Celebrim
Legend
a) Paranoid players are generally the result of bad DMing, not only or merely the result of bad systems. There is a very broad range of options between paranoidly taking 20 twice on every 5' sq., and brashly charging through every problem. Both in my opinion represent very low skill play on the part of the player, in as much as you can design an expert system on a computer that could play your character for you using either of those strategies. And low skill level means I as the DM would have to alot of handholding to keep the PC's alive. And that always sucks. Smart players can judge when to be paranoid and when to be brash, and skilled DMs can signal from the setting to observent players using thier heads what is the appropriate action. The smart player jumped out of the back of the cart because he recognized an unnecessary risk, and decided not to take it. His common sense told him that the odds of a mine cart successfully leaping a gap in a chasm were very very small. What he didn't realize was that the scenario was literally on rails. He was 'supposed' to leap the chasm in the minecart. Well, its not his fault that he's not a mine reader and that the setting implied unnecessary risk that wasn't in fact there.
What the article tells me is that the part of the game that involves tactical skill, or what we use to call 'dungeoneering' skill before that became something on your character sheet, is increasely irrelevant. This article confirms my suspicions that 4E involves a high level of 'tactical illusionism'. Now, obviously the game is an illusion. It's tedious to have to point that out, but well there are people here who make a point of being tedious. All games are illusions, but not all games are tactically illusions. Take the game of chance. It's an illusion of a battle between two bronze age armies. Those armies don't actually exist or actually fight. But, the challenge provided by the game is real. It is well recognized that skill greatly outweighs luck in determining the outcome of chess. It is well recognized that chess rewards skillful play. Some games however do not reward skillful play, and hense can feature 'tactical illusionism'. That is, they have the appearance of rewarding or punishing choices, but in fact some element of them renders your choices largely mute. Games like Cosmic Encounters, Bohnanza, History of the World, and some varities of dominoes feature alot of tactical illusionism. The actual maximum skill level is very low, and the games aren't actually nearly as tactically deep and rich as they appear. Fourth edition D&D seems headed that way.
b) There is also a vast gap between 'save or die' and 'I can brashly charge through any danger with reasonable confidence in my chance of success'. I have long been a critic of save or die mechanics, especially active ones (like a monster with a save or die atttack) that can't be easily avoided. You can search enworld and read the threads if you like. But that doesn't mean that the only alternative to them is the one 4E provides. It's not an either or choice. But as long as we are on the subject of 'save or die', the chance of failure if you roll a one does not invalidate a game from being tactically rich. In another thread I mentioned that I played bloodbowl. In bloodbowl, practically every roll, if you throw a 1 there is a good chance you will be harshly penalized - and you are only using a d6! So with that much luck involved how is it that anyone is better than anyone else in bloodbowl? The expectation from the way some of you talk is that no one is in fact more skilled in bloodbowl than anyone else and that bloodbowl is an uninteresting game which is mostly about luck, but in objective fact it isn't. Some people consistantly win. They do so by very carefully managing thier risks, so that they always weigh the risk with potential reward and only take those chances where the reward is worth the risk. If every action in bloodbowl had a very high chance of success, it would be true that no one was any better than anyone else because a person randomly choosing what actions to take would have no significant disadvantage on someone who was carefully weighing risks.
There is a point to 'failure on a 1', and while there are always problems with 'fortune' generating mechanics potentially overriding skill, clever design can mitigate these problems. For example, Bloodbowl mitigates the problem of luck by having rerolls as a limited resource. It wouldn't be as good of a game if success was gauranteed.
I really have to wonder though: is the big new innovation just that a roll of a 1 on a saving throw isn't an automatic failure? Is that all this article means by 'fixing the math'?
c) Wheedling the noobs until they are so frustrated that they make an ad hominem attack is not cool, and while it may glide under the board rules it's not good community behavior. If you have to act like a jerk to someone, pick on an oldbie that has thicker skin.
What the article tells me is that the part of the game that involves tactical skill, or what we use to call 'dungeoneering' skill before that became something on your character sheet, is increasely irrelevant. This article confirms my suspicions that 4E involves a high level of 'tactical illusionism'. Now, obviously the game is an illusion. It's tedious to have to point that out, but well there are people here who make a point of being tedious. All games are illusions, but not all games are tactically illusions. Take the game of chance. It's an illusion of a battle between two bronze age armies. Those armies don't actually exist or actually fight. But, the challenge provided by the game is real. It is well recognized that skill greatly outweighs luck in determining the outcome of chess. It is well recognized that chess rewards skillful play. Some games however do not reward skillful play, and hense can feature 'tactical illusionism'. That is, they have the appearance of rewarding or punishing choices, but in fact some element of them renders your choices largely mute. Games like Cosmic Encounters, Bohnanza, History of the World, and some varities of dominoes feature alot of tactical illusionism. The actual maximum skill level is very low, and the games aren't actually nearly as tactically deep and rich as they appear. Fourth edition D&D seems headed that way.
b) There is also a vast gap between 'save or die' and 'I can brashly charge through any danger with reasonable confidence in my chance of success'. I have long been a critic of save or die mechanics, especially active ones (like a monster with a save or die atttack) that can't be easily avoided. You can search enworld and read the threads if you like. But that doesn't mean that the only alternative to them is the one 4E provides. It's not an either or choice. But as long as we are on the subject of 'save or die', the chance of failure if you roll a one does not invalidate a game from being tactically rich. In another thread I mentioned that I played bloodbowl. In bloodbowl, practically every roll, if you throw a 1 there is a good chance you will be harshly penalized - and you are only using a d6! So with that much luck involved how is it that anyone is better than anyone else in bloodbowl? The expectation from the way some of you talk is that no one is in fact more skilled in bloodbowl than anyone else and that bloodbowl is an uninteresting game which is mostly about luck, but in objective fact it isn't. Some people consistantly win. They do so by very carefully managing thier risks, so that they always weigh the risk with potential reward and only take those chances where the reward is worth the risk. If every action in bloodbowl had a very high chance of success, it would be true that no one was any better than anyone else because a person randomly choosing what actions to take would have no significant disadvantage on someone who was carefully weighing risks.
There is a point to 'failure on a 1', and while there are always problems with 'fortune' generating mechanics potentially overriding skill, clever design can mitigate these problems. For example, Bloodbowl mitigates the problem of luck by having rerolls as a limited resource. It wouldn't be as good of a game if success was gauranteed.
I really have to wonder though: is the big new innovation just that a roll of a 1 on a saving throw isn't an automatic failure? Is that all this article means by 'fixing the math'?
c) Wheedling the noobs until they are so frustrated that they make an ad hominem attack is not cool, and while it may glide under the board rules it's not good community behavior. If you have to act like a jerk to someone, pick on an oldbie that has thicker skin.
