Where is the focus of the game (Forked Thread: 4E reminded me how much I like 3E)

[HalWhitewyrm]

Forked from: 4E reminded me how much I like 3E

4e is a game where the focus in on the game AT the table, not the game AWAY from the table.

Wulf, I'm intrigued by this sentence. Could you unpack that, please?

If you fork it and tell me what "unpacking it" means, I'll try to oblige.

EDIT: Your intrigue notwithstanding, I am not sure there's a whole lot more there to expound on that what it says at face value, but I'm willing to see if there's anything to "unpack" out of it.

Unpacking is a term we used in my Lit classes to take a passage/sentence/word and talk about it and all its meanings, both obvious and hidden. It's a term that's stuck with me.

By unpacking, I mean I'd like you to talk more about this idea of 4e being a game where the focus is AT the table, not AWAY from the table. Am I correct in inferring by that statement (and the nature of the previous thread, being a comparison between editions) that 3e has a focus that is more AWAY from the table? What does the focus AWAY imply?

Instinctively, I understand your statement about 4e being about AT the table, but I'd like to know your thoughts on it as well.

 

[Doug McCrae]

When I unpacked it I got:

You need a battlemat to play.

 

[blargney the second]

I find that the difference between bonuses & target numbers is a major distinguishing feature from 3e to 4e. In 3e you can stack up enough bonuses to make failing virtually impossible, which encourages browsing books for extra bonuses to add to combos - a largely away-from-table activity.

While you can obviously do some combo hunting in 4e, they're frequently reliant on hitting to gain the full benefit. In a given encounter you never know if things will go according to plan until you actually roll that d20. It's incumbent on the players to pay attention and exploit the situation at hand to maximise their chances of success.
-blarg

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

By unpacking, I mean I'd like you to talk more about this idea of 4e being a game where the focus is AT the table, not AWAY from the table. Am I correct in inferring by that statement (and the nature of the previous thread, being a comparison between editions) that 3e has a focus that is more AWAY from the table? What does the focus AWAY imply?

I meant that 3e has a lot of hobby metagame literally away from the table.

If you are a DM, you can spend an inordinate amount of time doing game prep-- mostly statting up NPCs from what I understand, but I don't do that much myself. (My bad guys don't live long enough to make it worth the effort. We stack 'em like cordwood. Plus I prefer monsters to NPCs.)

If you are a player, you can spend hours tweaking your build, plotting our your career path, when you will take each level of each class and each feat to qualify for which prestige class; what magic items you're going to try to acquire or create to shore up your weaknesses and min/max your character, etc.

And, yes it's true, you can spend hours copying your character from an old character sheet onto a new character sheet and just making sure all the numbers are right!

This is not the game-- this is the metagame: The things you spend your afternoon doing the night before you actually play.

In Magic the Gathering terms, it's the difference between spending hours building a killer deck vs. the five minutes of fun you get from actually crushing your opponent with it.

I think it's safe to say that as a design goal 4e seeks to streamline the amount of time you HAVE to spend away from the table to maximize the amount of fun you can spend actually playing the game. That's certainly not a condemnation of 4e.

In Magic the Gathering terms, 4e is like pre-built decks. It puts the focus on the game, NOT the metagame.

And for the record, I think that's the right approach to bring more people into D&D. (And that bringing more people into D&D is the right approach for the game.)

When I unpacked it I got: You need a battlemat to play.

No, I definitely didn't mean that.

I find that the difference between bonuses & target numbers is a major distinguishing feature from 3e to 4e. In 3e you can stack up enough bonuses to make failing virtually impossible, which encourages browsing books for extra bonuses to add to combos - a largely away-from-table activity.

I didn't exactly mean that, either, but it does remind me of our current wizard player. He loves burying his nose in the spells section of the book while we play.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I believe designing the game to be the most fun while you are actually playing to be a very logical move. It just makes sense to me.

I wonder what will happen to those people who love all the hobby metagame parts? How will they react to 4E?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I wonder what will happen to those people who love all the hobby metagame parts? How will they react to 4E?

I think we know that already - they don't like it that much. Something is missing for them - because it is. The entire meta-game part is cut way shorter then in 3E.

Some like to say its about "Simulationist" vs "Gamist", but at least for this aspect, I think these descriptions are inadequate.

It seems pretty Gamist to optimize your character, and pretty Simulationist to juggle all skill ranks to ensure that your character fits your background idea.

Neither seem the character differentiations of Robin Laws seem to fit well. A power-gamer will now just take a closer look at the game table than at home.

---

I am not sure I miss the meta-game part or not. I think I like that it's no longer required. I now fulfill my meta-game needs with reading and posting on EN World.

 

[Remathilis]

I have to agree, but I think there is an element of edition "newness" to it.

Currently, there is 2 sources of powers, feats, and such for your PC: The PHB, and Dragon Online. I'm sure when players get the chance to pour over Martial Power, Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, etc. they'll have a lot more time to meta-build the best powers/feats/paragons.

However, to agree again, I think 3e actively encouraged this kinda meta-game. IIRC, Monte even said something to the effect (about toughness being a sub-optimal feat to encourage game mastery, like how some M:TG cards are clearly better than others). The net effect was players of different play levels and book access built widely different characters. A player whose DM allows everything could build a Goliath Warblade and run roughshod over the same material a core-only half-orc fighter would find challenging. Eventually, What you built mechanically meant more than "what made sense" and it forced the DM to keep tabs on every. single. thing. a PC had in order to properly challenge them (and subsequently, DM-material began to answer this arms race, Paizo adventure paths and WotC Expedition modules assumed highly optimized PCs or else they were too difficult to tackle at their prescribed level range).

Does 4e fix it? Well, it certainly has clamped down on it. So far though, it seems less interested in getting every last +1 and more emphasizing masterly over a limited range of influence (class abilities, powers, etc).

 

[Jack99]

Regarding the whole on/off the table, one could say that the results of most 3.x combats are decided off the table (by optimizing your character's build and by stacking the right buffs before combats) while 4e combats are decided on the table, by employing the right tactics, during combats.

Come to think of it, that is probably one of my favorite features of 4e. The lack of buffing outside of combat. It just made too much of a difference in 3.x.

 

[Thanee]

This is not the game-- this is the metagame: The things you spend your afternoon doing the night before you actually play.

Just a little side track... that is not the metagame.

Metagame is the inclusion of outside factors into the decision-making process.
It's looking at the game from an elevated position, where you see not only the game itself, but also the area around the game.

In M:tG it means, that when you build your deck you keep in mind what kind of strategies/tactics are used most often currently and devise strategies to specifically counteract those.

In roleplaying it means, for example, that you use information that you have, but your character does not. Information from outside the actual game, because you have the ability to see more than just the game itself, unlike your character.


But it's clear what you mean with the term, even though it is not what it means.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Jhaelen]

I meant that 3e has a lot of hobby metagame literally away from the table.

If you are a DM, you can spend an inordinate amount of time doing game prep-- mostly statting up NPCs from what I understand, but I don't do that much myself. (My bad guys don't live long enough to make it worth the effort. We stack 'em like cordwood. Plus I prefer monsters to NPCs.)

If you are a player, you can spend hours tweaking your build, plotting our your career path, when you will take each level of each class and each feat to qualify for which prestige class; what magic items you're going to try to acquire or create to shore up your weaknesses and min/max your character, etc.

Interesting! I haven't looked at it like this, so far. I can see how someone might miss these things in 4E. One thing I did notice:
It's been less fun to pore over the books than it was in previous editions.

I generally enjoy buying rpg supplements just to read them. It's the main reason I'm buying everything from Ars Magica.
At the moment I don't see myself buying 4E books just for reading. I don't think I'll buy many supplements if I don't plan to use them in the game.

Still, I think this change in focus makes sense. As a DM it allows me to spend more time thinking about the plot, story and background of my adventures. As a player I can concentrate on looking for ways to better realize my character concept rather than looking for ways to optimize my damage output. That certainly has it's merits, too.