This mentality needs to die

[nedjer]

But people can still nitpick because they aren't playing the way someone else plays so they must be doing it wrong.

It doesn't seem nitpicking to recognise the difference between hours spent in combat based around highly tactical rules, (i.e. a wargame played with spells), and roleplaying, (i.e. an interactive story involving characterisation, exploration, plot development, negotiation and combat).

The first is a mechanical process, the second an imaginative process. Any game that is played in a way that includes a series of hour long combats with an occasional nod to the other areas can be mislabelled a roleplaying game, but it is, nevertheless, a tactical wargame.

To claim otherwise seems comparable to identifying Modern Warfare 2 as an RPG because there's a thin veil of characterisation and plot alongside hour after hour of brutal combat.

 

[Hussar]

Were you guys stoned?

I second this question.

3 hours sounds like you didn't spend 3 hours fighting, you spent an hour rolling dice and deciding actions and 2 hours on "whoa...dude..I have..like..hands.." Just kidding, but seriously, what was the hold up?

Oh, dude, don't get me started. Just, don't go there.

I recently got to play 4e with a brand new DM and a group of mixed experience - myself and one other with almost no experience with the system and one guy with a fair bit - and what an eye opener. Similar sort of encounter - 4 or 5 kobolds holed up at a farm and the combat took about 30 minutes. Maybe 40.

Having seen what an enormously huge difference it can make whether you have a DM and players who are on the ball and those who are not, it's bloody eye opening.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'd say this is a pretty unfair characterization. A generalized one that makes a lot of assumptions about one's DM as well. I think you'll find that most games do not involve any kind of Mother May I.

All games involve Mother May I. That's the primary game mechanic any time there isn't a clear rule. There are really only two ways to handle any situation: The rules way and the Mother May I way.

Rules way: "I jump over the pit. The rules say I can jump 10 feet with a DC 20 Jump check. My bonus is +15, I rolled a 10. I make it."

Mother May I way: "The rules don't say exactly how far I can jump. Can I jump over this 10 foot pit, DM?"

The same thing applies in almost any situation:

Rules way: "This power says it affects only creatures. I can't use it on this door."

Mother May I way: "The book doesn't say what this affects. It just says it creates a ball of fire. Does that ball of fire melt through 24 inches of ice, DM?"

Now, often in the Mother May I style of play everyone at the table agrees with the answer given by the DM so it doesn't become a problem. That doesn't make the style any less Mother May I. It's just that when I ask "Can I bash down the door with my 20 strength?" and the DM says "Yes", everyone at the table says "He's strong, I don't see any reason he couldn't bash down the door". On the other hand if I say "Can I use fireball to melt 2 feet of ice?" and the DM says no....well, some people will feel they are at the mercy of their DM and their rulings. Which they always were. The players just disagree with the ruling this time.

I prefer to use the rules 99% of the time and resort to Mother May I a lot less often. This is one of the few times in the 4e rules that the rules explicitly give DM fiat. He said no, that's perfectly acceptable.

 

[Jack99]

Oh, dude, don't get me started. Just, don't go there.

I recently got to play 4e with a brand new DM and a group of mixed experience - myself and one other with almost no experience with the system and one guy with a fair bit - and what an eye opener. Similar sort of encounter - 4 or 5 kobolds holed up at a farm and the combat took about 30 minutes. Maybe 40.

Having seen what an enormously huge difference it can make whether you have a DM and players who are on the ball and those who are not, it's bloody eye opening.

Glad you experienced 4e as some of us experience it finally

 

[AllisterH]

Heh.

I'm wondering how many people didn't experience the "well, you said it was ok before, so why can't I do it again" style of gameplay that the "say "YES if it seems cool" style of DMing encoruages at times.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The first is a mechanical process, the second an imaginative process. Any game that is played in a way that includes a series of hour long combats with an occasional nod to the other areas can be mislabelled a roleplaying game, but it is, nevertheless, a tactical wargame.

That is highly offensive. But baring the extreme amount of opinion you are throwing around as fact in your post, a roleplaying game is one in which you play the role of a character. If that character's primary motivation is killing monsters and taking their stuff, it does NOT make it a tactical wargame to spend your time in the game focusing on those aspects. It is simply a roleplaying game that focuses on different things than you like.

Nor is playing that way any less imaginative. I imagine my character swinging his sword, yelling out battle cries, blocking blows, and so on. I imagine his motivations when I take every action. Do I kill that enemy or try to knock him unconscious? How will that effect the plot beyond this encounter? The WHY I am killing them comes up on a regular basis.

Contrast that to tactical wargaming. I don't much care why I am killing anyone. It's a game and I'm killing them because if I wasn't there would be no game. The results of this battle likely won't factor into any future scenarios. And if the do, it will be just to determine how many troops I have to start the next battle with. I don't think about the motivations of my troops because I don't care what their motivations are. My job as a player in a tactical war game is to win using the best tactics.

Now, there are elements of tactical wargaming in D&D. That's what makes combat fun. I spent too many years where combat was not tactical and consisted of the DM pointing at me and I called out "AC 5 for 14 damage" and then he pointed at the next person in initiative. I wouldn't exactly call that imaginative. But it moved quickly and got us back into the exploration portions of the game in no time at all.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I prefer to give up DM control in a situation like this. Let them get away with blasting the door with fire or attacking it with weapons or whatever. It's clearly fun to use these elements in new ways, so encourage the fun. Just ramp up the difficulty of the next part, if you thought they got through it too easily. You're the DM, after all, nothing you haven't already said is set in stone.

But sometimes what the players THINK is the most fun isn't. The thing is, sometimes it's fun to use a fireball to melt your way through ice. Sometimes it's more satisfying to stand in front of the door, have your wizard make an Arcana check to point the trap at the door, attract the attention of a trap with an Acrobatics check and succeed on your Athletics roll to jump away at the last second in order melt the ice.

What players might get disappointed by("What do you mean my fireball can't melt the ice?") ends up being MORE fun for them in the end. Mostly because they had a chance to fail and succeeded anyway. This is especially true when a solution obviously favors one class or player over another. It sucks to be the fighter when you realize that a Wizard can simply say "I use a fireball, that solves everything and we go". Some people see that as creative. I see it as simply looking at your character sheet and picking a power.

 

[nedjer]

That is highly offensive. But baring the extreme amount of opinion you are throwing around as fact in your post, a roleplaying game is one in which you play the role of a character. If that character's primary motivation is killing monsters and taking their stuff, it does NOT make it a tactical wargame to spend your time in the game focusing on those aspects. It is simply a roleplaying game that focuses on different things than you like.

Nor is playing that way any less imaginative. I imagine my character swinging his sword, yelling out battle cries, blocking blows, and so on. I imagine his motivations when I take every action. Do I kill that enemy or try to knock him unconscious? How will that effect the plot beyond this encounter? The WHY I am killing them comes up on a regular basis.

Contrast that to tactical wargaming. I don't much care why I am killing anyone. It's a game and I'm killing them because if I wasn't there would be no game. The results of this battle likely won't factor into any future scenarios. And if the do, it will be just to determine how many troops I have to start the next battle with. I don't think about the motivations of my troops because I don't care what their motivations are. My job as a player in a tactical war game is to win using the best tactics.

Now, there are elements of tactical wargaming in D&D. That's what makes combat fun. I spent too many years where combat was not tactical and consisted of the DM pointing at me and I called out "AC 5 for 14 damage" and then he pointed at the next person in initiative. I wouldn't exactly call that imaginative. But it moved quickly and got us back into the exploration portions of the game in no time at all.

Is it really so offensive to be objective and accept that a game primarily focused on killing monsters/ enemies, through labyrinthine mechanical processes, is a tactical wargame rather than a roleplaying game?

You can be as imaginative as you like about the combat but a game in which "why am I killing him?" and "yelling battle cries" are a recurring feature of play is a long way removed from imaginative, open-ended roleplaying. It is essentially 'Call myself Rommel, target a Sherman tank with an 88mmm gun at 800 yards, check the thickness of the armour plating, roll, repeat'.

Describing or 'imagining' the shell slam into the tank's armour, the sights and sounds of buckling metal and flesh, splashing gore around the inside of the tank and the pop as everyone's eardrums burst does not make it roleplaying.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

All I can say is wow. My experiences were pretty much the polar opposite. Regardless of edition.

IME, new players in a system, the first question they ask is, "I want to do X, how do I do that?" And they get told, roll this die, or spend that whatever. Most people are used to playing games. Games have rules. You don't suddenly start skipping squares in Monopoly because you feel like it - that would be cheating.

And, IME, most people come from that position. The rules of the game define what you can do. Different strokes I guess.

This was my experience as well. New players mostly show up at the game and say "What can I do? How do I do it?" If we try to tell them "Anything you can think of, you are a big strong guy. What would you do?" they often get confused, not knowing how you can play a game where ANYTHING is allowed.

Often the first couple of questions are something like "So, if I wanted to kill the elf, I could do that?" and then you have to explain to them the concept that killing the other people in the party is no fun for them and not to do it. Then they want to know if they go and kill the guards in town, if that is allowed. And then you have to explain there are people in the world who are better at fighting than they are and that they could die and need to roll up another character. Then after that they want to spend their free time hitting on women in bars and cheating people out of money.

It's been my experience that it's best to give new players much more limited options and slowly expand them as they get more used to the rules and the concepts of a roleplaying game. We've had the most success with telling new players "If you want to use a skill roll a d20 and add your skill. If you want to use a power, tell me which one to use and roll a d20 and add the modifier on your power card. If you have another idea on what you want to do, let me know and I'll tell you how it works."

And for the most part, they stick to their skills and powers. They feel a lot more comfortable not leaving the rules.

 

[Mark Chance]

...and 2 hours on "whoa...dude..I have..like..hands.."

"They call them fingers, but I never see them fing."