Quote from: counterspin;292654And I think it's another example of them not really having a grasp of any math higher than "abilities of around this level should do around x damage" and "players should have around x% chance to hit."  But getting those basics things right had a gigantic positive impact on the system.

Didn't every game for about the last 30yrs get that right?  The ones that didn't are in the dustbin of history, but any game that had a decent level of sales certainly got 'those basics' down pretty well.  Did it have a gigantic positive impact on them as well?

What you have essentially just said is:  they didn't totally fuck everything up, so that will make the system better.

Quote from: StormBringer;292661Didn't every game for about the last 30 get that right?  The ones that didn't are in the dustbin of history, but any game that had a decent level of sales certainly got 'those basics' down pretty well.  Did it have a gigantic positive impact on them as well?

What you have essentially just said is:  they didn't totally fuck everything up, so that will make the system better.

Hahahahaha *Gasp* hahahaha.  Seriously? Whoo.

Quote from: counterspin;292663Hahahahaha *Gasp* hahahaha.  Seriously? Whoo.

So, your premise is that there is an objective standard of 'those basic things'?

If one of your goals is to balance the combat capacity of classes, yes.  They each become the measure of the other.

Quote from: Spinachcat;292524Post your Warlock.   Maybe we can help you flex him out.   I have not seen any major problem with Warlocks.  One player feels the Infernal build is stronger than the others and I do feel the Star build could use some more interesting options, but Infernal pact Tieflings and Fey pact Half-Elves have been impressive in my 4e games.



I assure you that all your power choices matter.   For instance, a wizard's choices of at-will spells will deeply affect his tactical decision during play.  

My Dwarf Wizard has Thunderwave and Scorching Burst.   Thus, he can cast in melee combat and knock opponents away and he can burn groups.  These choices mean he has no Magic Missile so no long range, strong damage spell and no Cloud of Daggers so I lack an at-will defensive control spell.  

As a Fighter, I really like that weapon choices matter.  Especially with the Martial Powers book so the Polearm fighter and the Sword and Shield fighter will do very different things on the battle board - especially at Paragon level.



I have built optimized parties and they are impressive IF the players read and understand and use their powers in concert.   The system makes it simple to challenge such a party though.  Just count them as 2 levels higher when designing combat encounters.  

I did the same thing with ELs/CRs in 3e and the most min-maxed PCs were challenged in my games.   In a world where Scry + Teleport + Kill Team is the norm, then so is the magically shielded fortress who has demonic auto-summoning when it detects scrying attempts.    It's not vindictive - its just building a world based on the powers available to PCs and NPCs and knowing that most players love to be challenged.

I hate to throw a totally unrelated spanner in the midst of this reasonable interesing debate, but are you discussing a roleplaying game?
I don't think I have ever chosen skills because other PCs that, in character I haven't even met yet, have skills that, in character, I have no knowlegde or understanding of dovetail well with my choices and make the team more effective. I might do that when building an army in a wargame or when building a team of pre-genned PCs for a tournament game but in a role playing game for shame I cry!
Balance is important after all we have all played in games where the Half elf Ranger/Wizard turns up weilding 2 swords and moving silently and invisibly etc etc and our slightly tubby Hobbit thief with a perchance for 3rd breakfasts and a photographic memory for sounds becomes somewhat sidelined but isn't it the DM's job to make sure the game is inclusive and that all his players have a hook and feel they can contribute?
Or have I perhaps logged into the wrong forum in error?

And did I see a comment that without the correct number and quality of magic items the game is all but unplayable? Eh? I have had some of my best adventures where 10th level characters with no magic items at all have to live on their wits. Monty Haul return all is forgiven :-)

Quote from: counterspin;292665If one of your goals is to balance the combat capacity of classes, yes.  They each become the measure of the other.

I'm not talking about 4e specifically.  You are claiming that not wholly ruining basic combat is a major success for the rules.  I am saying that any game not consigned to the ashcan for the last 30+ years has 'those basics' worked out pretty well.  

Again, you are positing that the most general of basic combat rules theory is a 'gigantic positive' with 4e.  Since that particular theory has been refined and expressed in many different ways over three decades, you have two choices:  claims that getting those 'basic things' right is a 'gigantic positive' for any game; or that it really isn't, but in order to hype your favourite game, getting the basics right is the greatest feat in mankind's history.

I didn't say anything about basic combat.  I'm talking about balance, plain and simple.  3e didn't have even the vaguest outline of balance, and it did great.  Shadowrun doesn't do it, Vampire doesn't do it, Unknown Armies doesn't do it.  There's a huge number of games which either tried for balance and failed, or aren't interested in it at all, and were still successful.

4e does do a good job of balancing combat, which is a huge positive to me.  And 4e isn't my favorite game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;292667I hate to throw a totally unrelated spanner in the midst of this reasonable interesing debate,

Then don't?

QuoteI don't think I have ever chosen skills because other PCs that, in character I haven't even met yet, have skills that, in character, I have no knowlegde or understanding of dovetail well with my choices and make the team more effective. I might do that when building an army in a wargame or when building a team of pre-genned PCs for a tournament game but in a role playing game for shame I cry!

Why, if you accept there is a division between you and your character's knowledge, then you choosing skill that work well with other characters will not effect how your character behaves and hence maintains suspension of disbelief. In game, it will just be a matter of coincidence either way.

If you have a particular concept in mind then by all means select the appropriate skills, but if you want to make small tweaks to pick up a "missing" skill in the group there is nothing wrong with that either (unless of course the DM has asked for independent creation prior of some such, then s/he is right)

QuoteBalance is important after all we have all played in games where the Half elf Ranger/Wizard turns up weilding 2 swords and moving silently and invisibly etc etc and our slightly tubby Hobbit thief with a perchance for 3rd breakfasts and a photographic memory for sounds becomes somewhat sidelined but isn't it the DM's job to make sure the game is inclusive and that all his players have a hook and feel they can contribute?

True, but making such adjustments can be easy, or very difficult and contrived. As the DM already has the preponderance of work placed on his shoulders I don't feel the need to make it more difficult intentionally, but to each his own really.  

QuoteOr have I perhaps logged into the wrong forum in error?

No?

QuoteAnd did I see a comment that without the correct number and quality of magic items the game is all but unplayable? Eh? I have had some of my best adventures where 10th level characters with no magic items at all have to live on their wits. Monty Haul return all is forgiven :-)

No it's defiantly playable, it's just that without magic items player fall behind the assumed progression curve and will find monsters/trap/checks of their level to be proportionally harder to defeat/overcome, same as it ever was really.

Quote from: counterspin;292671I didn't say anything about basic combat.  I'm talking about balance, plain and simple.  3e didn't have even the vaguest outline of balance, and it did great.  Shadowrun doesn't do it, Vampire doesn't do it, Unknown Armies doesn't do it.  There's a huge number of games which either tried for balance and failed, or aren't interested in it at all, and were still successful.

4e does do a good job of balancing combat, which is a huge positive to me.  And 4e isn't my favorite game.

So, not being balanced either had no effect, or was a factor in their popularity.  It certainly didn't seem to hurt them.

Quote from: StormBringer;292695So, not being balanced either had no effect, or was a factor in their popularity.  It certainly didnt' seem to hurt them.

So?  Popularity has zero impact on the current discussion.

Quote from: counterspin;292699So?  Popularity has zero impact on the current discussion.

You may want to mention that to Abyssal Maw.

However, you have offered no evidence whatsoever that balance is either desirable, nor that it has any impact on how a game is received.  Hence, your exhortation of how well balanced the game supports no particular point.  Further, you have not provided any argumentation that 4e having the basics correct has had any impact on the game itself, nor that any other game having these same basics has particularly excelled or suffered.  Additionally, you have failed to show that other games don't have these basics.  Finally, the only thing you have provided an argument for is that games lacking in the tightly integrated balance characteristic of 4e have done quite well for themselves across 30yrs of gaming history.

Abyssal Maw isn't my problem.

Popularity is entirely inconsequential, having no impact on the system itself.  Yes games have been popular without balance.  This doesn't mean that balance has a negative impact on popularity.

I have shown that other games don't have these basics, in that I gave a long list of games that didn't have it.  There's no rational way to do a mathematical comparison across systems.  You may not like my examples, but that's as far as we can go.

As for impact, I can only report what I see in my own group.  That there are no classes that are discarded out of hand as useless. People spend less time making their characters because interesting options are also useful.  There is no one in my group who expends a significant part of their time making sure they don't overshadow the rest of the group, and I don't have to hold back when making characters.  These are all improvements for me.

Quote from: jibbajibba;292667I don't think I have ever chosen skills because other PCs that, in character I haven't even met yet, have skills that, in character, I have no knowlegde or understanding of dovetail well with my choices and make the team more effective.

What a crock of shit!

You never sat down and there were 2 fighters and 2 clerics and volunteered to play either a thief or a mage?  You never talked with the other players about making sure that there were not three pilots, two medics and no engineer?  You never choose to multi-class into an area that was missing from the party?  You never decided to make a ranged attacker in a group that only had melee guys?

What laughable bullshit.

Quote from: jibbajibba;292667but isn't it the DM's job to make sure the game is inclusive and that all his players have a hook and feel they can contribute?

Sure.  4e just makes it easier.  

Quote from: jibbajibba;292667And did I see a comment that without the correct number and quality of magic items the game is all but unplayable?

Absolutely unplayable!!!

For the record, 4e has mechanical assumptions that you will have +X at certain levels.   If the GM does not want magic items in his campaign, he simply needs to assign +1 attack and +1 defense bonus at certain levels and the game stays finely balanced.

You can easily run a 4e game with zero magic.  No spellcasters and no items whatsover.   Just men and steel versus monsters.   Your party would have fighters, rogues, rangers and warlords and you could do that just with the PHB and the Martial Powers book if you wanted to get fancy.

And that campaign would rock!

Quote from: jibbajibba;292667I have had some of my best adventures where 10th level characters with no magic items at all have to live on their wits.

Did you walk 5 miles in the snow to each of your games?   If not, you're not a real gamer.

Quote from: StormBringer;292695So, not being balanced either had no effect, or was a factor in their popularity.  It certainly didn't seem to hurt them.

All those games were published pre-WoW.  

The MMO design creed is "combat balance" and "always useful, all the time".   When designing RPGs in the MMO age, it makes sense to create an RPG with much more balance in chargen and combat than previously IF you want to sell to teens and young adults instead of just selling to legacy gamers.

Also, the balance factors make the game easier to DM.   If it easier to DM, more people will feel comfortable sitting in the Big Chair and thus more gaming groups can be spawned.

Quote from: counterspin;292703I have shown that other games don't have these basics, in that I gave a long list of games that didn't have it.  There's no rational way to do a mathematical comparison across systems.  You may not like my examples, but that's as far as we can go.

You are saying that Shadowrun and Vampire didn't have the basic mechanics for combat implemented well?

Are you sure you want to make so many unsupported statements in a row?  You have been stating opinion as fact for a number of posts now, perhaps you should take things one at a time and see if you have any supporting statements before moving on.

Quote from: StormBringer;292710You are saying that Shadowrun and Vampire didn't have the basic mechanics for combat implemented well?

Are you sure you want to make so many unsupported statements in a row?  You have been stating opinion as fact for a number of posts now, perhaps you should take things one at a time and see if you have any supporting statements before moving on.

I'll say that. Vampires combat mechanics are crap.

I also agree that popularity has zero impact on playability. But the most playable games are the ones that people buy. It's kind of a domino effect.

And that's pretty much why 4E is the most popular now. It's simply the best game out right now.