Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6655518" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I agree that your experience was pretty biased toward fights.  I also agree that you weren't the only one who saw that happening given the edition warrior refrain of "minis skirmish game."  Where the disagreement lies in is the extrapolation of:If...we don't leverage (or don't leverage it correctly in many cases - eg with no respect for the fictional positioning at the action declaration or the resolution fallout level) a system's extremely robust noncombat, conflict resolution mechanics (and PC build resources to support that) which are supposed to capture high-stakes, dynamic, action-adventure tropes (that should have major fallout on the fiction)...and...we just focus in on combat (and there we also have little respect for the fictional positioning...which is not something inherent to the game at all)...then...4e is inherently a minis skirmish game.  I've said it dozens of times at this point.  My 4e games featured a LOWER ratio of combat encounters:total encounters than ever before in my 31 year history of running D&D.  Around 2:3 combat:noncombat (5ish conflicts/encounters/scenes per day, only 2 of which were typically L2-3 and L4-6 combats).  Consequently, my players always invested deeply (or at least at parity with combat) in noncombat resources.Because certain tables didn't have respect for the fictional position of scenes (and how the mechanics observed/augmented it) and because certain GMs didn't, or didn't know how to (which I've seen a hell of a lot of evidence of that!), run compelling, noncombat conflict resolution (via the closed-scene based mechanics of the 4e SC) is neither a fault of 4e nor a testament of what orthodox 4e play should look like! Nope, she has the same number of encounter powers at level 6 as any 4e character; 2.  You get your 3rd at 7.  She doesn't have Dailies as Slayers don't have them.  They have AW stances that augment their Basic Attacks.  Her other encounter powers are 2 theme, 1 racial, 1 skill power (feat), 1 fighter utility (lvl 2), 1 skill power utility (lvl 6).Going to address this generally with respect to the ongoing conversation that continues to misunderstand 4e's "get to the fun(!)"/every moment should be about conflict ethos and its outcome-based design.In <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?350472-What-Level-27-Characters-Are-Capable-Of&prefixid=wotc" target="_blank">this </a> post from 1.5 years ago, I relayed an anecdote (and others did in the thread as well) about my 2nd to last 4e game where a level 27 PC soloed the (level 26 Solo) demon lord Juiblex (in his lair with all of his hazards and his minions) after a failed exorcism ritual (a Skill Challenge).  A few relevant thoughts:1)  Instead of their level 27 lives being filled with exciting, dramatic conflict (which requires challenges capable of threatening them or their goals) against demon lords, I could easily introduce a "side quest" where we spend a session or two on heroic tier bad guys (say level 5 bandits) so the PCs can "feel" that they are advancing with respect to the world.  The level 5 Pinkertons who are hopelessly guarding the caravan against the big, bad bandits could watch awe-stricken as the level 27, legendary PCs dispatch the bandits while sleepily yawning, baking cookies, doing their taxes, and saying something appropriately haughty.The level 27 PCs could then go back to the level 5 town and the merchants could have thrown them a parade, the hobbits could be singing "ding dong the wicked bandits are dead (!)", the busty noblewomen and tavern winches could be swooning and batting their eyelashes and the mayor could give them the key to the city.Then they would really "feel" their progress and the treadmill rubbish would be dispelled at long last!  2)  If I felt like deviating from 4e orthodox, just to make a point to players and inflict punishment upon myself (for wasting my time and energy), I could certainly frame level 5 PCs into a scenario where they're expected to perform level 27 exorcism rituals against demon lords (or even fight those demon lords!) of which they have 0 capability in flexing the requisite protagonist muscles to move units and save the day. Or, we could spend lots of time on benign, conflict-neutral exploration of a town.  You could chat up a barmaid.  You could not skip the guards.  You could haggle merchants.  All of that good stuff.  There would be no conflict in either scenario.  No adventure.  No drama.  However, perhaps we will have devoted enough on-screen time to conflict-neutral stuff so the players "feel" that they're inhabiting a persistent, living, breathing world!  Except...no.  That is not what 4e is about.  4e went all in on Vincent Baker's indie design premise of "every moment, drive towards conflict."  The only thing that is supposed to be onscreen is stuff that is exciting, dramatic, threatening, fraught with conflict and adventure.  Then 4e perfectly engineered an outcome based system to unfailingly allow you to do just that for all levels 1-30!  And then it got raked over the coals for it and we're still having these conversations that somehow utterly misunderstand/represent the system's ethos and outcome-based design!However, if you're hell bent on it, you can do this all you like as neither 4e's mechanics can forbid you from it nor will any TTRPG police come arrest you for doing so!</blockquote>

Verification