Community

May 3, 2012 -- 11:05AM, Zappy wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 9:05AM, dmgorgon wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 6:37AM, rampant wrote:

Rules contrary to player expectations? Less beleivable?

If there are rules some of them are going to be contrary to some player's expectation because frankly players don't generally a good idea of what the game is really like until after they read the book.

And nothing annoys me more than people goiong on about believability in a game where six-legged squid-cats are considered no big deal.

No gamer has ever had a problem playing in a world with monsters.   That kind of thing has never caused a believability issue for anyone.   In fact the reason they play the game is to encounter monsters and magic.   That fact that monsters and magic exist in the game world; however, is no excuse for gamist rules that circumvent intuitive concepts for the sake of balance. 

Players are always imagining their characters in their minds and when a gamist rule pokes a dagger at their fantasy it breaks immersion.  There shouldn’t be a need for a 4e apologist to sit at the table and explain why a particular rule exists and help re-visualize the situation 4e style.    Now for mechanical players and those obsessed with the mechanics of the game, I’m sure they couldn’t care less.  After all they play the game for different reasons – for the mechanics.

Let me give you an example of a rule that turned into a WTF moment at my gaming table.  

An orc riding a boar charged the PCs, attacked with his weapon, and had his mount attack.    Now, when a PC  tried to ride that boar and do the same thing he was very disappointed when the rules told him he couldn't order his mount to attack and attack himself.      In this case, the Mounted Combat in 4e rules are different for monsters and PCs.   In the end, I decided to ignore the rules and go with what seemed intuitive and logical to everyone at the time.   We just rolled our eyes at that rule and simply continued play.  

With that said, I think that a player should never be told no you can't do X because it wouldn't be balanced.    Gamist rules that try to preserve balance at the expense of intuitive role playing are junk.    

The thing you actually have to compare there though is the player attack alone versus the orc attack alone. If they are equal then it is fair. if not you have your answer.

For that matter 4e has sundry ways of addressing this particular bugaboo. First of all it is a serious corner-case. IF you're riding, AND you aren't riding a mount with a MOUNT keyword, AND you want to make multiple attacks more than once per encounter, THEN you MAY find that certain DMs will have monsters that might be able to ride the same mount and do different things than your PC can (the entire thing entirely depends on the DM selecting on of 2 supported ways of using the creature + mount).

Calling a system 'junk' because of such trivia is seriously extreme. As a DM you have several choices as I already mentioned. You could simply use the PC mount rules for mounted NPCs/monsters (an option that is in the DMG). You could simply slap a mount keyword on the monster (since 4e monsters are INTENDED to be customized however you want this is hardly even worth calling a house rule). You could also just not worry about it because it is going to come up once in a blue moon.

4e gave you all the tools you would ever need to decide where to draw the line between how the mechanics work in a vacuum and how they are used in an actual game play. You decide. I call that 'freedom' and DMGorgon calls it 'junk'. Well, whatever. I'm just having fun playing while others are ranting about what is so horribly wrong. I wonder which is ultimately the more productive strategy (the more enjoyable in this case).

May 2, 2012 -- 5:28PM, Malathonx wrote:

and build a 5e system that WE want, not YOU want.  stop trying to play 'RULEZ POLICE' and build a system with maximum flexibility.  you're doing a LOT of things right, but there are some GLARING errors in the process.

the idea behind the "1 hour adventure" scenario that mike mearls harps on and on about, for starters.  pipe dream - if for no other reason than this : you, being a company, want to make money by selling us product.  no gamer is going to spend $12.95 for a few rooms and monster stat blocks slapped into a cardboard cover.  NO GAMER - we want MEAT for our money, not garnishings.  look back at the Temple of Elemental Evil supermodule - all that for $20.  thats what you need to focus on.   and don't give me that "modern printing costs too much" excuse either - this is the world of TECHNOLOGY folks, and we know what it costs to print on our laser printers.  Glue for the binding doesn't justify double the price.

and his "Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting." comment in this weeks Legends and Lore archive ?  he should be tossed to the carrion crawlers for even making such an asinine statement.  wargames are about fighters reigning supreme, this is D&D - it has MAGIC for a reason, and any fighter who doesn't take that into tactical consideration should be blasted to flinders by the third round of combat. 

the ridiculous idea that all classes would 'balance' was tried in 4e, and failed miserably.  embrace the idea of characters being as unbalanced as people in real life.  the hot-dog guy on the corner doesn't have what it takes to run Microsoft.  a fighter is never going to outsmart a wizard - but he SHOULD know that and plan his fight accordingly.  fighters know tactics better than wizards, who focus their efforts in magical combat and spell tactics.  where brute strength fails, cunning becomes the necessary equalizer.

no game rules or system of balancing is going to make a poor DM into a great one - players will always find ways to exploit the rules and their characters strengths to their advantage.  by building 'balancing' as a primary mechanic, you're making the same mistake as music/movie companies trying to FORCE their wants on the consumers.  take the smart route and focus on creating wonderful new innovations with abilities, magic, stories and artwork - focus 90% of your energy there and leave the remainder for rules and balance concerns.  all great DMs know that it's THEIR job to keep balance, it's in the job description - and if you can't think on your feet, you shouldn't be in the DM chair.

and if you're very clever, you'll set up a way for gamers to build modules/books/worlds/libraries of items/monsters/spells to sell through YOUR store, using a microtransactions system like apple's ipuke store or amazon's tv episodes.  you're sitting on a GINORMOUS pile of creative nerds who are passionate about gaming - why not use that resource to fatten your coinpurse as well as theirs ?  b'sides, it'll give 'em more $$$ to buy your products with  ;p

(ORC_Chaos: Edited-Baiting is against the Code of Conduct)

Someone please get me a bucket!