D&D 4E Will 4E be crunchy or smooth?

[Zoatebix]

I'm really starting to think that, at least until next May, this [Star Wars Saga] is now required reading.

It's at the top of my list right now, too.

 

[Awakened]

4e: Crunchy, smooth, and SEXY.

I believe that's the official branding slogan.

 

[Mallus]

We like putting together clever synergies, figuring out excellent combos, and generally knowing a spell, feat, or class ability that will excel in every possible situation. Complex, for us, is good.

Complex? Don't you mean 'buggy'?

And how do you feel about those excellent combos when your DM steals them and uses them against your PC's in subsequent encounters?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Complex? Don't you mean 'buggy'?

And how do you feel about those excellent combos when your DM steals them and uses them against your PC's in subsequent encounters?

Well, I'm usually the DM, so I'm fairly positive about that. I like it when players come up with clever ways to defeat their enemies. I like coming up with clever ways to defeat my players. I crib from their ideas, and they crib from mine.

What the heck is wrong with that? It's a tactical combat game. Why should I be upset that both sides have access to the same strategies?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Will 4E be crunchy or smooth?

I have it on authority that it will contain not less than 10% chocolate, if that helps.

 

[(contact)]

I like a game that has fiddly bits for the players, who only have to control one dude, and yet comes out of the gate streamlined on the DM side (with possible option to add fiddly bits). Possibly implies that PCs and NPCs/Monsters play by different rules -- but hey, I've always played that way.

This was confirmed by a couple of the 4e designers at GenCon. Monsters won't be expected to be equivalent to player characters. The impression I'm getting is that there will be more choices for PCs (and therefore more glee for power gamers), but fewer choices for DMs (and therefore less frustration).

One phrase that stuck with me was James Wyatt pointing out that the increasing complexity of 3x D&D (as PC levels increased) meant that your campaigns tended to last until the point that the DM could no longer run them well. 3rd edition created decreasing DM competence over time.

Hence the 7th to 14th level "sweet spot."

A relevant quote from Mike Mearls:

Design game elements for their intended use. Secondary uses are nice, but not a goal. Basically, when we build a monster we intend you to use it as a monster. If we build a feat, it's meant as a feat, not a monster special attack. If we also want to make it a playable character race, we'll design a separate racial write up for it. We won't try to shoehorn a monster stat block into becoming a PC stat block. The designs must inform each other, but we're better off building two separate game elements rather than one that tries to multiclass.

 

[Mallus]

I like it when players come up with clever ways to defeat their enemies.

So I do. I just like it less when the defeat comes at the hands of exploiting an a bug in the rules. And not because it's 'unfair', but because it tends to reduce tactics to combing the rules for exploitable loopholes, rather that putting the focus on the in-game situation at hand.

I call it 'playing the rulebook' as opposed to 'playing the game'.

I like coming up with clever ways to defeat my players.

Again, me too. But isn't it a little too easy as DM? We're supposed to be markedly less efficient at killing PC's than PC's are at killing monsters, so as to foster long-term campaign oriented play.

Out-of-scale 'killer combos' and the like have the unintended effect of making it harder to challenge PC's without killing them too frequently.

It's a tactical combat game.

Sure, sometimes.

Why should I be upset that both sides have access to the same strategies?

It's not about being upset. It's about trying to provide the optimal level of challenge to keep the game interesting. Things like players taking advantage of the unforseen emmergent quallities of the (now enormously bloated) rule set --ie, the programming bugs-- only make that task harder.

I find it preferable to have a smaller, simpler set of tools that can be more easily gauged. One that be definition, has fewer exploits and unintentional consequences.

 

[Awakened]

This thread makes me hungry

 

[Lord Zardoz]

"Fast, easy, and complex" seems like a contradiction to me. But what I'm hoping for in 4e (I refuse to type "4.0", since that implies an inevitable 4.5) is a game that scales more smoothly. So there will be various levels of complexity, rather than painfully simple (D&D Basic Game) and horrifically complex (D&D 3.5 core).

It is not a contradiction, so long as the complexity is the result of component interactions rather than component interdependency. Poker is a pretty complex game, but once you know what the hands are, you know how to play. Create a combination of numbers and suits that is meaningful, and hope it is better than your opponents. Lots of interactions (Straight vs full house, etc). No interdependencies.

3rd edition has a great deal of interdependency on the 6 core stats. No one has trouble figuring out their attack bonus during a charge. Adding X + 2 is easy. Now, if you add or subtract 3 from a core stat, you have to recalculate several things:

Str: Recalculate melee attack bonus, damage, and Composite bow damage, Grapple Check
Dex: Recalculate Ref save, Ac, ranged attack bonus, Tumble Check, Number of AoO if you have Combat Reflexes;
etc.

Also, you get to recalculate relevant skill checks.

This interdependency on the core stats is what caused so many headaches. The stats affect so many things that stat buffs are incredibly useful, and ability damage was similarly effective. Improve one stat, and you improve a whole slew of potentially nice things.

They can achieve Simple but Complex if they cut down on the number of potential variables for things that you want to keep track of. They can in turn do this by cutting down on the number of situational and temporary modifiers, while retaining some interdependencies.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Gundark]

I like a game that has fiddly bits for the players, who only have to control one dude, and yet comes out of the gate streamlined on the DM side (with possible option to add fiddly bits). Possibly implies that PCs and NPCs/Monsters play by different rules -- but hey, I've always played that way.

This is what attracted me to spycraft 2.0. I've always wished D&D would play like this