[D&D 4e] Balance Issues
Ron Edwards:
Hi Nate,
If I understand correctly, you are stating that a conversation like this one:
Quote
Besides, how would we collectively solve the issue? "G., stop making douchebag characters. K., no obnoxious builds that require 50 rounds to end a fight but can't lose. J., don't go through 1-2 characters every 3 sessions, stick with one. C., give your character at least SOME personality." It won't happen.
... seems absurd to you. Whereas to me it looks entirely functional and precisely what you need. I am well aware that our gamer culture regards such conversations as horrible breaches of etiquette, but I also think that our gamer culture (of which I am a part) is ridiculously stupid and digs itself into social holes. If you're not familiar with The Five Geek Social Fallacies, then I recommend thinking them over, especially since gamers engage in a particularly knotted-up, identity-politics version of them.
This is a values issue. It looks to me as if you are serving as these people's donkey buttfuck toy. I may be mistaken, and therefore ignored; or I might be right but you are willing to accept it as the best of a bad job, and therefore I may be ignored; or perhaps you aren't owning up to it in some way.
The reason I'm being so rude and brutal about this issue, and refusing to let the thread subside into the more comfortable zone of talking about rules options, is because you yourself stated that you are at the end of your rope - either something changes, or you stop playing. Having said that, it's not very logical to then insist that you have to keep playing, that you are stuck playing, or to reverse your position to say oh, it's not so bad, which you haven't quite done yet but is what I've observed in similar conversations in the past.
It's a lot like those painful conversations with someone in a messed-up relationship. "I hate this!" (provides many reasons why) "So, end it, be done." "But then I won't have a girlfriend!" ... "And this is bad?" Until the person admits that the situation is already doomed, they'll stay stuck.
The worst thing that could happen is that the game ceases before you are utterly burned-out and bitter, and you won't have to deal with all sorts of passive-aggressive sabotage for months before it ends anyway.
The best thing that could happen is that most or all of the players say, "Huh, I get your point," and improve the game. Hell, even if two do that, then jettison the rest and have a great three-person group.
Not seein' the downside compared to the status quo, from this end of the conversation. And again, that's based on your own assessment of the situation.
Best, Ron
Natespank:
I talked to the players. I need to work out exactly what I want before I push it too much. The one player agreed to try to stick with his current character.
Gotta think about stuff a bit.
Anyway, while I'm at it:
REQUEST FOR ADVICE
-What are some people's favorite rule systems? I realize this is tricky because of the variety of systems out there. I'm aiming for fantasy, gritty, with exploration and discovery. I want some rules that make combat fun, but I don't necessarily want it to be the focus like 4e is. Old D&D is sketchy because of many reasons haha, but I like aspects of it. Rifts too, but only aspects of it. I can try to be more specific but I need to figure out more of what exactly i want.
-Any interesting, challenging 4e modules out there I can read/run for ideas/inspiration? The fourthcore stuff interests me but there's not much of it yet.
Callan S.:
Nate, try checking out capes. You can download the lite version for free. It's not actually a gamist inclined game, but it has a complete procedure (so you just play - you don't have to tighten the nuts on the engine every five minutes) and it does involve strategic play.
And I know I already said it before, but I think having a chat which says 'Don't play douchebag characters' is entirely dysfunctional. Not because it's rude, but because dude A and dude B's idea of a douchebag can so very easily be very, very different. And that difference goes in so many wrong directions I can't go into it and have a short post! If your not both thinking the same thing, it's not a rule. If you can convert 'don't be a douchebag' into something both parties understand in the exact same way, fully, then that'll work out.
Natespank:
Quote
Nate, try checking out capes. You can download the lite version for free. It's not actually a gamist inclined game, but it has a complete procedure (so you just play - you don't have to tighten the nuts on the engine every five minutes) and it does involve strategic play.
And I know I already said it before, but I think having a chat which says 'Don't play douchebag characters' is entirely dysfunctional. Not because it's rude, but because dude A and dude B's idea of a douchebag can so very easily be very, very different. And that difference goes in so many wrong directions I can't go into it and have a short post! If your not both thinking the same thing, it's not a rule. If you can convert 'don't be a douchebag' into something both parties understand in the exact same way, fully, then that'll work out.
Reading the lite version right now.
As for the second paragraph, you're right that everyone has to be on the same page for things to work out. I wouldn't literally word it as "Don't play douchebag characters," but with regard to the battlerager the player knew exactly how we'd react to him and lived it up.
4e should be marketed as a pure-gamist system akin to a board game. Out of the box the rules aren't good for much of anything except combat, magic items and leveling up to fight better. He, in a way, did "win" 4e with that rager. That's partly the game's fault- ie, MY fault, right? 4e is the engine, my campaign's the game. Poor design on my part. Not technically a douchebag move of his, but created conflict.
Alfryd:
Quote from: Natespank on March 07, 2011, 10:26:05 PM
-What are some people's favorite rule systems? I realize this is tricky because of the variety of systems out there. I'm aiming for fantasy, gritty, with exploration and discovery. I want some rules that make combat fun, but I don't necessarily want it to be the focus like 4e is. Old D&D is sketchy because of many reasons haha, but I like aspects of it. Rifts too, but only aspects of it. I can try to be more specific but I need to figure out more of what exactly i want.
Quote from: Natespank on March 08, 2011, 12:41:02 AM
4e should be marketed as a pure-gamist system akin to a board game. Out of the box the rules aren't good for much of anything except combat, magic items and leveling up to fight better. He, in a way, did "win" 4e with that rager. That's partly the game's fault- ie, MY fault, right? 4e is the engine, my campaign's the game. Poor design on my part. Not technically a douchebag move of his, but created conflict.
While I think that Ron's remarks about having a frank discussion about priorities is entirely fair, I also agree with this position. If Gamism is about winning, it's unfair to criticise players too harshly for actually going out there and actually trying to win as efficiently as possible, up to and including exploitation of obvious break points. And some systems with break points *are* patchable without necessarily hitting critical mass.
With respect to gritty-fantasy systems focused on 'exploration' and 'discovery', which I will choose to wilfully interpret as 'go where you want' with a lot of physics-simulation, Burning Wheel or The Riddle of Steel might be worth checking out, which are very complex but very interesting, or Mouse Guard for the 'Lite' version. True20 is something pretty similar to older D&D, but cleaner. My range of experience here isn't particularly broad, though, so ask around.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page