Quote from: StormBringer;402701So, it's your contention that every single gaming group is exactly like yours, and the issue of unruly players is totally made up?

Of course not. Quite the opposite, actually: really, many of the problems attributed to rulesets are really communication problems.

It's similar to many of Ron Edwards' statements regarding some games (specially Vampire): he described some games as 'incoherent', and blamed the design for things that were simply dick GMing or dickish players. The rules could be good or bad or whatever, but rules don't make you act as a fucking asshole.

Then he came up with Sorcerer, which is a great game, and completely and totally the same as Vampire, D&D or Champions, despite some really great GMing advice.

GM describes situation - Players describes intent - Either you say yes, or no, or roll some funky dice - Game goes on. Here, the father of indie gaming explained.

Now, some we will say that I am stupid and wrong and whatever because Sorcerer has Kickers, Bangs and shit. But I am right (as usual), because those are not mechanical rules, so you may find groups that don't run using Bangs, don't create Kickers in chargen, and all that. Those are GMing techniques (and good ones), applied to a perfectly regular RPG.

Here we have the same stuff, people saying that 4e makes people do this and that, or that OS games allowed people to do this and the other and everything was pretty and magicl and then came Lorraine Williams and from then on EVERYTHING SUCKS.

I find most of that to be bullshit.

The main problem comes from people not stating clearly what they want,and which houserules they will use to get it, and negotiating whatever needs to be negotiated.

So, if I, as a GM, don't use any algorithm to design encounters and I don't want to get my players pissed because they expected me to do it, the best I can do is go ahead before the game and say "I'm not using The Perfect Algorithm of Encounter Eyeballing, so don't expect all the encounters to be perfectly balanced and winnable. You will have to learn to assess danger, folks." That way, my crew knows where to stand.

So, discussing if CR is a good or bad thing is moot IMO. Also, I play RQ III so all those gay conventions about "balance" can get fucked in the ear for all I care. Fucking pussies.

QuoteHa!  Casual gamers really are the best.  

Around here, in Spain, most gamers are, even if they play 3 times/week. We assume that only the GM needs to know rules stuff. SOme players bother to read the books, but they usually are also GMs.

Quote from: StormBringer;402650Honest inquiry:  Would you be able to summarize the changes this spell has going through since 2008?

As far as I know, there's only been one change. It used to be a regular attack roll, causing 2d4+Int modifier damage to a single target. Now it's an automatic hit, which causes 2+Int modifier damage. I think. To be honest, I don't keep up too closely on specific errata. I let my players use whatever version they like.

Quote from: StormBringer;402650Obviously, I don't keep up on the errata much, but at the beginning of that debate, I read a blog post or something stating that whole character builds developed around it throughout the various incarnations.  My stuck-in-the-olden-days brain could only formulate one response: "...the fuck?"

I also don't pay much attention to character builds, so I don't know about this. There is one daily power that lets you use magic missile once per round as a minor action, so that might be part of it. I don't know.

I think I just found the blog post you were talking about it. It doesn't go into specifics, but mentions add-on effects to magic missile that no longer apply. I don't know if that's accurate, and I'm really not interested enough to look into it!

Quote from: Fifth Element;402735As far as I know, there's only been one change. It used to be a regular attack roll, causing 2d4+Int modifier damage to a single target. Now it's an automatic hit, which causes 2+Int modifier damage. I think. To be honest, I don't keep up too closely on specific errata. I let my players use whatever version they like.

It really seemed kind of cheesy to nerf the 2d4, honestly, even with autohit.  You could memorize 9 of those a day and blast off five auto-hit d4+1 missiles per day, and monsters back then had far fewer hit points.  Just changing it to auto-hit, if they were going for the 'classic' feel like it stated, wouldn't have made that much difference.  Are there 45 rounds of combat in a given day?  Seems like a pretty fiddly fix to a very minor power.

QuoteI also don't pay much attention to character builds, so I don't know about this. There is one daily power that lets you use magic missile once per round as a minor action, so that might be part of it. I don't know.

I think I just found the blog post you were talking about it. It doesn't go into specifics, but mentions add-on effects to magic missile that no longer apply. I don't know if that's accurate, and I'm really not interested enough to look into it!

That's the one.  The whole thing just seems odd, because everyone knows that fireball is the real workhorse of any adventuring party.  

Quote from: Imperator;402716Of course not. Quite the opposite, actually: really, many of the problems attributed to rulesets are really communication problems.

A succinct statement describing our lack of disagreement.  

QuoteAround here, in Spain, most gamers are, even if they play 3 times/week. We assume that only the GM needs to know rules stuff. SOme players bother to read the books, but they usually are also GMs.

You crazy Europeans!

Any of the big box stores selling red box yet?

Quote from: StormBringer;402650Honest inquiry:  Would you be able to summarize the changes this spell has going through since 2008?  

Obviously, I don't keep up on the errata much, but at the beginning of that debate, I read a blog post or something stating that whole character builds developed around it throughout the various incarnations.  My stuck-in-the-olden-days brain could only formulate one response: "...the fuck?"

I think it is pretty cool, really, if that is what they did.  I've always liked the idea of a 'signature spell', but it is harder than hell to implement properly without turning a character into a one-trick pony.

Characters in 4e have a very strong tendency to have a "signature move" that they use in excess of half a dozen times over the course of a battle. That's not an exaggeration.

At base, your character has two "at-will" abilities that they can use as often as they want, with other abilities limited to once per combat or once per long rest period. Of those, you start with one of each and gradually increase as you go up in level until you get about 4 and 4. Combats meanwhile last many more rounds than they did in 3rd edition or even 2nd edition. So as a character (regardless of class), you are expected to fall back on one of your at will powers several times in every battle.

So one of the standard character "types" is one who gets a bunch of boosts for one of their at-will powers and uses it a lot. Like, in preference to their once-per-encounter powers in many cases (by the time you've boosted your at-will to the point where it's better than your limited use powers, you on't use the limited use powers very often). Magic Missile is a pretty good candidate for that treatment (or was), because it counted as a "basic attack" in addition to being a Power. So you could get boosts that applied to powers and boosts that applied to basic attacks and add them together.

So yes. People seriously made Wizards who pretty much only cast Magic Missile. And did so often more than ten times in a single combat.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;402781Characters in 4e have a very strong tendency to have a "signature move" that they use in excess of half a dozen times over the course of a battle. That's not an exaggeration.

That's excessive.  I was thinking the "signature" should be an encounter power, perhaps two per encounter or an action point to re-charge kind of thing.

QuoteSo one of the standard character "types" is one who gets a bunch of boosts for one of their at-will powers and uses it a lot. Like, in preference to their once-per-encounter powers in many cases (by the time you've boosted your at-will to the point where it's better than your limited use powers, you on't use the limited use powers very often). Magic Missile is a pretty good candidate for that treatment (or was), because it counted as a "basic attack" in addition to being a Power. So you could get boosts that applied to powers and boosts that applied to basic attacks and add them together.

That adds a layer of logistics for designers in regards to stacking.  I would have figured it easier to just apply one or the other at a time, instead of simultaneously.  Unless they are gimped individually, but that would nearly force people to find two bonuses to make it worthwhile.  Hmmm...

QuoteSo yes. People seriously made Wizards who pretty much only cast Magic Missile. And did so often more than ten times in a single combat.

-Frank

I wonder if it would have been easier to just make at-wills really dinky cantrip level spells, put the big guns for combat into encounters, and leave the nuclear option and most utilities for dailies.  That would have opened up some higher level at-wills to play around with, and provided a greater diversity of options. (A 3d6 fireball at 5th level once per day?  16 levels to fly for five minutes? Weaksauce.)

Once those were set up, making designing similar options for the rest of the classes wouldn't have been too tricky.