[4e] Balance vs. Diversity

Blackleaf · March 04, 2008, 12:29:01 PM

Sett, I'm interested in your take on an RPG situation that has good tactics.

Abyssal Maw · March 04, 2008, 12:35:31 PM

Quote from: SettembriniWell, the thing is, it took me 3 Months of weekly play to figure out B9S was actually crap instead of gold.

So the results from the DDEXP are worth nothing to me.

As most people donßt know what tactics mean, I can largely disregard anybod saying it is "too tactical". That could be everything they are referencing, maybe they just mean it´s too gamey or too mini centered or whatever.

Let me rephrase my question:

What is the actual input the player has into the outcome of the battle?

To me it all looks like you interact with the enemy via maneuvres or other kewl powers. It´s like playing magic with a hand of five cards->

tactically bland, to the point of stupidity.

AM, be assured, I´m not saying most people would even care if it was like that. Most people don´t care for the idiocy of Paizos encount4rdization and such things either.

I'll just say it this way: I was given the impression at the delve (I played the Tiefling wizard) that combined arms is very important.

There are many reports that both the preview mods racked up TPKs early in the convention, but later in the show (after people had some experience with the system through playing the Delve) that people were able to beat the final encounters.

Settembrini · March 04, 2008, 12:45:03 PM

...Which totally supports my point: You are playing Maneuvres and not tactics.

*SIGH*

Seems I have to play it myself, to get my answer.

@Stuart: Well, any situation can be tactically interesting. It´s the resolution mode that either enhances or hinders tactics from being applied.

1of3 · March 04, 2008, 01:51:23 PM

If I know Set right, he considers tactics the following:

There is a situation: The players are fighting animated, empty armors.

A player has an idea: "I will make special arrows with heavier heads. Usually arrows are made to penetrate armors to harm the flesh inside. Heavier arrows will instead damage the armor."

A mechanical representation is found: Roll Craft (Arrowmaking) vs. 20.

Example courtesy of Gordon R. Dickson, Dragon on the Border.

I'm not seeing this to happen very often. - To my great relief.

Edit: Although the roll Attribute vs. Defence allows for various combat moves to be improvised.

Settembrini · March 04, 2008, 02:20:13 PM

10f3: That´s not tactics, that´s roleplaying.

Now, I´m not saying 4e has no tactics. I´m saying the structure of it reeks like it´s tactically limiting and void of meaningful choices (like most B9S stuff is).

If I just have to pull a kewl maneuvre, there´s no player input needed. This is more true, the more balanced the maneuvres are.

blakkie · March 04, 2008, 02:27:33 PM

Quote from: SettembriniIf I just have to pull a kewl maneuvre, there´s no player input needed. This is more true, the more balanced the maneuvres are.

So this game, in all it's blandness and extreme simplicity (all the stones are the same, the rules take 5-10 minutes to learn), is devoid of tactically meaningful choices?

Yeah, tactics apparently just aren't what they used to be.

1of3 · March 04, 2008, 02:34:05 PM

Herr Hofrat, talking to you would be generally easier, if you started to say what you want. Of course, you never do so on principle.

Settembrini · March 04, 2008, 02:40:55 PM

You know Brian´s articles. You cited them.

You know B9S, I assume.

You know all about hollow decisions.

Connect the dots yourself.

If all maneuvres are pre-genned sets of interacting with the same currency, there´s no meaningful choice or player input.

What´s not to get?

1of3 · March 04, 2008, 03:01:15 PM

The article in question should be this one then.

Quote from: SettembriniIf all maneuvres are pre-genned sets of interacting with the same currency, there´s no meaningful choice or player input.

What´s not to get?

I think you forgot about conditions. You can take a creature out without even touching its HP. Just get it stunned, paralysed, or immobilized. Therefore Saving Throws and when to make them is a big thing.

Marking might also be interesting. That's not in the minis game, though. So I have no experience with it, yet.

Then there's combat advantage.

Settembrini · March 04, 2008, 03:04:11 PM

We´ll see.

I´ve only seen reports of a plethora of awesome to choose from, without any consequences. With every increment of awesome snuggly fitting into it´s slot.

Alnag · March 06, 2008, 03:57:46 AM

And here, exactly what I was talking about...

http://iuztheevil.livejournal.com/6070.html

Power Variety. This is an unfounded fear I am having. Most of the powers of a class all seem to do things along a similar line. Clerics, for example, seem to have a bunch of powers that do radiant damage. While this might work fine for a sun cleric. What am I gonna do about clerics of a shadow god or frost god or nature god? Not all of them can do radiant damage all the time. I hope there are a ton of powers for me to chose from because I really do not want to have to create a bunch to make my pantheons work. The same goes for just about every other class, each in its own way. I need a ton of options, but with every class getting a list of them, I am worried that it means less for those that really need it. I don't know, but some rumors that were going around the show have me a bit worried. This one is a wait and see I guess.

More Options, Fewer Choices. Both of the characters I played had a number of options, but in each combat, I found that every round, only one was a good choice (usually an encounter power if I had it, daily power if I needed it, or an at will if nothing else was available). This might just be an artifact of not seeing the whole rules (I hope so), because once a fight got past a few rounds, I found myself taking the same action over and over again. 3.5 certainly suffers from this problem as well to some extent. The difference here is that you would never dare to try and think about what other options might work in the fight because your at-will powers are clearly far superior. As a 4E wizard, I would never use my dagger unless I had too, because magic missile was a better option in just about every way. In 3.5, I might still use that dagger, crossbow, or even do something weird like aid another if I ran out of useful spells. I am not necessarily saying either is better, but it seemed a lot more binary to me.