|
1 year ago ::
Mar 03, 2012 - 5:33AM
#131
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
We experienced this "all" the time. 4th edition is very much DM vs Player in my opinion. It boils down to a battle of tactics and each player wanted their actions to have maximum effect. Now I will say that our group always wanted our DM to give us his all while staying in the rules. If we felt the DM was just letting us win then we couldn't enjoy the game. Now what this led to was us formulating our tactics only to find it crushed by the DM with his tactics and we would have to regroup, the same would go for us, sometimes our tactics would cause the DM to have to rethink his. Also, all the triggering could really slow things down. One person's turn could turn into everyone at the table having to take another turn at doing something because it their triggers were set off.
DM vs. player = using tactics? lolwut? DM vs. player is when the DM is constantly trying to screw over the players, i.e. throwing impossible challenges at them, making up stuff that they're suddenly supposed to know, that kind of stuff. Tactics just makes it interesting. Being unpredictable is a good tactic.
I was just saying that we were economical with our time. I find that the thing that slows down combat is when the player sits there for 5 minutes making a decision about what to do. We solved this with an egg timer. You have 1 minute to take your turn (you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever), if you make a decision before then, you get a poker chip. 2 poker chips can be traded in for a +1 to a roll of your choice. It gave people an incentive to keep things moving, and it worked extremely well.
A good many people around here see DM vs Player as when a DM is trying to kill you even though they are still using the rules. I've never heard of DM vs Player as the DM breaking the rules to kill players, that's just flat out breaking the rules.
Who says the DM is trying to kill you? The DMG actually specifically discourages this kind of behavior. They're using tactics to challenge you. That does not = trying to kill you. If that was the case, every combat in every RPG would be DM vs. player. There is a chance of death. Unless you think they should just stand there and let you hit them.
A good many people think this? This is the first time I've seen someone on these boards say this.
Well the DMG is wrong I'm afraid. Technically the DM is trying to kill the PC's, if he wasn't then yes he would just stand there. When I run an Orc in battle, I run that Orc as an Orc would act if it was real and was trying to kill someone. If a DM uses the all of Orc's powers andn tactics to the best of his ability then he is trying to kill the PC's. If this is not the case then mechanics aren't needed to be honest, all it needs to be is a narrative game where all outcomes are planned. If you roll the dice and you hit PC's doing damageg to them until their HP is gone do you follow through with it? The rules of the game and the DMG apparently conflict each other. If I am not supposed to try and kill the PC's when I play creatures then the math really needs to be removed and I should be allowed to narrate the whole thing but that's not the case with the default rules of the game. The game is written to where it's the DM trying to kill the PC's.
The DM is trying to challenge the PC's. Not specifically trying to kill them. There is a difference. Also, lol @ the DMG being wrong, man. If the PC's get killed, it's usually because of bad tactics on their part. They should be able to overcome level appropriate challenges. This is a goal of 4e. Like I said, the DM vs. PC mentality is completely different. That is specifically using what is beyond the PC's capabilities. Tomb of Horrors is a good example of DM vs. PC. Something that is specifically designed to give the PC's little hope of survival. Tomb of Horrors is an example of DM vs. PC mentality.
Nope, PC's can die because the DM used better tactics than the PC's. Losing is not all about using bad tactics, it's about using a tactic that might not have been good enough. You can't always blame losing on bad tactics or bad rolls, the DM does have the full use of all the powers and tactics of a creature to use at his disposal.
I still believe the DMG conflicts with the actual rules. The DMG was written by a human being and they can be wrong at times you know. DM himself trying to kill player's would be fudging rolls and telling player's they didn't hit when they actually would have just to keep them from killing the creatures. I can still try and kill the PC's and it be perfectly alright as long as I stick with the rules.
There is a difference between challenging the PC's and actively trying to kill them. If your goal is to kill them, then that is DM vs. PC mentality. You're doing your normal shifting of goalposts now, though.
Again, Tomb of Horrors is DM vs. PC. That is not a challenge to them. It is specifically designed to kill them with no chance of them winning.
Oh here we go with the "shifting your goalposts" copout. Please please please, if you can't come up with a legit argument then just say so or leave it. Nobody is shifting goalposts at all. I haven't changed the circumstances at all and i am sticking by what I say. Breaking the rules to kill PC's is not the same as using the rules to the kill the PC's, whether or not you do it is not up to debate. I always try to kill the PC's when I have an encounter, now I don't get mad or happy if I succeed or not because it's all a part of the game.
Then you have a DM vs. PC's mentality. This is what the DMG discourages. That is why it suggests the monster not do actions like coup de grace and the like. However, I doubt you've ever read through it. There's no way for it to be "wrong". If you follow the guidelines written in the DMG, you will set up a challenge for them. If it said keep throwing level +10 encounters at them so they have no chance of winning, that would be DM vs. PC.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 03, 2012 - 6:04AM
#132
|
|
|
In my campaigns, the monsters are trying to kill the PCs, not me. I would assume the same with all DMs worth their salt.
If you don't understand the difference, then "role playing" is truly a foreign concept to you.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 03, 2012 - 6:05AM
#133
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
DM vs. PC: When the DM is actively trying to get a TPK. Anything else is not DM vs. PC. Now, the DM should always try and challenge the PCs, but death is not the only challenge, nor the only failure mechanic within battle.
Also, the one minute timer thing works for me too. Perhaps Xun and Respecter have a slower, less efficient table than Sam and I?
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition.Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotes
Show
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 03, 2012 - 6:53AM
#134
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2009
|
Also, the one minute timer thing works for me too. Perhaps Xun and Respecter have a slower, less efficient table than Sam and I?
Yes, play at my table was slower. We never did try the timer technique, because a) it would seriously alter the atmosphere around the table, and b) if you can only speed up the game by forcing people to make sloppy decisions, maybe it's better to simply play a different game (which is what we ultmately did).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 03, 2012 - 7:03AM
#135
|
|
|
First off, it doesn't matter how long an encounter is, as long as everyone is having fun.
When we first started 4E, combats were definitely longer. After a few sessions, they were considerably faster and now we never see the marathons that people proclaim are rampant in 4E (unless the encounter is designed to be a marathon).
We do have one player that suffers from analysis paralysis. He knows it. We all know it. It happens. But he's gotten better over time as well and we can joke about it.
One of the things that I have seen slow combat down, however, is the player that doesn't understand his character's powers and consistently needs to read the powers before acting. This is one of the reasons why I request that players reflavor their powers. They become much more knowledgeable of their powers and are able to act much more quickly.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 03, 2012 - 7:06AM
#136
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2005
|
Playing 4E, combats do take a while for my group... but there are three kids around. When the kids are out? Snappy, snappy. It's nice, and the out-of-turn actions definitely keep everybody involved, if you are paying attention to the game.
I think what 4E requires isn't system mastery, but character mastery. Know your character, what they can do in what situations, and everything falls into place quickly. Tonight took all night for one encounter, but that was... about 8:00PM to 11:00PM, with dinner interrupting and frequent requests from children. Our actual table time was maybe an hour, and combat was 5 PCs vs. 8 monsters. There were two acid pits which really hastened stuff... our monk is a forced move specialist, and that poor troll just couldn't roll a successful save to stay out of those pits.
Attentive players with thorough character knowlege and few distractions? Snappy combat. I find it no worse than 3.x, and slower than 2E or earlier, but also more interesting. Also, in only 3 rounds, we all got a fair bit more than three actions.
Resident jark.
Resident Minister of Education and Misinformation.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 03, 2012 - 7:14AM
#137
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
Also, the one minute timer thing works for me too. Perhaps Xun and Respecter have a slower, less efficient table than Sam and I?
Yes, play at my table was slower. We never did try the timer technique, because a) it would seriously alter the atmosphere around the table, and b) if you can only speed up the game by forcing people to make sloppy decisions, maybe it's better to simply play a different game (which is what we ultimately did).
What the timer seemed to to was keep everyone focused. I don't have to use it much anymore, unless focus wanes. With everyone focused on the game, and learning or having learned what their powers do, the game goes much faster. Not knowing what you can do can make a battle take hours. Knowing what your powers can do, and possibly what the powers of others can do can make play very fast indeed.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition.Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotes
Show
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 03, 2012 - 7:26AM
#138
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2009
|
What the timer seemed to to was keep everyone focused. I don't have to use it much anymore, unless focus wanes. With everyone focused on the game, and learning or having learned what their powers do, the game goes much faster. Not knowing what you can do can make a battle take hours. Knowing what your powers can do, and possibly what the powers of others can do can make play very fast indeed.
Couldn't agree more about the last part (it even echoes precisely what I said earlier). But there are several distinctions here:
a) For some players, internalizing the powers and the rules simply isn't a high priority in their lives. Other aspects of roleplaying are much more appealing to them. This means they will take more time at their turn, and that's simply the way it is.
b) For other players, swift decisions simply isn't what they do. Since they have been given a lot of options, all of these should be given due consideration or else the tactical decision-makery is just an illusion. My philosophy is that most of the time you only need to find a good course of action (if the situation is critical, then optimalization might be necessary) and this allows me to play very quickly. But a player who rejects this philosophy will take his sweet time regardless of the situation and his internalization of powers and abilities.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 03, 2012 - 12:33PM
#139
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Keep in mind, the timer wasn't there to punish anyone. You didn't lose your turn or anything. It was strictly a small incentive and itkept people focused on what was going on outside of their turn. There were no sloppy decisions. I find they're more sloppy when someone hasn't been paying attention until their turn comes.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 03, 2012 - 12:35PM
#140
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
|
I just hope the 5e offers the option of faster combat... Against the BBEGs, the whole big tactical combat thing is fine, but for the most part I want combat to be quick and cinematic so we can get back to the important thing--the story. If all I wanted to do was combat with miniatures, I'd play one of the tabletop war games that I own.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard
Vindication for every suffering and hurt
Let retribution hold dominion over earth
--Nemesis, VNV Nation
|
|
|
