Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 5521405" data-attributes="member: 38357">Well, I definitely agree that what XP is in 4e would simply be pacing. But what players I've encountered seem to want it to be is the powerup that it used to be.To me, it's much less obvious than in previous editions. Players are very aware of the mechanics, and they seem to view level X monster of type Y as a level X monster more readily than as a monster of type Y. I am, however, going to give the whole scaling-by-type (ie: solo/elite/standard/minion) thing more of a try; I don't think that it's not good advice. But anything that will help me convince the PCs that these are actually the same gnolls that they fought earlier, and not just a mechanically different monster that I'm calling those gnolls I think would end up being helpful.I agree, I was simply trying to make clear my preference / bias. I'd like to run a good epic game, but my general preference is for lower-level stuff.As above, I'm going to be giving this a try, but so far I've had a hard time getting the players to really equate two monsters that differ in both level and role. Rather than cancel each other out, having both differences seems to make the issue worse, IMO.Yes, I'd definitely like to see more about this. I don't think I have a huge issue mapping the change in the place of the PCs into the game world, although I may be guilty of making things early on seem too important. However, what I'd really like to see is ideas for moving this into the mechanics and "tactical play", which I find is a major draw for the players, takes up most of the time at the table, and can easily overshadow the story in 4e.I think either would help, actually. =] But, yeah I don't think you "require" new mechanics (unless that's specifically what WotC is looking to publish), and the advice would seem like a more logical first step before new mechanics.I certainly don't expect my experiences to be universal, but what I've seen in my games (and from talking to players) leads me to believe that they're looking for the same kind of experience from leveling in previous editions, that they don't really feel fully satisfied that they're getting it, and that they tend to want to speed up advancement to compensate (which I don't think it does, really).Well, we had a situation a month or two ago in my Dark Sun game where I had to make a call during a combat (which was already kind of going on too long), because I didn't think we could find an answer in the rules in a timely manner. At the time there was a bit of argument and bad feelings about it, despite the fact that it really wasn't a major thing. When I went back to try and smooth things over and find out what went wrong, the responses I got ranged from "Well you should have just said that's how the rules read" (which I was not 100% sure of at the time) to basically "Oh, sorry man, I really don't know what came over me". All of my players resisted the idea that I should make a call and we should move on because, in the heat of the moment, "that's not how 4e is played" was what popped into their minds. RAW in 4e is more important, IME, than in previous editions - and I think that's a side-effect (for me at least) of the fact that 4e RAW is pretty damn good.The situations are a different thing, but that can be an issue as well. If I throw down the battlemat and lay out minis, I have got a huge advantage in convincing the players that the situation is worth their time. (And this is very much despite the fact that there are concerns that we spend too much time running combats.) 4e has made combat the focus of the game in a more significant way than previous editions (for me - I suspect from some of what I've read / heard that this goes back further, and perhaps in some cases has just always been the case, for some players). And actually I was going to contrast that with non-combat situations, but trying to come up with specific examples I think that if the PCs are there then the players are pretty much ready to go. So maybe not an issue (I may be misreading the meaning of "situations"?).I definitely believe it's a taste thing. Personally I feel like if I had more time to develop stuff then I could run a much better game at higher levels. I think that it should work to make maintaining a longer-term fictional continuity (ie: these are those gnolls you fought before, this is the guy who sent those assassins against you back then, etc.) easier for me to maintain. On the gnolls example, for instance, it seems to me that the longer between the first and second meetings the easier it ought to be for the players to look past the mechanical differences.But my players generally want faster advancement, not slower. And I feel that this tends to result in not only a serious fixation on getting new "stuff", but also draws a lot of focus away from "what does my character do" towards "what does that new power do, again?" And I'll add that I'm much more ready to deal with rapid advancement as a DM than as a player. The need to just constantly be updating my character and adding new (and fairly meaningless, IMO) items is a big turn-off and definitely makes me pause before sitting down at the table as a player in a 4e game again...</blockquote>

Verification