I’m Thinking of Giving 4e Another Shot

[jbear]

I think you have already found your own solution to the encounter/daily powers explanation.

The treasure parcels is easily solved by simply doing it however you like. Thats not going to alter the game very much as long as they have a weapon, armour and a neck slot at an appropriate level. How they go about achieving those items is totally up to you.

I await with interest the OP's nexts comments.

 

[Rechan]

What I find interesting about the "Martial vs. Ki" argument and "Chance vs. Metagame": I've been looking at a lot of rogue and ranger powers.

Many of them require specific circumstances. You miss the target. You must be bloodied. You just bloodied your target with an attack. Your target must be at full health. Your target may not have had an action in this turn. Etc etc.

So, not only does that suggest to me specific circumstances/chance, but it also adds an explanation, for me, as to the metagame aspect: "I likely won't fill the requirements for this power often, so I better use it when the requirements are met." If the daily can only be used when the target hasn't had a turn yet, that suggests there's only a few times you can use it: the first round of combat, when you have a higher initiative.

 

[Mallus]

Play Style: I think this is probably a pretty significant mismatch. I advise either adapting expectations to the game, or going for one better suited to your preferred style.

Are you saying that 4e makes it difficult to create fantastical worlds for interesting characters to explore? Isn't that the core of the OP's playstyle?

I've always found those things to be largely system/mechanics independent.

 

[Ariosto]

I've always found those things to be largely system/mechanics independent.

An emphasis on exploring "system/mechanics" is notably different -- and where the "center of gravity" lies in 4E, in my opinion. To give the world priority and make the rules conform is an enterprise in which I see very limited potential without negating the advantages of using 4E.

"Accept the game for what it is" seems to me more sensible advice than "try to change it into Game X".

 

[cerealman]

Admin here. You may have missed my warnings on the proceeding pages; I know you're trying to discuss something interesting, but please do not hijack this thread, especially with confrontative snark (and that applies to everyone, really). I've put your post in a spoiler block instead of deleting it, but feel free to start a new thread if you'd like to branch out on that topic. This thread is for providing practical ideas or suggestions to the original poster.

Thanks. Email me if you have any questions. ~ PCat

[sblock=Removed post]

Er... no.

Er... yes.

Casters in previous editions used the slot system because their spellcasting...

And a bunch of stuff that's not important. I was referring specifically to the idea that what previous editions limited the choice of what a caster could do to a few spells that they had prepared. 4E does the same, except the prep work is done every level.

More to the point, what reason is there to prevent a player from casting a fireball every time? There were role playing reasons, but no real rules reasons. 4E follows the same theme. Players can only "cast" powers so often. Certain powers they can use more often, as if they had prepared multiple fireballs.

I'm differentiating between the rules and the role playing. The rules dictate a certain thing, and between the two systems (1E spells and 4E powers), I see many things that are the same. One of these is applying a role playing reason as to why certain things can only be done once a day.

(Besides, I've hated Vancian casting and daily abilities for twenty years, ever since I was first introduced to BECMI. 4E simply aggravated an existing issue.)

That's beside the point. That was 1E.

Risk of what?

Are we discussing role playing reasons or mechanical rules reasoning. You asked:

"What would be a situation in which my character would not use a daily exploit, then, given the opportunity?"

And now you ask:

So why would the character, knowing only what the character knows, choose not to Brute Strike most of the time?

These are two different questions. Considering we are focusing on the role playing aspect here and now the mechanical aspect, it's rather easy. As I said, the risk is to great to use "Brute Strike." Brute strike requires you to pull back, really take your time, and swing hard and strong. All too often the enemy has moved out of the way before you can land your blow. But once in a while you can get in the right position at the right angle and you have a chance to land a great blow that will really hurt.

Just like all the previous editions, where the systems used role playing reasons to give a story behind the rules, we do it here with the powers.

Hopefully this clears things up a bit.[/sblock]

 

[Herschel]

Why? You've tried to play it three times and to DM it once and you obviously still have big problems with its basic rules philosophy. Why waste your time?

I had the same issue getting with girls back in high school but luckily I kept trying and have greatly enjoyed the experience ever since.

 

[Ariosto]

The only games I've ever played where monsters drop random loot is video games.

Heh. I guess you haven't played RPGA "Living Forgotten Realms" 4E!

There's more than one girl in the world -- and more than one game! Finding a good match is a perfectly fine alternative to taking Hobson's choice.

 

[Mallus]

An emphasis on exploring "system/mechanics" is notably different -- and where the "center of gravity" lies in 4E, in my opinion.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'center of gravity'. All I know is that my buddy John and I wanted to make a vaguely storybook world full of slightly perverse fantastical things for our new D&D campaign. So we did. You can read about the process by clicking the 2nd link in my sig.

It's a 4e campaign, in case you haven't guessed. The new rules offered presented us no significant difficulties when creating a world to explore. Heck, some of the fluff was actually kinda inspirational (and we're fairly well-read in the literature).

To give the world priority and make the rules conform is an enterprise in which I see very limited potential without negating the advantages of using 4E.

Our world is our priority, though. The rules didn't stop us from stocking it with interesting people and places. And things. There are quite a lot of things.

"Accept the game for what it is" seems to me more sensible advice than "try to change it into Game X".

From our POV, there's no need to change 4e to make it more suited to an exploration-focused campaign. It works fine as is.

Our group isn't interested in exploring the rules. The rules are used for task resolution. They provide a nice little tactical game when its time to fight monsters. After that, they politely step out of the way ad then we run the rest of the game on heady cocktail of imagination and mutual agreement.

 

[Ariosto]

Mallus, I figure Samuel Leming's view is what matters when it comes to Samuel Leming's game.

 

[Mallus]

Mallus, I figure Samuel Leming's view is what matters when it comes to Samuel Leming's game.

Of course. All I'm trying to suggest --in an admittedly wordy way -- is that 4e works fine for a campaign based around exploring a fantasy world. Mainly because interesting fantasy worlds worth exploring are the product of imagination, effort, and a certain amount of skillful presentation.

They're not rules-dependent.

It may well turn out that 4e is the entirely wrong tool for Samuel and friends. In fact, it kinda looks that way. But to claim that it can't be used to achieve the goals he stated in his original post is simply wrong.