The Vacuous Grimoire
8 hours ago
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Save Vs Pointy Stick!
My new favorite Blog! Mostly for his (much more succinct) response to the same inanity I was just talking about in the last post. But his newest graphic, a random encounter table of what moves into a dungeon after you finish clearing it out, is just as awesome, and much more useful in gaming.
Odd Comments and Clique Thinking
Apparently James Maliszewski stumbled across a sore spot for the Old School community in his recent post Save or Die, Part II, I think? The comments seem to have been the root of the problem, according to JB, of the B/X BLACKRAZOR Blog.
He starts out quite reasonably, stating "Mr. Maliszewski is simply expressing his ideas, his interpretations of the game, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, no need to argue." So I was a little surprised when, two paragraphs later in the same post, he says, "[...] quit your whining already! If you think otherwise, you aren’t playing Old School…go play 4th edition, specifically made for whiners like you!"
Dude. You seem like a really nice guy, and you probably have some really wonderful insights into Basic D&D (and many other games); years of experience playing, lots of fun game stories on you blog and all... but it's hard to take you at all seriously when you can start a post by acknowledging "everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, no need to argue," and then follow that up with calling everyone who disagrees with you whiners.
JB is not, of course, one of the Pillars of Old School Renaissance, doesn't represent any company or anyone besides himself, and is entirely entitled to his (contradictory and insulting) opinion (and thanks in advance to you, JB, both for providing me blog fodder and for no-doubt being a good sport about my singling you out). What really flips my shit is to see something of that caliber coming from a gaming professional like James Mishler. His post, Save or Die: Heroes and Snowflakes is just stupid. Stupid-funny, in it's way, but after the initial chuckle all that's left is the realization that Mishler is insulting his competitors and their fans, throwing random insults at 4E Players like "Precious Snowflakes," "Fan Wankery," and "Mary-Sue."
Yeah, Mishler, that'll really help your sales.
Aside from the complete lack of an reasoning on the chart (Being a "Badass" is the opposite of thinking you're a unique "Precious Snowflake?" The opposite of "Bildungsroman" (the psychological, moral and social shaping of the personality) is Mary-Sue? Obviously, Mishler just put shorthand for "Dumb" towards the right and bottom and "Intelligent" in the upper left), it's also completely unprovoked, and a wild tangent from the comments he claims set him off. Lets look at the comments in the initial Grognardia post.
Given all this hand-wringing, insults, and angst that resulted, I expected to find the internet equivalent of chimps throwing their own shit at 0D&D. Instead, I found this:
"(1) I'm not sure about earlier editions, but in 3rd edition I found save or die to be incredibly frustrating. [...]
(2) For earlier editions, maybe save-or-die made more sense. [...]
(3) People enter the game with assumptions that they're going to tell a grand tale about their character and his heroic exploits. Save-or-die wrecks that assumption."
(Parenthetical statement labels added for reference below)
Let me paraphrase that, from the Super Defensive 0D&D people who hear everything as an attack:
(1) "Save or die sucks in 3e. "
You'll notice that this isn't a comment about 0D&D, 1e, or even 2e.
(2) "I'm not saying it was wrong for anything before 3E."
Not sure how to be more clear that we're not talking about 0D&D.
(3) "People have assumptions that save-or-die contradicts."
*This* would be a fair point to discuss further. You could mention (as Maliszewski does) that 0D&D is not the sort of game that supports those assumptions, and that criticizing 0D&D for that reason makes about as much sense as complaining that your toaster doesn't make waffles (a position that I'm starting to come around to more and more, after the spirited rounds of debate between this blog and Editions & Dragons). That's a fair response. And the rest of the comments are people talking about whether or not they preferred homeruling save-or-die into something else. It's a good conversation, with respect and no insults, and no one claims to have found The One TRUE Way that all others must follow.
So why are the older, supposedly more mature gamers acting like twelve year olds? If you want to be treated like you have something intelligent to say, you should start by acting like it.
He starts out quite reasonably, stating "Mr. Maliszewski is simply expressing his ideas, his interpretations of the game, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, no need to argue." So I was a little surprised when, two paragraphs later in the same post, he says, "[...] quit your whining already! If you think otherwise, you aren’t playing Old School…go play 4th edition, specifically made for whiners like you!"
Dude. You seem like a really nice guy, and you probably have some really wonderful insights into Basic D&D (and many other games); years of experience playing, lots of fun game stories on you blog and all... but it's hard to take you at all seriously when you can start a post by acknowledging "everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, no need to argue," and then follow that up with calling everyone who disagrees with you whiners.
JB is not, of course, one of the Pillars of Old School Renaissance, doesn't represent any company or anyone besides himself, and is entirely entitled to his (contradictory and insulting) opinion (and thanks in advance to you, JB, both for providing me blog fodder and for no-doubt being a good sport about my singling you out). What really flips my shit is to see something of that caliber coming from a gaming professional like James Mishler. His post, Save or Die: Heroes and Snowflakes is just stupid. Stupid-funny, in it's way, but after the initial chuckle all that's left is the realization that Mishler is insulting his competitors and their fans, throwing random insults at 4E Players like "Precious Snowflakes," "Fan Wankery," and "Mary-Sue."
Yeah, Mishler, that'll really help your sales.
Aside from the complete lack of an reasoning on the chart (Being a "Badass" is the opposite of thinking you're a unique "Precious Snowflake?" The opposite of "Bildungsroman" (the psychological, moral and social shaping of the personality) is Mary-Sue? Obviously, Mishler just put shorthand for "Dumb" towards the right and bottom and "Intelligent" in the upper left), it's also completely unprovoked, and a wild tangent from the comments he claims set him off. Lets look at the comments in the initial Grognardia post.
Given all this hand-wringing, insults, and angst that resulted, I expected to find the internet equivalent of chimps throwing their own shit at 0D&D. Instead, I found this:
"(1) I'm not sure about earlier editions, but in 3rd edition I found save or die to be incredibly frustrating. [...]
(2) For earlier editions, maybe save-or-die made more sense. [...]
(3) People enter the game with assumptions that they're going to tell a grand tale about their character and his heroic exploits. Save-or-die wrecks that assumption."
(Parenthetical statement labels added for reference below)
Let me paraphrase that, from the Super Defensive 0D&D people who hear everything as an attack:
(1) "Save or die sucks in 3e. "
You'll notice that this isn't a comment about 0D&D, 1e, or even 2e.
(2) "I'm not saying it was wrong for anything before 3E."
Not sure how to be more clear that we're not talking about 0D&D.
(3) "People have assumptions that save-or-die contradicts."
*This* would be a fair point to discuss further. You could mention (as Maliszewski does) that 0D&D is not the sort of game that supports those assumptions, and that criticizing 0D&D for that reason makes about as much sense as complaining that your toaster doesn't make waffles (a position that I'm starting to come around to more and more, after the spirited rounds of debate between this blog and Editions & Dragons). That's a fair response. And the rest of the comments are people talking about whether or not they preferred homeruling save-or-die into something else. It's a good conversation, with respect and no insults, and no one claims to have found The One TRUE Way that all others must follow.
So why are the older, supposedly more mature gamers acting like twelve year olds? If you want to be treated like you have something intelligent to say, you should start by acting like it.
Friday, July 10, 2009
New Fav Post
ByDonny_The_DM of The Fine Art of the TPK, a very interesting discussion has broken out in the comments; check it out.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
More that 4,096 Characters
A preface: This is in response to a wonderful post by Matthew over at Editions & Dragons, and all free-floating quotes are from him. This was suppose to be a comment over there, but was too long.
"I have a feeling that Charles is most comfortable when he can approach the game from the mechanical side first."
This is not entirely true. I view the game as having two main modes, combat and non-combat, which are basically two different games. It's not that I'm theoretically more comfortable with the combat mechanics, it's that, at the start of a game, I don't know the world, all I know is my character and the combat system. So it's that it's impossible to be comfortable with the social / world setting while I'm still wondering what it is. I think this is natural when exploring a new world, and not really problematic.
I see your point (I think) -- the lack of mechanics in Labyrinth Lord removes crutches that poor role players lean on. But there are other ways to engender role playing. If it hasn't been happening, think about the types of adventures we've been through; feel free to adjust down the amount of combat we experience per session, I think we could handle a combat-free session every now and again. Or, a setting where there could be more roleplaying between combats, instead of straight from one combat to the next. (And after tonight's session, I should add that it already looks like you're doing something like this.)
Skills-- I'll admit to being more ambivalent towards. In the end, I think it's nice to give people who aren't suave and charming in real life a chance to play a character who is; gaming is about *fantasies* after all. But you can still tell those players that they need to actually roleplay their character's actions. Even if what they say isn't as great as what the dice say it should be, it's practice, and with time they'll get better at smooth talking. Or funnier at failing.
"In my preferred world, sometimes you take an axe to the spleen, and baby, that sucks, but at least you know where you stand."
Well, no, we don't. We don't know Dakkan as well as a true native would, and didn't know that Trolls were in the area, or that they wander across the hill sides, or whatever it is Trolls do. As villagers, we should have heard all the common wisdom; like our parents telling us never to wander in the woods, or whatever. The local woodsmen and farmers would have some sort of system to do their trade without having to face deadly danger all the time (Like the tripwire-on-spikes idea, good suggestion, Chris!); we would know the local tradesmen and could talk to them and learn the local folk wisdom.
Here's my real problem with dying: It's repetitive and boring to keep making level one characters, over and over again. It is, literally, the exact same thing session after session, trying to get a character through the same dungeon, or hill side. I want to have different adventures, see different parts of the dungeon, and meet new foes. I don't care to spend months trying to get one character to the point where I can actually accomplish a single goal. It's just frustrating to try the same thing, week after week, and make zero progress. Or, in the case of losing two characters, a mule loaded with gold, and magic binoculars; reverse progress.
"(After all, 4E does make a heck of a tactical skirmish miniatures battlegame with roleplaying elements- although I feel more and more that that's the long and short of it.) "
Yes, that is *exactly* what 4E is. 99% of the rules in the books are about the combat sub-game, because that's the only part that needs so much description (to play the version of the game that WotC is selling, anyway. Whether you *like* that particular game or not, YMMV.) If you wanted to get rid of skills in Aquea, you absolutely could. Skill Challenges are a different "sub-game" from combat. You could decide "Magic items are rare," and not give them out (and either assign the powers players are suppose to get from magic items some other way, or just tell people "tough luck"). This ain't tournament play, go nuts.
"In my humble but of course 100% Accurate opinon, character death is what it's all about. Of course it sucks. Of course it's aggravating. That's kind of the point."
I have better things to do with my leisure time then spend it being aggravated, thanks.
"Not only is it a great tool for learning from your mistakes, but it lends itself very naturally to really prizing the times It Finally Went Right."
You know, back when I was in the service, they used to say, "Don't show a man how to do something, tell him what to do and let him surprise you with his ingenuity"
Assuming that someone has the perseverance to keep slamming their head against the same brick wall until they finally break it down. I'm sorry, but you know I'm not the kind of person who's willing to deal with BS from my hobbies-- I just find things to occupy my time that don't have a "hazing process" at the front.
"The PLAYER knows he or she has earned the treasures and powers commensurate with his or her level, because the risk was not only real, it was demonstrated time and again as prior characters and fellow adventurers died to seemingly trivial traps, sword slashes, and simple daily dumb bad luck."
You say "earned," I hear "Forced to jump through hoops, so you'll be grateful when we let you do something entertaining."
"...even character creation is an exercise in mechanical balance and synergy optimization- things that, to me, should be anathema to a fantasy campaign."
Why? combat optimization is setting-neutral. It's prudent; and if we're playing characters risking their lives, they *should* be prudent in how they do that. It's logical that people don't traipse off into the unknown and risk life and limb unless they feel that they're somewhat more likely to survive than the average guy.
I would also like to emphasize that my problem is not at all with the amount of rules-- I'm fine with the fewer combat options and abstract, figureless combat. The two combined make combat so much quicker than 4E combat that it doesn't really bother me to have fewer mechanical options. I guess that means I would find 3.x really boring for the martial classes? I only played 3.x a dozen times across five years, so I don't really know how I'd find it in regular play.
Here's the thing-- Out of five sessions of LL or S&W that I saw and/or heard about, exactly one didn't feature at least two player character deaths. Compare that to one death in 14 sessions of Dwimmermount so far. I really don't think we've been that stupid, but encounters are frequently deadly and attempts to flee usually futile.
When death is frequent and apparently random, that makes survival just randomness as well. And surviving at random isn't exactly an achievement; if I want to win or lose on dumb luck, I'll play candyland.
"I have a feeling that Charles is most comfortable when he can approach the game from the mechanical side first."
This is not entirely true. I view the game as having two main modes, combat and non-combat, which are basically two different games. It's not that I'm theoretically more comfortable with the combat mechanics, it's that, at the start of a game, I don't know the world, all I know is my character and the combat system. So it's that it's impossible to be comfortable with the social / world setting while I'm still wondering what it is. I think this is natural when exploring a new world, and not really problematic.
I see your point (I think) -- the lack of mechanics in Labyrinth Lord removes crutches that poor role players lean on. But there are other ways to engender role playing. If it hasn't been happening, think about the types of adventures we've been through; feel free to adjust down the amount of combat we experience per session, I think we could handle a combat-free session every now and again. Or, a setting where there could be more roleplaying between combats, instead of straight from one combat to the next. (And after tonight's session, I should add that it already looks like you're doing something like this.)
Skills-- I'll admit to being more ambivalent towards. In the end, I think it's nice to give people who aren't suave and charming in real life a chance to play a character who is; gaming is about *fantasies* after all. But you can still tell those players that they need to actually roleplay their character's actions. Even if what they say isn't as great as what the dice say it should be, it's practice, and with time they'll get better at smooth talking. Or funnier at failing.
"In my preferred world, sometimes you take an axe to the spleen, and baby, that sucks, but at least you know where you stand."
Well, no, we don't. We don't know Dakkan as well as a true native would, and didn't know that Trolls were in the area, or that they wander across the hill sides, or whatever it is Trolls do. As villagers, we should have heard all the common wisdom; like our parents telling us never to wander in the woods, or whatever. The local woodsmen and farmers would have some sort of system to do their trade without having to face deadly danger all the time (Like the tripwire-on-spikes idea, good suggestion, Chris!); we would know the local tradesmen and could talk to them and learn the local folk wisdom.
Here's my real problem with dying: It's repetitive and boring to keep making level one characters, over and over again. It is, literally, the exact same thing session after session, trying to get a character through the same dungeon, or hill side. I want to have different adventures, see different parts of the dungeon, and meet new foes. I don't care to spend months trying to get one character to the point where I can actually accomplish a single goal. It's just frustrating to try the same thing, week after week, and make zero progress. Or, in the case of losing two characters, a mule loaded with gold, and magic binoculars; reverse progress.
"(After all, 4E does make a heck of a tactical skirmish miniatures battlegame with roleplaying elements- although I feel more and more that that's the long and short of it.) "
Yes, that is *exactly* what 4E is. 99% of the rules in the books are about the combat sub-game, because that's the only part that needs so much description (to play the version of the game that WotC is selling, anyway. Whether you *like* that particular game or not, YMMV.) If you wanted to get rid of skills in Aquea, you absolutely could. Skill Challenges are a different "sub-game" from combat. You could decide "Magic items are rare," and not give them out (and either assign the powers players are suppose to get from magic items some other way, or just tell people "tough luck"). This ain't tournament play, go nuts.
"In my humble but of course 100% Accurate opinon, character death is what it's all about. Of course it sucks. Of course it's aggravating. That's kind of the point."
I have better things to do with my leisure time then spend it being aggravated, thanks.
"Not only is it a great tool for learning from your mistakes, but it lends itself very naturally to really prizing the times It Finally Went Right."
You know, back when I was in the service, they used to say, "Don't show a man how to do something, tell him what to do and let him surprise you with his ingenuity"
Assuming that someone has the perseverance to keep slamming their head against the same brick wall until they finally break it down. I'm sorry, but you know I'm not the kind of person who's willing to deal with BS from my hobbies-- I just find things to occupy my time that don't have a "hazing process" at the front.
"The PLAYER knows he or she has earned the treasures and powers commensurate with his or her level, because the risk was not only real, it was demonstrated time and again as prior characters and fellow adventurers died to seemingly trivial traps, sword slashes, and simple daily dumb bad luck."
You say "earned," I hear "Forced to jump through hoops, so you'll be grateful when we let you do something entertaining."
"...even character creation is an exercise in mechanical balance and synergy optimization- things that, to me, should be anathema to a fantasy campaign."
Why? combat optimization is setting-neutral. It's prudent; and if we're playing characters risking their lives, they *should* be prudent in how they do that. It's logical that people don't traipse off into the unknown and risk life and limb unless they feel that they're somewhat more likely to survive than the average guy.
I would also like to emphasize that my problem is not at all with the amount of rules-- I'm fine with the fewer combat options and abstract, figureless combat. The two combined make combat so much quicker than 4E combat that it doesn't really bother me to have fewer mechanical options. I guess that means I would find 3.x really boring for the martial classes? I only played 3.x a dozen times across five years, so I don't really know how I'd find it in regular play.
Here's the thing-- Out of five sessions of LL or S&W that I saw and/or heard about, exactly one didn't feature at least two player character deaths. Compare that to one death in 14 sessions of Dwimmermount so far. I really don't think we've been that stupid, but encounters are frequently deadly and attempts to flee usually futile.
When death is frequent and apparently random, that makes survival just randomness as well. And surviving at random isn't exactly an achievement; if I want to win or lose on dumb luck, I'll play candyland.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Why I Like 4E, Con't
Having re-read my last (non-upstate-New-York-thanking) post, I feel like I've only danced around the issue, only addressed the mechanics issues (and, honestly, 4E's strengths are also it's weaknesses, mechanically). For me, the biggest draw to 4E is the type of characters you play.
If nothing else, this blog so far should have made it pretty obvious that I "imprinted" on superheroes early in life, and they are my model of heroic adventurers. The type of story I like is one where, people with significant powers go up against an even more overwhelming force. Typically, that boils down to having to stop many, many people less powerful than the hero (Spider-Man fighting street crime) or one Archvillian (Batman fighting the Joker). Of course, that's only the basic roles; this can be mixed, matched, or subverted in any number of ways (the Kingpin, with his physical prowess and armies of professional criminals, for example, combines elements of both). It also doesn't have to be a superhero, or even a super-powered setting; high tech spies, a band of noble outlaws, or any number of other perturbations are acceptable.
This is relevant, because 0E, at least what I've seen of it so far, does not do this. You characters are very mortal at the beginning, and going out to adventure seems more like a desperate cry to have your head examined then a reasonable attempt to either make a fortune or help villiagers.
Let me use a recent event from the Labyrinth Lord campaign my frienemy Matthew is running (when not writing about RPGs at Editions & Dragons). I actually wasn't able to attend, so my character (Father Rosencrantz, because medieval fantasy needs it Jewish Clerics, too) "sat it out," which turned out to be in his best interest. The characters (who played) were looking for a rogue "Adventurer" who'd been attacking a peaceful Kobold warren, so they decided to camp in the woods near the cave entrance, and took turns keeping watch for his return (or anything else, for that matter). On the second night, a Troll wandered into the camp; killed the person keeping watch, and killed a second person when the rest of the party tried to flee, leaving one survivor.
When I heard about this after the fact, my first reaction was, "Boy, I'm glad I wasn't there for that." How fucked up is that? To be glad that I wasn't able to play, that doing nothing had a better result, and gave me more enjoyment and pleasure, than actually playing the game would have?
And I don't know about you, but I don't play games to experience fantasy gygaxian naturalistic environments. Those can be a nice background, but it isn't a main draw. I don't play games with the hope that, after a couple weeks or months, I'll get to a point in the game where I can actually, finally be enough of a badass to no longer be completely at the whim of fickle fate. I get enough of that shit in real life. I play games for enjoyment, pleasure, and fun.
Getting killed by every wondering Troll is not fun. Being set back to Square One because one of the fifteen Kobolds you're fighting rolled a 6 on 1d6, once, is not fun. It's frustrating, and invalidates all the effort I put into making whatever meager progress I did achieve.
One final point: If I really was Father Rosencrantz, or any other aspiring Fighter/Cleric/Wizard of Dakkan (or any other 0D&D setting), I would set up a nice Hillel in the town square, and never leave town unless I could travel with a large and well-armed body, like the King's tax collectors, or an Army unit, or something. The only way 0D&D characters are playable is if they are: 1) Ignorant of how dangerous the world is, 2) So driven by grinding poverty and obligations, and so without hope of otherwise earning a living, that they can justify the danger, or 3) Completely batshit crazy. The odds of dying are just too great for anyone with any sense of self-preservation to try adventuring. Games are escapist and aspirational, why would I fantasize about being worse off than I am in real life? The idea of pretending to be a ignorant country bumpkin isn't appealing, neither is being a psychopath. And, oh boy, crushing debt! What a fantastic and exciting problem to deal with!
No, I'd rather play a game where I live or die because I was clever or stupid, not because the Wandering Monster Table roll returned "Troll."
If nothing else, this blog so far should have made it pretty obvious that I "imprinted" on superheroes early in life, and they are my model of heroic adventurers. The type of story I like is one where, people with significant powers go up against an even more overwhelming force. Typically, that boils down to having to stop many, many people less powerful than the hero (Spider-Man fighting street crime) or one Archvillian (Batman fighting the Joker). Of course, that's only the basic roles; this can be mixed, matched, or subverted in any number of ways (the Kingpin, with his physical prowess and armies of professional criminals, for example, combines elements of both). It also doesn't have to be a superhero, or even a super-powered setting; high tech spies, a band of noble outlaws, or any number of other perturbations are acceptable.
This is relevant, because 0E, at least what I've seen of it so far, does not do this. You characters are very mortal at the beginning, and going out to adventure seems more like a desperate cry to have your head examined then a reasonable attempt to either make a fortune or help villiagers.
Let me use a recent event from the Labyrinth Lord campaign my frienemy Matthew is running (when not writing about RPGs at Editions & Dragons). I actually wasn't able to attend, so my character (Father Rosencrantz, because medieval fantasy needs it Jewish Clerics, too) "sat it out," which turned out to be in his best interest. The characters (who played) were looking for a rogue "Adventurer" who'd been attacking a peaceful Kobold warren, so they decided to camp in the woods near the cave entrance, and took turns keeping watch for his return (or anything else, for that matter). On the second night, a Troll wandered into the camp; killed the person keeping watch, and killed a second person when the rest of the party tried to flee, leaving one survivor.
When I heard about this after the fact, my first reaction was, "Boy, I'm glad I wasn't there for that." How fucked up is that? To be glad that I wasn't able to play, that doing nothing had a better result, and gave me more enjoyment and pleasure, than actually playing the game would have?
And I don't know about you, but I don't play games to experience fantasy gygaxian naturalistic environments. Those can be a nice background, but it isn't a main draw. I don't play games with the hope that, after a couple weeks or months, I'll get to a point in the game where I can actually, finally be enough of a badass to no longer be completely at the whim of fickle fate. I get enough of that shit in real life. I play games for enjoyment, pleasure, and fun.
Getting killed by every wondering Troll is not fun. Being set back to Square One because one of the fifteen Kobolds you're fighting rolled a 6 on 1d6, once, is not fun. It's frustrating, and invalidates all the effort I put into making whatever meager progress I did achieve.
One final point: If I really was Father Rosencrantz, or any other aspiring Fighter/Cleric/Wizard of Dakkan (or any other 0D&D setting), I would set up a nice Hillel in the town square, and never leave town unless I could travel with a large and well-armed body, like the King's tax collectors, or an Army unit, or something. The only way 0D&D characters are playable is if they are: 1) Ignorant of how dangerous the world is, 2) So driven by grinding poverty and obligations, and so without hope of otherwise earning a living, that they can justify the danger, or 3) Completely batshit crazy. The odds of dying are just too great for anyone with any sense of self-preservation to try adventuring. Games are escapist and aspirational, why would I fantasize about being worse off than I am in real life? The idea of pretending to be a ignorant country bumpkin isn't appealing, neither is being a psychopath. And, oh boy, crushing debt! What a fantastic and exciting problem to deal with!
No, I'd rather play a game where I live or die because I was clever or stupid, not because the Wandering Monster Table roll returned "Troll."
[Meta] Thanks, Upstate NY!
Checking our stats on Site Meter, I see we have had our first visitor who I do not know from real life. So thank you, random person from Rochester, NY! You have made my day.
Why I Like 4E
As the title suggests, this is the post where I'll lay out the general points of what I like about 4e over 0e / retro clones (specifically Swords & Wizardry and Labyrinth Lord). There is another post, I think to be called "Why I like 0E," singing the exact opposite song, coming soonish (I might do another Origins '09 post first).
The biggest thing that attracts me to 4e is the crunchiness of it. The character building is like a puzzle, looking for synergies between your powers and your teammates. The long term planning and experimenting it engenders. This is because (Shockingly!) I like 4e combat.
I know this is the main point of divergence with old schoolers, but I actually prefer the more intricate combat of the modern systems. The introduction of powers *is* a huge new array of options for players on their turn. But options are fun! Making decisions about how to expend resources for maximum effect is engaging, and should be a constant puzzle. The combat rules for 4E are a really cool miniatures combat system; a sort of analog MMORPG.
0E combat, by contrast, is much more rote. Wizards or Clerics might have one spell (and only one possible right then) they could use at level 1, but everything else is either "swing ye sword" or run.
"But Brett!" I can hear the one person who'll actually read this post thinking, "In 0E, you are encouraged to think *creatively*! You use lantern oil to create fires, or negotiate with the monsters, run away!"
Well, ok, imaginary straw man, but all of that is possible in 4E. Just because there is a very detailed system you can use when combat begins, doesn't mean the non-combat stuff has to go away. Of course new players, especially, will look at the book and see that 95% of the page count is devoted to combat, and like a carpenter with only a hammer, will see only nails. But it does not have to be that way, once people are more comfortable with their characters and the world.
"But Brett!," my imaginary friend once again interjects, "4E characters are indestructable! When your hammer is an atom smasher, treating every problem like a nail actually *works*!" This is because, 4E characters are superheroes. At low level, they are Spider-Man tier, and at high levels can becomes Superman or even more ridiculously powered.
If they're Heroic (or Spider-Man) Tier, throwing the average street criminal at them is a joke, and even someone who'd seem objectively overpowered to a normal person (a Doctor Octopus level villian, lets say) should be defeatable. There are a couple ways to deal with this. One is to go the Green Goblin route: set up the conflict in such a way that to fight at all is a loss. DMs can take a lesson from this, and make objectives that are obviously (or not) attainable only through peaceful means.
Another method is to go the "Kingpin" route. A horde of Kobolds can threaten people well above their level, in great enough levels. Or, you can go sort of the opposite directions, and throw a villian just way out of their league at them (like when Spider-Man goes up against Doctor Doom). Villians they could only hope to defeat by undermining around the edges first.
Another (somewhat related) thing is that I'd say this indestructibility is a feature, not a bug. The characters should be mortal, it should be possible that they'll die, but doesn't have to be likely. Frequent character death means that I don't see the point in investing emotionally in the character. Sure, once you get a your first character to level 5 or so in 0E, you'll be pretty attached by then. But that's many, many sessions after you've started playing, and what's keeping your interest in the mean time? Everything doesn't have to be relevant to the story of your character, but because everything has the potential to be, it keeps my interest.
The biggest thing that attracts me to 4e is the crunchiness of it. The character building is like a puzzle, looking for synergies between your powers and your teammates. The long term planning and experimenting it engenders. This is because (Shockingly!) I like 4e combat.
I know this is the main point of divergence with old schoolers, but I actually prefer the more intricate combat of the modern systems. The introduction of powers *is* a huge new array of options for players on their turn. But options are fun! Making decisions about how to expend resources for maximum effect is engaging, and should be a constant puzzle. The combat rules for 4E are a really cool miniatures combat system; a sort of analog MMORPG.
0E combat, by contrast, is much more rote. Wizards or Clerics might have one spell (and only one possible right then) they could use at level 1, but everything else is either "swing ye sword" or run.
"But Brett!" I can hear the one person who'll actually read this post thinking, "In 0E, you are encouraged to think *creatively*! You use lantern oil to create fires, or negotiate with the monsters, run away!"
Well, ok, imaginary straw man, but all of that is possible in 4E. Just because there is a very detailed system you can use when combat begins, doesn't mean the non-combat stuff has to go away. Of course new players, especially, will look at the book and see that 95% of the page count is devoted to combat, and like a carpenter with only a hammer, will see only nails. But it does not have to be that way, once people are more comfortable with their characters and the world.
"But Brett!," my imaginary friend once again interjects, "4E characters are indestructable! When your hammer is an atom smasher, treating every problem like a nail actually *works*!" This is because, 4E characters are superheroes. At low level, they are Spider-Man tier, and at high levels can becomes Superman or even more ridiculously powered.
If they're Heroic (or Spider-Man) Tier, throwing the average street criminal at them is a joke, and even someone who'd seem objectively overpowered to a normal person (a Doctor Octopus level villian, lets say) should be defeatable. There are a couple ways to deal with this. One is to go the Green Goblin route: set up the conflict in such a way that to fight at all is a loss. DMs can take a lesson from this, and make objectives that are obviously (or not) attainable only through peaceful means.
Another method is to go the "Kingpin" route. A horde of Kobolds can threaten people well above their level, in great enough levels. Or, you can go sort of the opposite directions, and throw a villian just way out of their league at them (like when Spider-Man goes up against Doctor Doom). Villians they could only hope to defeat by undermining around the edges first.
Another (somewhat related) thing is that I'd say this indestructibility is a feature, not a bug. The characters should be mortal, it should be possible that they'll die, but doesn't have to be likely. Frequent character death means that I don't see the point in investing emotionally in the character. Sure, once you get a your first character to level 5 or so in 0E, you'll be pretty attached by then. But that's many, many sessions after you've started playing, and what's keeping your interest in the mean time? Everything doesn't have to be relevant to the story of your character, but because everything has the potential to be, it keeps my interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
