Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5187929" data-attributes="member: 58416">I actually use page 42 quite a bit when running a game, but sometimes you have to be a little careful about using it too much for worry of causing a power to be made to feel obsolete.  The DMG has great advice on running a game, and page 42 is a good tool, but it's a tool which has to compete with how the power system is balanced.  It may be an option which a new DM isn't completely comfortable with; apparently somebody somewhere felt this was at least a little bit of an issue because DMG 2 introduced terrain based powers which a DM could write into an encounter.    Again, I'm not saying D&D 4E is a bad system.  It's a good game, and I applaud the design team for some of the changes made to the system.  In particular, I find combats which involve greater numbers of foes to be far more enjoyable than a group of PCs hacking away at one single monster.  I also like that the power curve between levels was lessened; this allows a DM to more easily tell a consistant story by keeping foes viable at a broader range of levels.  However, I also feel there are a few aspects to the system which don't seem quite there yet... if that makes sense.  Some of the aspects which "aren't quite there yet" are some of the things which (again, IMO) contribute to grind.  Like I already said, a lack of meaningful choices can be a cause of grind.  If I'm holding a list of powers in my hand, but I'm looking at a monster which doesn't pose a threat to me, I'm probably not going to use some of those powers because it's not worth spending the resource.  On the other end of the spectrum, if I do use those powers, I put myself in a position where I know I'm going to win, but I'm stuck with spamming at-wills for the rest of the combat.  In both of these instances, it can feel to the player like their choices aren't meaningful; especially when a monster has a huge sack of HP, yet not much ability to harm the party.  This seems to starts to become a problem somewhere around level 14 in my experiences, and the game between monster HP and monster damage output only seems to get worse from there.  I agree with you about MM1; and a lot of what I just said is a reason why.  MM1 Solo monsters are especially guilty of being sacks of HP without enough ability to challenge the party.  Some of the later books have improved upon monster design, but, as with other aspects of the game, 'it's not quite there yet.'  Unfortunately, I don't feel that it's possible to change those aspects enough to get them to where they should be to reduce grind without making significant enough changes to warrant at least a '4.5.'  4E is a great system, and I think there will be a lot of good lessons learned from the system as it matures, but I don't think we'll benefit from those lessons until much later because some of the things which I feel need changed are deeply entwined with the design ideals the game is structured around.  In my experience, 4E grind doesn't only occur in combat.  It's possible to have skill challenge grind as well, and it usually occurs for the same reasons.  Looking at the character sheet of one of my characters right now (a half-elf bard to be more specific,) I don't think it's possible for me to fail a skill challenge when it comes to the majority of skills; even some of the ones I'm not trained in.  In practice this turns into the same problem people had with 3E skill checks where one roll decided a situation, but the current system just stretches out the same result and makes it take longer.  Like with monster design, skill challenges are also an area where I find myself tinkering with the system.  I'm not against house rules; I use them in other games I play as well.  I think they're somewhat necessary when it comes to playing a rpg due to the fact that each group will have different tastes and wants from a gaming system.  However, I find it somewhat telling when DDI articles written by the people who made the game more-often-than-not show that they depart somewhat significantly from the advice given in the DMG.  I'm not entirely sure what I should take from reading those articles though; should I determine it's a result of conflicting design ideals or should I determine it's a result of more experienced players looking for more depth than what's presented by default in the system as written?  Either way, grind does happen for many people.  I suppose the way I see things would be somewhere along the lines of the following: 4E is a well put together system, and it very easily allows pretty much anyone to run a game.  However, while the default system as presented is very easy to run and very easy to prepare, it comes with a little bit of grind and a few other issues which are caused by the structure.  If you want a more smoothly running machine, you'll need to fiddle with the nuts and bolts of the system.  4E makes it very easy to reach the minimum bar for being able to run a game or play in a game, but learning to push beyond that minimum bar and run a more satisfying game takes more effort, and it takes feeling comfortable with doing things outside of the box, and going against some of the advice given by the box.</blockquote>

Verification