What is missing from 4E

[Herremann the Wise]

At least 75% of the time you're giving them buffs on the stuff they were going to do anyway. That is, unless the Warlord's player or the player of the character receiving the buff are incompetent. However, that is a problem of player incompetence, not the Warlord.

I reckon that percentage is about right, maybe even 80-90% of the time with our group. It effectively makes up their mind for them though. If they were 50/50 on something, it will definitely swing them to following what the warlord character wants. Some players may not like this intrusion upon their decision process, others will think woohoo, +5 to hit the big guy.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Halivar]

Some players may not like this intrusion upon their decision process, others will think woohoo, +5 to hit the big guy.

It's just my opinion, but I think the former are being unreasonable.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's certainly a strongly-worded reply, but I personally don't think that it crosses the line into rude.

Of course, if a moderator thinks so, I'd be perfectly happy to remove it from my sig.

Hmmm....You've got me there, I suppose, because I have no desire to call a moderator on your post, and I have no desire to change my settings so that I can report the original post.

Seems like a bit of passive-aggressive about Schroedinger's Wounding to me, but, hey, I could be seeing shadows. As I once wrote to another poster:

In any event, again, there is no "sniping" going on from my end, apart from correcting statements made about my opinions, which I am only aware of when someone quotes you.....Since, otherwise, I have no idea what you are writing, I don't have a whole lot to snipe about. If you're seeing it, you're seeing shadows.​

So maybe I am too.


RC

 

[Intense_Interest]

I reckon that percentage is about right, maybe even 80-90% of the time with our group. It effectively makes up their mind for them though. If they were 50/50 on something, it will definitely swing them to following what the warlord character wants. Some players may not like this intrusion upon their decision process, others will think woohoo, +5 to hit the big guy.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Is it really "intrusion", considering that the player still has the ability to choose their own action? And further, wouldn't that choice be a greater expression of that player's narrative control, because it shows that the player is acting counter to the implied/gamist correct choice so as to further the player's personal narrative?

For example, the Warlord who marks Goblin B for smackings, but the Ranger strikes down the Warchief, it shows in discrete game terms the narrative decision of the Ranger's player to achieve his personal goals.

 

[Betote]

So, someone hates the Warlord class, and thinks it's completely out of his idea of what D&D is. That person has two possible ways of dealing with it:

A) Posting message after message on a random D&D forum stating how infuriated he is that the Warlord class is ruining D&D to him.

B) Deciding not to use the Warlord class in his games.

No big deal. I've never used psionics anyway, and last time I checked I was still alive and breathing

 

[Herremann the Wise]

YMMV. In my group this actually comes up almost every single fight.

My mileage does vary on this one. I don't know what it is about our group but pretty much the only time a player/character did not take the direction or bonus was because their character was dropped to unconsciousness or the enemy they were getting a bonus to hit was already killed. I suppose a +5 bonus to hit (tactical warlord specialty) is a big carrot. Anyway, it's all fun.

Some players may not like this intrusion upon their decision process, others will think woohoo, +5 to hit the big guy.

It's just my opinion, but I think the former are being unreasonable.

Quite possibly. I've gamed with a few players though that have very fixed ideals of where the boundaries (immovable in most cases) in rpgs lie. I imagine that they (one in particular) would fit into this category.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Halivar]

My mileage does vary on this one. I don't know what it is about our group but pretty much the only time a player/character did not take the direction or bonus was because their character was dropped to unconsciousness or the enemy they were getting a bonus to hit was already killed. I suppose a +5 bonus to hit (tactical warlord specialty) is a big carrot. Anyway, it's all fun.

First: I need to be using your warlord build.
Second: If the advantage is as huge as a +5, I should certainly hope that a player of sound mind would take advantage. To not do so in most cases would be nonsensical (but I can think of a few where it wouldn't be), and would indicate (to me) that the player is more interested in asserting themselves at the table than immersing themselves in their character. That said, the bonuses (for us) are usually along the line of +1 or combat advantage granted.

Quite possibly. I've gamed with a few players though that have very fixed ideals of where the boundaries (immovable in most cases) in rpgs lie.

Actually, so have I. I was in a sci-fi campaign with three such people actually, and all of them disliked other player's "infringing on their player-space." Antagonism led to acrimony led to PK's all over the place. I just can't handle it, and I've left that group. I hope you fare better with it than I did. I really enjoy the mutual trust in my current two groups.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Is it really "intrusion", considering that the player still has the ability to choose their own action?

There are many factors that could affect a player's decision for their character, the warlord's bonus being just one. However, when the bonus is considerable and only a particular character receives that large bonus, I think that yes, it is enough to be considered an intrusion upon their decision process (even if it happens to be a welcome one). Is this a bad thing? For me no. For some players? Possibly. I think it's an intriguing dynamic of the class.

And further, wouldn't that choice be a greater expression of that player's narrative control, because it shows that the player is acting counter to the implied/gamist correct choice so as to further the player's personal narrative?

Definitely. Depending upon the circumstances it could be seen as tactically shrewd, the character's personality coming to the fore, political interplay, churlishness or just plain dumb.

For example, the Warlord who marks Goblin B for smackings, but the Ranger strikes down the Warchief, it shows in discrete game terms the narrative decision of the Ranger's player to achieve his personal goals.

A good example. However, if the warlord knows his "crew" well enough though (which any tactical warlord should), that Ranger's getting the bonus to hit the Warchief, not goblin B.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

Sigged!

Very cool. Don't think I've ever been sigged before. Don't forget to tip.

And, while my point may have been a bit strong, I do think that it's something to keep in mind at all times. Yes, if you choose to define something in such a way that makes no sense, and refuse ANY other definition which would make sense, then, yes, Element X will make no sense.

It doesn't matter what Element X is.

There's nothing wrong with not liking something, but, don't try to justify your dislike by attempting to make your dislike into some sort of universal truth. Other people have perfectly acceptable definitions which work for them. In the end, you either accept those other definitions or not, but, the very fact that those perfectly valid definitions ALSO exist means that any broader point beyond "I don't like it" you might want to make doesn't really apply.

 

[JeffB]

B) Deciding not to use the Warlord class in his games.

No big deal.

Exactly. I don't care much for the warlord either, though certainly not to the extent here. I don't allow them.

Just like when I ran C&C I didn't allow Assassins, Monks, and Knights. Monks in 3E, etc.

I know some players balk at that, but oh well- People have been doing this since D&D began in 1974, and they do it in all kinds of RPGs- they add , they subtract. I',m not sure what happened to the D&D community since around the time of 3E's release where not playing RAW is really looked down upon by a large % of players.

IN the end, I think alot of people just like to come up with overblown arguments to justify disliking something on the whole with little actual reason to do so. And I don't mean just 4E, I mean gaming period.