Quote from: David Johansen;303448At its heart D&D has always been a game about logistics and resource management.  Your party goes into a dangerous environment with limited resources that diminish as the game proceeds and their success is determined by how well they manage to apply those resources to the situation.  Now I know that's not how most people played the game but it most certainly is how the game is written.  Just like it's written as a miniatures wargame but "Gary never used miniatures."

Fourth edition is not a logistics game.

Couple of things I see differently. First, I don't see how older editions of DnD couldn't be played with logistics in mind if for nothing else than the spellcasters having to manage their magic. Otherwise, I agree with ya there. On the other hand, 4e still has resource management, it's just very different than the previous editions. The spellcasters are obviously the most drastic change, but they still have to manage how they use especially their most powerful magic in their daily powers, but in tense situations they have to think ahead in using even their encounter powers. Their at-will powers are basically the older edition's staves and daggers, with perks. They let a wizard stay in the game magically, but are hardly towering examples of arcane might. This requires thinking very differently about resource management than in previous editions, but it's still there, and is spread more evenly across all the classes instead of mostly on the spellcasters.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;303411This kind of thinking is dead in 4e.

With a 1st-level PC in 4e, you are a hero right out of the gates. You are already a cut above everyone else; you can already do ridiculous things, just by nature of being an adventurer.

There is no working towards being awesome; you start out awesome, relative to normal folk, and just get more awesome as you go.

that is my chief problem (of many) with 4e.  The game is now about faster-than-instant gratification.  It's almost like the game is printed on a substance made out of tachyons, so that players can move at relativistic speeds lest the DM ask them to wait more than one session to level up.

Yes, yes "But any good DM can make it old sch-"

No.

The game is tailored specifically to Exalted (the WW RPG) levels of power, out of the box, and trumps "rule 0" (when in doubt, ask the DM) with "rule -1" which is apparently "If it's fun for the player the DM has to get out of the way and let them do it, regardless."

Quote from: thedungeondelver;303489"rule -1" which is apparently "If it's fun for the player the DM has to get out of the way and let them do it, regardless."

I've never heard this before, but you know, it's not bad advice.  Not saying there aren't exceptions, but as rule of thumbs go, you could do worse.

I guess I've just seen too many GMs who are so caught up in doing their own thing they are totally oblivious to whether the players are having fun or not.

Quote from: Sigmund;303487Couple of things I see differently. First, I don't see how older editions of DnD couldn't be played with logistics in mind if for nothing else than the spellcasters having to manage their magic. Otherwise, I agree with ya there. On the other hand, 4e still has resource management, it's just very different than the previous editions. The spellcasters are obviously the most drastic change, but they still have to manage how they use especially their most powerful magic in their daily powers, but in tense situations they have to think ahead in using even their encounter powers. Their at-will powers are basically the older edition's staves and daggers, with perks. They let a wizard stay in the game magically, but are hardly towering examples of arcane might. This requires thinking very differently about resource management than in previous editions, but it's still there, and is spread more evenly across all the classes instead of mostly on the spellcasters.

This is a fairly apt description, at least from what I have seen so far.  In my game, I've noticed that players really try to hang on to their Encounter / Daily powers, unless things are looking extremely bleak.  

It's a bit different from previous editions in that all the classes have to think this way, instead of just the Sorcerer/Wizards.  Now, everyone has a 'big' attack that they want to get the most out of, or have when the situation is dire.

So far, my melee players are enjoying it because they get to do more than just basic melee attacks each round.

Quote from: Soylent Green;303495I've never heard this before, but you know, it's not bad advice.  Not saying there aren't exceptions, but as rule of thumbs go, you could do worse.

I guess I've just seen too many GMs who are so caught up in doing their own thing they are totally oblivious to whether the players are having fun or not.

If only they're were a happy medium...

QuoteWith a 1st-level PC in 4e, you are a hero right out of the gates. You are already a cut above everyone else; you can already do ridiculous things, just by nature of being an adventurer.

There is no working towards being awesome; you start out awesome, relative to normal folk, and just get more awesome as you go.

I completely agree with this statement.  Some times I felt all I had to do was have my character sneeze, and bam!  The enemy was destroyed.  It kind of took the fun out of the game having the powers there, and not really earning them. I felt a loss of imagination with 4e, and even though I have no real grievance, I still prefer the older editions to the new one.

Quote from: Soylent Green;303495II guess I've just seen too many GMs who are so caught up in doing their own thing they are totally oblivious to whether the players are having fun or not.

There's that, but there's also the thing of the not-instantly-fun stuff laying the groundwork for heaps and heaps of fun later. A bit like foreplay. Maybe I'd rather just jump on instantly, but that little bit of work now will make things much more fun later.

As well as "fun" in an experience, there's also "fulfilment." For example, when asked what was their most memorable game session or moment, one of my old players responded describing a scene where one PC slew another as she flung herself in front of his blade to save an NPC. The player said it was an intense, awesome moment... yet that player and their character had nothing to do with that scene, was just watching. I tell you, that was no fucking fun at all. But all the players remembered it for ages afterwards. According to all the Forger theories of players impatiently waiting their turn and merely tolerating the presence of the other players as a necessary evil, and this whole D&D4e approach of "fuck talking to the town guards, let's just walk in!", that's impossible.

Some things are not much fun, but they are fulfilling - after doing them, you have a sense of satisfaction, of completeness. Now, what's fulfilling for people varies as much as what's fun for people, but they are nonetheless different things. "Fun now! Fuck the city guard! Keep moving to the next combat!" doesn't address that.

Quote from: Sigmund;303443I'm thinking maybe an approach to powers similar to how folks designed spell points systems for 3.x maybe would work better.... so my fighter could "parry" more than once an encounter if he wants, until he's too tired then he has to rest.

Might want to have a look at this: http://www.therpghaven.com/viewtopic.php?p=3361#p3361

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;303549There's that, but there's also the thing of the not-instantly-fun stuff laying the groundwork for heaps and heaps of fun later. A bit like foreplay. Maybe I'd rather just jump on instantly, but that little bit of work now will make things much more fun later.

As well as "fun" in an experience, there's also "fulfilment." For example, when asked what was their most memorable game session or moment, one of my old players responded describing a scene where one PC slew another as she flung herself in front of his blade to save an NPC. The player said it was an intense, awesome moment... yet that player and their character had nothing to do with that scene, was just watching. I tell you, that was no fucking fun at all. But all the players remembered it for ages afterwards. According to all the Forger theories of players impatiently waiting their turn and merely tolerating the presence of the other players as a necessary evil, and this whole D&D4e approach of "fuck talking to the town guards, let's just walk in!", that's impossible.

Some things are not much fun, but they are fulfilling - after doing them, you have a sense of satisfaction, of completeness. Now, what's fulfilling for people varies as much as what's fun for people, but they are nonetheless different things. "Fun now! Fuck the city guard! Keep moving to the next combat!" doesn't address that.

I honestly don't think the 4e book advice is saying "just get to the next combat already!"

It's more saying, "stick with the fun stuff".  Combat isn't the only fun thing.

Talking to the town guards to get important information = fun
Having a humorous conversation with the guards for a moment of comic relief = fun
Fighting the guards = fun
Talking to the town guards just to aimlessly chit-chat = not fun

Now, it's all about balance.  I enjoy a pedantic moment in a campaign every once in a while.  Having a few NPC interactions over the course of a long campaign that don't advance the story any, or even provide humorous relief, is one thing.  Having every session be an exercise in meaningless small talk is another.

Let's face it, a lot of old-school DMs and players out there love pedantry (perhaps because Gygax's writing seemed prone to it?).  They play out every single encounter with a shopkeeper, even if you just want to replenish your arrows.  They always ask things like "do you turn the door knob left or right?" because they think it makes them seem witty and ominous (instead of just obnoxious).  They want to spend hours not only dividing out treasure, but coming up with explanations of how and where the money is stored.  Which direction they face when they sleep at night.  Etc.

That stuff isn't foreplay.  That's like having some foreplay, then stopping to discuss the grocery list for the week before getting back to the foreplay or sex.

Now, some people find that level of minutaie fun.  Particularly those with Aspergers.  

The rest of us would like to get the fuck on with the story already.  It doesn't have to be all combat, but whatever we spend time on should have a point.  If I'm imagining the game as a movie, and we're spending time on something that would clearly be a cut-scene, then my time is being wasted.

Just like writing a screenplay, IMO, you should look at every portion of a session and say, "does this have a point?  is it fun?"  If the answer to both is no, it's time to say "the trip from Dullsvile Village to Interesting Town was uneventful.  You are now in the town square." or whatever.

Quote from: jgants;303573Talking to the town guards to get important information = fun
Having a humorous conversation with the guards for a moment of comic relief = fun
Fighting the guards = fun
Talking to the town guards just to aimlessly chit-chat = not fun

When I think the players in my Ptolus campaign were having a tremendous fun chit-chating with the most insignificant NPCs... If I had tried to run the game using DMG 4e advice on what badwrong-unfun is, I would have skipped those parts and the players would have lost literally dozens of hours of entertainment.

And please, tell me, if that's entertainment for people prone to Aspergers, then what is 4e's fun? Masturbation for kids affected by ADHD? Please. :rolleyes: Can we just drop this line of rhetoric?

That's the faulty aspect of this whole logic: the badwrong-unfun of some will be the fun of others. The 4e DMG tries to give specific examples of what fun and unfun mean, and in so doing, frame the meaning of those terms. This ultimately falls flat on its face, to me. It may speak to some players, but it will ultimately alienate others. And guess what? It did.

My point is there will be one group who doesn't care about talking to the town gaurds and does want to skip to the next fight. Then there will be the other group that enjoys talking with the town guard and don't much care about the fight scene (no, seriously). And there will be a group with a bit of both.

It's the GMs job to read the room and adapt and play up those aspects the group are interested in. And what get's me is that so many GMs I've met over the years just don't seem to care.

When 4E promotes "saying 'yes' to players" and "skip the boring stuff and get to the 'fun'", they remind me of someone sitting down to dinner and eating the dessert only while skipping the rest. Yes, it is the tastiest part of the meal, but it isn't the most nutritious part and a steady diet of dessert will make you sick after a while.

Likewise, 'fun' must be what is agreed upon by the entire game group (and even then there will be differences of opinion). That 'fun' may be problem solving, role-playing, combat, or whatever. A GMs aim should be to accomodate all those different tastes of 'fun' while not ignoring his own in the process.

4E is very gamist, which is different from all previous approaches to D&D which have been about the immersion. If you enjoy immersion, then 4E may not scratch that itch for you. If you are looking for a gamist approach, then 4E is the game for you.

Now, when you take the gamist approach and the idea that 'fun' in D&D is the combat encounter, then you get results like the Dungeon Delve format where the entire adventure has been reduced to a single combat encounter. This is the 4E 'dessert' of the gaming meal.

Using that analogy then  - Me , "Ed " here here wants more of the immersion and a bit more of the nutrition of an adventure RPG.



- Ed C.

Quote from: jgants;303573Now, some people find that level of minutaie fun.  Particularly those with Aspergers.  

The rest of us would like to get the fuck on with the story already.  It doesn't have to be all combat, but whatever we spend time on should have a point.

I enjoy logistics and resource management (like keeping track of money), mainly because they give a concreteness to the world by helping to connect things causally.

I've found that most people don't dig this, and it's kind of disappointing to me.

If I was outfitting an expedition I'd like to experience the challenges in a virtual sense, and one of those is how many pack mules, rations to bring, etc. If resources get low, there's an instant challenge to improvise or eke out. In a similar vein, I enjoy the notion that characters might make a meaningful choice based on their financial situation--taking on a job not because the GM said "make it so, otherwise there's no adventure", but because it was one among several necessary options.

Then again I don't play 4e. I just read the 4e threads as a bit of a critical exercise (amusement, whatever).

A lot of these discussions, though, make me want to develop a few semi-abstract resource tracks so that the anti-beancounters can be freed of excessive detail while I can have my internal causation. (Burning Wheel and maybe Heroquest provide some ideas; so do a few old wargames such as Voyage of the BSM Pandora and Imperium Romanum.)

The speed of advancement has been a problem for me since 3.0 launched.  Once we got over flying through the levels we reached the point where levelling slowed to a crawl.  It always felt off balance a bit.  Still does in 4e.  I don't like to get sucked into that WoW grind mentality.  I'm not talking about repetative slaughter so much as the feeling that the level up is all we're here for, and that there's no time to enjoy the new powers.  Instead you're just clamoring for the higher level stuff.

I have a knack for finding fun ways to use the lowest level of spells and as long as the DM works with me I'm content with a climb to power rather than a drop.

Tasha's Hideous Laughter + Water is fun, as is summoning a mount 20 feet over a shoddy cottage to drive out it's inhabitant.  It's sad that I get to do clever things like this once (maybe twice if I'm lucky) before I level up and the party is expecting more raw damage output from me.

I also play rogues a lot and since 3.0 got big I've always found people focus less on traps and thievery, and more on trying to get their sneak attack every round lest the dps waver and we all perish.

The 4e=WoW argument is tired true, but that's in part because DnD has leaned that way since 3.0 and it was just too new to see it.  Perhaps my problem with 4e is that I've quit MMOs altogether and am really looking for something slower, deeper and more focused on where the characters are rather than where they'll be going.