Salvageable Innovations from 4e for Nonenthusiasts

[Raven Crowking]

But on the other hand, in my experience any game where taking risks isn't a smart thing to do will also turn out to be a game where characters don't take risks at all. YMMV, of course.

Indeed, it does.

Or, rather, I have never run a game where either not taking risks or taking risks is obviously and consistently the smart thing to do.

Others have complained (in other threads) that, in some editions, what is "smart play" is circumstantial, and rather in-obvious. To my mind, if the smart thing to do is obvious, there is little actual decision-making involved. If the smart thing is always the same thing, you might as well not be there.

YMMV, of course.


RC




[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]: If you look at my blog, you will see that I have been using the same phrase for a while, too. Just not as consistently as you!

 

[MarkB]

Indeed, it does.

Or, rather, I have never run a game where either not taking risks or taking risks is obviously and consistently the smart thing to do.

Others have complained (in other threads) that, in some editions, what is "smart play" is circumstantial, and rather in-obvious. To my mind, if the smart thing to do is obvious, there is little actual decision-making involved. If the smart thing is always the same thing, you might as well not be there.

YMMV, of course.

Probably a middle ground is best. Systems where there's only one smart choice aren't so good, but neither are systems where the smart choice is nonsensical or so random that the player's choices don't matter.

IMO, the smart choice should be not necessarily obvious, but at least intuitive.

 

[JamesonCourage]

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]: If you look at my blog, you will see that I have been using the same phrase for a while, too. Just not as consistently as you!

Of course. You've definitely been using it longer than I have, as I only joined up in January. I am by no means the first person to say anything close to this. I was joking around

 

[Raven Crowking]

Of course. You've definitely been using it longer than I have, as I only joined up in January. I am by no means the first person to say anything close to this. I was joking around

Well, I didn't want you to think you'd caught a thief!

(Not that I object to being thought a thief; I just object to being caught!)


RC

 

[Iron Sky]

One aspect of rpg combat that irritates me is that the biggest, most effective powers tend to be used at, or near, the start of a fight, which is the complete opposite to the way it works in fiction. This creates a sense of action 'falling' rather than rising. I understand that Exalted has some mechanics to support the delayed use of major powers, though I'm unfamiliar with the game.

I loved 1e Exalted and played a full campaign in it so I can speak to this.

In Exalted, the powers are called "Charms" and are powered by motes of Essence (essentially mana). The main reason people delay using powers is that armor is essentially DR - though it never soaks all the damage so if you hit someone in plate mail you'll eventually wear them down even if you can't get through their "DR".

There aren't static defenses, if you want to stop someone from hitting you, you need to parry, block, dodge, etc. Powerful attack charms (or combos of multiple charms linked together) are more difficult or even impossible to be parried or dodged without defensive charms to counter them.

Usually, combat starts with people dropping scene-length defensive and/or offensive charms using us a small-to-moderate chunk of essence. If fighting mundane people (I.E. not horrific monsters or other Essence users) that's all you probably need to use.

If you're fighting something else that has access to Essence, you whittle them down with normal attacks, mostly saving your essence for defensive charms to counter big/lucky/essence-powered attacks. Usually, once someone is almost out of essence, they either have to try to escape (usually through movement/stealth charms) or launch a massive all-out attack hoping to overcome the enemy's charm-enhanced counters.

If you want an example of what that looks like, I talked about an example from one of our games in this thread. Edit: More here.

1e Exalted is probably my favorite game system ever, but sadly we reached too much game mastery to really play it much anymore (there's a few fairly op combinations that make much of the rest of it obsolete) and 2e changed most of my favorite things about the original system.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

One aspect of rpg combat that irritates me is that the biggest, most effective powers tend to be used at, or near, the start of a fight, which is the complete opposite to the way it works in fiction. This creates a sense of action 'falling' rather than rising. I understand that Exalted has some mechanics to support the delayed use of major powers, though I'm unfamiliar with the game.

I think that is a playstyle issue.

Personally, I try to evaluate my foes before choosing which powers to use. In our 4Ed game, for instance, I often open with a particular power that reduces a particular defense, then follow it up with another one that does likewise. But not every time- if we're facing foes that the first power is unlikely to affect, I do something else.

And on top of that, I've gone about 3 gaming sessions- covering about 2 campaign days- without using my daily powers.