Why is it so important?

[Raven Crowking]

Here I don't agree. I play (maybe too) much civ 4; the challenge for me is not to beat the AI, I can do that at all difficulty levels. The challenge is about how I beat the computer, to try to find out interesting ways to win or just to feel the (a bit pathethic ) rush of power as my tanks steamroll some backward nation. There doesn't have to be an element of all or nothing in tactics for it to be interesting.

Sorry, but I don't play any civ 4, so I can't comment on whether or not what you're saying here is a counter to my points. Why not stick with chess for a momment? Surely you concede that your chess-as-encounter analogy fails on the basis of the all-or-nothing nature of the game?

 

[Merlion]

First, a good wizard

....is one that is enjoyed by his/her player and his/her group.

contributes something all the time. Even in 1st edition, a low level wizard was standing back there behind the front line hurling darts or daggers waiting for the right oppurtunity to drop his 'bomb' spells like sleep or web

Sigh. I forgot to add "contribute as a wizard."

I, and most people I have known/seen/read about want to be able to play a wizard, and contribute most of the time *as a wizard* as in doing magic, not throwing darts. And as I said some while back, remember also that contributing doesnt =attacking/damaging, it can mean other things.

Don't want to be the artillery? Don't play a wizard.

So a wizard who chooses to focus on incapaciting enemies, or summoning monsters, or enhancing allies or anything other than "novaing" isnt a "good wizard?"

That said, if Mearl's past work is any guide, the direction D&D is moving in is 'everyone is a spell caster'

With the exception of the Fighter and Rogue this is already largely the case, on both levels.

 

[Merlion]

I don't wonder about that! I exaggerate because it helps to clarify what I'm talking about. As I said to Hong, often times without "exaggeration" people can stonewall over irrelevant issues. For example, I'll say "what if there's a 1000 lb weight that you can't lift, then..." and folks respond "well I *can* lift 1,000 lb weight, so everything you're saying is wrong" when the actual weight wasn't the issue, the relevant characteristic was that you couldn't lift it! So the exaggeration IMO establishes the conditions in the IF part of my reasoning. If you find there is some fundemental different between 2 Armageddon and 20 Armageddon battles that changes the nature of the argument, then identify those things (or not).

I understand that, and overstatement and exaggeration can work to that purpose. However some times, especially when its constant, it has the oposite effect, especially online.

I assume you mean what you say. And I respond to it on that basis. Especially since almost everything you say is an exaggeration. It makes it difficult to respond if I dont know what you actually mean...the exaggeration, or something else?


And you have stated basically that you feel that the issues you see with the per encounter thing are going to basically bleed over into everything. I'm saying its not safe to assume that.

 

[gizmo33]

Basically you think what you want, speak a word and it happens.

Like Wish?

However, it has a number of rules and limitations which are spelled out.

Like what? That would be the crux of an example about limitations.

It creates "noise" that other magic users can "hear."

Wishing for a million gold pieces would probably create a loud "ka-ching!" noise that others would hear. The true consequences of other wizards hearing spells cast is that you'd have to know EVERYONE ELSE in the area, what their hearing capabilities are, and what they're response is going to be. The level of complexity to render this plausible as a game element would be IMO the ultimate fantasy of a simulationist.

It is mentally and physically tiring, and overextending oneself that way will lead to death.

So they only adventure from 9:00 to 9:15 or else they'll die?

And there are certain things that can't be done, or dont work well...you can't "uncreate" anything, and teleportation is usually not viable.

Well the specifics of that question would have to be answered for the spells to be useful as game mechanics. I'm assuming Eddison provides these details? Players IMO aren't going to accept "well you just can't do it and I don't exactly have a reason right now" like the reader of a novel would accept that.

I could go into the Elenium/Tamuli as well, but I think you get the idea. There are certainly examples of literature were the workings of magic are not "vague."

Your examples are exactly an example of what I mean by "vague", they're not particularly useful as game mechanics. Now granted the reason for the vagueness might be the space limitations of the message board rather than Eddision's descriptions - but you didn't make it clear either way AFAICT. The details that you've provided so far do not hold up to the level of detail IMO required by an RPG. Perhaps just take one narrow ability, like teleport, and describe Eddison's complete working system for it.

Characters in books are quite real, and I often find them, and the story itself, telling me what to do.

There are several levels of possible interpretation here. Rather than doubt your sanity, I will assume that you are just being creative about the definition of the word "real" et al. In any case, sounds of incredulity coming from my players are more real to me than those coming from imaginary voices in my head. I'm not my own best judge though, which you, conversely, probably find crazy. At this point you're appealing to a kind of reality that I don't know anything about, which at least raises the possibility that everything I'm saying about 4E could be true and you will still have a good time playing it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Of course, this model doesn't work at all if you only do one encounter per day.

That's exactly it. I would like to have one or two encounters per day while keeping class balance. The current system doesn't let me do that but it seems 4e will. Thus 4e > 3e.

Right now it's very noticeable in our games that characters who can 'go nova' - clerics with righteous might and divine power, gishes with arcane strike, psychic warriors, wizards with sudden metamagic - are far superior to fighters and rogues.

Dungeon bashes have been fairly rare throughout my 25 years of rpging. Though personally I've become very interested in them recently, looking at classic modules and trying to understand how/why they work. Nonetheless I'd like the 'modern' style of 1 or 2 encounters to work too.

 

[Celebrim]

....is one that is enjoyed by his/her player and his/her group.

I can agree without harming my point in any way. For example, I could claim that there is no need for a wizard to be balanced and playable to contribute enjoyment to his/her group, and be done with this discussion if I so choose. Why worry about the mechanics if whether something is fun doesn't depend on the mechanics? Obviously, because we generally agree that certain mechanical factors contribute to the fun of RPGs.

Sigh. I forgot to add "contribute as a wizard."

Wizards are what wizards do. Very few wizards of even fantasy literature where issues like play balance and equal oppurtunity to be the focus of attention don't matter in the slightest, Wizards - and most certainly novice ones - rarely go around slinging spells continually. Rather, it is assumed that there is some sort of limitation on thier ability of some sort. The notion that to 'contribute as a wizard' I must never run out of spells to fire off is a rather strange one to me.

And even while I'm sympathetic to the argument that low level wizards aren't 'fun to play' and aren't balanced against barbarians, fighters, rogues and other non-spell casting classes at low levels of play, such sympathy doesn't necessarily translate to agreement with 4e's approach to solving this problem.

I, and most people I have known/seen/read about want to be able to play a wizard, and contribute most of the time *as a wizard* as in doing magic, not throwing darts. And as I said some while back, remember also that contributing doesnt =attacking/damaging, it can mean other things.

It certainly can. In 3rd edition, even at low levels, Wizards tend to be 'knowledge-guy', as in, 'Help! Wizard!! Please make a 'saving throw vs. ignorance' (ei knowledge check) and get the DM to tell us what is going on!!!'

So a wizard who chooses to focus on incapaciting enemies, or summoning monsters, or enhancing allies or anything other than "novaing" isnt a "good wizard?"

Certainly not. These are all different ways of 'going nova' (using limited use powerful abilities/resources that greatly reduce the difficulty of an encounter).

It's funny that you should mention that though, because its MUCH easier to balance the Wizard for at will and per encounter abilities if you strongly limit those abilities to 'blast' type magic, and from our play testing reports that's exactly what we are seeing.

So, if your problem is that you don't want to see the role of a wizard defined too narrowly, then I suggest you are griping at the wrong person.

 

[gizmo33]

It makes it difficult to respond if I dont know what you actually mean...the exaggeration, or something else?

Ok, I'll try to be more careful. I recently (on this thread somewhere) used the example of fighting 2 Armageddon battles in a day and someone responded with "but I like fighting two armageddon battles!" This is what I'm talking about. I should have just said 20 because my point was that there really isn't a limit (or at least it's greater than 20) assuming:
1. a resource depleting battle takes less than a half an hour
2. a resource depleting battle takes 1 minute to recover from
3. None of the battles have killed the PCs.

Assuming these 3, rather uncontroversial things (as far as 4E goes), then 30 minutes x 20 battles equals 10 hours - certainly doable within a 24 hour day.

So "20 Armageddon battles", while admittedly extreme, is actually within the bounds of the proposed rule system - only DM fiat or a certain kind of engineering would prevent it. Take the Vault of the Drow, and in an environment like that it's DEFINITELY plausible, if not likely.

And you have stated basically that you feel that the issues you see with the per encounter thing are going to basically bleed over into everything. I'm saying its not safe to assume that.

But if you really believe that resource attrition and similar things are "unfun" then why in the world not apply that philosophy to the rest of the game? Why stop at combat and leave the "problem" in other areas of the game? I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that a philosophy that has general applicability will be applied generally.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Ok, I'll try to be more careful. I recently (on this thread somewhere) used the example of fighting 2 Armageddon battles in a day and someone responded with "but I like fighting two armageddon battles!" This is what I'm talking about. I should have just said 20 because might point was that there really isn't a limit (or at least it's greater than 20) assuming:
1. a resource depleting battle takes less than a half an hour
2. a resource depleting battle takes 1 minute to recover from
3. None of the battles have killed the PCs.

Assuming these 3, rather uncontroversial things (as far as 4E goes), then 30 minutes x 20 battles equals 10 hours - certainly doable within a 24 hour day.

So "20 Armageddon battles", while admittedly extreme, is actually within the bounds of the proposed rule system - only DM fiat or a certain kind of engineering would prevent it. Take the Vault of the Drow, and in an environment like that it's DEFINITELY plausible, if not likely.



But if you really believe that resource attrition and similar things are "unfun" then why in the world not apply that philosophy to the rest of the game? Why stop at combat and leave the "problem" in other areas of the game? I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that a philosophy that has general applicability will be applied generally.

Just to make sure that we are on the same page, I am assuming that you mean certain per-encounter class abilities, when you say "2. a resource depleting battle takes 1 minute to recover from" in your post.

Because, some abilities will be per-day and non-class abilities, such as ammunition may still be used up and not recoverable within 1 minute.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If a good wizard

....is one that is enjoyed by his/her player and his/her group.

then how can anything not be "contributing as a wizard"?

Either there is some outside criteria by which one can define "a good wizard" or there is not.

RC

(BTW, Gandalf, for example, casts few spells but often attacks with weapons...he uses Orcrist more than he uses spells in both The Hobbit and LotR.)

 

[Celebrim]

That's exactly it. I would like to have one or two encounters per day while keeping class balance. The current system doesn't let me do that but it seems 4e will. Thus 4e > 3e.

Right now it's very noticeable in our games that characters who can 'go nova' - clerics with righteous might and divine power, gishes with arcane strike, psychic warriors, wizards with sudden metamagic - are far superior to fighters and rogues.

Dungeon bashes have been fairly rare throughout my 25 years of rpging. Though personally I've become very interested in them recently, looking at classic modules and trying to understand how/why they work. Nonetheless I'd like the 'modern' style of 1 or 2 encounters to work too.

I completely sympathize with this. You are absolutely right. There is a serious problem here. Somewhere between 7th and 9th level, it becomes pointless to play a non-spellcaster under the current rules if your DM's game (or the game you as a DM want to run) tends to be heavily focused on events and tactics rather than locations and 'operations'. And for you, 4e may be the right system.

Likewise, somewhere around 13th level, under the current rules the mundane classes (fighter, rogue, and to a lesser extent barbarian) start becoming very unattractive, because spell-casters increasingly have access to large numbers of 'game breaking' spells that simply outclass anything a fighter or rogue can do. So yes this is a problem, and I'm not unsympathetic to wanting to fix it.

I'm just saying that its pretty clear already 4e that its not my game. What I wanted was a far less revolutionary approach to this problem, because in my game its not nearly as big of a problem as it is in people who play alot of high level games with low amounts of dungeon crawling.