Quote from: Sommerjon;773832The quote is someone casting spells.  At what point do you say "No. Now create a character that will actually be fun for everyone in play." ?

At the point at which it becomes clear that they have created a character that isn't fun for the people at the table.

The quote was not just "someone casting spells." It was someone casting a collection of spells in a specific order to achieve a specific effect based on a particular interpretation of the rules. As described, if it happened in actual play, the point would be painfully obvious to everyone at the table.

It boils down to which of the four player types which game designer wishes to cater in game. In essence game should cater to selected player personalities and support them.

For example the Killer type mentioned above loves PvP fighting as she gets her enjoyment from winning over other players. This is very much against the idea of most role-playing scenarios and campaigns which stress group cohesion.

Only way to have a stable group when you have many Killers is that you also have lots of  Achievers who seek to "win" over the game. This is most essentially collection of levels and other concrete signs of success in game (like equipment).

I am myself of entirely different player type so I do not get much enjoyment from above-mentioned "stable group" and I avoid such players.

Quote from: Bren;774076At the point at which it becomes clear that they have created a character that isn't fun for the people at the table.

The quote was not just "someone casting spells." It was someone casting a collection of spells in a specific order to achieve a specific effect based on a particular interpretation of the rules. As described, if it happened in actual play, the point would be painfully obvious to everyone at the table.

The quote is also old enough not to be valid in 3e anymore.   It also assumes unlimited access to books and a number of other factors.

If most of those spells were group buffing would that completely change the fun for the people at the table?

Quote from: Sommerjon;774093If most of those spells were group buffing would that completely change the fun for the people at the table?

I'd imagine that really depends on who is at the table. And if everybody at the table thinks it's fun, well then nobody is going to say it is "not fun" now are they? So in that case everyone can continue creating unbeatable teams of characters who always win. Easily. Yea team!

It doesn't sound fun to me, but then RPG conversations that revolve around talking about "buffing" or "aggro" are like chalk screeching on a black board to me. So I'm going to go with "It doesn't make any difference to me whether you want to play 'break the game world' as a solo activity or in a group. Neither one sounds fun to me."

Quote from: Ladybird;771958I thought it was a storygame? Did I miss a memo?

A common mistake. 4e was definitely not a "storygame" because "storygame" is pretty much a game that tries to follow the "narrativist" model of the failed and disproven "GNS" theory.

4e is, however, a GNS-inspired game, only not "narrativist" but "Gamist".

Skill challenges came within spitting distance of storygames, but ... only by history and association, more or less.

That is, gamist folks have tended to ignore dealing with game mechanics to cover things like diplomacy, but there is nothing inherently inconsistent with doing so.
And the Skill Challenge approach is fairly solidly set within a gamist mindset.

Quote from: Will;775065Skill challenges came within spitting distance of storygames, but ... only by history and association, more or less.

That is, gamist folks have tended to ignore dealing with game mechanics to cover things like diplomacy, but there is nothing inherently inconsistent with doing so.
And the Skill Challenge approach is fairly solidly set within a gamist mindset.

I understood the approach and liked it in theory but what went wrong? I didn't play 4e that much.

Quote from: RPGPundit;775063A common mistake. 4e was definitely not a "storygame" because "storygame" is pretty much a game that tries to follow the "narrativist" model of the failed and disproven "GNS" theory.

Back in a day when I was looking at various theories I looked at this "GNS" theory but came into conclusion it was not useful in RPG context. Setting up a pre-set story line as a main element was foolish as it would take away free will of players to do whatever they wish. Instead I decided to settle for Richard E. Bartle's 4 player type theory (originally intended for MMOs) which is nowadays widely used (and abused) in gaming in general. It is now mainstay of my teaching.

Quote from: Marleycat;775081I understood the approach and liked it in theory but what went wrong? I didn't play 4e that much.

4E style skill challenges feel bit backwards and metagamey to me in practice.

For me it feels more natural for a player to declare an action and its intent, roll an appropriate skill, and the gm decides what happens.

The skill challenges feel a bit to much to me like the skill roll is before the intent and action. Backwards.

So I tended to not use skill challenges except when in some modules, a few of the skill challenges felt smoother.

When not using a module I don't think I ever used a skill challenge.

Marleycat:
I like the idea of Skill Challenges. I've heard the numbers didn't work out well and there were some weaknesses in the mechanics.

But the bigger issue for _me_ was that I simply disliked a lot of 4e. I also felt it almost... comedic, that they came up with the Skill Challenge system, which would possibly give a framework and use for background skills... and then dumped all the background skills. Like... dude! DUDE!


Also, I rejected 4e to a large extent because I was VERY unhappy with WotC's business decisions at the time, from abandoning OGL, to removing all PDFs, to the sort of pissy potshots at 3e, and so on.

(WotC has done a lot of GOOD things to rebuild their appeal, although I really wish OGL was an option. Alas)

Hm...thanks for the clarification. Also about OGL who knows what they actually plan yet I'd just wait before presuming the worst outcome.

I've seen absolutely no indication they've substantively changed their stance on OGL.

I'm making peace with no OGL and just hoping they are going to be very productive with 3pp.

Quote from: Will;775181I've seen absolutely no indication they've substantively changed their stance on OGL.

  Between the Book of Erotic Fantasy, Pathfinder, and other things, I imagine WotC's feeling pretty burned on the OGL right now.

QuoteI'm making peace with no OGL and just hoping they are going to be very productive with 3pp.

  It certainly looks like there's a whole bunch of licensed ancillary products in the pipeline, and I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing more traditional support once the game's been out for a while and they feel they can trust people with it. Given how uneven some 3E material was, and how that contributed to problems in the market and with the game, giving people time to learn the system may be a good idea from both design and marketing standpoints.

It's a bit disingenuous to say 'OGL caused Pathfinder competition' when it's _ending_ OGL that caused Pathfinder competition.

If 4e had been OGL, WotC would not have had to deal with creating a 100 lb gorilla to contend with. (WotC being the 800 lb one...)


Not that they are likely to see things this way, but notice how much more popular and generally embraced D&D was in 3e than 4e... it's impossible to prove, but funny how 3e was OGL and 4e wasn't?

Quote from: Will;775188It's a bit disingenuous to say 'OGL caused Pathfinder competition' when it's _ending_ OGL that caused Pathfinder competition.

If 4e had been OGL, WotC would not have had to deal with creating a 100 lb gorilla to contend with. (WotC being the 800 lb one...)

  Probably. But if they hadn't gone with the OGL in the first place, they wouldn't have created the competition and would have prevented the Great Edition Wars. After all, not only Pathfinder but the OSR really needed the OGL to get off the ground.

  Whether trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle was better or worse than dealing with it once it was out, I can see why WotC would rather not risk letting another one loose.

QuoteNot that they are likely to see things this way, but notice how much more popular and generally embraced D&D was in 3e than 4e... it's impossible to prove, but funny how 3e was OGL and 4e wasn't?

  Impossible to say, as you note. There are so many other complicating and contributing factors that it's impossible to note any one thing, or even several things, that caused it. Personally, I think 4E was about a year or two too early from both a design and a market standpoint, the economic collapse and downfall of bookstores that came along with its two major market pushes didn't help, and a lot of the market was moving in an anti-rules, anti-minis, anti-WotC direction just as they decided to double down on those factors. But this is all hypothetical.

  Indeed, I've sometimes wondered if part of the reason 4E was so daring was that they expected there to be a backlash regardless of what they did, so they just decided to go forth and do what they thought made the best game.