Ran a dissapointing game last night

[jaerdaph]

4e supports a mage who gets up close and casts spells. Thunderwave is the obviously level 1 choice for such a mage. 4e does not support a mage who fights by hitting things with his staff in physical melee combat. File this with a rogue who refuses to sneak attack, or a paladin who hides in the back and throws javelin. The game is balanced on the assumption that your character will be minimally competent, and on the assumption that the fun in the game is in a team effort. Refusing to be part of the team is antisocial at best.

Actually, that makes it sound like PCs have to be a little too "cookie-cutter" and "factory mold" for my roleplaying tastes.

 

[el-remmen]

I'm assuming this was Fourth Edition?

I'm not sure the game runs real well when you have players who, for instance, insist on playing wizards who prefer to use their staff to attack rather than, say, magic missile. It's about as effective and interesting as it was in every other edition - that is to say, very dangerous and pretty boring.

Tell the Wizard player to shape up. Its hard enough running a 6 person game on its own, and it doesn't help make combat exciting when one player is voluntarily choosing to not use their class abilities.

You need more advice than just that, but not allowing a player to voluntarily take up time being ineffectual is a good start at making combat fun.

For me wizard melee was a last resort cuz I ran out of spells and things were WAY too close for comfort. Are there really that many feats that make a wizard a real melee option at this point in time? Play a different class. I think it's reasonable, esp if the party expects you to be playing a more standard role and you don't dissuade them from the idea.

. . .many of my players didn't "get" their classes. So they were doing the same things over and over, because they didn't know what else to do.

I quoted all of the above because I think they all exemplify the issue with 4E for me (and to some degree the way a lot of people seemed to play 3E from my many years reading the boards), which is exacerbated by the whole "roles" thing - the idea that there is "a way" to play a wizard or any class.

I think as GM you need to create or tweak encounters that work with the way the players want to play (or else don't be the DM). I am not saying that every encounter needs to be perfectly tailored to the group (or else there is either no real challenge, or too much of one if designed to foil their tactics at default), but that people are going to approach playing their characters in a wide variety of ways that are not always going to be the most tactically efficient - and when the most tactically efficient thing is magic missiling every round - well, that sounds particularly boring.

Now that doesn't mean that the wizard running in and repeatedly bashing with his staff can't be boring - but rather that the entire context/environment of a battle should be interesting enough to allow for a variety of options, not only whatever default at-will power a character might happen to have.

Actually, that makes it sound like PCs have to be a little too "cookie-cutter" and "factory mold" for my roleplaying tastes.

Word.

 

[Cadfan]

I quoted all of the above because I think they all exemplify the issue with 4E for me (and to some degree the way a lot of people seemed to play 3E from my many years reading the boards), which is exacerbated by the whole "roles" thing - the idea that there is "a way" to play a wizard or any class.

I consider every player at the table to be responsible for contributing to the overall enjoyment of the evening, or at least not detracting from it. There are a lot of ways you can do this. One way NOT to do this is to 1) take time 2) accomplishing nothing.

There is a vast gap between being "the most tactically efficient" and what we're dealing with, which is playing a spellcaster that refuses to use spells and intentionally subjects himself to physical harm which requires the party's healing magic to remedy. It increases the party's chances of character death, and disrupts the DM's ability to plan encounters. Should the DM balance the encounter on the assumption that the PC will contribute? Or should the DM balance the encounter as if there were one fewer PC in the group? What happens if the PC decides to contribute that fight?

Its a very real disruption, and isn't much different from having a PC in the party who threatens or stabs NPCs at inappropriate times, disrupting the party's efforts. The solution is talking to the player about it.

 

[el-remmen]

Its a very real disruption, and isn't much different from having a PC in the party who threatens or stabs NPCs at inappropriate times, disrupting the party's efforts. The solution is talking to the player about it.

I cannot agree.

I mean, I agree with the part about talking with players about expectations and playstyle - but the idea that that is as much a disruption is weird to me. I don't see it as a disruption at all.

I try to design encounters in organic and dynamic ways where one character more or less (or their particular behavior) does not "break it" (i.e. make it unfun, boring, too short, too long, too deadly) - and while there are certianly parameters of character behavior that determine the ideal way an encounter may play out, I don't see why/how they need to be so narrow.

 

[Obryn]

4e is less flexible with roles than 3e is, by and large. Bug or feature, it depends on your perspective. I expect this will lighten up as more supplements are released, but as of right now, it's certainly more limited.

With that said, under any edition, a wizard who doesn't want to cast spells presents certain challenges for a DM who cares about balanced encounters.

(1) If you lowball the encounters, the Wizard might wake up and make everything too easy.

(2) If you aim the encounters at a full-strength party, the Wizard's lack of activity may cause the demise of other PCs.

It largely depends on whether the player wants to roleplay an interesting character (in which case it rocks, and you should accommodate them), or if they want to be a big killjoy and disrupt the rest of the group's fun (in which case, a serious talk is in order).


Now.... I don't know that this was the primary problem the OP was having. If I were him, I'd seriously analyze the session and the adventure. He's laying all the blame at his players' feet, I think. Ask your players if they're having fun, and how they could have more fun. Try to gear your game in a more entertaining direction.

It may also be that 4e's not for your group. It's working great for mine - but gamers have different preferences, and one game can't fit everyone.

-O

 

[Rechan]

To the OP, here is a nice list of ways you can increase the excitement of the White Dragon fight.

With regards to the obvious edition war thread-jack: Because 3e made a wizard with a staff an appealing melee combat choice.

 

[Tigerbunny]

I look at it this way. Yes, I want to adapt to each player's character design and interests. But a significantly underperforming character is potentially just as much a spotlight hog as a optimized-to-the-limit ubercharacter. It's not that a DM can't plan around such a character - it's that it's not fair to the other players to have to play to that character's weaknesses. It's rude to hog the spotlight - whether by being UberStompyMan or MrIneffectual or TalksToShrubbery or I'mSoEvil.

 

[Cadfan]

I try to design encounters in organic and dynamic ways where one character more or less (or their particular behavior) does not "break it" (i.e. make it unfun, boring, too short, too long, too deadly) - and while there are certianly parameters of character behavior that determine the ideal way an encounter may play out, I don't see why/how they need to be so narrow.

It isn't necessarily about one encounter, its about every encounter, and something which might not break or even damage one encounter might, over the course of a campaign, become a long term drag. And again, its not "narrow" to expect a wizard to spend most of his time casting spells.

The situation is analogous to a player of a 4e rogue insisting upon using a greatsword, except worse. It worked in 3e, it doesn't work in 4e, get over it, move on. Eventually the Swordmage or whatever its called will be released, and he can have a blast with a melee wizard.

 

[el-remmen]

With regards to the obvious edition war thread-jack: Because 3e made a wizard with a staff an appealing melee combat choice.

Yeah, I guess I did threadjack a little bit - but not edition-warring - I think it is more a playstyle/enounter design issue than an edition issue.

But I also wanted to point out that expectations of character behavior can lead to the situation described.