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

[1of3]

I think reading up on the powers but not on the basic rules is a typical phenomenon. I've seen it first with Magic: The Gathering in the 90s. I met lots of players who knew their cards (and often many other cards), but had no idea about the "stack", for example.

In a way, the kewl powerz (or shiny cards) compete with the basic rules for the reader's attention.

I must admit, though, that several things could have been made clearer. For example, it's not a good idea to mix functional and non-functional keywords like we have it in 4e's powers. Usually it's save to ignore the powers' keywords. Divine, Arcane, Fire, Ice... it doesn't matter as long as no other game element is looking for these. On the other hand there are Stance, Reliable, Conjuration etc. And it's not apparent that you really have to look these ones up.

 

[Runestar]

I think it is that having the memorize the various rules is probably the most boring thing to do, given the complexity of dnd (4e still has a lot of rules, even after the designers tried to streamline it). So we generally try to skim over rules we feel may not impact our games much. For me at least, I am lazy (or pragmatic, as I would like to believe) in that aspect.

I remember my first few 3e games. We kept refering to the rulebooks ever so often because everyone seemed to have differing interpretations of how the rules worked. Or we just glossed over a particular rule because no one could be bothered to look it up.

And everytime I though I had learnt everything there were to the rules, some new situation pops up and reminds me that I still have a very long way to go. Stuff like swallow whole and the pounce/rake mechanics literally brought my games to a complete standstill because we couldn't make head or tail of the rules.

In a way, that is why I still keep frequenting boards like this. Actually makes me have to make an effort to read up on a particular rule before I can respond meaningfully to a post, which in turn improves my grasp of the system.

 

[WalterKovacs]

One area that exception based design helps is this kind of thing. The fact that, there are chunks of the rules that lots of people don't need to know in order to play the game is good. Generally, you learn the rules better by doing, than by reading, so people that interact with a rule a lot will eventually learn to use it. (i.e. if you have a power that pushes people, you'll eventually remember automatically about the saving throw people get to avoid being pushed into fire/off cliffs/etc).

I started DM'ing almost as soon as 4e dropped. I didn't start playing in someone's campaign until the group I was DM'ing for was already into Thunderspire. I basically learned by doing, and since I was interacting with the monsters, but also all the PCs in the party, I learned the tricks of the PCs for the most part quickly. I had the fighter's OAs and Immediate Actions in mind, the Warlock's PBS, Shadow walk and cursing, the warlord's action point effect and inspiring word, etc ... While I didn't play some of the monsters just right (overlooking or misreading some stat blocks here or there), I had the rules more or less down for important stuff, and the corner cases I'd adjudicate on the fly.

One of the players I play with was often running my DM PC for me (the leader), and would often play the other absent players as well (in addition to the 'present in body/absent in mind' wizard) so his grasp on the rules are pretty good as well. In addition, both of us like to try new character classes, so I allowed for some PC swaps between modules, which has allowed for other opportunities to learn.

The one group that I'm playing in, I find myself helping out the DM in terms of keeping track of the various lasting effects. It's not so much rules knowledge that is tripping him up (he knows what a fighter can do when he marks someone, and he knows that my avenger discourages people from attack him, but he has a hard time tracking which conditions are on whom).

If tracking of conditions and the like are handled in a way that the DM isn't distracted by it, the rules shouldn't be as big an issue. However, it's a two way street where the player should at least know about his own conditions (on him and created by him). As a I DM, I try to track the various conditions on my monsters (next to initiative and current HP I'll put notes about conditions, or whether regeneration was disabled, etc) but I need the PCs to track their own stuff. I sometimes have to rewind to reminded saves (luckily, most save end effects rarely apply between turns.)

Ultimately though, rules rarely come up as a problem. We have have to look up specific skill usages sometimes, but that's probably the most time consuming. Generally, the less often a rule comes up, the less likely I'll know it off the top of my head. [Heck, the player that plays most of the characters has the hit location charts from MechWarrior memorized just from hearing us call out the number and the DM naming the location so often). An impatient player can be a great foil if you have a bad memory, as he'll remember the rules just to speed things along if you keep forgetting the same rule and it always eats up a bit of time to look it up

 

[ExploderWizard]

Part of the problem is the extremely dry and boring reference style of the rules. I have still not fully read the dreaded wall of text known as the classes chapter all the way through. 4E is the first D&D edition that I have played without reading the basic rules completely at least once.

Today, I can still pick up and old rulebook like the 1E DMG, or an old basic set, and just read a part of it for fun. I only crack open a 4E book when I need to look something up. The rules have become so complex and involved that writing about them in an entertaining fashion just wouldn't be practical. The types of rules interactions in 4E are handled better by software than people. I don't know if I would bother playing 4E without the character builder. Hand writing out all the details for even a low level character is a pain in the butt.

I just started running a new campaign, my first attempt at running 4E. I can say that if the monster builder didn't exist then I probably wouldn't be running at all. Being able to slap together custom creatures and foes without the ridiculous numbers of hit points is game saving.

From both the DM and player side of things, I realize that 4E is a game I wouldn't want to deal with without software support. I have to ask the question: Is that level of rules complexity really necessary in a tabletop rpg?

 

[AllisterH]

Another thing to consider is that many rules in 4E simply do not make any sense and are thus difficult to accept for beginners. The two weapon example is such a rule. It makes no sense that a magical property only applies to one attack and not to the others made with the same weapon. Yes, it is there for balance, but some people have problems with turning off common sense and only think about balance. And this are the people who will have problems accepting 4Es abstract rules which put balance over simulation.

While I can see _OTHER_ rules having that problem, this one seems weird.

I never once assumed that a property would apply to both ends of a double weapon? Why would it?

Then again.we _ARE_ debating double weapons which already strains disbelief for some.

 

[Dan'L]

I don't know if I would bother playing 4E without the character builder. Hand writing out all the details for even a low level character is a pain in the butt.

I just started running a new campaign, my first attempt at running 4E. I can say that if the monster builder didn't exist then I probably wouldn't be running at all. Being able to slap together custom creatures and foes without the ridiculous numbers of hit points is game saving.

From both the DM and player side of things, I realize that 4E is a game I wouldn't want to deal with without software support. I have to ask the question: Is that level of rules complexity really necessary in a tabletop rpg?

From my POV, the software support is part of the current problem. It has enabled more players to quickly access the game, which is a good thing for sales I'm sure, but it has done so by allowing them to gloss over the rules and enter in with decidedly less than a firm grasp of the rules interactions. It's certainly not a perfect adaptation of the rules set, but some will treat it as such.

Ideally, you'd have players starting with something like the Character Builder and expanding their rules knowledge around their particular shtick through reading the actual rules text and game play, but that won't always be the way things go. And there's nothing worse than thinking you've got this cool build, only to find out in a game from the other players or the DM that no, that's not how it works despite what you thought the CB was telling you.

As far as the monsters go, I can't speak except anecdotally*, but my DMs have commented how incredibly easier it is to customize monsters and encounters relative to 3rd edition, and this was before the software tools were even available.

So I have to wonder, perhaps the software has become/is becoming a crutch that players and DMs are perhaps relying on a little too much. It's a great time saving supplemental tool, but it shouldn't be a substitute for actually learning the system. Bottom line, you'll get out of it proportional to what you put in, and the software tools allow a player to put in less so they'll naturally come out with less.

(*Not so anecdotal, I find that 4th ed is, overall, extremely simpler than previous editions to play, thanks in large part to the streamlining of the class system. Sure, if you compare playing a 1/2/3 ed. fighter to a 4e fighter, things have gotten more complex. But if you'd learned to play a 1/2/3 ed fighter and wanted to try a 1/2/3 other class, you pretty much had to learn a whole new rule set; with 4e, if you've learned to play a fighter, you've basically the same rule set you need to any of the other classes (although you'll do well to learn a new set of tactics) And if you think "hand writing out all the details for even a low level character is a pain in the butt," realize that you wouldn't even think of hand writing out all the details for even a low level spellcaster in a previous edition, you'd just list out your spells and have to look them up each time you'd go to cast them.)

-Dan'L

 

[Infiniti2000]

While I can see _OTHER_ rules having that problem, this one seems weird.

I never once assumed that a property would apply to both ends of a double weapon? Why would it?

Then again.we _ARE_ debating double weapons which already strains disbelief for some.

Actually, this is a bad example to try and show that 4E (specifically) doesn't make sense. It may be that D&D doesn't make sense for double weapons, but this particular issue spans across 3.X and 4E. I'm not sure if CovertOps's 20-year RPG veterans account for this. i.e. if the one guy who left was a 3.x veteran, he not only wouldn't have made the mistake, he would've been surprised that an issue could've possibly existed.

 

[Derren]

Actually, this is a bad example to try and show that 4E (specifically) doesn't make sense. It may be that D&D doesn't make sense for double weapons, but this particular issue spans across 3.X and 4E. I'm not sure if CovertOps's 20-year RPG veterans account for this. i.e. if the one guy who left was a 3.x veteran, he not only wouldn't have made the mistake, he would've been surprised that an issue could've possibly existed.

I never said that this was a 4E problem. 3E had exactly the same thing with speed weapons.
But if you want a 4E example just look at the "credible threat" mechanic.

Why do powers suddenly stop working when they are used on non combatants? When a warlock uses a power which gives him temp. HP whenever he kills someone (as an example, not sure if such a power exist) why wouldn't it work when he kills a non combatant who got too close to the fight?

 

[ExploderWizard]

From my POV, the software support is part of the current problem.

Yes. The simple fact that the system is complex enough to really benefit from software use is a problem.

It has enabled more players to quickly access the game, which is a good thing for sales I'm sure, but it has done so by allowing them to gloss over the rules and enter in with decidedly less than a firm grasp of the rules interactions. It's certainly not a perfect adaptation of the rules set, but some will treat it as such.

This is actually a good thing IMHO. Newbies should be able to get right into playing without the effort of trying to master the rules. The DM and experienced players can handle that stuff. If the whole group is brand new then not knowing what you are doing is half the fun.

As far as the monsters go, I can't speak except anecdotally*, but my DMs have commented how incredibly easier it is to customize monsters and encounters relative to 3rd edition, and this was before the software tools were even available.

Relative to 3rd, yes. Relative to what I could crank out with notebook paper for BD&D or AD&D not so much.

So I have to wonder, perhaps the software has become/is becoming a crutch that players and DMs are perhaps relying on a little too much. It's a great time saving supplemental tool, but it shouldn't be a substitute for actually learning the system. Bottom line, you'll get out of it proportional to what you put in, and the software tools allow a player to put in less so they'll naturally come out with less.

I am comfortable saying that I rely on it completely to run. With the monster builder I was able to convert B2 KOTB in very little time.
The software is most certainly a crutch for me personally. Having played the game a while without any software help, the get out of it what you put in meme did not hold water. Noodling through all the modifiers for race,class,build, feats, and powers and hand writing all those effects was not worth it to spend 45 minutes fighting a few nameless goblin guards that just would not die. YMMV.

And if you think "hand writing out all the details for even a low level character is a pain in the butt," realize that you wouldn't even think of hand writing out all the details for even a low level spellcaster in a previous edition, you'd just list out your spells and have to look them up each time you'd go to cast them.)

-Dan'L

Perhaps, but then there was always the option of playing an uncomplicated fighter.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

actually it is just to prevent an abuse...

it is easier for the dm to allow the warlock killing helpless children for temp hp sometimes than to have him tell the pc that carrying a bag of rats will offend his master...