Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 5345852" data-attributes="member: 57112">I'll admit, given the "new player" that Essentials seems to be geared towards, Instant Friends seems a bit out of place. This is of course faulty thinking though; and I'll get to the reasons why in a bit.To begrudgingly take credit for something else, I'll admit the whole "good/bad DM" argument was my invention, and one I would take back if I could. At the time, the kind of playstyle advocated by those arguing against the power appeared to me as obviously "bad DMing", rather than a style of play that others seem to enjoy but strikes me personally as patently un-fun. Allow me, then, to rephrase the argument, so that those still arguing the merits of the power don't have to suffer the sins of my past.It seems that there are two completely different styles at play present here. If you, like me, enjoy the kinds of roleplaying scenarios and open-ended problem-solving that powers like Instant Friends seem to embrace, then you (or your DM, if not you) are likely making the kinds of adjudications that the power calls for on a regular basis. You likely see no problem with the wording of Instant Friends; you probably (if you're like me) revel in trying to figure out all the ways this power could be used as well as all of the potential pitfalls for this power. For instance, in a realm in which the penalty for dereliction of duty is execution, would a guard consider letting his most trusted friend through as risking his or her own life? Figuring out this kinds of quandaries, on the spot, and putting a storytelling spin on them is exciting to me, and the whole reason I became a DM in the first place.Of course, this style of play isn't for everyone, I'm learning. I can only imagine that in a style of game where all skill challenges (even social ones) are as a mechanical and mathematical a fare as combat is, a power like Instant Friends wouldn't see much opportunity for use. If I were a player in a game where the DM stuck strictly to the literal interpretation of the rules as written, I would avoid powers with such open-ended effects like the plague. It is, then, a poorly written power... for that style of play.And as absurd and un-RPG-like as that style of play strikes me, I will admit that if that were the way I played the game, I wouldn't like the power either. Actually, I'll put a caveat on it. This I will admit, but if and only if those who are arguing that this is a "poorly made power" admit that Instant Friends just simply wasn't designed for them, rather, it was designed for those who of us who prefer the more open-ended style of play.We could argue over which style of play D&D caters to, and I would say that, for the most part, D&D is a game for open-ended roleplayers, though 4.0 was certainly an attempt to bridge the gap between the two playstyles. And since the other target for Essentials was "people who miss the way D&D used to be", and since that includes spells and abilities with more open-ended application, I think it's fair to say that this was the kind of gamer WotC had in mind when they designed the power.And I think this is the reason why this debate has gone on this long, or that the discussion ever got as a heated as it had been. Any one side of the debate could easily see the opposing argument as a complete condemnation of the way they play the game. I certainly count myself guilty on both counts (on the condemning and the feeling condemned). And it's probably obvious to every outside observer of the discussion by now that there are some games for which Instant Friends is a perfect fit and there are some games for which it is a horrible fit. Given that, the only way to actually be wrong here is to argue whether or not Instant Friends is well-designed or poorly-designed. The answer, like or not, is Yes.As an addendum, because I can foresee this as a comeback, but the "if it only works well at some tables that makes it poorly-designed" doesn't hold water at all. There are plenty of elements within the game, big or small, that are casually dismissed depending on who's at the table. I've personally never played in a game where rituals prominently featured (or really used at all); I know others who swear by them, but I would never go so far as to claim that rituals are poorly designed. Some games completely dislike the idea of Psionics and don't use them; does this make Psionics a bad concept? House-rules are such an ingrained part of the game that at every turn the designers encourage the use of them in you encounter anything that rubs you the wrong way. In light of that, arguing that any aspect of the game must be universally acceptable in order to be well-designed is utterly fallacious.I love Instant Friends, you hate it. I'll stop calling it well-designed, if you stop calling it poorly-designed.And here I didn't think there'd be a middle ground.</blockquote>

Verification