D&D 4E Two Camps of 4e Players (a rant)

[AllisterH]

Are monsters really that more difficult to modify than 1e/2e monsters? (I think we agree that 4e monsters are much less harder to build/modify than 3e)

I can see the classic 1 to 2 HD creatures that basically were palatte swaps being easier to writeup in 1e/2e. 4e kind of wants to give each set of monsters its own schtick and then each indivudal monster an ability...

But compare say the 1e/2e Galeb Duhr wth the 4e version? Hell, basically any monster that had spells or spell-like abilities

 

[Saeviomagy]

Are monsters really that more difficult to modify than 1e/2e monsters? (I think we agree that 4e monsters are much less harder to build/modify than 3e)

I can see the classic 1 to 2 HD creatures that basically were palatte swaps being easier to writeup in 1e/2e. 4e kind of wants to give each set of monsters its own schtick and then each indivudal monster an ability...

But compare say the 1e/2e Galeb Duhr wth the 4e version? Hell, basically any monster that had spells or spell-like abilities

1/2e monsters were basically "DM makes it up as he goes along, and none of them are balanced or make sense anyway, so nothing he can do can possibly be worse than the published material".

So yes: the new monsters are harder because there are actually rules and guidelines to follow, and if you don't follow them, you end up with something significantly different than the rules lead you to, and people will notice because they're used to the consistency now.

In the old days, it was "an unhittable goblin? Oh well, guess we all run away/die, and hope that we can kill it with the next set of characters".

 

[ExploderWizard]

1/2e monsters were basically "DM makes it up as he goes along, and none of them are balanced or make sense anyway, so nothing he can do can possibly be worse than the published material".

So yes: the new monsters are harder because there are actually rules and guidelines to follow, and if you don't follow them, you end up with something significantly different than the rules lead you to, and people will notice because they're used to the consistency now.

In the old days, it was "an unhittable goblin? Oh well, guess we all run away/die, and hope that we can kill it with the next set of characters".

I disagree. I cranked out all the creatures for my new campaign with the monster builder and I didn't worry too much about guidelines as I was making them. Some things are incredibly tough and certainly "not fair" and other creatures are a pushover. Consistency leads to lazy players and boring repetitions of rulebook sanctioned events. My players know that they have a chance of running into something scary enough to make them soil thier britches and run and it helps keep the game more exciting and mysterious.

I have as much fun making up stuff that fits the situation in any system. The only difference between making stuff up in 1E and now with 4E is that I need software assistance to keep it from becoming too much gobbletiguk to write out.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I disagree. I cranked out all the creatures for my new campaign with the monster builder and I didn't worry too much about guidelines as I was making them. Some things are incredibly tough and certainly "not fair" and other creatures are a pushover. Consistency leads to lazy players and boring repetitions of rulebook sanctioned events. My players know that they have a chance of running into something scary enough to make them soil thier britches and run and it helps keep the game more exciting and mysterious.

Glad your players enjoy that. Most don't. I've seen DMs make up encounters that were "not fair" and had their entire group turn against them.

We had one game die and not continue at all when the DM in 3.5e pulled out a EL 25 encounter against level 8 characters. Our mission was to defeat it. No amount of running would help us because they had the ability to easily catch up with us and wipe us all out. It took about 3 rounds into the combat before we realized HOW screwed we were. Until then we thought we could win. Once 2 of our party members had already died, we tried running. The enemy teleported behind us, trapped us in the room and murdered us. It was no fun for anyone.

In a similar situation, I saw a DM in 2e make up a monster he figured was awesome. Unfortunately, it turned out to have an AC that required most of us to roll 18s to hit it, and enough hitpoints that it would wipe us out way before we could defeat it.

Losing isn't fun. I like monster I am fighting to range between easy to defeat and really hard to defeat but still possible. As soon as the chance of winning drops below 25%, it becomes no fun for me. I begin to feel like the DM is out to get us. After all, they have control of anything we fight. The only reason to throw something at us that is nearly a guaranteed loss is because they want us all dead and the campaign to end. Either that, or they screwed up the numbers so badly that they accidentally killed us. Either way, they are a bad DM.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Glad your players enjoy that. Most don't. I've seen DMs make up encounters that were "not fair" and had their entire group turn against them.

We had one game die and not continue at all when the DM in 3.5e pulled out a EL 25 encounter against level 8 characters. Our mission was to defeat it.

This is a problem. The creatures I make up for my game that the PC's must overcome to complete a mission or fulfill a quest will be within the realm of possibility to overcome by some means. Random encounters or creatures that happen to be in the area might not be. I don't like forcing "must lose" situations on the players. The players might end up losing a fight that they initiated because they chose to attack something that completely outclasses them but such a confrontation will not be forced via campaign objective.

Just because an entity exists in a given area and has combat stats does not mean that the players have a given right to be able to beat it up with brute force if they feel so inclined. This makes picking fights for the sake of fighting a risky and dangerous proposition, as it should be.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Except most effects are standardized into conditions and penalties and bonuses, where as each effect in 3e was usually it's own special animal, or part of a small spell chain.

And had ending conditions that were random, sometimes -literally- 'roll a random die or two for the duration in rounds.'

That is not less complex.

Actually 1e/2e were a LOT less complex than 4e. The somewhat fuzzily defined nature of old style spell effects and monster powers actually wasn't that complex to deal with in practice. 90% of the time the result of casting a spell was pretty much clear-cut and in practice most players heavily relied on the most straightforward spells because they had the most direct impact on a given situation and it was a lot easier to guarantee that you got what you expected out of casting it.

Effects of various kinds weren't AS standardized as they are in 4e certainly, but very few of them had lingering numerical effects you had to remember or track. Spell durations tended to be long enough that the spell lasted long enough that the situation it was used in was over before the effect ended too. In any case at least they ended at the end of SOME round which you could determine ahead of time. On top of that it was unusual for more than say 2 or MAYBE 3 such effects to be in play at a given time. The mechanics of the effects also tended to be a lot simpler. Spells effects were also much more self-contained within the description of the spell and had a lot less tendency to affect other things.

Finally the 1e/2e core mechanics, though inconsistent in the way they were implemented, were very cut and dried. A +3 sword added 3 to your chance to-hit and 3 to your damage, period. Sure maybe thieves used % dice for their thief abilities and you rolled saves for spells vs to-hit for weapons, but really is that even close to as complex as the current situation where you have frequently 10 different conditions in play at once stemming from 4 different effects that have 4 different ending conditions? I don't really think so... The 4e core system SEEMS simpler, but in practice when you start looking at all the things players actually do there is a LOT more stuff to track and a lot more ways different things can interact. Yes, those interactions are much better defined, but they are also a lot more complex and require a lot more tracking.

I like 4e for a variety of reasons, but simplicity is absolutely not even on the list, 1e/2e were vastly simpler, hands down.

 

[Stuntman]

I find that 4E is made for the table top wargamer in mind. When it comes to combat, I find that those who are not wargamers become a little frustrated when they want to move and do something, but they end up being a square or 2 short of achieving the distance. A wargamer would look and be able to identify all of his possibilities and then pick the best move. Non-wargamers tend to look at the situation in a cinematic sense and want to do something cool. Then they get frustrated when they are told you don't have enough movement or that there is some tactical reason that they cannot do what they want to.

In previous editions, I find that the DM can fudge things if no battle grid is used. For the non-wargamers they seem to be more willing to accept the fact that the DM can give a flavourful explanation on why they cannot do something like stuff is in the way rather than in 4E when they are a square or 2 too far. I tend to like tactical combat, so I have problem with things, but I am beginning to see some of the criticism from my group about these seemingly little things.

One of my players also run an alternate campaign in our group. He plans on using some house rule where player get some type of style points they can use to encourage out of the box thinking. Instead of looking at power cards and playing what card we have in hand, he will reward us for doing something not explicitly written on our character sheets. It's an interesting concept and I'm looking forward to how it works.

 

[eamon]

Random encounters or creatures that happen to be in the area might not be. I don't like forcing "must lose" situations on the players. The players might end up losing a fight that they initiated because they chose to attack something that completely outclasses them but such a confrontation will not be forced via campaign objective.

I like this approach - but I also think this requires a lot of care by the DM. See, player's really don't have a clue as to the difficulty of a combat until it's often too late. The myriad small hints and cues of the real world can't make it through the narrow thread of a DM's narrative, so if you want to have the player's run from over-dangerous encounters (or avoid them in the first place), you need some kind of system of informing them about the threat of the opponents (at least, the ones they see or expect to see).

Such a system would be a boon to the fudging DM too - it's much more easy to rationalize fudging rolls for/against players when you do so to because the monsters turn out more/less difficult than expected - after all, if the PC's thought the combat was overwhelming yet still fought it, it's less reasonable to fudge than if the DM said or hinted that it would be achievable and it turns out overwhelming (i.e. when the DM or MM screwed up).

 

[ExploderWizard]

I like this approach - but I also think this requires a lot of care by the DM. See, player's really don't have a clue as to the difficulty of a combat until it's often too late. The myriad small hints and cues of the real world can't make it through the narrow thread of a DM's narrative, so if you want to have the player's run from over-dangerous encounters (or avoid them in the first place), you need some kind of system of informing them about the threat of the opponents (at least, the ones they see or expect to see).

Information gets passed along through gameplay. Running into a combat on the fly just for kicks with no information about what the threat level is like, is usually a bad idea. If the opposition is very overpowered then the damage the party is taking vs the amount they dish out can make the decision easier to make. Anything that can drop a PC in one good hit shouldn't require further evidence. Avoiding confrontations that are not relative to party goals is generally the rule rather than the exception. "The deaths will continue until play improves" is certainly in force in my campaign.

There are pitfalls to avoid in order to keep the players from being misled or trapped:
1) Don't make combat with an overpowered force required activity for the party to achieve quests/goals.

2) Don't place the PC's in situations where they must fight an overpowered force or feel helpless.

3) Do make sure that if really nasty things exist in the area that locals would know about that they pass that info along if the party is smart enough to ask about it.

4) Don't be afraid to let characters die if they insist on making a string of foolish decisions.

For example, in my current campaign the party is still level 1. An adult red dragon has a lair not really that far away from the area the PC's are exploring. The PC's have not heard of this dragon yet and it is not causing major problems to the people of the area. Once the party finds out about this dragon, they have the option of exploring to find its lair.

If the PC's do seek out the dragon and attempt combat, thier chance of survival is close to zero. Assuming events lead to this outcome, I am not at fault as a DM for the TPK. There is a difference between bringing death to the players and having them dig it up from under a rock.

Later in the campaign, a turn of events might bring the party into conflict with the the dragon. At that point the threat will be appropriate for them and the dragon will be remembered by the party as a force in that area.

 

[KarinsDad]

For example, in my current campaign the party is still level 1. An adult red dragon has a lair not really that far away from the area the PC's are exploring. The PC's have not heard of this dragon yet and it is not causing major problems to the people of the area. Once the party finds out about this dragon, they have the option of exploring to find its lair.

If the PC's do seek out the dragon and attempt combat, thier chance of survival is close to zero. Assuming events lead to this outcome, I am not at fault as a DM for the TPK. There is a difference between bringing death to the players and having them dig it up from under a rock.

As long as the players are aware that the Dragon is a force that will absolutely kill them, I think this is fine. I've had similar occurances in the past.

But, there is a fine line here. PCs are adventurers and explorers. Telling them to "not go look in that cave cause there's a dragon there" is just putting the carrot in front of them and in this case, it is the fault of the DM for the TPK.