Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 5346523" data-attributes="member: 57112">I completely disagree that 4e is designed "98% for Type B" players. Combat has been made more tactical, yes, and the skill system is more streamlined, but 4e is no less capable of open-ended roleplaying than its predecessors, which I feel were definitely more slanted towards "Type A" play.What's been missing from 4e, and what Instant Friends attempts to bring back, is spontaneous spellcasting of a non-combat variety. Instant Friends obviously wouldn't work as a ritual because of the ludicrous 10-minute limit on rituals; something I always felt was a flaw with that system for this very reason. As a power, it signals the return of spontaneous spellcasting as a roleplaying device. Obviously this excites me to no end; one power (or a handful, if more are to come) are easy enough to ban from your game.I say this knowing full well that Instant Friends isn't necessarily without precedent. That this power is so viciously attacked while others such as Disguise Self or Cantrips get a free pass is beyond me. This is one of a dozen reasons why the "4e is 98% Type B" theory is full of holes. There were already tools in place for players to get creative and use their imagination with; and creativity and imagination are the whole point to the game in the first place. Again, I cannot wrap my head around a play style that would stifle and deny such creativity in its players; that the opposite is routinely encouraged in the DMG and other DM materials is final nail in the coffin of the theory that this is the playstyle 4e is primarily designed for. As such, a power like Instant Friends is perfectly consistent with 4e's  game design. I'm not saying it's perfect for your game; it's most  assuredly not. But 4e is as much as game for Type A players as it is for  Type B players. This is indisputable.I weep for any table in which the DM's first reaction to something new is "How can my players abuse this?" I do this without assigning blame to any single individual, but it is a viewpoint I have seem expressed on this board from time to time and it never fails to perplex me. A game that is primarily a competition between DM and players, in which one side constantly looks for a leg up on the other; this is not nor has ever been the game I play. Moreso than a game that discourages creative problem-solving in its players, this is a style of play I cannot understand how people find fun. And while I can find at least some merit in the former, and see it as a logical point from which to argue game theory from; I will not credit any merit to the latter. The player that seeks to break elements of the game is quite simply not playing the game right, and this is a problem that should be directly confronted. I will not understand nor condone DMs who allow themselves to get caught up in a rules "arms race"; if such behavior becomes so tolerated that it impacts the very culture of the game then the entire table is culpable in my opinion. I hope you'll forgive the soapbox rant, but I had a point to it. The point is: the "right" player can break any element of the game given access to right kind of combinations (access that is built into the game as "levels") and the "proper" attitude. That such a player represents the norm or even common is, in my not-so-limited experiences, just plain wrong. And I'm not talking about power-gamers or character optimizers; these are an admittedly more common sight. The power-gamer or charop-er is primarily concerned with "winning" the game (and as such is likely to avoid primarily non-combat abilities anyway). The type of gamer you talk about is primarily concerned with breaking your game. Again, that any table would tolerate such an attitude (or the behavior that springs forth) is beyond me. Such a sight is blessedly rare, though I do not envy you if that has not been the case for yourself. Still, the idea that Wizards or any game manufacturer should bend their game design around defending against such a creature is utterly preposterous. Denying the wrong sort of player access to a tool that they could use to break a game is an absolutely horrible reason to deny quality players access to a tool that encourages and enhances their creativity and imagination.DMs should not expect game design to save them problem players. In the hands of any group playing the game the right way, there are simply not issues with a power like Instant Friends. The on-the-spot adjudication may not mesh well with your style of game, and that's okay too. But getting rid of anything that could possibly be abused is not the solution to abusive players; teaching your players not to abuse or finding new players is.This is last time I'll address how overblown this power is. It is not any more powerful or effective than other utility powers of its level. You have my sympathies if you are struggling with an abusive player who might try to convince you that it is, but they are wrong. I'm not saying I don't see how it could be interpreted as such, I do, but it is quite clearly the wrong interpretation. It is your responsibility as DM to adjudicate the effects of the power fairly. If that is not something that you are not comfortable with, or something that you simply do not enjoy, then do not allow the power. This is perfectly acceptable. You do not need to blow the power's effects way out of proportion to make a point.</blockquote>

Verification