"JUST PLAY 4E!!!"

Holy Bovine wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Hi, Holy Bovine! I'm growing to love this forum too, although quality games like 4e are a mixed blessing to 'net forums.

Again - that freaks me out even reading that - I expect a gang of PF or 3E fans to descend enmasse upon the thread and flame it out of existence!  I never even realized how much I missed positive comments about 4E.  

I know, right? It's great!

Still, I'm sure that eventually some edition warrior will wander by to tell us how 4e is badwrongfun.  

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Holy Bovine wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Hi, Holy Bovine! I'm growing to love this forum too, although quality games like 4e are a mixed blessing to 'net forums.

Again - that freaks me out even reading that - I expect a gang of PF or 3E fans to descend enmasse upon the thread and flame it out of existence!  I never even realized how much I missed positive comments about 4E.  

I know, right? It's great!

Still, I'm sure that eventually some edition warrior will wander by to tell us how 4e is badwrongfun.  

They wont be on the forums for long then...  

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Yes. Specifically, the math holes exist in PC attack bonuses and NADs. (Non-Armor-Defenses, if you haven't yet heard that bit of 4e slang.) Over the course of 30 levels, PCs lose 4 points each, relative to monster attacks and defenses. NADs lose out even more, depending on build.

Some people, like Garthanos, say that the holes are intentional. Other people, like me, say that even if they were originally intentional, the 4e team clearly thought better of challenging the PCs in this way, and with good reason. Sure, making PCs hit and dodge less often makes things harder for them; it also makes combat boring. There are much better ways to make monsters challenging than making them increasingly harder to hit and to dodge. Say, with more monster damage, which was exactly what we got after the first two MMs.

Ah! Now I remember those discussions! I just never heard the term 'math hole' before. I would even adjust monster defenses by 2-3 points when i could see the players would be needing to roll 17s or better just to hit some stuff! So I guess I was fixing it without even really realizing the problem. I even remember the encounter that caused me to start paying closer attention to PC attack bonuses and monster defenses - a pack of hobgoblin soldiers in a tight quarters fight - neither side could hit each other! The added damage (especially to Brutes) came later as did some lowering of hps (standard monsters were fine as is ime but solos and some elites were just crazy!)

Quote :

As a real point of comparison: I can't count how many times I've encountered the air-headed idea that 3e's math is A-okay just because the devs didn't write about it, and so the fans assume that it all works out. Despite the fact that common playstyle variants (monty haul campaigns and low-wealth campaigns) have a huge and direct effect on combat and game balance. But to many fans, "It all works out because WBL is just a guideline."

As a hypothetical point of comparison: If 4e had been written with the same attack bonus and defense advancement for monsters, and no attack or defense advancement for PCs, we'd still have fans arguing that "It's totally intentional! Just pay your feat taxes, or have an optimized leader in your party! Stop saying it's bad game design!" Not as many of these arguments, mind you, but fans will say crazy things in defense of their favorite game.

Heh. Yeah that was a very common refrain in the later stages of 3E when it became so obvious there were serious and systemic problems with balance in even mid level games. Some just don't like to face uncomfortable truths

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Holy Bovine wrote:

So if I understand you correctly people would say that because monsters (in general I assume?) get more powerful per level increased than the PCs is a flaw?  How on earth do you determine the average party strength for high level 4E PCs though?  With the myriad bonuses that can be dished out I would say high level monsters *need* the power increases just to keep pace!  Never really heard of this one before though so I'm not exactly doing a detailed analysis or anything  

Yes. Specifically, the math holes exist in PC attack bonuses and NADs. (Non-Armor-Defenses, if you haven't yet heard that bit of 4e slang.) Over the course of 30 levels, PCs lose 4 points each, relative to monster attacks and defenses. NADs lose out even more, depending on build.

Some people, like Garthanos, say that the holes are intentional. Other people, like me, say that even if they were originally intentional, the 4e team clearly thought better of challenging the PCs in this way, and with good reason. Sure, making PCs hit and dodge less often makes things harder for them; it also makes combat boring. There are much better ways to make monsters challenging than making them increasingly harder to hit and to dodge. Say, with more monster damage, which was exactly what we got after the first two MMs.

I think modifying monster ability is indeed a better adjustment (and can be entirely done by the DM behind the screen) even if they decided better after the fact.
But I think upping monster damage is also boring ... having powers renew more frequently or adding powers to blander monsters, might be a better solution as you can increase their damage and differentiate the delivery of that effectiveness more.

Its entirely possible for something to be both intentional and still not work out to be the most awesome sauce thing ;p (Higher levels seem rarely to reach fully tested in this game)

Holy Bovine wrote:

Some just don't like to face uncomfortable truths

I'm thinking, "Stockholm Syndrome"

Personally I think that while the math isn't perfect, I think the original design wasn't too bad; the HP slog was there, yes, but the 4-point difference in to-hit at Epic was actually well-covered in a variety of ways, even without the Expertise feats: Aid Another combined with controller debuffs and the HUGE buffs granted by leaders combined with a +4 or a +5 weapon/implement made even a 22 primary stat decent. Main downside of course is that you need leaders -- especially those that boost accuracy -- and it makes the "attack-free" option even more "must have" (like LazyLords), but as Epic tier is *meant* to be Epic (overcoming impossible odds and all that), the original design apparently fit the bill more or less.

I'd say 4E's mechanical expectations were fulfilled as designed, but the resulting game dynamics gave unintended negative emotional feedback, hence the complaints about its slowness, its feat taxes, etc.

From what I have heard studies have indicated that "2 out of 3 aint bad" is not just a good idea but is a supported convention of fun ;p as opposed to frustration even 1 out of 2 is not so good.

Garthanos wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Holy Bovine wrote:

So if I understand you correctly people would say that because monsters (in general I assume?) get more powerful per level increased than the PCs is a flaw?  How on earth do you determine the average party strength for high level 4E PCs though?  With the myriad bonuses that can be dished out I would say high level monsters *need* the power increases just to keep pace!  Never really heard of this one before though so I'm not exactly doing a detailed analysis or anything  

Yes. Specifically, the math holes exist in PC attack bonuses and NADs. (Non-Armor-Defenses, if you haven't yet heard that bit of 4e slang.) Over the course of 30 levels, PCs lose 4 points each, relative to monster attacks and defenses. NADs lose out even more, depending on build.

Some people, like Garthanos, say that the holes are intentional. Other people, like me, say that even if they were originally intentional, the 4e team clearly thought better of challenging the PCs in this way, and with good reason. Sure, making PCs hit and dodge less often makes things harder for them; it also makes combat boring. There are much better ways to make monsters challenging than making them increasingly harder to hit and to dodge. Say, with more monster damage, which was exactly what we got after the first two MMs.

I think modifying monster ability is indeed a better adjustment (and can be entirely done by the DM behind the screen) even if they decided better after the fact.
But I think upping monster damage is also boring ... having powers renew more frequently or adding powers to blander monsters, might be a better solution as you can increase their damage and differentiate the delivery of that effectiveness more.

Oh, agreed! More damage is the simplest fix that doesn't create combat grind, but there are more interesting fixes.

And we should have gotten official PC-advancement errata, rather than the feat taxes we did get.

After playing 3e again today I remember why 4e and now 13th Age are my go to games...  

Yup, I had a similar experience playing PF earlier this autumn. Not terribly different from the 3.0 and 3.5 that I loved for eight years, but not terribly different from the 3.0 and 3.5 that I wrote a book of house rules for either.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Yup, I had a similar experience playing PF earlier this autumn. Not terribly different from the 3.0 and 3.5 that I loved for eight years, but not terribly different from the 3.0 and 3.5 that wrote a book of house rules for either.

Yeah and I just got asked to run a full 3.0 campaign.  

I really don't want to thought. Being a player is one thing, but running a 3e game is a completely different.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Yup, I had a similar experience playing PF earlier this autumn. Not terribly different from the 3.0 and 3.5 that I loved for eight years, but not terribly different from the 3.0 and 3.5 that wrote a book of house rules for either.

This pretty sums up my admittedly limited experience with 3.5 as well.

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Yup, I had a similar experience playing PF earlier this autumn. Not terribly different from the 3.0 and 3.5 that I loved for eight years, but not terribly different from the 3.0 and 3.5 that wrote a book of house rules for either.

Yeah and I just got asked to run a full 3.0 campaign.  

I really don't want to thought. Being a player is one thing, but running a 3e game is a completely different.

Take it from me; it's so not worth it. I briefly ran a 3.5 one-shot for the local games club, and I wanted to rewrite it all over again.

DM what you want to DM, or nothing. Or GM something completely new, just for kicks.

CHIA wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Yup, I had a similar experience playing PF earlier this autumn. Not terribly different from the 3.0 and 3.5 that I loved for eight years, but not terribly different from the 3.0 and 3.5 that wrote a book of house rules for either.

This pretty sums up my admittedly limited experience with 3.5 as well.

As DM or as a player?

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

CHIA wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Yup, I had a similar experience playing PF earlier this autumn. Not terribly different from the 3.0 and 3.5 that I loved for eight years, but not terribly different from the 3.0 and 3.5 that wrote a book of house rules for either.

This pretty sums up my admittedly limited experience with 3.5 as well.

As DM or as a player?

Both. Played in a campaign that ended up being short and ran two one-shots.

CHIA wrote:

Both. Played in a campaign that ended up being short and ran two one-shots.

Heh, so what did you want to house rule about 3.x? With me it was mostly dropping all the legacy restrictions, and balancing things. I went through a 'realism' phase during early 3.x, but by 2008 I had given up on that and instead just wanted symmetry and consistency. For example, I tweaked the size modifiers to by consistent and symmetrical, and I wrote an inherent bonus system in 2007.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

CHIA wrote:

Both. Played in a campaign that ended up being short and ran two one-shots.

Heh, so what did you want to house rule about 3.x? With me it was mostly dropping all the legacy restrictions, and balancing things. I went through a 'realism' phase during early 3.x, but by 2008 I had given up on that and instead just wanted symmetry and consistency. For example, I tweaked the size modifiers to by consistent and symmetrical, and I wrote an inherent bonus system in 2007.

I went through a realism kick myself. I thought having a "realistic ruleset" was the only true way to play D&D. And boy was I wrong. I now prefer more simple and modular rulesets. Instead of using rules that are "realistic" I just make the world believable and the NPCs feel like people. I started to favor consistency, over broken rules and mechanics as well. And well, now, I would rather not play 3e at all.

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

CHIA wrote:

Both. Played in a campaign that ended up being short and ran two one-shots.

Heh, so what did you want to house rule about 3.x? With me it was mostly dropping all the legacy restrictions, and balancing things. I went through a 'realism' phase during early 3.x, but by 2008 I had given up on that and instead just wanted symmetry and consistency. For example, I tweaked the size modifiers to by consistent and symmetrical, and I wrote an inherent bonus system in 2007.

I went through a realism kick myself. I thought having a "realistic ruleset" was the only true way to play D&D. And boy was I wrong. I now prefer more simple and modular rulesets. Instead of using rules that are "realistic" I just make the world believable and the NPCs feel like people. I started to favor consistency, over broken rules and mechanics as well. And well, now, I would rather not play 3e at all.

Pretty much the same here. I still have a simulationist streak, but now I mold D&D physics to the rules rather than trying to mold its rules to real world physics. Things that don't make sense in a real world context, like hit points, are chalked up to "Well, that's how nature works in fantasy D&D-land." Yes, I'm one of those hit-points-are-not-an-abstraction guys. 

Although after two absurdly long ENworld threads about martial damage-on-a-miss attacks in 5e, I've recently had the urge to write...well, not a full game, but a combat engine to demonstrate how a roughly realistic D&D edition would play. And how fundamentally different it would be from anything D&D has ever been. But of course the edition warriors would just keep rationalizing how the D&D absurdities that they've internalized over years and years of gaming are "not that unrealistic," and tell me that "D&D needs some realism, but not that much."

The urge is still in me though.  

I was into simulation style way back when ...
now I just want to simulate the tropes
and evoke the fantasy.
Physics are an
ignorable
unless they can
be made to dance to the beat
which the story and genre sing to me.

Poetically put   

For me, the thought or realism got thrown out with the inclusion of dragons and griffins, gelatinous cubes and giants, and of course, magic.

There is very little realism in heroic fantasy.  But it is some much fun to abandon realism and dive into heroic fantasy.  I'm totally happy with it this way.

TjD

Interestingly enough, I came to the same conclusion. I started a thread on the WotC forums a bit abot (it was shut down due to warring) but basically I believe that when people say that people who like 4e are not simulationists, they do not understand what simulationism really is. 4e is just as simulationist as previous editions, it's just not simulating realism, it is rather simulating the genre of action heroics.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

And how fundamentally different it would be from anything D&D has ever been. But of course the edition warriors would just keep rationalizing how the D&D absurdities that they've internalized over years and years of gaming are "not that unrealistic," and tell me that "D&D needs some realism, but not that much."

The urge is still in me though.  

Heh, absurdities once integrated are pretty hard to ditch...

I am inclined to work my way through tvtropes.org as a starting point in an rpg design picking out tropes I wish to support and figuring out mechanics to do it while ignoring D&dism's that aren't derived of broader sources (And ignore the stuck in the past folk entirely).

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Pretty much the same here. I still have a simulationist streak, but now I mold D&D physics to the rules rather than trying to mold its rules to real world physics. Things that don't make sense in a real world context, like hit points, are chalked up to "Well, that's how nature works in fantasy D&D-land."

I have to admit as much as I don't want to... I have a simulationist freak out moment every now and then myself. It's hard to shake after thinking D&D has to be the most realistic game for so long. Sure I still make fire work like fire, but I most certainly don't feel like I need a rule for it anymore.

I am not sure what to call it but I think I get ummmm a burst of insight where something in game context really connects either with a previously unknown real thing (reality is very unrealistic) or I discover how an element of game can seem to engage very tightly with a trope.

An example for me action points can represent how ... biorhythmic pacing and getting in the groove allows one to suddenly find that perfect tick tock tick allowing you to do more, and in another context mixed with a second wind it becomes that burst of speed which is associated with real second wind.

Shrug, for me we are gifted with imaginations using them to that end can make this stuff sing!

I recall having a discuss that lasted over 3 hours about illusion magic back when I was playing 2e. One particular point went like this:

The other person was insisting that due to the fact that an illusory wall wasn't real, it couldn't block the light coming from the source on the other side. And since the player could see that light, the illusion would be obvious and therefore negate itself.

I said that the magic of the illusion not only made the wall appear to be real, but since it was MAGIC it tricked the observer into believing that the light that was coming from the source on the other side wasn't there. That's why it was an ILLUSION!

He kept on about it by applying real world physics to the argument. In the end I told him that the solution was simple. It is a game mechanic, not a science experiment. He didn't like that too much! Hehehehe.