo Hard, whereas something like the Red Hand of Doom is simply hard.

 

[Wormwood]

Yes! Bring on the action movie cinematic play style!

Yay! Bring on the system finally supporting the way we already play!

 

[FireLance]

Apparently the expected gamestyle in 4E is the one of a suicidal lemming. otherwise I can't explain why in the article it is considered metagaming when you don't take unnecessary risks. Imo its more metagaming when you charge at every opportunity because you know that this won't kill you thanks to care bear rules.

There's an entire spectrum of play styles between hyper-paranoia and suicidal lemming, and I'm sure that the expected playstyle in 4e in somewhere in the middle, albeit further away from hyper-paranoia than the expected playstyle in 3e.

In a way, I think the move towards more risk-taking in the game is a reaction to the slow and careful play emphasized by 3e and previous editions. Some gamers don't want to do that any more. There are also those who are sick and tired about being careful and logical at home and and work, day in and day out, and just want to take a break in an imaginary world where can take what they would consider to be unnecessary risks in the real world. Yes, it's a form of escapism. But then again, aren't most recreational activities?

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

It's weird - I read the article and assumed it meant that characters would no longer have to be forsenic scientists probing every square inch of a dungeon in order to survive, and I thought that was a good thing.

I thought it read that it supported the idea of trying stuff over not trying stuff - hopefully making the game a little more exciting for all and avoiding the "well I'm not sure if I'll succeed and if I don't I'll just die" mentality.

I also thought it read that death would be more to do with bad choices in combat or whilst encountering traps, and less to do with dice rolls and inescapable consequences.

So I'm all in favour of the article, and what I thought it said, and I'm slightly confused by the way other posters have decided that what it was actually saying was that all characters are super-badass and can't die.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

None of them wants to take the slightest ammount of risk. Now, I agree that nobody wants a guy in the party that plays a CN half-orc barbarian that does a stripsease on top of the altar of the Dark One. On the other hand, alot of players need to harden up and take a chance.

QFT.

If 4e gets away from "I check every 5ft square for traps, then I search every 5ft square for goodies," I'm all for it.

Sadly, I can't say this is all players' faults either, as I've played with a couple of DMs that actually **encouraged** this game-dragging behavior.

 

[FireLance]

It's weird - I read the article and assumed it meant that characters would no longer have to be forsenic scientists probing every square inch of a dungeon in order to survive, and I thought that was a good thing.

To be fair, that's an equally inaccurate characterization of the expected 3e playstyle as the suicidal lemming comment. I'm sure most players didn't take 20 searching every 5-foot square they encountered during play.

What most players might have done is to take take as few risks as possible, and choose the safest (most logical, most tactical) option over the alternatives. If the 4e rules make risk-taking as viable as playing safe, then we might see more players taking more risks, and enjoying it.

 

[Aus_Snow]

So I'm all in favour of the article, and what I thought it said, and I'm slightly confused by the way other posters have decided that what it was actually saying was that all characters are super-badass and can't die.

From what I've read about 4e so far, 'super-badass' sounds rather likely, and 'can't die' very unlikely indeed. IMO, and so forth.

 

[Elphilm]

So I'm all in favour of the article, and what I thought it said, and I'm slightly confused by the way other posters have decided that what it was actually saying was that all characters are super-badass and can't die.

My thoughts exactly. It often happens that I find myself nodding my head while I read these preview articles, and when I come here to see what other people think about an article I go what the...

Part of the charm, I suppose.

 

[Wolfspider]

Hm. Are you suggesting that 4E will live as long as Diablo II?

WotC should be so lucky.