Stun/Paralysis effects

[BryonD]

Excellent reasoning.

But some people are going to find it ends up undermining the bigger picture.

I find that a key value in D&D is the ability to play in a rich alternate reality and face and overcome the threats that the world brings with it. If the threats are reimagined with the design basis of keeping the player active no matter what then the sense of reality is greatly wounded. I find it vastly more gratifying when the design basis is one of the monster is what it is and it is up to the players/characters to overcome the threats that the setting brings.

When a player gets hit by a mind blast now, "bored" or "sit and suck" are pretty much far from their mind. (At least in the games I've been playing) To the contrary, that is exactly when the tension gets ramped up. Suddenly the rest of the party must adapt to not having whatever strength that character brings to the fight. And beyond that, they need to try to beat the mindflayer while saving the stunned character. And that player is generally very engaged in watching and advising as his character hangs in the balance.

As a player, if I got to continue having actions and I knew that this is for purely gamist reasons, the contribution to victory that those actions contributed would seem completely hollow and therefore the ultimate victory (assuming) would be hollow as well.

And I'm not saying that there is no threat. But there is distinctly less threat. And less threat for reasons that are purely for gamism and wholely at the expense of immersion in a convincing independent reality.

I think this is another example of 4E giving up the very things that D&D does best. Tabletop will never be as good as online play when it comes to constant action, instant recovery play.

 

[Wormwood]

When you come right down to it, my actions are the only currency I have as a player.

Removing my ability to contribute to the game (aside from 'watching and offering advice') is too steep a price for me to pay.

 

[FireLance]

If the threats are reimagined with the design basis of keeping the player active no matter what then the sense of reality is greatly wounded.

I would make a distinction between keeping the player active and keeping the character active. A saving throw to shrug off the effect can keep the player active even though the character remains inactive. Similarly, if the player has to make a tactical decision each round whether or not to use a limited resource in order to recover or act, he remains active even if he decides that his character should remain inactive. Long periods of total inactivity should be avoided, in my view. The player is of course interested in the outcome, but if he can't do a single thing to affect it, he is only a spectator, not a participant.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

When a player gets hit by a mind blast now, "bored" or "sit and suck" are pretty much far from their mind. (At least in the games I've been playing) To the contrary, that is exactly when the tension gets ramped up. Suddenly the rest of the party must adapt to not having whatever strength that character brings to the fight. And beyond that, they need to try to beat the mindflayer while saving the stunned character. And that player is generally very engaged in watching and advising as his character hangs in the balance.

Not with us. Yes, we are worried about dying. However, some players are just more interested in their characters and the game in general. Some players will sit there on the edge of their seat watching the rest of the group fight the monster hoping that they win before their character dies.

Others will say "I'm out for how long? More than 10 rounds? Does anyone have a way to dispel it before then? No? Ok. Well, I'm going to pull out my Nintendo DS while you guys fight this battle, there's nothing I can do."

Yes, it IS exciting to be down to the wire and realize that with 3 party members paralyzed that suddenly you have almost no chance whatsoever unless you work together REALLY well AND luck is on your side. However, this sense of excitement comes almost every time you fight something you know is really hard. It doesn't have to come from being held, stunned, or paralyzed. Simply dropping 2 of the party members to negative hitpoints can have the same effect. However, the players know they could be healed at any moment (or maybe use a second wind, not sure if you can while unconscious).

It's about the difficulty, not about the specific effect.

As a player, if I got to continue having actions and I knew that this is for purely gamist reasons, the contribution to victory that those actions contributed would seem completely hollow and therefore the ultimate victory (assuming) would be hollow as well.

You only know the reasons are gamist because you have been reading the message boards and reading the behind the scenes articles. Most people won't. Or at least they'll forget about it very quickly because it isn't that big of a deal. For instance, in 3.5 edition Hold Person was given a save every round because it was no fun to sit there for the entire combat unable to do anything.

I don't know anyone who sits around the table and says "Damn saving throw that I get every round to get rid of Hold Person. I wish it would go back to before when I had no way of getting out of this. It was put in for entirely gamist reasons." Everyone simply says "I hope I make this roll so I can go back to helping the party as they will need my help."

From all the playtest reports being unable to take Opportunity Attacks will be fairly bad for everyone as it appears to be a fairly large source of damage(fighters being able to take Opportunity Attacks against creatures if they attack someone other than them, rangers being able to take Opportunity Attacks when they are shot at with a ranged weapon, dragons being able to take an Opportunity Attack when they are flanked, etc.) Being unable to activate immediate actions sounds like it will take away a lot of protection and defense related effects that may cause PCs to die. Daze doesn't sound like a good thing to happen to your party.

I think this is another example of 4E giving up the very things that D&D does best. Tabletop will never be as good as online play when it comes to constant action, instant recovery play.

You're right. In an online game if I'm completely paralyzed for 4 rounds of combat, it takes maybe 8-10 seconds before I can move again. Vs 45 minutes to an hour in a tabletop game. Big difference. That's why they are trying to close the gap to ONLY 10 seconds vs 15 minutes.

 

[small pumpkin man]

But some people are going to find it ends up undermining the bigger picture.

I find that a key value in D&D is the ability to play in a rich alternate reality and face and overcome the threats that the world brings with it. If the threats are reimagined with the design basis of keeping the player active no matter what then the sense of reality is greatly wounded. I find it vastly more gratifying when the design basis is one of the monster is what it is and it is up to the players/characters to overcome the threats that the setting brings.

Except Mind flayers are a creation unique to D&D, so this essentially boils down to "because it was always like that". Seriously, in game the difference between "take penalties, open to sneak attack and can't act" of 3.x and "take penalties, open to sneak attack and can take fewer actions" of 4e just isn't enough to justify not changing if there's a good reason, which there is.

When a player gets hit by a mind blast now, "bored" or "sit and suck" are pretty much far from their mind. (At least in the games I've been playing) To the contrary, that is exactly when the tension gets ramped up. Suddenly the rest of the party must adapt to not having whatever strength that character brings to the fight. And beyond that, they need to try to beat the mindflayer while saving the stunned character. And that player is generally very engaged in watching and advising as his character hangs in the balance.

If the player is the type who enjoys talking tactics and helping the other players, yes, absolutely, they still have things they can do, but the game is stil actively hindering them from helping and enjoying themselves, which to anyone who doesn't enjoy that, will bring them out.

And sure, other people are having fun, but would their fun be that much lessoned if stun gave large penalties, and still allowed people to take some actions?

As a player, if I got to continue having actions and I knew that this is for purely gamist reasons, the contribution to victory that those actions contributed would seem completely hollow and therefore the ultimate victory (assuming) would be hollow as well.

Gamist? as in more fun? yeah, damn those gamists. Look, this isn't about making fights easier, or "coddling" people, it's about making people feel like they have options and control, even if they don't.

Nauseated is better than dazed or feared, because even if you can't actually doing anything with that move action, it still feels like you might, you're still in control of what the character does, which makes the game more engaging and fun.

Not to mention you're being a complete grognard with the whole "I couldn't do this last edition, so anything I do with the ability is meaningless" hyperbole, as has been said before, if stun is the only way you think mind blast could possibly be portrayed justly, you should just keep on playing 3.x, the designers aren't going to keep any sacred cows around just for you nostaglia.

And I'm not saying that there is no threat. But there is distinctly less threat. And less threat for reasons that are purely for gamism and wholely at the expense of immersion in a convincing independent reality.

Shenanigans. The threat is only slightly lessoned, it just feels lessoned because you feel like you have more control, and the "independent reality" isn't touched at all, (to use comics terminology) it's a reboot, not a retcon, continuity doesn't apply, and there's no other reason to keep stun the way it is.

I think this is another example of 4E giving up the very things that D&D does best. Tabletop will never be as good as online play when it comes to constant action, instant recovery play.

I see it as another example of 4e going in the right direction, removing the large swathes of time when only busybodies like myself actually derive any fun from the game itself, as opposed to just enjoying themselves by hanging around with thier friends.

 

[Lhorgrim]

As a DM I used to avoid designing encounters that had effects that would "remove" a player from the game. My gaming groups were always small and played infrequently, so I tried to keep the players engaged as much as possible. I also saw the game as entertainment for my group, so I tried to make it fun within the tastes of my players. If they weren't having fun, there were many other accessible "fun" things they could do (Xbox etc.) that would take them away from the gaming group.

I like the idea of being able to do something each round as a player. I agree with those who have stated that making a save to overcome the effect meets the criteria for "doing something". I'm for about anything that will help keep the players actively engaged in the game.

I haven't looked very closely at 4E yet. I'm taking a wait and see approach I guess, but the few things I've heard have given me the impression that the designers are trying to streamline some of the clunkier parts of previous editions. Yesterday I was adamant that I wasn't going to invest in "yet another new edition" after a rough experience with previous edition changes, but after some research I've decided to not rule out changing to 4E.

 

[Cadfan]

As a player, if I got to continue having actions and I knew that this is for purely gamist reasons, the contribution to victory that those actions contributed would seem completely hollow and therefore the ultimate victory (assuming) would be hollow as well.

I have to interject to comment on this point.

I've said this before and I'll say it again- There are some people who should not read the 4e previews. They should not read the design diaries. In general, they should stay as far away as possible from anything that indicates the reasoning or the design decisions that make up the games they play.

Not because we don't want them here. It isn't a slur on them.

But designer diaries and previews that explain why changes were made are a manner of metaphorically revealing what's behind the curtain at a magic show. For some people, seeing how the magician did his trick makes it cooler. They love magicians who happily reveal their secrets, because knowing how it happened makes it all the more impressive to them.

For other people, seeing behind the curtain ruins the trick. Once they know how things happened, or why things happened, they lose their sense of wonder. In RPG terms, they lose their sense of immersion.

If you are one of those people, why are you here? You're just ruining your own fun. Seriously consider just sitting out until the release of 4e, and enjoying it for what it is.

On the specific point, the mindflayer's mind blast: An area of effect attack that dazes everyone inside is NOT a weak attack. It has the potential to deny an entire round of combat to the PCs. That's an entire round of the mindflayer's allies chewing on the PCs heads while the PCs do nothing. And if you've got, say, TWO mindflayers, it just gets worse.

 

[BryonD]

I have no doubt that my claims will fall on deaf ears in the 4E forums.
That doesn't mean that they don't represent a valid position.
I'm not claiming that those who love this idea now will love it one tiny bit less three years from now.

But I think a lot of 4e converts will be making excuses 3 years from now about how P&P gaming was dying anyway and it just turns out there was nothing the 4e designers could do to stop that tide. The heart of what makes D&D fun to a lot of current gamers is being destroyed by these types of changes. 4E will be the most popular roleplaying game in existance late this year. And it will also be so in 2010. But by changing things to be more like other media that it can not hope to match, that title will mean less than it ever has before.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

On the specific point, the mindflayer's mind blast: An area of effect attack that dazes everyone inside is NOT a weak attack. It has the potential to deny an entire round of combat to the PCs. That's an entire round of the mindflayer's allies chewing on the PCs heads while the PCs do nothing. And if you've got, say, TWO mindflayers, it just gets worse.

To be fair here, if the new Minis rules are correct about daze for 4th ed, it means that daze doesn't stop you from taking actions, so all the PCs can continue to act normally.

Daze stops you from taking Opportunity Attacks or acting when it isn't your turn. So no immediate actions either. It also provides Combat Advantage(+2 to hit) to your enemies. Otherwise you can move and act normally. So the new version of the Mind Flayer just makes people kind of woozy with its Mind Blast.

 

[BryonD]

For other people, seeing behind the curtain ruins the trick. Once they know how things happened, or why things happened, they lose their sense of wonder. In RPG terms, they lose their sense of immersion.

If you are one of those people, why are you here? You're just ruining your own fun. Seriously consider just sitting out until the release of 4e, and enjoying it for what it is.

I'm not one of those people.
I'm one of the people who has vastly different tastes in P&P gaming than the target audience of 4e.

If I waited until 4e came out and read all this at once it would just be that much worse.

On the specific point, the mindflayer's mind blast: An area of effect attack that dazes everyone inside is NOT a weak attack. It has the potential to deny an entire round of combat to the PCs. That's an entire round of the mindflayer's allies chewing on the PCs heads while the PCs do nothing. And if you've got, say, TWO mindflayers, it just gets worse.

They are a lot less threat than what I have now. Two much less scary mindflayers is even further behind two real threat mindflayers.

Edit: But you are right. I should just stop reading this forum. I was very greatly enthused about 4e at first and I haven't gotten past that yet. So you are right, just for the wrong reasons.