New Staff Blog: Run Away!

[avin]

On the bashing: I saw no bashing on 4E there or any other edition in there.

 

[Incenjucar]

Focus fire is kind of a universal tactic. You should learn it the very first time you are in any kind of conflict involving more than two beings. It's not some bizarre event caused by a quirk in the rules, it's how the real world works.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The "bashing" is more along the lined of bias or slant than outright hating on 4E. That being said, this article isn't a big example of that compared to a lot of other things the dev team has said.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Focus fire is kind of a universal tactic. You should learn it the very first time you are in any kind of conflict involving more than two beings. It's not some bizarre event caused by a quirk in the rules, it's how the real world works.

Well, sort of. It works so well that people have developed all kinds of ways to deny it to you, and they use them, too. Phased turn game models that basically give you all the rewards and none of the drawbacks removes the tactic aspect from it, and makes it a formula instead.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Check, please stop putting words in El Mahdi's mouth, only he is allowed to do that to Evil_Reverend. Gotcha.

Second, I have not said I'm outraged at what he said. I'm frustrated that just after defending WotC to those that said this is what they were doing, Evil_Reverend comes along and does exactly (or appears to do) what people have been baselessly accusing them of. That's both poor judgement and poor timing by Evil_Reverend. He gave those looking for a reason or "proof" to believe that WotC is "against them", exactly what they've been looking for.

Those other people's accusations are baseless, yet El Mahdi's is perfectly legit. Check, check.

I am not going to convince you it is there, and I haven't tried to.

You might convince me. I was asking legitimately, even though I may have asked in a way you object to, what part of his blog stood out to you specifically as problematic and/or dangerously close to problematic.

I believe that anyone who doesn't see the danger of WotC even appearing to return to what previously got them in trouble (specifically: Evil_Reverend), is either being purposefully obtuse about this or is just naturally so.

I see the danger and I thought they got close a couple of other times, but his time around I'm just not seeing it. I was just curious where you are seeing it.

 

[El Mahdi]

Check, please stop putting words in El Mahdi's mouth, only he is allowed to do that to Evil_Reverend. Gotcha.

Cute. It's the old "I don't have to take responsibility for what I've done or said, all I have to do is turn it around to displace focus on my actions, or at the least, justify them" tactic.

Well played. I feel so put in my place...

Those other people's accusations are baseless, yet El Mahdi's is perfectly legit. Check, check.

Damn! Got me again! I bow to your superior logic and cutting snark.

You might convince me. I was asking legitimately, even though I may have asked in a way you object to, what part of his blog stood out to you specifically as problematic and/or dangerously close to problematic.

I see the danger and I thought they got close a couple of other times, but this time around I'm just not seeing it. I was just curious where you are seeing it.

If you don't see what I see, that's fine. My purpose wasn't to convince anyone of what I see. I was responding with agreement to someone else who saw the same thing. However, I've been as clear as I can be about what I got out of his blog, and expounded upon it as much as I can. If what I've said has not been suffiecient, then there is nothing else I can say that will be.

I consider this the end of this discussion. Continue if you want, but you'll only be talking to yourself.

 

[Remathilis]

If I use a mechanical rule to determine an NPC's behavior, I must use that rule for all characters, including PCs, in the interest of fairness and consistency. If I use a die roll to determine a PC's behavior, that PC will (rightfully) complain that this represents mind control. Thus, I will not use any such rule, except for actual mind control (enchantments, etc.). Retreating should be a tactical choice (and one that is encouraged and facilitated a bit more IMO).

I wager you don't you reaction rolls/diplomacy in your game either...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If you don't see what I see, that's fine. My purpose wasn't to convince anyone of what I see. I was responding with agreement to someone else who saw the same thing. However, I've been as clear as I can be about what I got out of his blog, and expounded upon it as much as I can. If what I've said has not been suffiecient, then there is nothing else I can say that will be.

Well you did after the post I quoted, here:

I think Evil_Reverend would have been just fine if he'd been more accurate as you have. Such as saying "4E rewarded such tactics to a greater degree than previous editions", rather than such a blanket absolute as "Fourth edition taught D&D fans to focus fire on one monster at a time."

I think it's very important for WotC to be vigilant about what they say and how what they say may be percieved.

This is much more reasonable than your initial response, IMO. I can understand you point better now. Though I disagree that he was implying "to a greater degree than previous editions" in his actual comment. And it would probably have been even safer for him not to mention an edition at all. I get where you're coming from now even if I don't agree.

 

[Ratskinner]

Well, sort of. It works so well that people have developed all kinds of ways to deny it to you, and they use them, too. Phased turn game models that basically give you all the rewards and none of the drawbacks removes the tactic aspect from it, and makes it a formula instead.

hunh? Do you mean in 4e, or games in general?

I must say I don't see any bashing in the article at all. To me focused fire just makes sense, in any version of D&D. I'd wonder about a combat system that somehow didn't encourage it. Is there some well-known tendency in 4e that encourages it beyond all sensibility or something? I didn't notice anything like that while running or playing 4e, but its been a while.

 

[Incenjucar]

Well, sort of. It works so well that people have developed all kinds of ways to deny it to you, and they use them, too. Phased turn game models that basically give you all the rewards and none of the drawbacks removes the tactic aspect from it, and makes it a formula instead.

4E had ways to deal with this, largely with soldier monsters, defenders, and out-of-turn actions in general.

Similarly, auras, zones, and AOEs make clumping together both risky and advantageous.

I don't see why 5E can't handle that.