Combat is faster but at the trade off of boring?

Early on its clear that with a design goal to encourage theatre of the mind the combats had to be simplified back to "walk up to monster and swing"   While 4E had slowness issues due to off turn attacks and "blue Mage" game play with all the free and immediates, it also had combats with use of pull, push, slide, or signaling conditions like bloodied made for much more dynamic combats.


While its clear that replacing "five feet equals one square" gets you back to miniatures math, the closest we had to anything where tactical positioning could matter is the denial of movement on the guardian theme at third.   The lack of flanking and loss of opportunity attacks meant players in range of a monster had nothing else to do on their turn with the move action so they could walk in circles around the monster for goofs

Fast?  Yes
Simple? Yes
Boring? Yes ... (due to lack of meangful choices)

Already it's clear as a DM that a big bad evil wizard needs dozens of goons simply to occupy space in front of them as a form of living shield otherwise players will simple walk past them and kill the big bad evil Mage.

Another issue is a return to "fights that don't matter". If you win initiative you will decimate the other side and if it's an attrition fight of no significance other than to whittle away some HPs like the classic two goblins guarding a gate, then winning initiative is more like a skill challenge ... If you beat the monsters then skip the fight because there are no interesting combat mechanics anymore and the fight has no challenge. 

Caves of chaos  quickly becomes "can we skip the trash fights and skip ahead to something that matters?". There'd is only so much role play mental gymnastics a GM can do to cover up this bland mayo on white bread combat system.

EDIT NOTE: Yes i know this is early on and that other modular components could be "tacked on" to add spice.  However even in its simplest form I am not sure we have a combat system that "feels" fun.  There is a post later in the thread on how simple player combat choices are, but I will note here that returning to the 15 minute workday of nuke until injured then take a day or two off and repeat just no longer "feels" heroic.
I agree.

Caves of chaos  quickly becomes "can we skip the trash fights and skip ahead to something that matters?".



Trash fights heh? Sounds like WoW's dungeons.
Something that matters? Like a boss with epic loot? Also sounds like WoW.

With all the people that said 4E was too much like a videogame, like WoW, I'm surprised the encounters in D&D Next feels like this.

But again, this was a playtest about core rules, not about monsters or character options.
This is the biggest problem D&DNext will have. Trying to be mainstream enough so it can attract modern gamers, which have more experience in computer games, than tabletop. This approach made 4e a failure (in my mind), but from what I've read so far, this game has better overall potential. Time will tell.
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."
This game has the potential to attract some grognards while simultaneously alienating 4e and many 3e consumers who enjoy interesting and tactical combat. Also, good luck attracting new consumers with such boring classes and combat mechanics.
This game has the potential to attract some grognards while simultaneously alienating 4e and many 3e consumers who enjoy interesting and tactical combat. Also, good luck attracting new consumers with such boring classes and combat mechanics.



Please try to remember that this is a playtest and the majority of the options that will be available to you once this hits shelves is not there right now and what IS available to you is still being refined.
This game has the potential to attract some grognards while simultaneously alienating 4e and many 3e consumers who enjoy interesting and tactical combat. Also, good luck attracting new consumers with such boring classes and combat mechanics.



Ah yes. Grognard is the FotM term being used now. Oddly enough, your statement contradicts itself as you say it will 'attract some grognards while simultaneously alienating 4e and many 3e consumers who enjoy interesting and tactical combat.' Grognards are old soldiers/gamers as well as wargamers (which are tactical combat gamers).


Anyway, they haven't really given us a ton of info concerning this game and it is a playtest, not an actual game yet, so it's probably a bit early to tell who it will attract or alienate. You can't make everyone happy all of the time.
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."
Yeah, it's going back to pre-4e design. This is to be expected.
 
Ah yes. Grognard is the FotM term being used now. Oddly enough, your statement contradicts itself as you say it will 'attract some grognards while simultaneously alienating 4e and many 3e consumers who enjoy interesting and tactical combat.' Grognards are old soldiers/gamers as well as wargamers (which are tactical combat gamers).


Regardless of what the original meaning may have been (and I'm not sure it was what you think it was) the term "grognard" now refers to players of older editions who, having no sense of game design, actually like aspects of those games based purely on familiarity and not based on actual merit. Thus WotC brings back the bad bits of older editions, including fights that are somewhat boring, especially for martial characters.
IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/2.jpg)

"grognard" now refers to players of older editions who, having no sense of game design, actually like aspects of those games based purely on familiarity and not based on actual merit.



Not necessarily. It can also refer to a player who plays the older edition because they're more creative in and out of combat than "I run up and swing my sword." They are players who don't need a "push" power to know that you can bum rush an enemy. They will happily swing from the chandelier without first asking if they can get a bonus for doing so.

 Let's not devolve into name calling just because you don't like a particular play style. State your issues with the mechanic and move on.
 

___________________________________________________________________

Check out the Owlbear blog! http://ragingowlbear.blogspot.com/


"grognard" now refers to players of older editions who, having no sense of game design, actually like aspects of those games based purely on familiarity and not based on actual merit.



Not necessarily. It can also refer to a player who plays the older edition because they're more creative in and out of combat than "I run up and swing my sword." They are players who don't need a "push" power to know that you can bum rush an enemy. They will happily swing from the chandelier without first asking if they can get a bonus for doing so.

 Let's not devolve into name calling just because you don't like a particular play style. State your issues with the mechanic and move on.
 



thats putting a LOT of the game in the DM's hands. what happens when you have a bad DM?

thats putting a LOT of the game in the DM's hands. what happens when you have a bad DM?



Bad DMs will ruin any edition of D&D. That's nothing new... but that's not the point. I object to the use of "grognard" as a pejorative to attempt to debase the opinions of players of older editions. 

What also concerns me is that people are ignoring the fact that WotC has clearly stated that there will be more tactical layers in the core. If one reads the design goals of the classes, you can quickly see there are a lot of tricks or "martial powers" (for lack of a better phrase) that they have been working on for the martial classes that [apparently] were not ready for this iteration of the playtest.  However, if you go back a read the design goal articles, there's clearly a lot of content to come to allow the martial combatants to better control the field of battle.

What's worse is that there is a lot of "This mechanic sux. That mechanic sux. 5e sux!" when better feedback would be written like this:

"In our play, we found the lack of opportunity attacks meant that the ranged classes are not protected by the martial classes. Also, the ranged players felt overly penalized for firing into melee."

As opposed to "Grognards are taking the game backwards! This is totally boring. I'm basing my entire opinion on the earliest available alpha print of the playtest rules... and 5e sux."

Which is the more helpful input?
 

___________________________________________________________________

Check out the Owlbear blog! http://ragingowlbear.blogspot.com/


"grognard" now refers to players of older editions who, having no sense of game design, actually like aspects of those games based purely on familiarity and not based on actual merit.



Not necessarily. It can also refer to a player who plays the older edition because they're more creative in and out of combat than "I run up and swing my sword." They are players who don't need a "push" power to know that you can bum rush an enemy. They will happily swing from the chandelier without first asking if they can get a bonus for doing so.

 Let's not devolve into name calling just because you don't like a particular play style. State your issues with the mechanic and move on. 

thats putting a LOT of the game in the DM's hands. what happens when you have a bad DM?

You get a new one.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

This game has the potential to attract some grognards while simultaneously alienating 4e and many 3e consumers who enjoy interesting and tactical combat. Also, good luck attracting new consumers with such boring classes and combat mechanics.



Please try to remember that this is a playtest and the majority of the options that will be available to you once this hits shelves is not there right now and what IS available to you is still being refined.




The design team is first developing the core.  Then, they will surely add the elements from 4e that allow for more tactical and detailed combat with miniatures to achieve their design goal of uniting all editions.

From all I've read, if you enjoy playing 1e, 2e, 3e or 4e, you will be able to incorporate what you like into your 5e game, and if you like running a character that plays like a 1e character, you'll be able to do so.  If you like to run a character that runs like a 4e character, you'll be able to do so.

So...don't be alienated yet.  Wait...be patient. 

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 


"grognard" now refers to players of older editions who, having no sense of game design, actually like aspects of those games based purely on familiarity and not based on actual merit.



Not necessarily. It can also refer to a player who plays the older edition because they're more creative in and out of combat than "I run up and swing my sword." They are players who don't need a "push" power to know that you can bum rush an enemy. They will happily swing from the chandelier without first asking if they can get a bonus for doing so.

Theoretically perhaps, but I don't see it used that way.
thats putting a LOT of the game in the DM's hands. what happens when you have a bad DM?

You get a new one.


Requiring people to have god-tier DMs seems both unrealistic and a case of poor game design.
IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/2.jpg)
My 5 cents:

The good from 4ed: melee players(fighters, barbarians and so on) were no more a simple attack and damage. They had options to made some strategy, mainly the defenders.
As well, the combat with move/at will/standard/minor action as great!!!!
If this new combat, many will not like to take again fighter.

Another thing. well, I'm brazilian, and here in Brasil, we use meters, not feet for distance mesure, and we loved the squares distance mesure. Tongue Out
I also hate getting measurements in feet rather than squares. Only 3 countries in the world use feet: Liberia, Burma, and the US. Non-Americans have to translate all the measurements in feet into metres or squares now.
I also hate getting measurements in feet rather than squares. Only 3 countries in the world use feet: Liberia, Burma, and the US. Non-Americans have to translate all the measurements in feet into metres or squares now.



While I understand the criticism, it's not like there's a challenging conversion factor (such as Farenheit to Celcius).

1 square = 5 feet 

All movement rates are evenly divisible by 5. 

This is elementary school math. 

___________________________________________________________________

Check out the Owlbear blog! http://ragingowlbear.blogspot.com/

I also hate getting measurements in feet rather than squares. Only 3 countries in the world use feet: Liberia, Burma, and the US. Non-Americans have to translate all the measurements in feet into metres or squares now.



I also hate getting measurements in feet rather than squares. Only 3 countries in the world use feet: Liberia, Burma, and the US. Non-Americans have to translate all the measurements in feet into metres or squares now.



While I understand the criticism, it's not like there's a challenging conversion factor (such as Farenheit to Celcius).

1 square = 5 feet 

All movement rates are evenly divisible by 5. 

This is elementary school math. 



Which works out to approximately 1.5 meters per square, IIRC. I know I had considered modifying 4th to use 2 meter squares instead of 1.5... that way a medium creature (about 6-8 feet at maximums) actually fits into a single square completely. You can then change the ranges to meters instead of feet somewhat easily.
I also hate getting measurements in feet rather than squares. Only 3 countries in the world use feet: Liberia, Burma, and the US. Non-Americans have to translate all the measurements in feet into metres or squares now.


I expect they'll go with meters in non-American printings.
IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/2.jpg)
Requiring people to have god-tier DMs seems both unrealistic and a case of poor game design.


There are varying levels of DM competency.  It's not just "god-tier" and "horrible."  One doesn't need to be a "god-tier" DM to be a good DM.

Requiring people to have god-tier DMs seems both unrealistic and a case of poor game design.


There are varying levels of DM competency.  It's not just "god-tier" and "horrible."  One doesn't need to be a "god-tier" DM to be a good DM.


Sorry, let me lay it out more clearly for you. The level of GMing required to make a game fun is inversely proportional to certain qaulities of a system. We generally refer to those collectively as just "quality", and subdivide them into groups like "balance" and "ease of play". The lower the requirements on the GM, the better the system itself is.
IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/2.jpg)
Also, some people saying "find a better DM" act as though there is a limitless supply of DM's in the area who happen to play the exact same system as you. There is only one Pathfinder and two 4e groups in my area as far as I know. It's not like there is much choice.
Also, some people saying "find a better DM" act as though there is a limitless supply of DM's in the area who happen to play the exact same system as you. There is only one Pathfinder and two 4e groups in my area as far as I know. It's not like there is much choice.



Well, you could always run a game.  Quite frankly, if you don't trust the GM you play with to be able to run a decent game without rules heavy support then you should find a good game or step up and take the big chair.  I have high confidence that a DM that could run this into the ground would find a way to crash any edition of the game.

While I understand the criticism, it's not like there's a challenging conversion factor (such as Farenheit to Celcius).

1 square = 5 feet 


All movement rates are evenly divisible by 5. 


This is elementary school math.



Unless your game book is converted into meters, where 1 square = 1.5 meters. Now good luck to quickly remember how many squares your longbow can hit with a 27 meters range. Or the weird math it become when you use cubic feet (that DO NOT convert easily into cubic meters), like wall spells. 

[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. 


While I understand the criticism, it's not like there's a challenging conversion factor (such as Farenheit to Celcius).

1 square = 5 feet 


All movement rates are evenly divisible by 5. 


This is elementary school math.



Unless your game book is converted into meters, where 1 square = 1.5 meters. Now good luck to quickly remember how many squares your longbow can hit with a 27 meters range. Or the weird math it become when you use cubic feet (that DO NOT convert easily into cubic meters), like wall spells. 




OK, so 5 feet = 1.5 meters.  Multiply by 3 and move the period.  Then probably change the period into a comma, depending on where you live.

Actually, I kindof like the 2 meters conversion for some things.  Really, I don't know too many hallways or doors that are 5 feet wide, let alone 2 meters.  I've been in a few castles and the halls tend to be 3 feet, stairs and doors around 2-2.5 feet.  10 foot high ceilings (A D&D staple) are also rediculous.  But, we've all learned to suspend disbelief with these abstractions, so it should still work fine if you use 1.5 or 2 meters.

Heh - Ranger: "He's not out of range, this is a French longbow; it can shoot 240 meters!"

OK, so 5 feet = 1.5 meters.  Multiply by 3 and move the period.  Then probably change the period into a comma, depending on where you live.


If we had both measures (like.. "Range: 15m (or 50 feet)"), your math could help. Nope, we have to take that 27 meter, and divide by 1.5 to find how many squares it is. Usually, I divide by 3 and double, but you must agree that dividing by 3 is still a bit more complex than dividing by 5. 


Actually, I kindof like the 2 meters conversion for some things.  Really, I don't know too many hallways or doors that are 5 feet wide, let alone 2 meters.  I've been in a few castles and the halls tend to be 3 feet, stairs and doors around 2-2.5 feet.  10 foot high ceilings (A D&D staple) are also rediculous.  But, we've all learned to suspend disbelief with these abstractions, so it should still work fine if you use 1.5 or 2 meters.


Or, you know, things become square-sized. 

[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. 

People! It's not that freaking complicated no matter where you live and what you were taught in school. Just drop the feet part and just count each square as five. If you want 25 then you count 5 squares.
It could be that some folks aren't used to the concpt/environment of "Playtest".

Yes, you find the characters boring because they're pre-made and generic. You have no vested interest as you didn't build the character. You didn't make choices that will impact the game. And, deep down, you know it's more or less a one shot deal where each character really doesn't have a future.

The game will be a long term one, but for purposes of the playtest, you need to just evaluate what's in front of you at the moment. Does this here work?
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity.... In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
Ah, I see - he's concerned that the book will read 27 meters, which he'd then have to convert to squares.  In America the book will read 90 feet (90/5=18 squares, 18*1.5 = 27 meters.)  It certainly will be sad if they do it that way.  His book wouldn't read 25 feet, it would read 7.5 meters, which is indeed more work.

This is actually a pretty good reason to abstract the measurements, though maybe some new unit name should be used rather than "squares" since the world isn't really square...
What about... paces?

-YRUSirius

OK, so 5 feet = 1.5 meters.  Multiply by 3 and move the period.  Then probably change the period into a comma, depending on where you live.


If we had both measures (like.. "Range: 15m (or 50 feet)"), your math could help. Nope, we have to take that 27 meter, and divide by 1.5 to find how many squares it is. Usually, I divide by 3 and double, but you must agree that dividing by 3 is still a bit more complex than dividing by 5. 


Actually, I kindof like the 2 meters conversion for some things.  Really, I don't know too many hallways or doors that are 5 feet wide, let alone 2 meters.  I've been in a few castles and the halls tend to be 3 feet, stairs and doors around 2-2.5 feet.  10 foot high ceilings (A D&D staple) are also rediculous.  But, we've all learned to suspend disbelief with these abstractions, so it should still work fine if you use 1.5 or 2 meters.


Or, you know, things become square-sized. 


I started a thread just about units of measurement here community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... if you guys are interested. I like to single specific issues out so they don't just get lost within a larger thread (instead the thread will get lost in a few days among pages of new ones, but whatever).
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
It could be that some folks aren't used to the concpt/environment of "Playtest".

Yes, you find the characters boring because they're pre-made and generic. You have no vested interest as you didn't build the character. You didn't make choices that will impact the game. And, deep down, you know it's more or less a one shot deal where each character really doesn't have a future.

The game will be a long term one, but for purposes of the playtest, you need to just evaluate what's in front of you at the moment. Does this here work?



I don't think you understand the point of this thread. It's about how combat is boring. It has nothing to do with investment in your character.
@Blackknight
In my playtest thread I added a few ideas for fighters having more options.  I agree they needs some fleshing out over and above what is currently in place.

That isn't a problem of this edition though, it has always been a bit too bland.

This edition is an opportunity to add some flavor to fighters/melee classes beyond the attack progression and the options to "trip, sunder, etc."
Also, some people saying "find a better DM" act as though there is a limitless supply of DM's in the area who happen to play the exact same system as you. There is only one Pathfinder and two 4e groups in my area as far as I know. It's not like there is much choice.



No rules set is going to magically turn a bad DM into a good one. However, a bad rules set can straitjacket a good DM and make him worse.


I don't think you understand the point of this thread. It's about how combat is boring. It has nothing to do with investment in your character.


But its not boring. Taking away the mandatory grid and making combat simpler encourages imagination and ROLEPLAYING. Players can come up with their own ways of doing x, y, or z. I don't need an AT WILL to say I can do x, then a UTILITY to state I can do y, and a DAILY to tell me its ok to do z. All of which will be wrapped in a fluffy anime sounding name. Creative players can take a simple system and make it interesting. Boring players can take a rules bloated system like Pathfinder, 3.5, or 4e and make it into a soulless minis game with a little exposition by the DM as they set up the next encounter. 
In any RPG, if you find yourself bored you need to look at yourself and your fellow players before you blame the rules. If the rules are just dumb and don't make sense its a different matter, but it would be hard to argue that in this case. 
What I see so far, the game is going to be based on 3 important interaction mechanics: 

1. Checks
2. Attacks
3. Saves

These will cover most (if not all) creative actions the players may bring to the table anytime. Especially in combat, we can see lots of check contests, clever attacks, genious ways of using the battlefield. No more set in stone powers that limit you to a certain quantity of bonuses and used again and again and again throughout a campaign, just because they are designed to bring you a win. Instead a simple mechanic that can address a very broad area of possibilities is much much more fun to play, and it is hardly boring.
I entirely agree OP. My friday group tried it out tonight, and yes, it's just as I feared. BORING. What it boiled down to was the Cleric of Moradin making melee basics every turn, the Wizard using Magic Missile every turn (an maybe burning hands), The Fighter just making melee basics, and the Cleric of Pelor always using the radiant lance. 

The whole encounter felt like just spamming at-wills in 4e when you run out of all the fun stuff and combat comes to a grind. This is just like that, except that there's never fun stuff. I as a player love melee-oriented roles, and I started in 3.5. In 3.5, I hated that playing a melee role always meant "Melee basic. Done" while the caster would go "Hmm, let me check ALL of my options and cool stuff". But, I didn't like playing a caster, because the huge amount of spells, and figuring out slots and prepared and what's in your book, etc... made it way too much of a headache. The only exception was the Book of Nine Swords (4e's inspiration to an extent), but EVERY group I was ever in never allowed BoNS due to it being "broken".As a result, I always DMed, there were pretty much no characters I enjoyed playing in 3.5.

Finally 4e rolled around, and thank God, I can finally play a melee character that does more than just a melee basic. I get to pull off cool fun maneuvers and knock people around, and drag them around, and daze them, and do deep cuts, and all this cool stuff while the casters still got their spells and for once in history didn't seem to immensely overshadow the meleers. 

From the way this playtest session went, combat was immensely boring, and I don't see myself wanting to play a character. 
Dark Sun! Dark Sun! Dark Sun! Dark Sun! Dark Sun!
Also, some people saying "find a better DM" act as though there is a limitless supply of DM's in the area who happen to play the exact same system as you. There is only one Pathfinder and two 4e groups in my area as far as I know. It's not like there is much choice.



So how many people are in each of these groups?
What would you do if your DM simply quit?

DMing - any edition - isn't really that hard.  (psst: children can do it)  So anyone can take a crack at it.  And everyone should!
So in an average group you've got 5-6 potential DMs....
(One of the groups I play in?  Every single one of us is a vet. DM.  We all have different styles, but between us we comprise almost 170 years worth of XP) 

*Now it might be that you've already eliminated certain people from sitting in the DMs chair (I know my Sunday group has).  They've proven that they run games in ways the rest don't enjoy....

Also, some people saying "find a better DM" act as though there is a limitless supply of DM's in the area who happen to play the exact same system as you. There is only one Pathfinder and two 4e groups in my area as far as I know. It's not like there is much choice.



No rules set is going to magically turn a bad DM into a good one. However, a bad rules set can straitjacket a good DM and make him worse.



Clearly, then, the idea system is to have no rules.  That allows the most creativity, doesn't it?
What I see so far, the game is going to be based on 3 important interaction mechanics: 

1. Checks
2. Attacks
3. Saves

These will cover most (if not all) creative actions the players may bring to the table anytime. Especially in combat, we can see lots of check contests, clever attacks, genious ways of using the battlefield. No more set in stone powers that limit you to a certain quantity of bonuses and used again and again and again throughout a campaign, just because they are designed to bring you a win. Instead a simple mechanic that can address a very broad area of possibilities is much much more fun to play, and it is hardly boring.



I agree, but think we should take it one further and get rid of spell lists.  I don't need some set in stone spell limiting me to do exactly what the description says.  Why can't I be creative and describe the magic I want to perform?
After playtesting from tonight...i have to say...this feels like Diablo...and not in a good way...you encounter ATON of enemies that will die in one hit and can barely hit...not that they will actually hit...because they will die during the first round...then there are the monsters that take like 6 rounds of punishments and can one shot most characters, not because they have special ability and stuff...but because they have more damage rolls and bigger damage dice and more hp...i have seen minions on 4e more interesting than those "special monsters".  As much as you say that 4e combat is slow...at least every encounter felt important...instead of being, first round everything is dead...there is no tactics or decisions...when the party encountered the minotaur, the first thing it does...charge the mage, and oneshot him, because there is nothing that keep him from doing that...the rest of the party during the entire session felt like 5th wheel of the cart, because clerics did everything, even more when their buffs last 1 hour and most combat end in 6 seconds...so their buffs lasted almost all session and destroyed everything...

There was no tactics or decisions in combat, it's only luck...4e may have overcomplicated combat by later levels...but at least it lowered or minimized more the luck aspect of combat and leaned more toward tactics and decisions than past editions...and 5e ofcourse...because this is 2.9... 


I don't think you understand the point of this thread. It's about how combat is boring. It has nothing to do with investment in your character.



Well, I do because "boring" wasn't quantified. One can't just drop "Game is boring" without saying WHY. As a playtester, one has to identify what the problem is. This isn't regular boards "that's my opinion" stuff here. It's to help make the game better.

"Boring" doesn't cut it here. Again, WHY was it boring?

Is it boring because everyone else got a turn and the fighter didn't? Was the character knocked out? Restrained? Prevented from attacking?

Or was it as I suggested, no player investment? Was the fighter played just as a plain generic fighter, or did the player invest himself by playing it up? Yes, I see the character sheet says in effect to charge right into battle, but was it played as sterile as possible, or was it descriptive? "I swing my great axe" vs. "I charge right into the fray, swinging back and forth as I make my way to the leader?" Was it "I attack... and rolled a 17" or was it "I jump on the table where the orcs were playing cards, and swing my axe crashing it upon my foe!"

As I said, this is a character someone else made. If YOU were to roll up a character, you'd make it more personal, and more yours. That certainly WILL effect how one plays a character. (At least, for most people.) I know my characters at game conventions that are pregenerated are a LOT more daring and dangerous than my home campaign. At home, I'll have characters check every door and chest for traps. The one shot character, that has no personality or choices from me will generally just throw caution to the wind and charge right in. Why? I won't be playing him next week. He's a temporary fill in.

Really, if he didn't make the character and isn't interested in the future well being of him/her, then there's no impact or difference if the character wins a combat or not. A character created from the player is much more personal.
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity.... In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.