Pros and Cons of going mainstream

[Hussar]

Hmmm, I can't say I agree with this...nor can I disagree.

IME, the adversarial relationship between GMs and players varies more because of the individual on the other side of the screen, or sometimes the nature of the campaign, and less with the system. I base this on 30+ years of gaming experience in over 100 systems in 3 states and 5 cities...on both sides of the shield.

But I have only gamed with one guy who runs 4Ed- and he has only run 4Ed in our group- so my sampling size on that side of the analysis is insignificant. I cannot make a valid comparison.

I have to say, though, that in my primary game group, our playstyle didn't change as the campaign was updated from 1Ed to 2Ed, then later to 3Ed & 3.5Ed.

For us, it wasn't transparency that turned @50% of our group irrevocably against 4Ed.

But, hang on here. The 1e DMG is pretty clear on the adversarial role the DM should be playing. There's numerous places where it flat out states that the DM should be against the players. Look at the section on finding secret doors. Or listening at doors for that matter. The rules and the modules are pretty clear that the DM is in an adversarial role. It's take thirty years of RPG development to beat that idea out of the heads of many groups.

So, if it wasn't transparency, then what turned you off of 4e? And, why couldn't you do the same thing with 4e that you did with every other edition - ie. drift the rules so that it fit with your playstyle?

 

[Manbearcat]

In pre-4e editions of D&D, a very common starting experience for new players is that in the first session their new 1st level PC suddenly gets killed, seemingly out of nowhere. IME players immediately react to this by going into adversarial stance. The only way to routinely avoid this is to run very low-threat 'newbie quests' or else fudge to keep PCs alive - neither very satisfying IMO.

Random death is much rarer in 4e, and there is not the 1st level 'fantasy effin Vietnam' experience. While I have had a 1st session TPK in 4e (and several later session near-TPKs), the system pretty much ensures that PC defeat comes at the end of a long, drawn out combat where the PCs go down heroically swinging. These tend to be quite satisfying even for the losers, and PCs rarely die randomly or alone. This in itself I think reduces the adversarial perception on the player side.

Great post S'mon. Keen bit of insight here.

But, hang on here. The 1e DMG is pretty clear on the adversarial role the DM should be playing. There's numerous places where it flat out states that the DM should be against the players. Look at the section on finding secret doors. Or listening at doors for that matter. The rules and the modules are pretty clear that the DM is in an adversarial role. It's take thirty years of RPG development to beat that idea out of the heads of many groups.

And this is good here too, Hussar, but cannot xp. To bulwark your point, lets take a look at a few of the:

Top Ten Traps to Avoid advice in DMG2, p 65.

7. Traps that Counter PC Preparations: The frost giant's palace of ice shouldn't have fire traps. Maybe you can justify it, but instead of explaining why you're making the players unhappy, why not make them feel smart and reward their preparations for cold by giving them exciting ice traps to overcome?

6. Traps Designed to Defeat the Rogue: If your players devote resources to defeating traps, don't punish them by making traps more difficult to overcome. They'll be a lot happier if their choices are meaningful.

3. Traps without Countermeasures: A trap without countermeasures is about as fun as fighting a monster you can't damage. Give the characters multiple means of defeating the trap.

1. Extremely Deadly Traps: It might make a trap more fearsome to have it cause a lot of damage, but the unseen trap that kills a character is about as fun as walkng out your door to find that a falling meteorite has flattened your parked car.

You won't find that in the 1e DMG. Its also amusing when contrasted with the general advice that you find (on these boards and others) for dealing with overpowered Generalist Batman Wizards (who are prepared for everything due to the breadth and scope of their PC build choices) and the 15 MWD.

 

[Luce]

Sigh, why do people insist on comparing apples to oranges?

A party of six 9th level PC's in 2e would obliterate an 18th level lich in about one round. About the only way the lich would survive is if the PC's didn't have +1 or better weapons (extremely unlikely for 9th level PC's). The three fighter types are doing about 30 points of damage each/round and the lich has probably about 50 hit points. Dead lich.

Different systems do not compare. Ever. A lich in 3e would mop the floor with these PC's. In 2e, it's a speed bump.

I bring that example up because I feel that feel that some people forget that difference exist. A lot of crunch carried over between those two subsequent editions, but the numerical statistics does not mean the same things.
Even starting with Char-gen, 3d6 and 4d6 drop lowest may both result in 3-18 range but the latter results in higher average. So the old 14 is the new 16. Or spells, for instance Fireball may no longer explode to fill available space, but does the same damage progression. However, doing 35 points at 10th level is one thing when the enemy has 80 HP (2e average Old blue dragon (18HD)) and different impact vs 182 hp enemy (3e young adult blue dragon CR 10).
In 2e the spell casters power is limited by lower number of spells available combined with the ease of disruption- any hit (or even the act of dodging according to one Dragon article) means that the spell is lost. [drg 173:
“[...] foes can disrupt spellcasting by throwing almost anything at the caster: small sacks or pouches with flour in them, light (nondamaging) pebbles, even mud pies. The act of dodging a blow, which occurs if a spell-caster wants to apply his armor class bonus from dexterity to prevent his being struck, negates his spell-casting.”].
In other words, while the two editions share a lot in terms of the theme, mood and fluff the way the game handles at the table (even just using the core 3) is not exact one-to-one map.
Finally, I disagree that the given situation is a speed bump especially since the lich is more likely to have the jump on the party then the other way around and that he had 30 mummies and two score of skeletons plus a high level anti-paladin to act as his protective wall. Winnable?- defiantly. Easy? not so much.

 

[Luce]

Apparently, judging by many, many of the criticisms of 4e? Yes. It's absolutely mind boggling to me, but, apparently, the second we pick up a 4e DMG, we lose all critical facility and become mindless drones, subject to the whims of our royal queen players.

Funny thing is, whenever you discuss issues in any other edition, the standard answer is always, "Well, yes, but, change that rule and the problem goes away" and that's perfectly acceptable. I mean, the current problems with paladins thread states exactly that.

Funny thing is, it's reversed though. There, proponents want the restrictions hard wired in, and then tell the rest of us to just take things out that we don't like. Apparently, adding things in is impossible for a certain segment of gamers. Baffling but true.

That is one of the things I been trying to talk about- the difference in expectations stemming from both a shifting "official" position how the game is supposed to be played and the gradual change in demographics (I cannot think of better term in expressing the opinion that more people play with high turnover groups often composed of strangers)
Another thing, each DMG is targeted for new player (and DMs) as well as veterans. In other words people who do not have previous experience or established style of play. One can definably run say 3e the same way as he used to run 2e - using fiat when he cannot remember or dislike the RAW. "DM:How did grapple work again? You know what, just give me a STR check and we go from there." Likely you will have a fun game if you are playing with friends, but expect rule aheavers to scream bloody murder that you are mangling the rules.
Again the difference was that level of fiat was not only acceptable but encouraged by the designers in 2e. 3e seems to have established different expectations. Neither is everyone's preferred way I understand, but neither is a wrong way to have fun.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But, hang on here. The 1e DMG is pretty clear on the adversarial role the DM should be playing. There's numerous places where it flat out states that the DM should be against the players. Look at the section on finding secret doors. Or listening at doors for that matter. The rules and the modules are pretty clear that the DM is in an adversarial role.

By some modern standards, I probably do have a somewhat adversarial style. But its not on 100% of the time. Why?

Because, like every other GM, I use or toss rules as I saw fit, based on what I felt the campaign needed. AD&D weapon speed rules? BLECH! Even Gygax talked about D&D rules he didn't use and/or bent into pretzels- they're guidelines, not immutable rules of the universe.

(Though once a rule is used a certain way, that is the way it was used thereafter. One must be consistent.)

So, if it wasn't transparency, then what turned you off of 4e? And, why couldn't you do the same thing with 4e that you did with every other edition - ie. drift the rules so that it fit with your playstyle?

Second question first:

1) because the rules I changed in other editions were much easier to excise...were less crucial...than the aspects of 4Ed I dislike. Like the aforementioned weapon speed rules. That's an easy toss. But the way HPs & HSs work? That's a lot of work to redo.

2) because there were fewer rules I disliked in prior editions compared to 4Ed.

So, what turned us off?

4Ed turned me (and several guys in our group) off out of the starting gate, and only after a while of playing it did I find my personal sweet spot of enjoyment in it...but it remains my least favorite incarnation of the game.

The first problem was the difference in the race/class design tossed out the option of campaign continuity. Our group easily upgraded our game from 1st to 2nd, and the 3Ed conversion guide made that changeover pretty easy. With 4Ed, that wasn't an option- developers even said as much during Pre-release comments- the multiclass rules alone invalidated a good 70% of my PCs.

The second problem was in the combat system. All those modifiers that can pop up, changing from round to round, turn to turn; marking, etc., were pegged early on as being fiddly bits that would slow things down. And they have proven to be so.

Worse, in prior editions, the majority of such modifiers came from one source- spellcasters. That meant, in a typical combat, between 3-5 sources, from friendlies and enemies. In 4Ed, every PC and NPC in the game can buff, debuff & rebuff one or multiple targets every time they act. This slows things down and often results in modifiers getting missed or forgotten.

(Some of the guys in our group are rabid computer gamers, and we even include professional computer game designers among our number. To a man, this was something they said they would rather have computers tracking.)

Hit Points & Healing Surges: at the very least, there are too many. And their potency is occasionally jarring, seemingly arbitrarily assigned when they run contra to the usual D&D style. Between his HP & HS, my Warlock has more HP than any other PC except the Fighter: this pure caster is tougher than some of the front line fighters. Worse, the Rogue- a striker who actually DOES see melee combat regularly- has maybe 70% of the one who can usually sit back an lob spells. That's ass-backwards.

The alignment system: I personally liked the 9 point system, and that alignment had an actual impact on the game. What 4Ed has is neither complete nor relevant- it may have well been excised completely instead of wasting the space it took up in the books. Even a simple Good/Unaligned/Evil system would have been better, if the alignment had an impact.

I could go on, but I won't.

Like I said, I do enjoy playing 4Ed...but I'll never run it as a DM.

 

[Hussar]

/snipFinally, I disagree that the given situation is a speed bump especially since the lich is more likely to have the jump on the party then the other way around and that he had 30 mummies and two score of skeletons plus a high level anti-paladin to act as his protective wa[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]ll[/SIZE]. Winnable?- defiantly. Easy? not so much.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

LOL. What level of an encounter would that be in 3e? Like you said, it's winnable in 2e with a 9th level party. That's an epic level encounter in 3e. There's just no comparison. Which rolls me back to the idea of why people find 4e so different from 3e. It baffles me to be honest. In 2e, as you say, this encounter is winnable. In 3e and in 4e, this is a TPK in the making. 30 mummies plus an anti-paladin, plus a lich? If you aren't scraping the party off the walls after this, you're not trying very hard.

Mechanically, 3e shares very, very little with 2e. Yet, people seem to want to lump 3e with AD&D and call 4e the outlier. I just don't understand how.

That is one of the things I been trying to talk about- the difference in expectations stemming from both a shifting "official" position how the game is supposed to be played and the gradual change in demographics (I cannot think of better term in expressing the opinion that more people play with high turnover groups often composed of strangers)
Another thing, each DMG is targeted for new player (and DMs) as well as veterans. In other words people who do not have previous experience or established style of play. One can definably run say 3e the same way as he used to run 2e - using fiat when he cannot remember or dislike the RAW. "DM:How did grapple work again? You know what, just give me a STR check and we go from there." Likely you will have a fun game if you are playing with friends, but expect rule aheavers to scream bloody murder that you are mangling the rules.
Again the difference was that level of fiat was not only acceptable but encouraged by the designers in 2e. 3e seems to have established different expectations. Neither is everyone's preferred way I understand, but neither is a wrong way to have fun.

Like, I said, I've had very, very different experiences. I once had a player in a 2e game tell me that I couldn't use a manticore in the location I was using it in, because the climate/terrain was wrong. And he argued with me about it.

I'd also suggest you go back and reread those Dragon magazines that you are referencing. Gygax made no bones that if you were adding in all sorts of house rules, you weren't playing D&D anymore. Sage Advice columns go back a lot further than 3e. Sage Advice starts in Issue 31 in 1979. THAT'S how long rules arguments have been going on in public forums. Well, at least that long.

The idea that fiat was somehow more acceptable then and not now is a complete fabrication. Good grief, ten bajillion 3rd party product books for d20 D&D and somehow house ruling is less common? Who do you think wrote those books?

The difference with 3e is that 3e was based on actual play. Again, 20 years of gaming experience went into the design, instead of simply piggybacking on the original works, they sat down and looked at what groups were doing during play. Instead of having no rules for common actions like jumping over a pit, we got the Jump skill with a standard DC.

This is the exact same argument that's been trotted out since 3e was released. 3e did not take the authority of the DM and give it to the players. It took some of the authority that the DM had, and made it transparent and wrapped it up into the mechanics.

 

[Hussar]

Like I said, I do enjoy playing 4Ed...but I'll never run it as a DM.

Whereas I'm the complete opposite for 3e now. I'll play it, but, I'll never DM it again. Different strokes.

But, the hit point thing does kinda surprise me. That's such an easy thing to fix. Too many healing surges? Ok, remove some to taste. It's not going to change the game that much, simply change pacing. Recovery too fast? Ok, instead of a complete rest regaining all surges, it regains however many you want. Again, the game would work perfectly fine with that. The Dark Sun game they talk about on the WOTC boards ((the ones the devs play)) works so that you get 1 healing surge back with each extended rest. And the game works fine.

That's the point with very transparent rules. You can make these changes very easily.

 

[Luce]

Like, I said, I've had very, very different experiences. I once had a player in a 2e game tell me that I couldn't use a manticore in the location I was using it in, because the climate/terrain was wrong. And he argued with me about it.

I'd also suggest you go back and reread those Dragon magazines that you are referencing. Gygax made no bones that if you were adding in all sorts of house rules, you weren't playing D&D anymore. Sage Advice columns go back a lot further than 3e. Sage Advice starts in Issue 31 in 1979. THAT'S how long rules arguments have been going on in public forums. Well, at least that long.

The idea that fiat was somehow more acceptable then and not now is a complete fabrication. Good grief, ten bajillion 3rd party product books for d20 D&D and somehow house ruling is less common? Who do you think wrote those books?

The difference with 3e is that 3e was based on actual play. Again, 20 years of gaming experience went into the design, instead of simply piggybacking on the original works, they sat down and looked at what groups were doing during play. Instead of having no rules for common actions like jumping over a pit, we got the Jump skill with a standard DC.

This is the exact same argument that's been trotted out since 3e was released. 3e did not take the authority of the DM and give it to the players. It took some of the authority that the DM had, and made it transparent and wrapped it up into the mechanics.

You have your experiences, I have mine. The disparity does not mean imply exclusivity.
EGG did say (in DMG 1e) both The players want to play this game and not the one of your devising and that This is your campaign, change it so it is fun for you.
"Master of the game" (1989) pp15 "the Game Master is required to design and develop rules sub-cases, bridging rules, rule expansions, new rules, and possibly sub-systems and systems within the overall RPG system.

A common advice for a long time was: "Make it up". There may be a need for consolidated ("official") rulings so people can play together in tournaments, but in you home game go with what you feel is right.

All editions are based on actual play and been tested before release. For example, feel free to re-read the intro of 1e DMG. 2e DMG states pp9 "No role-playing game we know of has been play tested
more heavily then this one. But that doesn't mean it's perfect. What we consider to right may be unbalanced or anachronistic in your campaign. ...In short follow the rules as they are written if doing so improves,your game. But on the same token, break the rules only if doing so improves you game."
3.5 one:"In the three years since the d20 Game System energized the roleplaying game industry, we’ve gathered tons of data on how the game is being played. We consider D&D to be a living game that constantly evolves as it is
played. Using the gathered feedback, we’ve retooled the game from the ground up and incorporated everyone’s suggestions to improve the game and this product."

You can argue that the scale on which the testing occurred was different, but I will have to disagree that the editions were not tested before release.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But, the hit point thing does kinda surprise me. That's such an easy thing to fix. Too many healing surges? Ok, remove some to taste. It's not going to change the game that much, simply change pacing. Recovery too fast? Ok, instead of a complete rest regaining all surges, it regains however many you want. Again, the game would work perfectly fine with that. The Dark Sun game they talk about on the WOTC boards ((the ones the devs play)) works so that you get 1 healing surge back with each extended rest. And the game works fine.

I'm sorry, but that is not an "easy fix" IMHO- not if you want to do it right.

It's not just rest & recovery, it's not just the amount of HP: many magic effects- spells/powers/items- are also tied into having or using Healing Surges.

And it does not alter the fact that some classes number and/or value of surges is out of whack with their roles, such as Warlock vs Rogue.

That is a number of separate issues of varying importance tied to the same core mechanic, and because of this, a change in one aspect may have unintended and undesirable consequences in another aspect. Sorry, I'm not interested in that amount of work.

That's the point with very transparent rules. You can make these changes very easily.

Hey, my favorite system- HERO- is as transparent as it gets.

 

[S'mon]

I'm sorry, but that is not an "easy fix" IMHO- not if you want to do it right.

It's not just rest & recovery, it's not just the amount of HP: many magic effects- spells/powers/items- are also tied into having or using Healing Surges.

And it does not alter the fact that some classes number and/or value of surges is out of whack with their roles, such as Warlock vs Rogue.

That is a number of separate issues of varying importance tied to the same core mechanic, and because of this, a change in one aspect may have unintended and undesirable consequences in another aspect. Sorry, I'm not interested in that amount of work.

I'm planning to go to 2 surges per overnight rest in my next 4e campaign (converted 3e AP), with a full Extended Rest taking four or more days. I don't foresee significant knock-on effects; the idea is to enable lower-powered combats spread over several days and have them still be challenging. So rather than 4e's typical 4 on-level encounters in one adventuring day, I might have four such encounters over two or three days. Do you foresee reasons why this won't work?