|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 11:13AM
#51
|
|
|
the responses turn into attempts to invalidate what the person wants the game to do or claim it already does it if the person just "did it right", rather than to help him get there or at worst, say it isn't possible. I think you're right about why that happens Dave.
It doesn't have anything to do with right or wrong, it has to do with "how you do it." Dave's group apparently regresses to "count, point, roll" unless they are forced to be more descriptive. Maybe that is necessary for Dave's group, but it isn't a feature or fault of the 4e system. My players are very descriptive (and not repetitvely so) and so am I. All it takes is trying not to be. It's not even hard. Believe me I'm not a 4e fan boy. I look forward with great relish to 5e, and at heart I am probably mostly a 1e grognard. I just believe an issue has been created out of whole cloth here. No rules adjustment is needed, unless there is something about the personalities around your particular table that requires it. Bottom line.
Thanks for making my point for me. I'm sorry I upset you. Although I don't actually recall mentioning you. Your response kind of precludes me arguing since you so profoundly state that "it's not even hard". Were I to argue, I'd be admitting that I can't do this "easy thing" you mention. You've pretty much put me in a box of "you're doing it wrong". I guess I'll just have to be content to stay here. Shrug.
Maybe your quoting me, and telling Dave that he "had it right" about me was why I responded? And if you didn't intend to be responding to my post, perhaps you could have done a little simple editing to remove my quote.
It isn't wrong to not use your imagination, or even not to have a vivid one, but it is possible to excercise it with any edition of D&D and any form of tactical combat. No specific ruleset needed.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 11:13AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2011
|
Now I know here on the last page of this thread the OP stated he wanted to get rid of the map or grid, but prior to that it really only seemed he wants to make the change to help facilitate narrative. His group doesn't narrate with the grid. A simple change that would not really require much of any rule changes would be to make a house rule that only the DM can touch the map and minis. Now the players must narrate the actions of the characters and everyone can clearly see what is going on. Might not work for the OP, but might work for someone else who likes the grid while still wanting narration to be required.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 11:15AM
#53
|
|
|
Now I know here on the last page of this thread the OP stated he wanted to get rid of the map or grid, but prior to that it really only seemed he wants to make the change to help facilitate narrative. His group doesn't narrate with the grid. A simple change that would not really require much of any rule changes would be to make a house rule that only the DM can touch the map and minis. Now the players must narrate the actions of the characters and everyone can clearly see what is going on. Might not work for the OP, but might work for someone else who likes the grid while still wanting narration to be required.
This is a very simple and elegant solution to the problem. No need for entire rulesets to be added. May not work for the OP as you say, but I would consider this before the other options presented thus far.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 11:23AM
#54
|
|
|
CyberDave, is it just the map itself you don't like or the mapping things out? You can easily ignore grid maps and just treat 1 square as 1 inch and measure everything. (sadly, my players wouldn't agree to this)
If you want to completely take away maps, i don't see why you can't just use the rules as is, so long as you and the players trust each other to be fair with positioning in the narrative.
-you see a band of goblins
> can i move in this turn and catch them with my sweeping blow?
-you could get 3 of the 5, but you are going to provoke two attacks if you run in.
>worth it, I'm in!
- one of the goblins succeeds in hitting you
= not so fast, disruptive strike!
- I hate you bow ranger. So, so much.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 11:26AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
the responses turn into attempts to invalidate what the person wants the game to do or claim it already does it if the person just "did it right", rather than to help him get there or at worst, say it isn't possible. I think you're right about why that happens Dave.
It doesn't have anything to do with right or wrong, it has to do with "how you do it." Dave's group apparently regresses to "count, point, roll" unless they are forced to be more descriptive. Maybe that is necessary for Dave's group, but it isn't a feature or fault of the 4e system. My players are very descriptive (and not repetitvely so) and so am I. All it takes is trying not to be. It's not even hard. Believe me I'm not a 4e fan boy. I look forward with great relish to 5e, and at heart I am probably mostly a 1e grognard. I just believe an issue has been created out of whole cloth here. No rules adjustment is needed, unless there is something about the personalities around your particular table that requires it. Bottom line.
Thanks for making my point for me. I'm sorry I upset you. Although I don't actually recall mentioning you. Your response kind of precludes me arguing since you so profoundly state that "it's not even hard". Were I to argue, I'd be admitting that I can't do this "easy thing" you mention. You've pretty much put me in a box of "you're doing it wrong". I guess I'll just have to be content to stay here. Shrug.
Maybe your quoting me, and telling Dave that he "had it right" about me was why I responded? And if you didn't intend to be responding to my post, perhaps you could have done a little simple editing to remove my quote.
It isn't wrong to not use your imagination, or even not to have a vivid one, but it is possible to excercise it with any edition of D&D and any form of tactical combat. No specific ruleset needed.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I had no intention to quote anyone and I can't even find where I did that in the post you replied to. I simply replied to something dave said. I didn't realize that by leaving his quotes/responses in there that I was somehow attacking whoever he may or may not have talked to previously in that thread. I don't really know how to edit the posts without breaking the continuity. Sorry again. When i said Dave had it right, I was referring to his earlier comment that people get defensive due to 4Es past and how it was treated early in its life and I do think that happens. Sorry if I somehow quoted you without knowing it. Weird. But anyway, yeah, you do kind of make my point for me, even though I wasn't intending to refer to you initially. Sorry again for playing the game wrong or whatever I'm doing by saying something you don't agree with or recognizing a potential issue that you don't even though I never really mentioned you.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 11:38AM
#56
|
|
|
You aren't playing it wrong, but it can be played the way Dave wants to play without any changes to the rules whatsoever. What he is referring to erroneously as a ruleset is just a style of play that can be done with any of the hundreds of rulesets I have played over the last 32 years.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 11:58AM
#57
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
What he is referring to erroneously as a ruleset is just a style of play
So you're arguing semantics? Why? Why?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 12:06PM
#58
|
|
|
What he is referring to erroneously as a ruleset is just a style of play
So you're arguing semantics? Why? Why?
In doing so I am attempting to point out that the difference is important. Styles of play are independant of rulesets and so is what Dave is talking about. Perhaps niavely I expect people will listen.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 12:07PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I want a ruleset where position and facing are even more significant. Ping combat advantage now provides +2 to hit +4 damage --> Hmmm wonder what that would do aside from cause powers granting combat advantage to become more valuable and rogues to giggle uncontrollably.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 12:12PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
You aren't playing it wrong, but it can be played the way Dave wants to play without any changes to the rules whatsoever. What he is referring to erroneously as a ruleset is just a style of play that can be done with any of the hundreds of rulesets I have played over the last 32 years.
If you read my initial comments, you'll see that I said as much. Where I disagree with you is that the problem never presents itself at all. I think it does. It think the square counting nature of 4E can be an impediment to players with tastes like Dave mentions and ultimately the focus of the game and its feel can be impacted negatively if you're not very careful. I don't think anyone is doing it wrong if they see it as such and I don't know that its necessarily very easy for everyone to get over that hump. I do however think 4E has a lot to work with even assuming my (and Dave's) incorrect view. I think that while 4E relies heavily on the grid in its core assumptions there are lots of powers specifically that do not. And if one were to carefully select said powers, they could achieve the goal of minimizing the square counting and what that requirement does to the feel and focus of the game with little or no houseruling required.
I also think ones perception of this as a problem exists in relation to the classes and races they field in their games. Some classes and their powers are vastly more gamey and square county. If Daves players just happened to be playing more of those players, his experiene could be much different than yours or mine. This is why I'm always careful not to put my experiences onto others as being "correct" or "easy". Unless you've played every class and race all the way through to Epic, its very possible another player or group is seeing things you've yet to experience.
|
|
|
