[Those who like 4ed] What has been lost?

[avin]

i've found that combat in 4E is much faster than any other edition.

Could you please explain your trick? HAving DMed and played on several different groups that's exactly the opposite of my experience.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Could you please explain your trick? HAving DMed and played on several different groups that's exactly the opposite of my experience.

Perhaps he means other editions of Rolemaster?

 

[Shazman]

Could you please explain your trick? HAving DMed and played on several different groups that's exactly the opposite of my experience.

I agree. High level 3.5 combats can take a while, but even low level 4E combats take way too long to resolve. For example, Living Forgotten Realms modules for 4E are supposed to take 4 hours to complete, in theory. In practice, they take from 6 to 9 hours to complete because combat in 4E takes up so much time.

 

[Freakohollik]

The internet is definitely to blame.

Everyone knows what's in the DMG and thus there are no more "secrets" about how the game works. In pew 3e, how many *players* actually knew that the random tables from the back of the DMG heavily favoured the longsword?

This is a hold over from OD&D. Since everyone rolled on the same to-hit table and all weapons did d6 damage the fighter and the cleric were equally good in combat. Their "solution" was to make all the magic weapons edged so that the clerics couldn't use them.

 

[keterys]

I agree. High level 3.5 combats can take a while, but even low level 4E combats take way too long to resolve. For example, Living Forgotten Realms modules for 4E are supposed to take 4 hours to complete, in theory. In practice, they take from 6 to 9 hours to complete because combat in 4E takes up so much time.

It's pretty normal for LFR modules to take 2.5 to 4.5 hours in my neck of the woods, depending on how packed the module is. I'd say the average is just over three hours. When I play at a local store, we tend to start around 6:30, take a 5-10 minute break in the middle, and I still get to leave between 9:50 and 10 o'clock to catch my bus usually. When I play online, we tend to start around 8:30pm and wrap up between 11:30 and 1:30 and online is much slower than tabletop. In fact, the primary decider of when we end is who is playing that night. Some people are much slower than others - by a threefold factor, for instance.

If you're taking 6 to 9 hours, then there are clearly things you can be doing to make the game faster. Such as having bonuses predone, knowing what to do when your turn comes around, increased teamwork, not hoarding abilities, etc. Next session, try to make notes of how long is taken for what, then work on that. Another session, try instituting a 10 second 'shot clock' on declaring your action and starting to take it. You may or may not also find that waffling, tactical discussion, take backs, etc are eating up time. Or people are playing high tier when they don't have the damage to do it, or playing a strategy of invincibility over effectiveness. In such cases, just saying the party only gets as far as they can get in 5 hours should encourage people to have characters that can deal damage and get things done.

All that said, I agree that combat should go somewhat faster. It's still far faster than it was for our higher level 3e games, but it's a far cry from the three minute combats I think we used to do in 1e. Mind you, I find these combats far more satisfying, but eh.

 

[Lanefan]

All that said, I agree that combat should go somewhat faster. It's still far faster than it was for our higher level 3e games, but it's a far cry from the three minute combats I think we used to do in 1e. Mind you, I find these combats far more satisfying, but eh.

You were playing a different version of 1e than I, then. Our 1e combats vary greatly in length, from a low of about 15 minutes (rare; small party vs. pushover opponents) to a high of about a session and a half (rare; big party vs. lots of opponents including casters) with the average being maybe half an hour for a simple one and an hour or so for something complex.

In any edition, it's really up to the DM to put the story between the combats, and perhaps - if the party insist on constantly just rushing from combat to combat - to slow them down so the story has a chance to happen. It's also a matter of setting expectations. If your players go in expecting to level up every month or so (which, unfortunately, is what the post-2e game seems to imply), you're heading for a problem if you want much story unless your weekly sessions are 12 hours long. But if you can set the expectation going in that level-up is going to be somewhat less frequent, you're set - and if things then do clip along nicely, you're ahead.

Lanefan

 

[keterys]

Well, it's been a lot of years, so I may not remember things right... but I remember there being _lots_ of fights, but rarely anything that took a long time. Like you might clear a dungeon of 20 rooms, twelve of which had fights, in a night of play.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Thirded.

In addition to the (IMHO enjoyable) vocabulary lessons, older editions seemed just plain more fun to read.

It's something I get more from my Exalted books these days.

Cheers, -- N

Fourthed.

I understand why they discarded much of the fluff, but I think they went overboard.

Brad

 

[Doug McCrae]

The internet is definitely to blame.

Everyone knows what's in the DMG and thus there are no more "secrets" about how the game works. In pew 3e, how many *players* actually knew that the random tables from the back of the DMG heavily favoured the longsword?

Lewis Pulsipher discusses this in his Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons series, White Dwarf 23-26, 1981. In the article for Fighters he gives advice regarding weapon proficiencies, noting for example that although a bastard sword is a good weapon very few magic ones exist.

 

[The Little Raven]

What has been lost along the way?

It isn't that anything has been lost in my eyes, its just that I can only fall in love for the first time once.