Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

[pemerton]

I have seen no practical or objective proof that you're interpretation of the type of play the 4e rules push/support are anything but... you're interpretation... especially when the adventures, guides, etc. don't push or stress this way of playing.

<snip>

They seem to very much support gamist challenge play.

The DMG doesn't seem to me to stress any way of playing. It's reward rules, for example, don't seem to me to support gamism in any but the most low-key sense, that Balesir has described as "OK, you could handle it at that level of complexity, but what about when we amp it all up a notch or two?"

And DMG2 seems to me to be aimed at supporting HeroQuest style play to quite a degree, given that it reproduces almost directly big chunks of the HeroQuest revised rulebook (on pacing, challenge design and some elements of action resolution).

The stuff on vignettes in DMG2, plus the sample campaign arcs in DMG2, Underdark, Plane Above etc also seem to me not especially aimed at gamist play. Certainly, they all sugggest strong thematic content and seem intended to leave the resolution of that content in the hands of the players. As models for campaigns, they don't look radically at odds from the approach I enjoy.

They don't think DPR is the end all and be all on the char op boards either (this would actually be kinda stupid for leaders or controllers to be judged on) but at the same time... it is what a striker as laid out in the PHB is suppose to be contributing to the party... mainly damage.

Damage is what a striker contributes to a party in combat. But combat is not all of the game. And a striker can contribute satisfactory damage, and have a particular capacity to contribute damage, without necessarily contributing maximum possible damage.

I think many players who faced Irontooth, and died, would disagree about how forgiving 4e is to suboptimal tactical play.

I haven't run or played that encounter, although have heard that it is hard.

IMO this is nothing more than an imergent property of whether the DM decides to play in an optimal or suboptimal manner in D&D against his players.

I'm not sure what the force of the "nothing more" is. The way a GM builds and then adjudicates encounters has a pretty big impact on the play of the game. But the rules don't seem to me to encourage building encounters that are nothing more than tests of endurance and tactics for the players. There's alot of flavour text, for example, in the Monster Manuals (even the first one, contrary to popular opinion). I like to put that text, plus more of my own, to work. In doing that I don't feel that I'm pushing against the system or disregarding any authorial directives.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I remember well how some folks defended 4e as not being "easier" than earlier editions.

Strange how 4e is both not "easier" and at the same time "less forgiving of suboptimal play" (paraphrases mine).

Methinks the game may be either one or the other, but most probably neither.

 

[Imaro]

The DMG doesn't seem to me to stress any way of playing. It's reward rules, for example, don't seem to me to support gamism in any but the most low-key sense, that Balesir has described as "OK, you could handle it at that level of complexity, but what about when we amp it all up a notch or two?"

Hoestly...I'm not sure what you mean here. Instead of parsing a single sentence out of a comment by Balesir, why not just state simply and concisely why you don't think the reward rules support gamism?

And DMG2 seems to me to be aimed at supporting HeroQuest style play to quite a degree, given that it reproduces almost directly big chunks of the HeroQuest revised rulebook (on pacing, challenge design and some elements of action resolution).

The stuff on vignettes in DMG2, plus the sample campaign arcs in DMG2, Underdark, Plane Above etc also seem to me not especially aimed at gamist play. Certainly, they all sugggest strong thematic content and seem intended to leave the resolution of that content in the hands of the players. As models for campaigns, they don't look radically at odds from the approach I enjoy.

First, I never said 4e was at odds with your playstyle... but I don't think it was designed with your playstyle as it's primary goal either. Again I think you are inferring your own take from what is in these books... The issue, IMO, is that Heroquest gives you specific mechanics to enforce it's pacing advice (Level of difficulty is directly dependant upon how well or bad your party has already done) and thematic concerns (You are literally limitless in creating any character as long as it is genre appropriate... 4e doesn't.... DC is based on level not story concerns...character creation is limited to the available combat builds/roles that have been developed, and so on.

Damage is what a striker contributes to a party in combat. But combat is not all of the game. And a striker can contribute satisfactory damage, and have a particular capacity to contribute damage, without necessarily contributing maximum possible damage.

Combat is definitely not all of the game, but we were talking about whether there were sub-optimal choices in game... the Ranger, does better damage than the Warlock and gets more skills than the Warlock... so again the Warlock seems a sub-optimal choice for in combat and outside combat as well when compared to the ranger.

I haven't run or played that encounter, although have heard that it is hard.

I think this speaks to a bigger issue I have with your ideas on 4e... they tend not to be supported in actual implementation of the game by the actual designers. Do majority of the modules from WotC center around "conflict-via-combat driven thematic play, using traditional fantasy tropes" or do they center around gamist challenge based play? I would argue it is gamist challenge based play.

I'm not sure what the force of the "nothing more" is. The way a GM builds and then adjudicates encounters has a pretty big impact on the play of the game. But the rules don't seem to me to encourage building encounters that are nothing more than tests of endurance and tactics for the players. There's alot of flavour text, for example, in the Monster Manuals (even the first one, contrary to popular opinion). I like to put that text, plus more of my own, to work. In doing that I don't feel that I'm pushing against the system or disregarding any authorial directives.

Yes the DM's chosen method of designing encounters does have a big impact on the play of the game... like every edition of D&D. Where we disagree is that, IMO, the rules do stress building encounters as tests of tactics for the players. For the most part the DMG doesn't talk about designing an encounter in a thematic way it talks about designing it with the synergies of roles and monster powers in mind. So no... while it won't push against what you are doing, since you can select thematic monsters for your encounters with the appropriate roles and powers... 4e doesn't necessarily promote that particular playstyle over challenge based either, at least (IMO) no more than any other edition of D&D.

 

[Imaro]

To me, the game doesn't seem to play in the relentless or monistic way that Imaro is describing. And if it's very different for my players, they haven't communicated that experience to me.

Please don't do this... don't substitute your assumptions for how I think the game plays for what I've really said. I've said that 4e is, IMO, designed to be based around gamist play. That is not to say it is relentless or monistic... as neither of those are a necessary quality of gamist based play.

In fact while gamism may be it's primary or default playstyle, IMO... that doesn't mean I believe it can't work for a different playstyle such as yours with the right assumptions and decisons made in adventure and encounter design.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think this speaks to a bigger issue I have with your ideas on 4e... they tend not to be supported in actual implementation of the game by the actual designers. Do majority of the modules from WotC center around "conflict-via-combat driven thematic play, using traditional fantasy tropes" or do they center around gamist challenge based play? I would argue it is gamist challenge based play.

AFAICT, the WotC 4e modules couldn't be farther from pemerton's preferred playstyle if they were shoved in a rocket and sent to Mongo. It is easier to find encounters in 1e where combat is not the optimal solution -- indeed, a whole module where combat is not the optimal solution -- than it is to find a 4e module where even a single encounter is centred around "conflict-via-combat driven thematic play, using traditional fantasy tropes".

Of course, I could be wrong. I haven't read every 4e modules. I look forward to reading of all the examples I missed.


RC

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I remember well how some folks defended 4e as not being "easier" than earlier editions.

Strange how 4e is both not "easier" and at the same time "less forgiving of suboptimal play" (paraphrases mine).

Methinks the game may be either one or the other, but most probably neither.

I beleive it is more a case that it is much easier to DM for these outcomes rather than anything intrinsic to the default mode of the RAW.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I beleive it is more a case that it is much easier to DM for these outcomes rather than anything intrinsic to the default mode of the RAW.

Nope.

Early in the 4e cycle, some pundits claimed that it seemed as though the game was easier for players; i.e., more forgiving of poor tactical decisions. The reply was, in effect, Absolutely Not!

Now, it may be true that it is an easier tactical game for players, or it may be false, but it cannot be both. I suspect that, like optimization, there is a perception that 4e is different than 3e here, but little actual reality.


RC

 

[Imaro]

I beleive it is more a case that it is much easier to DM for these outcomes rather than anything intrinsic to the default mode of the RAW.

I agree, which is why I think permeton's particular playstyle emerges either consciously or subconsciously through many of the choices he makes in running 4e.

4e has a lever for setting the difficulty of a challenge... set it low and now all of a sudden, PC's aren't punished for sub-optimal builds and 4e is so much more forgiving and open to thematic play... set it at the high end of what they can handle and suddenly sub-optimal tactics and builds will get you killed with a quickness.

Yet, IMO, default 4e just says hey this is the lever for creating the difficulty for your challenge based play, you decide the difficulty and the fluff for why it is that hard or easy. Whether that's... conflict-via-combat driven thematic play, using traditional fantasy tropes or optimal tactical play through a meatgrinder dungeon. The only thing 4e is supporting mechanically is the challenge.

Edit: I misworded above, I don't agree 4e is easier to DM for these outcomes... I think it gives a set of tools (with their own particular tradeoffs) that some people find easier to use in order to adjust the level of difficulty, just like others prefer Pathfinder/3.x's CR and EL... or even DM fiat.

 

[Raven Crowking]

4e has a lever for setting the difficulty of a challenge... set it low and now all of a sudden, PC's aren't punished for sub-optimal builds and 4e is so much more forgiving and open to thematic play... set it at the high end of what they can handle and suddenly sub-optimal tactics and builds will get you killed with a quickness.

Ah.

Now that makes sense. IOW, just like any other edition of D&D.

RC

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ah.

Now that makes sense. IOW, just like any other edition of D&D.

RC

Yeah, exactly. After 14 years of AD&D play in basically the same group you can bet that every scenario was deadly as heck and the players were always working to get past most of them. Same with 4e, you can dial it up to 11 if you want, and sure enough the 14 STR fighter will probably be sorely pressed, or you can play at what I believe is really more the default value for the game and people can build mostly whatever they want as long as it isn't obviously completely ridiculous like the 8 STR fighter. Again, no different from other editions.

All I think that does though is validate the point, the game wasn't designed to foster only extreme tactical play. In fact the standard guidelines for encounter difficulty distribution don't particularly lead to a setup where the combats are all so deadly that you need to optimize or even think about optimizing to a higher degree than would make sense to your average guy who relies on his sword to stay alive but also relies on other tricks when they're appropriate too, or has other dimensions to the character that don't contribute much/any to combat and require a resource or two to implement.