My first 4E game...

[The Little Raven]

I was not saying the cleric is not effective, just not needed.

The Cleric is not needed, but a Leader basically is. In almost every encounter so far that I've played in 4e, the necessity for healing beyond a Second Wind has come up strong, and we'd have lost at least one person each encounter if we didn't have a Leader (Warlord in this case).

 

[Filcher]

Well, I for one, applaud Treebore for even trying out the rules. That shows a lot more willingness to "cross the aisle" than most folks have, regardless of their favorite system.

As for all classes doing the same thing equally well, I think that if you play another session the distinctions will start to emerge. Each class does one thing very well in combat, but that one thing is different as per the role. Send the right group of baddies against a long wizard and he is toast just like in AD&D. (Maybe this is parsing the "differences" too closely for one's taste, but it is borne out in play.)

 

[Mallus]

Exactly. With that balance comes the feeling of sameness.

'Sameness' is a different issue. I was responding to the idea that balance implied a competitive model, which I think is wrong in the case of 4e. Meaningful participation in combat is the goal.

And I can't really add much on the topic of 'sameness'. It doesn't feel that way to me, but then again, I like toolkit systems like Champions/M&M, where character abilities are often the same mechanically, differentiated only by what amounts to flavor text. I suppose in the end I don't think relying on a lot of competing subsystems to differentiate characters is a good idea.

Its up the players to decide if thats an acceptable trade off.

Oh, sure.

Yes indeed. The 4E design principle goes to the lengths to ensure that every encounter is every player's birthday, thats the difference. Again this can be a feature, and not a bug depending on the group.

You know, I've never met a player who wanted their character to be able to do less in a fight.

 

[Treebore]

Well, don't forget I only played one session that only had two combat encounters. So the "sameness" may very well prove to be "different" in another session or two.

I'm just saying what I think right now, based on what I know right now. The game has at least two more sessions (the DM thinks it may take longer, not sure), and my opinion is definitely subject to change without notice.

 

[Treebore]

You know, I've never met a player who wanted their character to be able to do less in a fight.

To kind of expound upon something I posted earlier, I never wanted my character to do less, but If I was playing a rogue/thief, and I often did, I did not expect to do as well as a fighter. I just did the best I could.

So that is why I am not excited about everyone being equally capable in a fight. I accepted "your best" being good enough long ago.

This idea of everyone being equally capable just smacks of too much political correctness in my gaming. I much prefer the idea of "you do the best you can despite not being as good at it as someone else" rather than "everyone is just as capable/equal as everyone else".

That is not the real world, and it is also something I do not want conveyed in games I play. If people like everyone being equally capable, then this isn't going to bother them. It bothers me, so is an issue that will weigh in my decision.

 

[Treebore]

Well, I for one, applaud Treebore for even trying out the rules. That shows a lot more willingness to "cross the aisle" than most folks have, regardless of their favorite system.

As for all classes doing the same thing equally well, I think that if you play another session the distinctions will start to emerge. Each class does one thing very well in combat, but that one thing is different as per the role. Send the right group of baddies against a long wizard and he is toast just like in AD&D. (Maybe this is parsing the "differences" too closely for one's taste, but it is borne out in play.)

I always try to play a system. You won't hear me talk about HARP and other games, despite the fact that I own many books for them, because I haven't played them, only read them. If I say anything about them I will say somewhere in the post (unless my senility kicks in, like it all too often does) that I have only read the rules, not played.

The only truly effective way to really know how the game plays is to play it. Reading it does not tell you how it works, playing it does. I find 3 good sessions allows for the game to show how it plays.

I can read rules and get a good idea of how its going to play, but the only way to see how well the rules work together to create the game experience is to use them.

Right now I am lukewarm to 4E. I have been lukewarm and even negative about a game after the second session, but then fall in love with it in the third session. I don't know why, but its usually by/in the third session it either clicks for me, or it doesn't. Even when after the second session I was certain I was going to always dislike the game. Like Shadowrun, the second edition. After the second session I was sure SR sucked and that I would never like it. Then in the third session I fell in love, and have loved SR ever since. With 4E being the best version yet, in my opinion.

So I like to play every game for at least 3 sessions before I decide on a "final opinion".

 

[Mallus]

So that is why I am not excited about everyone being equally capable in a fight. I accepted "your best" being good enough long ago.

In a game that's, in practice, as rooted in combat scenes as D&D, this always struck me as bad design. It's like a board game where players selecting certain pieces get twice as many turns.

I ran 2e for a long time, and it took a lot of houseruling to make the thief interesting to play in the action scenes, and that in a politics and diplomacy heavy campaign. People like the action. It's why most of them play D&D. I understand that thieves/rogues could be balanced through their non-combat abilities in the previous editions, but that just makes more work for the DM, who's put in the position of continually designing thief-specific tasks that won't bore the other players. Frankly it's just easier to admit that the lions share of the action in D&D is combat, and make all classes combat-capable. Nothing says 'teamwork' like bashing the hell out of troll, right?

This idea of everyone being equally capable just smacks of too much political correctness in my gaming.

I'm sorry, but that could very well be the worst invocation of 'political correctness' I've ever read. Wanting the thimble and the shoe to get an equal number of turns under the rules of Monopoly is not a corrosive manifestation of PC.

 

[Scribble]

This idea of everyone being equally capable just smacks of too much political correctness in my gaming. I much prefer the idea of "you do the best you can despite not being as good at it as someone else" rather than "everyone is just as capable/equal as everyone else".

That is not the real world, and it is also something I do not want conveyed in games I play. If people like everyone being equally capable, then this isn't going to bother them. It bothers me, so is an issue that will weigh in my decision.

Hrmm.. I guess to me, it's all in what you consider "equally capable."

I mean if you take the wizard, and try to make him do what the fighter does, he's going to fail misserably.

If you take the fighter, and try to make him do what the rogue does, he's also going to fail.

Each of them can do something in a battle sure, but does that make them equally capable?

In a game designed around the idea that your character has chosen a profession based on going into dangerous places and fighting dangerous monsters, it makes sense (to me) that each of them has honed their own ways to fight those battles...


That said, if 4e ain't for you it ain't for you. I like it because I find the rules "lite" enough that I don't get overwhelmed DMing it, but still giving me fun things to tweak. If you like it liter then that, more power to you. Play whatever game lets you look back and say: "Dude remember that time we... (insert cool story moment here.)"

I haven't tried C&C, because the rule book at my local game store sells fro 75 bucks for some reason???

 

[Treebore]

In a game that's --in practice-- as rooted in combat scenes as D&D, this is bad design. It's like a board game where the players selecting certain pieces get twice as many turns.


I'm sorry, but that could very well be the worst invocation of 'political correctness' I've ever read. Wanting the thimble and the shoe to get an equal number of turns under the rules of Monopoly is not a corrosive manifestation of PC.


So you wouldn't mind playing Monopoly where the shoe gets to go twice for every turn of yours?

Monopoly is no closer to being realistic then "everyone is equal".

 

[Treebore]

Hrmm.. I guess to me, it's all in what you consider "equally capable."

I mean if you take the wizard, and try to make him do what the fighter does, he's going to fail misserably.

If you take the fighter, and try to make him do what the rogue does, he's also going to fail.

Each of them can do something in a battle sure, but does that make them equally capable?

In a game designed around the idea that your character has chosen a profession based on going into dangerous places and fighting dangerous monsters, it makes sense (to me) that each of them has honed their own ways to fight those battles...


That said, if 4e ain't for you it ain't for you. I like it because I find the rules "lite" enough that I don't get overwhelmed DMing it, but still giving me fun things to tweak. If you like it liter then that, more power to you. Play whatever game lets you look back and say: "Dude remember that time we... (insert cool story moment here.)"

I haven't tried C&C, because the rule book at my local game store sells fro 75 bucks for some reason???

We all go by what "makes sense" to us. So far some things about 4E don't make the kind of sense I like. Still, it has at least two more sessions to convince me.

$75?!?! Buy it from the Trolls for full retail plus shipping or see if Amazon still has it in stock. Its something like $14 plus shipping. MSRP on the book is $19.95. Besides, if its the first printing I wouldn't buy it. The second and third printings are HUGE improvements, and the 4th is shaping up to be even better.