[D&D 4e] Balance Issues
Ron Edwards:
Hi Nate,
I suggest that "fault" is not actually an important part of the discussion. Over the decades, I've observed not only that open discussion about the game and group is often considered rude at best and admission of failure at worst, but also that when such discussions occur, people move very swiftly away from what matters - what is being done and why that's a problem - to whose fault it all is. "Yeah, OK, I'm being a dick, but it's your fault for choosing this game, or for letting me get away with it," that kind of thing. Putting that aside, and finding out who is actually interested in actually having fun, and restricting the conversation (and later play) only to those people, is a really good idea.
If you're interested, my essay Gamism: Step On Up may help in thinking about what sort of game would be most fun for you and this group.
Best, Ron
Jeff B:
I have not read the 4e rules at all. As I read the thread, I am blinking and scratching my head wondering how this game you're describing can possibly be any sort of D&D.
What I don't understand from the thread is how important this rules system and tactical emphasis is to you, Nate. I assume you are familiar with the D&D offshoot called "Pathfinder"? The best I can describe, Pathfinder is what 4e would have been, had it remained the kind of game 3e was. In other words, closer to the original vision, basically tweaks and small expansions here and there, but without the terrain/tactics/physical layout emphasis that 4e seems to have. Anyone please correct me if that description is wrong, since I have not actually played the Pathfinder rules, only read them. I think it's worth a look, if you want a more traditional D&D feel to the game.
If you don't particularly enjoy the myriad rules about setting, terrain, minions, and so forth, then perhaps 4e is not for you. You would not be alone -- from my readings, there was quite a rift created in the playing community when 4e came out and many have abandoned the system (while others, presumably, embrace it).
Callan S.:
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.
This is where I'd suggest the significance of symantics relative to real feelings. I mean, D&D is presented as an RPG (roleplay game), not an RPGE (roleplay game engine).
I'm pretty certain the dudes your playing with, if you were playing chess they'd just play and you'd have a game with them and even if their not full on friends, you'd enjoy the time with them as aquantances. Or playing the card game Magic, they'd just play and it'd turn out fine. I think these guys can do that, fully.
With the campaign you made up, did you break any rule the D&D texts listed, in making it? No, so then you stayed within the rules in making your campaign. Ie, you only used, by the games own texts, valid moves in making your campaign. Your not at fault.
I would extend Ron's advice to this "Find out who is actually interested in hunting down a new type of fun, or creating a new type of fun from whole cloth - ie, those who find it fun to design fun things". The guys your playing with, they aren't wrong for just wanting to sit down and have fun with something - there are shit loads of boardgames which deliver this like clockwork. But by the same token, it doesn't mean they want to be designers. Nor is it bad if they don't - even if that leaves you with no 'player/designer hybrids' at all.
Right now they just play like the D&D texts are already playable and your there, desperately trying to keep up in terms of making a design that actually contains the uncertainty that play can't exist without, instead of a ranger winning from here unto eternity. And then, following standard gamist approaches, they simply come at the text from a new angle, to circumvent your new designs. All the while not doing a single jot of design thinking - because in normal board games you don't, you just have this crazy thing you do - 'play'. I know, you'd think they'd get that it isn't out of the box playable - but the advertising is that it's an roleplay game, not a roleplay game engine. And even if you get past that advertised missconception with them, they may simply not want to design anyway. Which is valid. As annoying as that is to say.
And the thing is, maybe you don't want to design either? Which would be entirely valid as well. Perhaps your looking for a solution from someone because you just wanna get on and play? Which I'd totally get. Or maybe I'm simply thinking of myself in that - in trying to grab onto a certain social scene (and perhaps even a zeitgeist), a socially validated creative outlet, just started trying to get this thing work as a game, but not interested in designing for it's own sake. Or atleast not interested enough to make an entire multi player, complex game without a jot of design help from anyone else. Simple ones, yeah, but not designing complex ones with zero outside contribution.
Your players might just be facinated with RPGE's, which they keep treating as an RPG (because they are advertised as such). And it's really hard to make an actual game that is the same size of 'game' these RPGE's appear to be.
Natespank:
Quote
And the thing is, maybe you don't want to design either? Which would be entirely valid as well. Perhaps your looking for a solution from someone because you just wanna get on and play? Which I'd totally get. Or maybe I'm simply thinking of myself in that - in trying to grab onto a certain social scene (and perhaps even a zeitgeist), a socially validated creative outlet, just started trying to get this thing work as a game, but not interested in designing for it's own sake. Or atleast not interested enough to make an entire multi player, complex game without a jot of design help from anyone else. Simple ones, yeah, but not designing complex ones with zero outside contribution.
I enjoy design work... I just want a working skeleton to build on, or else I'd just make a homebrew rules system. I didn't anticipate having to tweak the hell out of the existing system just to make it work. In the past I've used homebrewed systems and it worked fine- I was sort of hoping for more out of 4e.
Elfs is hilarious btw. Sounds like a party game- gotta try it sometime... Capes is interesting too.
For now, gonna focus on working with 4e though- at least for a bit. I'm gonna streamline the game in ways, make it more explicitely gamist, run it as episodes that can be won or lost, and use a sandbox organization where they choose the level of the encounters (barring DM's boredom). I'll build the encounters fairly, but I'll run them competitively to try and "win" against them- as per Angry DM's advice.
To do this is gonna take some work though... gotta rescale encounters, come up with death rules, TPK rules, and attrition/healing surge rules.
Natespank:
As for whether "winning" 4e in this context is good or bad:
Players A, B and C go adventuring. Player A builds a god like character and slaughters several towns worth of people. He's broken.
The DM, to compensate for this, ups the difficulty of the game so he fights huge mobs of high level monsters instead of current-level foes. Otherwise this character is a god.
Players B and C get left behind and are effectively useless PCs- they can't meaningfully interact with the strong enemies. They insult player A for powergaming and breaking stuff, and a series of balance "fixes" ensue- otherwise, they're forced to insanely break the system too, and then you get Vampire the Masquerade with my buddy C. who literally do fight lesser dieties somehow.
Which isn't the game we signed up for :(
Just my 2 cents. Off for dinner now! :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page