4E and the Wii
Seebs
To me, the 4E rules seem interestingly streamlined, but a bit oversimplified
in spots.
And you know what? I've heard all of this conversation recently. I've been
hanging out with PS3 owners who are mortally offended by the risk that the
Wii's success will "kill gaming". Many Wii games are simpler than the games
the experienced gamers are used to, and this is seen as a serious problem by
people who are comfortable with that complexity.
What I found is that, even as someone who's been gaming for thirty years, I
often prefer a somewhat simpler and less involved game. And I think I'm gonna
love playing 4E.
I recently read an article about "casual" gaming, which I was much impressed
by:
http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html
[excerpt]
"Retards!?" says a shocked reader. "Surely you can"t say
what you mean!" Why not? When a casual gamer picks up the
standard dual shock controller, he gets confused. He doesn"t
have the patience to wade through these elaborate 3d worlds
or memorize fourteen button combinations. While the hardcore
call him "stupid", he retaliates by calling gaming "stupid".
Anytime you read "casual games" in the news, just replace
"casual" with the word "retard" and you will get how it is
truly perceived by the industry. "There is a casual gamer
boom!" should translate to "There is a retard gamer boom!".
The "EA Casual Games Division" really is translated to "EA
Retard Games Division". "Why are you calling casual gamers
retarded!?" thunders one reader. I am not. I am saying that
the hardcore industry is the one who thinks this way.
"Casual" is just a nice way of saying "dumb" in their eyes.
The reason why hardcore gamers' hearts sink when a company
says they will make the game include "casuals" is because
they know that all the edge, difficulty, and passion will
be ripped out to make a generic, easy, and soul-less game.
Is 4E as richly detailed a game as 3E? Well, no. It looks to be in many
ways a simpler game. No longer will I spend an hour choosing the thirty
spells for my wizard, while the fighter's player ... has absolutely NOTHING
to do. Spell management will be much less of an issue. A significant
complexity, which I quite enjoyed, is gone... But now we're all playing a
similar game. The fighter and I will both be making interesting choices
about which abilities to use.
The new DMG is in some ways the best. The analysis and discussion of how
to build an encounter is delicious. Yeah, I could do it -- I've been doing
it the hard way for twenty years. But other people I know didn't know how,
and nothing ever EXPLAINED it before. The monster types (solo/elite/minion)
are a big win; the monster roles (artillery, brute, etc.) are also a big win.
For that matter, the skill challenge rules are absolutely head and shoulders
above anything I've seen previously for non-combat mechanics that give some
room for interesting choices and player creativity -- *WHILE STILL ALLOWING
AN INEXPERIENCED GM TO RUN THE GAME*. Sure, a brilliant GM who has written
novels before could do this on the fly -- these rules give us a way to make it
work for everyone else, too.
If I had a group of experienced gamers, all of whom were mildly autistic like
me, we would all play 3.5 or 3.75 and love the details and special cases we're
so familiar with. If I wanna play with my roommate who gets frustrated and
upset and gives up because skill points are too complicated and the spell
preparation system is confusing and how was I supposed to know I had to pick
spells... 4E is an excellent choice.
Like the Wii, this is a bit simplified and streamlined for the benefit of
newbie players. Also like the Wii, it has a lot more depth and room
for fun and exploration than people have given it credit for, and I think it
will be good for the hobby. I think the decision to streamline and simplify
things is probably, on the whole, a very good one. The resulting complexity
and range of powers looks like it's going to be more evenly dispersed, giving
all the players a chance to think creatively and make interesting choices.
I'm no longer going to have to struggle, running a game, to find some way
to give the cleric an option other than "heal" and the fighter an option other
than "five foot step, full attack".
The ritual system, while I'm not totally sold on it, is a genuine solution to
the very real problem of adventurers getting screwed if they take spells with
no combat application, or if they don't happen to take exactly the right spell
with no combat application. I like the idea.
--
Copyright 2008, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Sea Wasp
> So, I've been reading a lot of discussions and complaints.
>
> To me, the 4E rules seem interestingly streamlined, but a bit oversimplified
> in spots.
>
> And you know what? I've heard all of this conversation recently. I've been
> hanging out with PS3 owners who are mortally offended by the risk that the
> Wii's success will "kill gaming". Many Wii games are simpler than the games
> the experienced gamers are used to, and this is seen as a serious problem by
> people who are comfortable with that complexity.
Well, I'm a long-time gamer on both sides, and I see the Wii as
adding complexity. Just a different type.
Of course, MY interest isn't in the stupid-ass Halo, etc.,
shoot-em-ups which aren't "edgy", they're difficult because they
require young reflexes and 18 hours a day to master. Being young and
fast doesn't help you solve thinking puzzles or play a role, which are
my interests.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Seebs
> Well, I'm a long-time gamer on both sides, and I see the Wii as
> adding complexity. Just a different type.
It can, certainly, but explaining how to play Wii games is consistently MUCH
easier than explaining PS3 games -- and they frequently have fewer options
or selections.
> Of course, MY interest isn't in the stupid-ass Halo, etc.,
> shoot-em-ups which aren't "edgy", they're difficult because they
> require young reflexes and 18 hours a day to master. Being young and
> fast doesn't help you solve thinking puzzles or play a role, which are
> my interests.
There is something to this.
I was just thinking, though. I have a roommate who has, for years, enjoyed
watching video games, but every time we tried to get her to play them, she got
frustrated and gave up, because the initial learning curve was simply too
high. Then we got a Wii. So she played a little on some of the "easy" games,
and now she's about halfway through the One Piece game, which has an elaborate
crafting system, multiple combat modes, and other complexities -- but because
the system drew her in with easy stuff (pointing at things, guestures instead
of combination button presses), she has been having enough fun to learn it.
She also loves RPGs in the abstract, but has gotten VERY frustrated with D&D
because there's so much stuff you just have to know -- different levels of
different spells, when you roll to defend and when you roll to attack, spell
preparation, spell lists, etcetera.
I'm betting that she'll play 4E and love it. And honestly, I may prefer
4E's spell levels to 3E's. The attack vs defense system is much easier to
follow than the saving throw rolls and complexity of setting save DCs. I
think it'll work better and play better.
I do see some downsides to the loss of "duration" as a separate feature ...
but I also see a huge upside, in that I'll no longer be trying to remember
how many rounds each effect has been active.
Hong Ooi
> So, I've been reading a lot of discussions and complaints.
>
> To me, the 4E rules seem interestingly streamlined, but a bit oversimplified
> in spots.
>
> And you know what? I've heard all of this conversation recently. I've been
> hanging out with PS3 owners who are mortally offended by the risk that the
> Wii's success will "kill gaming". Many Wii games are simpler than the games
> the experienced gamers are used to, and this is seen as a serious problem by
> people who are comfortable with that complexity.
[...]
Awesome post, Seebs. I'm gonna link to it from all over the place!
Bradd W. Szonye
> I'm betting that she'll play 4E and love it. And honestly, I may prefer
> 4E's spell levels to 3E's. The attack vs defense system is much easier to
> follow than the saving throw rolls and complexity of setting save DCs. I
> think it'll work better and play better.
I always wanted to play wizards in D&D, but the spell prep/memo resource
management angle always killed me. I did much better with a sorcerer,
and even better with a beguiler (although there the range of options
gave me some decision paralysis). This looks like it might be the first
version of D&D where I'd actually enjoy playing a wizard.
Speaking of decision paralysis, I absolutely loved the encounter setups
in Keep on the Shadowfell. Each individual foe is simple, but put them
together and they make for a very rich tactical setup. Most fun I've had
running the bad guys in a long time.
> I do see some downsides to the loss of "duration" as a separate feature ...
> but I also see a huge upside, in that I'll no longer be trying to remember
> how many rounds each effect has been active.
As a regular DM, I say: Ding-dong, durations are dead!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Seebs
> As a regular DM, I say: Ding-dong, durations are dead!
Yeah. I do love the sustain mechanic. No longer my job to track everyone's
abilities!
I was originally stunned by the notion of all saves being the same, but I
actually like it now that I'm used to it.
Some Guy
> On 2008-06-08, Bradd W. Szonye <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>> As a regular DM, I say: Ding-dong, durations are dead!
>
> Yeah. I do love the sustain mechanic. No longer my job to track everyone's
> abilities!
>
> I was originally stunned by the notion of all saves being the same, but I
> actually like it now that I'm used to it.
>
I have to agree the recharge mechanic is easier to run in game, but it
also makes tactical planning more uncertain. If you don't know when you
can use your ability again, you lose the information needed to make
choices effectively; whereas if you know your spell runs 10 rounds, you
can set up something for that duration.
Seebs
> I have to agree the recharge mechanic is easier to run in game, but it
> also makes tactical planning more uncertain. If you don't know when you
> can use your ability again, you lose the information needed to make
> choices effectively; whereas if you know your spell runs 10 rounds, you
> can set up something for that duration.
Yes -- but then I have to keep track of it.
I would guess that, in the average 3E fight, I miscounted the duration of
a spell two times, minimum.
Kyle Wilson
And a stack of poker chips for each effect with a duration has made
the tracking a non-problem on my end. Just have the character (of
NPC) toss one chip in the bowl each time their turn comes up and when
the stack is gone, the effect is over. Given a few different colors
of chip,you can deal with most possible combinations.
--
Kyle Wilson
email: kylew...@wilson.mv.com
tussock
> Some Guy wrote:
>> I have to agree the recharge mechanic is easier to run in game, but it
>> also makes tactical planning more uncertain. If you don't know when
>> you can use your ability again, you lose the information needed to make
>> choices effectively; whereas if you know your spell runs 10 rounds, you
>> can set up something for that duration.
>
> And a stack of poker chips for each effect with a duration has made the
> tracking a non-problem on my end. Just have the character (of NPC) toss
> one chip in the bowl each time their turn comes up and when the stack is
> gone, the effect is over. Given a few different colors of chip,you can
> deal with most possible combinations.
Personal house rule is to fix the durations to a place that's
reasonable (easy to recall and approximates where the game's most fun,
around 8th level for me) and they can be mostly ignored as a result.
1 round/level => 1 minute.
1 min/level => 10 minutes (1 turn for you oldies).
10 min/level => 1 hour.
1 hour/level => 8 hours.
Additional house rule is that every non-permanent spell has a max
duration of "until sunrise".
1 minute pretty much covers every combat they're cast in other than a
chase scene with room to spare; chases tend to time them out before
resolution as everyone can run at least that long. 1 turn will get you
any group of encounters if you don't rest or search between them. 1 hour
covers any connected set pretty well. 8 hours is just a handy division of
the day that roughly fits the pattern.
Durations pretty much never come up. Whenever they're roughly due to
time out we're between scenes and they can all go together and be recast
as nessicary.
And yes, some low level caster options are better with this, and
that's no bad thing IMO.
--
tussock
I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.
Keith Davies
Hmm. Sounds workable. Put down a card with the effect name on it,
remove chips as needed. Pretty simple.
I use initiative cards -- index cards with creature identification
("black goblin"[1]), 'active' information (stuff they can do on their
turn, rather than 'passive' information like saving throws), initiative
number, and tactical notes (if I have a combat plan). PC initiative
cards are just name and current initiative.
Effects get used, they go into the stack with on a different colored
card. Number of rounds left is marked on the card, as is the initiative
(in case the effect creator changes initiative). I cycle through the
card, act based on the information on the card, move on. Very easy.
[1] I usually use dice to mark monsters on my mat, so I just pick a
different color for each one in the group. d4s work great -- '1' is
starting condition, '2' is damaged, '3' is conditioned (staggered,
scared, etc.), '4' is apparently disabled (down, dead, etc.).
Keith
--
Keith Davies I married the moonshiner's daughter
keith....@kjdavies.org How could I go wrong?
keith....@gmail.com The moonshiner's daughter
http://www.kjdavies.org/ Put some corn in the water
And makes me liquor all night long
-- Hayseed Dixie, _Moonshiner's Daughter_
Keith Davies
> Kyle Wilson wrote:
>> Some Guy wrote:
>
>>> I have to agree the recharge mechanic is easier to run in game, but it
>>> also makes tactical planning more uncertain. If you don't know when
>>> you can use your ability again, you lose the information needed to make
>>> choices effectively; whereas if you know your spell runs 10 rounds, you
>>> can set up something for that duration.
>>
>> And a stack of poker chips for each effect with a duration has made the
>> tracking a non-problem on my end. Just have the character (of NPC) toss
>> one chip in the bowl each time their turn comes up and when the stack is
>> gone, the effect is over. Given a few different colors of chip,you can
>> deal with most possible combinations.
>
> Personal house rule is to fix the durations to a place that's
> reasonable (easy to recall and approximates where the game's most fun,
> around 8th level for me) and they can be mostly ignored as a result.
>
> 1 round/level => 1 minute.
> 1 min/level => 10 minutes (1 turn for you oldies).
> 10 min/level => 1 hour.
> 1 hour/level => 8 hours.
I've considered doing this myself. Drop the 'per level' durations
entirely.
This works well for you, does it? I may do something similar myself.
Kyle Wilson
<keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>Kyle Wilson <ky...@wilson.mv.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:11:22 -0700, Some Guy
>><noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Seebs wrote:
>>>> On 2008-06-08, Bradd W. Szonye <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>>>>> As a regular DM, I say: Ding-dong, durations are dead!
>>>>
>>>> Yeah. I do love the sustain mechanic. No longer my job to track everyone's
>>>> abilities!
>>>>
>>>> I was originally stunned by the notion of all saves being the same, but I
>>>> actually like it now that I'm used to it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have to agree the recharge mechanic is easier to run in game, but it
>>>also makes tactical planning more uncertain. If you don't know when you
>>>can use your ability again, you lose the information needed to make
>>>choices effectively; whereas if you know your spell runs 10 rounds, you
>>>can set up something for that duration.
>>
>> And a stack of poker chips for each effect with a duration has made
>> the tracking a non-problem on my end. Just have the character (of
>> NPC) toss one chip in the bowl each time their turn comes up and when
>> the stack is gone, the effect is over. Given a few different colors
>> of chip,you can deal with most possible combinations.
>
>Hmm. Sounds workable. Put down a card with the effect name on it,
>remove chips as needed. Pretty simple.
In most real cases that I've run into, I don't even need cards under
them. So far we've generally had few enough effects running
concurrently that the four colors of chips are sufficient (really
three colors as I reserve the black one for 'death chips' for
characters who are bleeding out...
>I use initiative cards -- index cards with creature identification
>("black goblin"[1]), 'active' information (stuff they can do on their
>turn, rather than 'passive' information like saving throws), initiative
>number, and tactical notes (if I have a combat plan). PC initiative
>cards are just name and current initiative.
I use the small yellow post-it pads on a wooden 'TV-tray' for this. It
even lets me leave them in place between sessions if I need to.
>Effects get used, they go into the stack with on a different colored
>card. Number of rounds left is marked on the card, as is the initiative
>(in case the effect creator changes initiative). I cycle through the
>card, act based on the information on the card, move on. Very easy.
>
>[1] I usually use dice to mark monsters on my mat, so I just pick a
> different color for each one in the group. d4s work great -- '1' is
> starting condition, '2' is damaged, '3' is conditioned (staggered,
> scared, etc.), '4' is apparently disabled (down, dead, etc.).
Ah, I started using pieces of wooden dowel and have over engineered
the idea to the point where I've got various size 'spools' with wooden
disk base plates glued to them, painted in different colors,
polyuerathaned and then inkjet printer/photoshop generated label
strips containing pictures of the monsters rubber cemented on. They
work great (and give nearly as nice a feel as minis, while letting me
manufacture the thirty orcs I need without breaking the bank). Bigger
ones are harder, but I have some up to 'huge' (these are heavy
cardboard tube with glued on end caps).
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>> Personal house rule is to fix the durations to a place that's
>> reasonable (easy to recall and approximates where the game's most fun,
>> around 8th level for me) and they can be mostly ignored as a result.
>>
>> 1 round/level => 1 minute.
>> 1 min/level => 10 minutes (1 turn for you oldies).
>> 10 min/level => 1 hour.
>> 1 hour/level => 8 hours.
>
> I've considered doing this myself. Drop the 'per level' durations
> entirely.
>
> This works well for you, does it? I may do something similar myself.
Very well, noting that I combine it with a /little/ fudging here and
there, so the time limits almost always fall where they're more easily
dealt with (and we try to deal with like sets of spells simultaniously
even if they were cast over a few rounds).
If combat's headed toward the minute after first casting, I'll just
throw in a chase, a bit of diplomacy, a run for cover or reinforcements,
or something to give room for easy timeouts. I often did things like this
with standard durations anyway, as the bad guys (and/or PCs) would try to
find space to re-buff.
A few spells (/Acid Arrow/, and a few other odd durations) need left
at the standard times and tracked normally for balance.
Extend spell works with the new durations to pop a full step,
combining with Persistant over the last. +2 spell levels per step, +1
more over 8 hours to get 24 - until sunrise.