[D&D4e] Feeling defeated by the ruleset
Brimshack:
I'm just going to focus on one small aspect of the OP here, and that is the conflict between a preference for hack&slash and one for role-playing.
Obviously, too much difference can be a deal breaker, but the degree to which that difference is a problem can itself be a variable. I would add that people's preferences often shift around a lot, depending on the campaign, the GM, etc. I know at least one GM in my area whose role playing scenarios make me grit my teeth and long for simple combat. I know of others that almost make me forget combat and just enjoy the social challenges. The thing is, to these GMs, it may well seem like I am a gamist in the one campaign and a narrativist in the other. In fact, I am at least partly responding to the strengths and weaknesses of the GMs. Now add players and a host of other variables, and personal growth, etc. the idea that I or anyone else can be quickly and decisively categorized by our preferences becomes more than a little suspicious.
But that's more abstract than I really meant to be. Just taking the preferences of your players as you state them, I would say do what you can do to have your cake and let them eat it to. You can start by designing role-playing challenges around tactical objectives. The same player who balks at romance or political intrigue may well enjoy a few brief talking encounters if he sees clearly how they contribute to the battle.
So, one thing I would consider doing is giving them a tactical challenge they cannot handle on their own. Then let them talk to a few people to solve some of the objectives leading up to the fight. I don't mean getting NPC help on the field (I rarely want to go there), but I mean things like. Perhaps, they will only win if the city draw-bridge is up (or a particular dungeon corridor has been closed off). What if a potential ally of the enemies could be persuaded to stay out of it. You just have to give him a reason before the battle actually occurs.If the players who love combat so much KNOW, with absolute certainty, that part of what they hope to do in the next combat depends on role-playing the conversation right in THIS encounter, then (hopefully) it should be part and parcel of the game they want to play. The idea here is to keep the roleplaying close to the primary concern of the players (combat, if I understand you correctly), so that it is more vivid to them. As a side-benefit, the list of allies will grow in time and more complex role-playing options may flow out of this. You can take it further if the players are interested, or keep it light if you like.
Conversely, role playing challenges can be designed to play out in the combat scenario. Objectives other than killing all the bad guys can be fun. Let the characters protect a prisoner, fight someone they cannot kill outright for political reasons, or even face a foe that should have been an ally. (One of the wonderful things in the Mahabharata is the fact that the two most bad-ass warriors in all the world are both noble and good, and both absolutely committed by their own sense of honor to fight on the bad guy's side in the final battle. They really want the heroes to win, but neither can go back on their word to the principle villain. Makes for good in-combat drama.) Let your players fight someone like that and you get a thicker plot in the battle itself. (Maybe there is a good monster. Let him help the party once, and let the players talk to him and establish him as an ally. Then in a later session give the players reason to go through a door he has sworn to protect. They can even talk first, but their objectives are irreconcilable...)
Anyway, point being, if the players want combat and you want role-playing, then you can try shaping the role-playing challenges as closely the prospects of fighting as possible. If that doesn't work, then perhaps you do have irreconcilable preferences, but it might be the trick to keep you both happy. Maybe you're already doing that, I dunno It's just what comes to mind at reading the OP.
AzaLiN:
Thanks for taking the time to reply everyone! I'll do my best to respond...
Quote
So I guess my advice is to not try to subvert of fix 4th edition D&D that your group is enjoying; better to start new games or work on enjoying the game yourself.
Actually I might start a side game or two; I'm pushing for a Sorcerer playtest; if not that, a Palladium Fantasy playtest, or, if I fail, it will be Exalted (whitewolf), which I'm worried will a bit of a trap, DMing a simulationist game/setting that I know nothing about with veterans who know everything about it. However, I'm still quite open minded about Exalted, and, depending on a first couple of sessions, it could go really well potentially.
Quote
Do some of the players that dropped out share your interest in proper narrative stuff?
Originally, I meant to divide the 2 groups into 2 separate campaigns based on playing style, but life got in the way for the one group. In a word: Yes, they did :D They may participate in the game I mentioned above, if everything works out.
Quote
My suggestion would be to cut back the frequency of your 4e sessions, as well as the time you play per session.
Agreed; too much RPG playing & prep in a week drains me lol
Quote
The thing with any edition of D&D is that it is not a game. It is best described as an engine.
I only half agree with you on this; Actually, i blogged about it recently- I wish I used engine/game terminology however, I think those terms would have helped :D I think that a certain, tiny aspect of 4e is the engine, one closely related to d20, and that all the rest is setting/game, but that, unfortunately, it's presented as more dynamic an engine than it appears to be. The most basic example I can think of, is that, by default, I wouldn't have had several of the Player Classes in my world- the professions wouldn't have existed. Their inclusion was definitely my doing, its just an example in how almost all of the 4e rulebooks are game/setting, and only the bare bones is engine.
http://scrollean.blogspot.com/2009/05/rules-and-content-in-4e.html
Quote
the problem is, inspiration goes into this activity, but none comes out again. It's like a money pit.
I think your right- and good analogy, btw. But, I do need to add one thing: except for the avenger (no personality- yet), I really like everyone's characters and many of their choices in game are great.
Quote
On the other hand, if you object to their use in certain situations, such as against mindless foes with which they have no history, then cut those out of your campaign!
My thinking is that the mechanics are blatantly gamist, and that the players are thriving on them; in keeping with Euro's suggestions, I might just sacrifice any attempt at realism and just allow the gamist elements to function, and focus on narrative instead. However- I'm not decided!
Quote
I'm conscious that a lot of the details you mentioned so far sound more like sim than some of the joint narration, "dealing with issues" stuff that people might suggest.
Could you rephrase/elaborate that?
Quote
You can start by designing role-playing challenges around tactical objectives. The same player who balks at romance or political intrigue may well enjoy a few brief talking encounters if he sees clearly how they contribute to the battle.
Interesting... also:
Quote
Conversely, role playing challenges can be designed to play out in the combat scenario. Objectives other than killing all the bad guys can be fun. Let the characters protect a prisoner, fight someone they cannot kill outright for political reasons, or even face a foe that should have been an ally.
I'm going to try a bit more of this on Tuesday. I think I can work it in, the trick is gonna be balance, but more so, the trick is gonna be combining the two organically. I'm going to think about this, because it'll be really challenging to interweave the layers/threads- I'm imagining a scenario where the hack n slashers don't realize they're roleplaying, and the role players don't realize they're in a hack n slash. On this in particular, I wouldn't mind advice- I don't feel right forcing role playing tactics, I want to integrate it in a way that makes the option attractive.
Quote
What if a potential ally of the enemies could be persuaded to stay out of it.
and, a different reply:
For that latter point, why aren't you enjoying 4th edition?
Well, for example, the 4e encounters aren't dangerous unless they're also a grind, or else impossible. The encounter scaling is decent at what it does, but fights against groups outside the -1<x<+3 level range are either grindy, impossible, or uselessly easy, and within that framework, there's really no reason to avoid a fight unless it is impossible (railroading), or too annoying to deal with (several other options).
My players are excellent, btw, at the tactical combat/character building aspect of 4e.
=============================================================
Again, thanks for the replies everyone. I hope I didn't miss anybody, I'm tired and it's 4 am here lol. I'll post results from Tuesday's game if I can, and still welcome DMing advice along these lines {=;D
AJ_Flowers:
Quote from: AzaLiN on May 11, 2009, 02:36:26 AM
I fail, it will be Exalted (whitewolf), which I'm worried will a bit of a trap, DMing a simulationist game/setting that I know nothing about with veterans who know everything about it.
You know, hopefully not off-topic, but it's funny because I just got into this conversation last night. I'm interested in running something for a few of my friends and they seem skeptical about indy, and are really in to Exalted. The problem is that I have played it just a few times, as opposed to people who are... really IN to Exalted. So I'm wondering how this would go.
As for your original topic, it does seem like you're playing a lot. It seems natural that you'd burn out without variety if playing two or three times a week.
One thing I noticed about your post is that in some ways, your stress might come from confusing the "why" of something in the system with the "what" in the system. So it doesn't make sense to you that the avenger wants revenge against a stranger... Eh, that's fine, the mechanical effect is the guy is marked for X amount of turns and the character has a damage bonus of Y. Can you think of any other rationale for that mechanical effect? Probably a million different ones that wouldn't cause cognitive dissonance in you.
Callan S.:
Hi again, Azalin,
Just a quick add, I think what you call setting/game, I would just call setting. There isn't game there, in the way I'm using the word "game" and probably the way your players would use the word "game". So what they are looking for, there isn't any, really, as noted before. Which adds more creative drain as you can't just play till an inspiration comes upon you, you have to invent game straight away. But I've said all that already :)
Also, atleast from RPG.net, I've heard exalted is incredibly gamist. Or atleast "I stack this powa onto dis powa and also get DIS powa!". I'm not sure it'll be any sort of change from 4E.
Wordman:
Quote from: AJ_Flowers on May 11, 2009, 08:46:50 AM
Quote from: AzaLiN on May 11, 2009, 02:36:26 AM
I fail, it will be Exalted (whitewolf), which I'm worried will a bit of a trap, DMing a simulationist game/setting that I know nothing about with veterans who know everything about it.
You know, hopefully not off-topic, but it's funny because I just got into this conversation last night. I'm interested in running something for a few of my friends and they seem skeptical about indy, and are really in to Exalted. The problem is that I have played it just a few times, as opposed to people who are... really IN to Exalted. So I'm wondering how this would go.
Being an Exalted Storyteller is actually harder than it sounds, at first, especially if the majority of your GMing experience has been with D&D. Long time DM's develop a set of "reflexes" that, while serving them well in D&D, lead you in exactly the wrong direction in Exalted. Some of my advice along these lines here and here.
Also, be advised that, while Exalted has one of the most freaking awesome settings in gaming history, mechanically, it isn't that great of a game. If you keep its stunting mechanics and ditch most of the rest of it, you might be happier. There are also quite a few "ports" of other systems to Exalted's setting.
Lastly, there are a number of games out there that, intentionally or not, have an Exalted "smell" to them. The intent of Mist-Robed Gate, for example, has been mentioned in various places as "Exalted without the suck". A game like In a Wicked Age... is, like Exalted, heavily influenced by the Flat Earth books of Tanith Lee. And so on.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page