Probably players might disagree whether there is actually a problem but, many including myself do. When considering ways to respond to those dissatisfied players and DMs and mitigate the impact of alphastriking, would it really be preferrable to include a stun trap over some sort of environmental mechanism in the encounter notes that merely prevents AP use until the second round? Seems like a pretty big swing in lost early actions. I personally like late-arriving NPCs if better scaling can't be attained but, I'd like to see as large of a variety as possible methods used and avaialble.
Everything being said here, is just a way to bastardize 4e rules. How can we remove a critical part of 4e adventures? How do we take away that evil action point.. OOOH ITS A SCARY BAD MAN.
LFR isnt DnD 4e core. Its 4e combat light. 4e is a combat simulator with roleplaying on the side in home games. If you dislike being an alpha strike. Dont play up, and dont play paragon, and for the love of all thats holy, dont play epic. Because all you will do is find some reason to complain.
Alphastrikes happen. Ludicrous speed has been engaged and we dont break for road runners. Its just how it is. Get improved init, get a init boosting item, and roll with the fact, that if you dont have a 16 in your primary attack stat; at creation - you just dont get the rules behind this edition of DnD. (By the way, the 16 attack stat was a Mike Mearls saying. Not mine.)
I hate to be blunt. I really do. But at Origins if someone tells me at P1 or p2 that my alphastrike ruined there fun, Im gonna get up, leave and let that entire table die. Because thats what will happen if the judge dosent softball down. -Skip
-Pot Stirrer. -Because I can. Co-Author Neth 3-3 Seek and Destroy. (Now with 10% more diplomacy!) Author ELTU 4-3 Minutes to Midnight (Waiting on Release) ABSO 4-2. (I really am working on this I promise!)
Probably players might disagree whether there is actually a problem but, many including myself do. When considering ways to respond to those dissatisfied players and DMs and mitigate the impact of alphastriking, would it really be preferrable to include a stun trap over some sort of environmental mechanism in the encounter notes that merely prevents AP use until the second round? Seems like a pretty big swing in lost early actions. I personally like late-arriving NPCs if better scaling can't be attained but, I'd like to see as large of a variety as possible methods used and avaialble.
"As soon as you start fighting, you feel an odd sensation -- your soul is fatigued. You're unable to call upon inner reserves of strength for the next six seconds. No, not those inner reserves -- Second Wind is still okay. You just can't spend action points for the next six seconds."
Yeah, I'd rather face a stun trap. At least that's an XP-compensated avoidable feature as opposed to terrain that's awful solely for the sake of temporarily depriving heroes of a really abstract combat advantage.
I hate to be blunt. I really do. But at Origins if someone tells me at P1 or p2 that my alphastrike ruined there fun, Im gonna get up, leave and let that entire table die. Because thats what will happen if the judge dosent softball down. -Skip
In that case, I'll just be blunt too.
You're displaying a downright selfish, self-centered, and inconsiderate attitude. Quite frankly, it's more than a little childish and immature. Not too dissimilar to taking your ball and going home if the ballgame doesn't go your way.
Your right to have fun does not supercede anyone else's. You are not better than other people. Period.
It's an elitist, snobbish, primadonna attitude. I personally won't ever stand for it in games I run.
Again, nobody's saying, "Don't ever alpha strike", just, really, be aware that dominating the table all the time really isn't much for for the other guys.
If I'm the unfortunate guy with the lowest initiative, I'm going to be a little annoyed if I never get to do anything. Especially if it's a convention I've taken time off of work for, and possibly spent hundreds of dollars in transportation, hotel, and convention fees to be there.
Heck, even if I'm NOT that guy, I'm going to be annoyed at the guy grandstanding and overbearing. It's likely to leave me with a sour taste in my mouth and be a distinct downer to the day.
-karma
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
Well, I never claimed to be better then others. But if someone complains that me alphastriking has ruined the time at the table for them, I'd leave. I cant rewrite history, but I'd certainly leave them to their own devices the next combat. Charity and selfishness go hand in hand. Its eye of the beholder. Take words with no pretext or emotion and lay them out, and watch and see how people react to them. Am I elitest? Maybe I am, am I snobbish? No more then anyone else who wants to win in any pretext, am I a primma donna? No I'd be a prima uoma - that is, if you are saying I want to take the center focal point and lead the charge, or be controling? Or do you mean it as an egotistical, unreasonable, irritable person? Could you use it in the sense of, vain, obnoxious ?
The fun thing is, about throwing out terminology like prima donna, is quite simply - is someone you can't do without. Yes it has derogatory statements hidden behind it, but its also a core component to a play to have one.
Now step back Jason, and look at what I said. If I ruin someone elses fun, by alphastriking, then I would leave the table. Now take that with kind consideration, that I feel I might not be suited to that table and wouldnt want to dominante it, or ruin other peoples fun.
The only reason you read it the way you did, is your own inflection added in. You dont know how or what I'll be playing, you just made an assumption.. You are a far smarter individual then that, to take some comment, that is intentionally incendiary for the point of arguement, not the point of name calling, and turn such a great potential debate into mudslinging. 8( I r a sad panda now.
-Pot Stirrer. -Because I can. Co-Author Neth 3-3 Seek and Destroy. (Now with 10% more diplomacy!) Author ELTU 4-3 Minutes to Midnight (Waiting on Release) ABSO 4-2. (I really am working on this I promise!)
I disagree that it is a problem at all. It's just a different style of play. Some people like it, others don't.
By calling it a problem, you portray it as the somehow inferior style.
If all people at the table are fine with alpha strike it's fine. If some people are not, these people are just as much a problem as the people who like alpha strike.
(remember the 20 page post "Greyhawk Finale so awful" with the wizard that summoned the earth elemental with the falchion and had an easy time with all the encounters?) That player wasn't out to ruin anyones fun, it just turned out that way and no one said anything to him-he heard about it through the boards.
That's not a problem with the wizard owning the mod, that's a problem with the wizard owning the mod at a table who didn't appreciate it. On a different people other player's might have not minded that at all.
As the referenced player with the wizard from LG in question, I'll throw in my 2 cents, and how I think it relates to this thread.
Two of the players at the table were friends of mine, while the rest were strangers. I had planned on playing with a table of all friends, so there would be no surprises about who could do what. However, some of those friends couldn't make it. I had to find the 2-3 players I didn't know for us to make a table.
While forming the table, we discussed that this was the LG finale, and our characters were extremely powerful. If that was a problem, we could find other players to play with. However, the father and his son said it was OK. They joined us, and we played.
The short of the game was that all the encounters were done usually in the first round (perhaps one went two round). The last fight, though cleaned our clock and sent us packing. It was the only opportunity for the father and his son's characters to take actions (which didn't amount to much, being that we were facing multiple high level wizards).
At no time did the father and son express their feelings about the game until the post the following few days later.
What was the problem with this? Building nova characters? No. Building 'underpowered' characters (which the son was using)? No.
The problem was that the players at the table were used to playing different styles of games. The father said playing with powerful characters was fine...but he didn't realize how powerful they were. The players did not match well, and this resulted in a poor playing experience for the father and son. I say that because the friends that I played with enjoyed themselves - even though they did not act much during combats. However, they were on the same page as me, and we knew what to expect. We tried to communicate with the father and son, but the father was polite at the table, and did not express his agitation at the situation (in this case, politeness resulted in no change to the play style).
Each player at each gaming table gets something different out of a role playing game. I enjoy a good amount of role playing - but I also like making effective characters. Some players lean more one direction or another. There is nothing wrong with preference over one or another.
How does this translate in 4e? Each player at each table gets something different out of these games - specifically, 4e LFR games. I would like to say that we are all human (and adults), and generally want others to succeed and have fun...of course, that is not always true . It is a challenge to find players who match your style well, and there is always a certain amount of risk sitting with new players...hoping these new people will make a great experience rather than leaving players in a foul mood. I believe most of the best answers to helping players have fun are to be open-minded, and try to be empathetic to others. As in any large group of people, empathetic abilities can range from person to person ("What, you mean you DIDN'T find that funny?!"), but that is the best tool for helping everyone have a good gaming experience.
As to the LG game, while the finger can be pointed at the father for failure to communicate more about what they were looking for in a game, I failed as well. I should have seen that they were not enjoying themselves, smiling and cracking jokes during the module like my friends. And it is only logical that going to a big event, and not doing much during combats can be a downer. Logical, but something I wasn't considering during my final event at the end of the campaign - I was so focused on doing well that I failed to be as empathetic as I should have been.
In 4e, my characters are more low-key...but I still have a powerful character or two in the mix. As more rule books get released, more options will make overpowered PCs more likely. Many of the answers to fun adventures (for all) are still the same. Try to be aware of who you are playing with - if we just wanted to do stuff with no personal interaction, we would play computer games. Since personal interaction is so important in these games, try to keep it in mind during play. Don't make it the end-all be-all of your playing experience (at least, as a player - "Oh, is that player across the table feel like he's contributing enough" is not your focus. That's more of the DM's focus), but do keep it in mind.
Making overly-powerful PCs is not a huge player problem at this point (that is an attribute of the rules). Making them and playing them without considering others CAN be a problem.
At no time did the father and son express their feelings about the game until the post the following few days later.
As to the LG game, while the finger can be pointed at the father for failure to communicate more about what they were looking for in a game, I failed as well. I should have seen that they were not enjoying themselves, smiling and cracking jokes during the module like my friends. And it is only logical that going to a big event, and not doing much during combats can be a downer. Logical, but something I wasn't considering during my final event at the end of the campaign - I was so focused on doing well that I failed to be as empathetic as I should have been.
Making overly-powerful PCs is not a huge player problem at this point (that is an attribute of the rules). Making them and playing them without considering others CAN be a problem.
It can be a problem, but empathy is a weird thing. It's not a magic power and sometimes we concentrate on our own stuff and miss clues. Other players need to communicate. I ran at a similiar problem at a recent con. I wound up playing several P1 mods with nearly the same group of people. My PC had a shtick where I pushed and knocked prone several enemies multiple times per encounter. I consulted the group about where to push them or not to push at all and the melee characters were very happy to get combat advantage, but toward the end of our third adventure together the ranger started screaming at me that I need to be more considerate and he hated the -2 to hit (not that he missed much anyway). My stupefied reply to him was, why didn't he say something earlier? I could see then that he was upset over it, but I was upset to be screamed at also (empathy goes both ways). All the player in question needed to do is say don't knock this one or those ones prone and I would have been happy to oblige. Since he didn't say anything all this time I assumed he had grounding shot or just didn't care.
The point is we can't guess what other people are thinking, if you don't say it I might not guess it.
PS: I have been asked by a frequent LFR GM of mine not to use THE DICE, so I don't. Easily said, easily done.
Frankly, I think that's a horrible attitude and flies in the face of role-playing a believable character. No one in real life holds back in a combat situation to make sure that all of his allies also get a chance to do something to their enemies. Within the game, it's a life-and-death scenario, and even resurrection magic isn't justification enough for taking such a risk.
So why are you not using all dailies (attack and utility) in the first encounter of every adventure?
Because some encounters are more threatening than others. I am not saying that there are not reasons to hold back the most powerful attacks, but that holding back in order to allow everyone to take a turn is not a good one.
The structure of LFR being the way that it is, it can be fairly clear when you've reached the last combat encounter for the module. At that point, you often do see all unused dailies being used. There's nothing to save them for, whereas at the first fight of the day, you don't know what is to come. Also, from a story perspective, you rarely see the first fight being the hardest one. (There are one or two modules where this isn't the case, and I know that a lot of PCs get surprised as they try to muddle through the fight while husbanding resources for a threat that doesn't materialize).
Because some encounters are more threatening than others. I am not saying that there are not reasons to hold back the most powerful attacks, but that holding back in order to allow everyone to take a turn is not a good one.
The structure of LFR being the way that it is, it can be fairly clear when you've reached the last combat encounter for the module. At that point, you often do see all unused dailies being used. There's nothing to save them for, whereas at the first fight of the day, you don't know what is to come. Also, from a story perspective, you rarely see the first fight being the hardest one. (There are one or two modules where this isn't the case, and I know that a lot of PCs get surprised as they try to muddle through the fight while husbanding resources for a threat that doesn't materialize).
One of the things I've been doing is trying to always spend either an action point and/or a daily in every combat. Even at 1st level, assuming a skill challenge, you can do that in 4 combats(3 action points from skill challenge+3 combats). Assuming 3 combats, my goal is to end up with a maximum of an action point and a daily for the final combat.
So that does some things: Reduces metagaming in a logical way. I'm not reacting to the possibility of 3 combats, I'm trying to consistently use resources assuming 4 combats. This is partially illusionary, but it means I won't usually be in a position to use 2 dailies and an action point in the 3rd combat and having to metagame about suddenly using everything at once.
Generally avoids full-blown alpha strikes. If I'm a Fighter, I might be doing Come and Get It and Rain of Blows or I might do Come and Get It and Sweeping Blow with an Action Point, but I'm not generally doing all 3 in the same combat. At the same time, it does mean I toss off a beta strike in every combat which helps the party and doesn't dominate.
. It is a challenge to find players who match your style well, and there is always a certain amount of risk sitting with new players...hoping these new people will make a great experience rather than leaving players in a foul mood. I believe most of the best answers to helping players have fun are to be open-minded, and try to be empathetic to others. As in any large group of people, empathetic abilities can range from person to person ("What, you mean you DIDN'T find that funny?!"), but that is the best tool for helping everyone have a good gaming experience.
