Where is my Freaking Mule?!

[Hussar]

Gnomeworks - it's not really about everybody shining, but, everyone having something to do all the time. I'm currently playing a warlord. Every one of my abilities affects another PC during my turn - either granting actions or movement. So, during my turn, at least one other player is going to do something. Which means everyone has to focus on the game all the time. Most of the classes seem to work like this. In another campaign, I play a Fey Warlock. Many of my abilities cause enemies to move, which sets up Opportunity Attacks, meaning everyone else has to pay attention during my turn.

And, most of the classes seem to be set up like that. It's very frequent that at least two players are active during any one player's turn. No more taking my turn and then going and making a sandwich waiting for my turn to come up again because, other than on the DM's turn, nothing is going to cause me to take an action.

I'm not sure how the skill mini-game can be done the same way without forcing everyone to have the same skillset. You'd need to create a system where one player's actions can directly result in another player needing to do something, almost every time. I've seen lots of calls for a better skill system in 4e, and I can totally agree. But, I've just never seen anyone put forth one that will engage everyone at the table to a large degree.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Gnomeworks - it's not really about everybody shining, but, everyone having something to do all the time.

Yes, I understand 4e's paradigm. Doesn't mean I agree with it.

No more taking my turn and then going and making a sandwich waiting for my turn to come up again because, other than on the DM's turn, nothing is going to cause me to take an action.

And 4e has latched onto this particular solution so hard that you cannot see any other.

I am right there with you on the idea that everyone takes their turns in order is a lame way to handle combat. However, perhaps rather than making it so that everyone is doing something all the time, use an initiative system that makes it more difficult to predict who is going to go when.

I'm not sure how the skill mini-game can be done the same way without forcing everyone to have the same skillset. You'd need to create a system where one player's actions can directly result in another player needing to do something, almost every time. I've seen lots of calls for a better skill system in 4e, and I can totally agree. But, I've just never seen anyone put forth one that will engage everyone at the table to a large degree.

We have a fundamental disconnect here. I see no reason for everyone to be involved in everything going on all the time. In my mind, it is tedious and leads to same-y-ness.

I would much rather have situations where I know I can contribute, and situations where I know that I cannot. Having limitations is part of what makes us human, and thus my characters having limitations lets me relate to them better and makes them feel more real.

 

[I'm A Banana]

4e's approach to combat is to give everyone a combat role, and to make those roles different. I think it's safe to say that the different roles play differently. Why can't you extend this back a step - everyone has a role, and combat is just one of them? Rather than focusing on the group working together at their own things to achieve combat success, the group works together by doing their own things to achieve overall success, be that via combat, crafting, or social encounters.

I gotta confess, 4e's focus on "the encounters" doesn't help me a lot. I'd prefer it if the game focused on "the adventure," which might be a dungeon, or it might be a particular plot to foil, or it might be getting donkeys from Point A to Point B.

BUT, even if the focus was on the adventure rather than on the encounter, I appreciate 4e's "everyone must contribute" angle. Rather than balancing combat against other adventure elements, I'd like combat to be balanced, AND crafting to be balanced, AND social encounters to be balanced, letting everyone contribute to all those events in different ways. That way, even in a heavily political campaign, everyone can use some powers, roll some dice, use some strategy, and contribute uniquely to success, rather than having someone sit out an encounter.

And I think that minutiae of the costs and abilities of donkeys are generally not important for most players, even in those situations, especially if (a) you have a good baseline you can call from (the horse, in 4e), and (b), you are trying to model the heroic fantasy genre first and foremost.

That's not to say your playstyle is bad or anything, just to say it's very niche. Like someone who wants to run a Modern game with 4e rules, someone who wants to run a complex accounting session might never be served by rules that are targeted to a mass audience.

 

[GnomeWorks]

BUT, even if the focus was on the adventure rather than on the encounter, I appreciate 4e's "everyone must contribute" angle. ... letting everyone contribute to all those events in different ways.

I am irritated by it. With my non-combat character, I don't want to contribute in combat, unless the skills I have are useful in some way (which they rarely are). It breaks my sense of who my character is if the game forces me to participate in activities that my character is not suited for.

And I think that minutiae of the costs and abilities of donkeys are generally not important for most players, even in those situations, especially if (a) you have a good baseline you can call from (the horse, in 4e), and (b), you are trying to model the heroic fantasy genre first and foremost.

Apparently I am not interested in the heroic fantasy genre, then.

That's not to say your playstyle is bad or anything, just to say it's very niche. Like someone who wants to run a Modern game with 4e rules, someone who wants to run a complex accounting session might never be served by rules that are targeted to a mass audience.

I would argue that the existence of this thread proves you wrong.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I would much rather have situations where I know I can contribute, and situations where I know that I cannot. Having limitations is part of what makes us human, and thus my characters having limitations lets me relate to them better and makes them feel more real.

Fair enough I suppose. I don't game to spectate. Watching from the sidelines is boring for me, and, IMO, gaming should never be boring. It doesn't have to be a rollercoaster ride, thrill a minute sort of thing, but, it should never be boring.

And yes, I find watching someone fiddle about with a skillset on a regular basis that does not involve my character whatsoever, boring.

I totally agree with KM here that every aspect of the game should involve all the players as often as possible. Not that every character has to be the star, but, no one should be reduced to the role of spectator by the mechanics of the game.

Note, a player might be reduced to spectator by the events in the game, that's a different story. One character is tied up and the other PC's are busy saving him, well, fine, okay, that happens. That's part of the ongoing game, not the mechanics. And, even dying is fine, because it doesn't happen all that often (usually anyway).

But, when my character, through no fault of his own, is warming the pines because the mechanics tell me I have to be this tall to ride, that's bad mechanics IMO.

Gnomeworks, I really have to ask though, why would you use D&D as your game of choice to play a non-combat character? I'm totally not being snarky here at all. But, there are loads of other systems out there that don't emphasize combat the way D&D does. In any edition, it takes work to make a character that cannot contribute to combat. Why use D&D for this?

 

[GnomeWorks]

Fair enough I suppose. I don't game to spectate. Watching from the sidelines is boring for me, and, IMO, gaming should never be boring. It doesn't have to be a rollercoaster ride, thrill a minute sort of thing, but, it should never be boring.

In some situations, it isn't really spectating, though. In combat, for instance, just because you can't contribute to the combat itself doesn't mean you're not there. You can almost always find something else to do.

And even if someone else's character is doing something away from the group - so? It is a group activity. I am just as invested in the success of someone else as I am in my own successes. The game isn't just about me, but about everyone at the table.

I totally agree with KM here that every aspect of the game should involve all the players as often as possible. Not that every character has to be the star, but, no one should be reduced to the role of spectator by the mechanics of the game.

If I want to choose to be "reduced" to the role of spectator, however, I should still be allowed to make that choice. In the game I'm in where I play a non-combat character, I don't want the mechanics to force me to participate, because it doesn't make sense and ruins the feel of the character.

Gnomeworks, I really have to ask though, why would you use D&D as your game of choice to play a non-combat character? I'm totally not being snarky here at all. But, there are loads of other systems out there that don't emphasize combat the way D&D does. In any edition, it takes work to make a character that cannot contribute to combat. Why use D&D for this?

I think you should read my sig, because last I checked, D&D isn't my game of choice for anything. I play d20, but that's because I understand the game well enough to make it do what I want, and because the game system I'm working on is not done yet.

I don't play 4e at all.

Also, the non-combat character I'm talking about is in a d20 Traveler game, which is... a rather different beast from d20 D&D.

 

[Imaro]

Is it a bug or a feature? Depends on the point of view.

To me, I want the game to focus on doing something very well, rather than doing many things half assed..

Why does it have to be an either/or type situation? I personally think that D&D 4e does fine in combat... could defintiely use some revision/clarification/evolution in the skills department and really is ripe for some expansions beyond what it's focus is in general game mechanics. I mean how much combat stuff do we really need? It's starting to move towards bloat with the number of powers/feats/paragon paths/etc. available. Yes we get it, you guys did great with combat... now let's see some expansion of the game to fit more styles of play with some optional rules support. Thus those who want it can purchase it and those who don't are fine continuing buying what they want... instead were just seeing add-on after add-on of generally combat focused rules and expansions.

I totally understand the want to play D&D as a skill based game rather than a combat game. I've been trying to do a satsifying naval based campaign for years in 3e. And, it rarely worked as well as I wanted it to, mostly because the bloody rules kepts jumping in the way. Try doing ship to ship combat where you have forty or fifty combatants per side with 3e rules. GACK.

Never mind that a ship full of trade goods is worth far more than the baseline wealth assumptions for most PC's. The players turned to me and quite seriously asked me why they shouldn't sell this 50 000 gp ship and turn it into magic items. And, other than the fact that it would pretty much sink my campaign, I couldn't come up with a good reason.

One of my favorite 3e 3pp books is Broadsides! and Pirates. Pirates has a great list of how much trade goods are worth - excellent for doing this sort of campaign. But, try using the ship to ship combat rules. Gurk. Four hours of moving ships around is NOT fun.

That's my beef with this sort of simulation and why I think the core rules should shy away from dealing with it - you wind up with one or two players who like this and can spend a large amount of game time dealing with it, while the other half of the group is playing Nintendo. So much of the "Economic RPG" mini-game is a solo thing. Yes, your character is a blacksmith and wants to sell his wares. Great. But, while you and the DM spend half an hour figuring out stuff and maybe doing some role playing with customers, the other four people at the table are left out in the cold.

Well, in all honesty Hussar... the beautiful thing about 3e and the OGL was that if you didn't like something there were usually more than enough variants for you to find one that fit your campaign and players. I know for a fact there were tons of variant ship combat rules so I find it hard to empathize with the fact that you chose one for your game that didn't accomplish what you wanted out of it... and didn't look at alternatives.

Ok, maybe that's hyperbole, but, IME, this sort of thing never appeals to the entire group. It's usually only the DM and maybe one player who gets into it. 4e is pretty unabashed about wanting everyone participating all the time. These solo mini games are pretty counter to what 4e is about.

You know I find it funny you bring this up, because I don't think this problem can be eliminated without having characters with the exact same abilities. My entire group doesn't want to jump on the bandwagon when my Wizard and Swordmage are doing magical research... my arcane characters don't want go research martial techniques and esoteric disciplines, and my Rogue actually wants to start his own guild of assasins soon. IMO, all of these things fall under the heroic fantasy genre.

These things are about their characters and their differences, and while yes some may have to wait to contribute in the game at certain times... I find it makes a richer experience for the narrative and characterization in our game of D&D when we explore these avenues with the PC's.

 

[Hussar]

If I want to choose to be "reduced" to the role of spectator, however, I should still be allowed to make that choice. In the game I'm in where I play a non-combat character, I don't want the mechanics to force me to participate, because it doesn't make sense and ruins the feel of the character.

How do you not have the choice though? All you have to do is not participate. You can choose not to act. However, if you lack the ability, you also lack the choice.

Well, in all honesty Hussar... the beautiful thing about 3e and the OGL was that if you didn't like something there were usually more than enough variants for you to find one that fit your campaign and players. I know for a fact there were tons of variant ship combat rules so I find it hard to empathize with the fact that you chose one for your game that didn't accomplish what you wanted out of it... and didn't look at alternatives.

Tried every bloody one of them. I've got four or five different d20 naval supplements sitting in a box right now. Plus a couple of non-d20 ones as well. It's not like I didn't try. But, thanks for assuming that I tried one thing and then gave up.

You know I find it funny you bring this up, because I don't think this problem can be eliminated without having characters with the exact same abilities. My entire group doesn't want to jump on the bandwagon when my Wizard and Swordmage are doing magical research... my arcane characters don't want go research martial techniques and esoteric disciplines, and my Rogue actually wants to start his own guild of assasins soon. IMO, all of these things fall under the heroic fantasy genre.

These things are about their characters and their differences, and while yes some may have to wait to contribute in the game at certain times... I find it makes a richer experience for the narrative and characterization in our game of D&D when we explore these avenues with the PC's.

Actually, I agree with you. I don't have an answer to the problem. And I do see it as a problem. As I said, I don't play D&D to be a spectator. I have zero interest in sitting around for an hour waiting for someone to get done something. Ten minutes is about my maximum tolerance any more before I start getting antsy. Call me ADD if you will, but, my tolerance for wasting my very limited free time is very low anymore.

Maybe if I was 15 again and playing for hours at a time. But, now I get my 3 hours a week and I want to play, not watch someone else for half an hour.

 

[BenBrown]

I think for an experienced gamer it's easy to handwave or create their own rules for things the game may be missing... however when this isn't addressed or explicitly stated for a new gamer, heck and even for some old hats (especially if they played a previous edition that did do this) trying to get a handle on the new rules... I can easily see how some or even many draw the conclusion that the game isn't concerned with such things, and may even actively discourage you and your group becoming concerned with them as well (Just by the fact that in order to get to a satisfactory level of detail about such things in your game now requires much more work on your part). Also, and it is quite evident in this post and many others, some 4e players enjoy the type of playstyle where these things don't matter and aren't a consideration of the game. They in turn can't understand, and are often actively hostile towards anyone who wants or needs more in their game for such things.

It's got nothing to do with experience. A new gamer is just as likely to make something up as not, simply because they've never been told that they can't. Likewise, experienced gamers aren't always confident in making stuff up, as evidenced by this very thread.

 

[Greg K]

Well, I am with those wanting books on the more mundane. Among my favorite D&D books are:
a. From Stone to Steel (Monkey God); and
b. Noble Steeds (Avalanche Press).

In contrast, I dislike the Adventurer's Vault books and find them a major turn off.