The Gaming Den

@NineInchNall:

The question I had wasn't how the one is better than the other. I included the reasoning in my original post. The question was how so many people could grasp the significance of a +1 and then turn around and dismiss the significance of a +2.

If the choice is between one or the other, the +1 is the choice that will average out to be better in the long run... but whether to take a race with "optimal stats" and whether or not to take a sure/careful attack power for your second at-will power are two separate questions.

(And for the matter of bad math, I'm not sure anyone acknowledged the bad math involved in saying that a difference of 2 in effective AC means getting ten percent more hits. It's more likely to be in the neighborhoof of a 33%-50% difference in hits, depending on where you are on the RNG.

Oh except that's not accurate because everyone's pushing the top off the RNG because there's no reason to not take a Cleric and use Righteous Brand. Except when you're an Archery Ranger. Except when you're an Orbizard. Except when you're a whatever the fighter builds are that are supposed to be such juggernauts. Except when you're the trapper cleric.

There are so many classes that there's no reason for anyone not to be, I don't know how you enlightened folks know how to keep up with it. My point... my overall meta-point and my defense of powers that give a modifier of 2... is that your optimal powers and builds depend on assumptions that won't hold up as the optimum across an entire character's life. That's not me saying the DM will fix it with rule 0. Unless the DM is spoonfeeding you the same encounter, that is... and I don't think me saying "assume the DM doesn't spoonfeed you the same encounter" is the fallacy of saying the DM will fix it.

With encounters of varying size, against varying monsters, on varying terrains... you'll get edge scenarios where it's more important to hit than it is to get the extra damage ("Cloud of Daggers", someone says... but aren't we all supposed to be Trapper Clerics?), you'll get places where the optimal targeting algorithm can only work when you break it down by party member because they can't all pick from the same targets.

Roy keeps saying "Oberoni, Oberoni, Oberoni", but as I understand it, that fallacy means that someone is suggesting a houserule to fix a problem and then saying that means the problem doesn't exist... the only houserule I've even mentioned in this discussion had to do with my dislike of the way magic items work with throwing, and I wasn't positing that to fix a flaw in the system, I was saying I disliked a rule of marginal mechanical consequences.

Suggesting that encounters will include varied terrain, interesting encounters, combining two encounters into one, mixing traps and encounters isn't invoking Rule 0, it's following the guidelines in the DMG. We can disagree about whether these guidelines are part of the game design or not (though I find it odd to assume that we have to throw out half of one of the core books as not being part of the game), but it isn't Oberoni to go with the assumption that the DM in an actual campaign will be mixing things up instead of spoonfeeding encounters designed to show off builds.

Anyway, I do actually have work to do so I'm going to take my leave.

This has been... educational. Someone messaged me with a discussion of Rogues and brought the stealth errata in PHB2 to my attention, which was helpful. I never meant to play a Rogue... I only drew one up for my friend's game since there was an NPC in my game that the players liked interacting with, and I enjoyed the knife-throwing powers. Using stealth in combat is a perfect example of what I was saying about how 4E encourages you to move in order to do the most damage, which keeps the battlefield situation fluid. Between that and ping-pong Barbarians using their charge+at-will... yeah, I don't know how you guys are playing that it always ends up bunched up in the middle, the way you're describing.

Doesn't sound fun. Doesn't sound effective. Whatever.

I'm still glad I stopped in and that I delved deeper into the forum. The rants about all the stuff that 4E allegedly forbids the PCs from taking (crowns, jewels embedded in architecture, etc.) gave me all sorts of ideas for how to spend the treasure parcel budget. I see an evil priest wearing a gold circlet and a big silver chalice on the altar in my PCs' future.

I love playing the game as written.

But who said anything about combats being bunched up in the middle?

Wow, I've never seen such a huge dick in my life.

You are so full of Strawmen that I can only assume you actually shit actual straw.

And to say it all with that condescending tone as you lie through your teeth. It's simply amazing.

AlexandraErin wrote:I love playing the game as written.

That's nice, but I infer an implication that people around here are not following the rules.

Which is a) rude, b) false, c) condescending, and d) fucked up. At least when we think people are being idiotic we have the god damned honesty to say it in straight forward language.

Kaelik wrote: You are so full of Strawmen that I can only assume you actually shit actual straw.

I'm putting this in my sig. Seriously.

AlexandraErin wrote:Anyway, I do actually have work to do so I'm going to take my leave.

This has been... educational. Someone messaged me with a discussion of Rogues and brought the stealth errata in PHB2 to my attention, which was helpful. I never meant to play a Rogue... I only drew one up for my friend's game since there was an NPC in my game that the players liked interacting with, and I enjoyed the knife-throwing powers. Using stealth in combat is a perfect example of what I was saying about how 4E encourages you to move in order to do the most damage, which keeps the battlefield situation fluid. Between that and ping-pong Barbarians using their charge+at-will... yeah, I don't know how you guys are playing that it always ends up bunched up in the middle, the way you're describing.

Doesn't sound fun. Doesn't sound effective. Whatever.

I'm still glad I stopped in and that I delved deeper into the forum. The rants about all the stuff that 4E allegedly forbids the PCs from taking (crowns, jewels embedded in architecture, etc.) gave me all sorts of ideas for how to spend the treasure parcel budget. I see an evil priest wearing a gold circlet and a big silver chalice on the altar in my PCs' future.

I love playing the game as written.

You might not read this, but I'm going to say it anyway: you, and by extension, your players, don't sound particularly smart. My reasoning stems from the following three items:

1. Your discussion of tactics. You've posted a bunch of things that should be obvious to any mildly competent wargamer. Of course you should be reacting to (or preferably proactively arranging) the situation at hand, and you use anything and everything necessary to achieve the outcome you desire. But you stop short and limit your tactics to the situation at hand. Ideally, you don't want to beat an opponent in a fair fight, you want to manipulate that fight to be as unfair to your opponent as possible. Now, this leads me into my next point...

2. You don't seem to understand the purpose of twinking builds and, to a lesser extent, the general hyperbole that surrounds doing so. First off, the hyperbole is exactly that and shouldn't be taken at face value. By playing an Orbizard, or a Mongol, or whatever, you are saying specific things about what you intend to do with that character. Like it or not, there is going to be a more effective and less effective way to do anything you want to do in the game. As all the classes and powers and choices are not perfectly equivalent (they can't be) 4e is not immune to this and, if the suboptimal party member isn't getting continuously crushed, then the DM is probably being overly generous. Or that player is effectively a non-factor in the game. Either situation sucks.

By twinking the build, I want to be able to do everything a generalist player can do, do most or all of it better than them, AND do all the over the top stuff beside it. The Orbizard (for example) will stunlock better than any other character who just dabbles in it, and what they get in return for not specializing may or may not be worth the trade.

3. You state that you got great ideas about how to divvy up treasure parcels by delving the forums here after staking out your position as an immersive roleplayer? Are you fucking kidding me? What the hell is wrong with you?

violence in the media wrote:3. You state that you got great ideas about how to divvy up treasure parcels by delving the forums here after staking out your position as an immersive roleplayer? Are you fucking kidding me? What the hell is wrong with you?

I believe his actual point is that the rules* don't say you can't include stuff not on the list** and so therefore all the stuff that we complained the rules don't actually let you pick up*** he is going to include in treasure parcels. PROVING US ALL WRONG!!!111one11!!1

In other words: "The rules don't say you can't so you can."

*AKA the list of appropriate treasures to give

** Well technically they don't. They also don't say you can't make up your own Wizard powers that do 400d6 damage on an at will. But they do say you can pick your Wizard powers from the appropriate lists, and they do say you can pick treasure parcels from the appropriate lists.

*** Because they don't

The math has been covered by others much more experienced (and patient) than me, but as a (probably) "immersive roleplayer" I hate 4E because it destroys immersion at every turn, from stupid schroedinger's wounds to minion-transformation to "player characters are not meant to trade" economy to "magical compulsion without magic" powers.

Basically, 4E screams "Don't think! Forget logic!" at me, and doesn't fit any fantasy book I've ever read.

Fuchs wrote:Basically, 4E screams "Don't think! Forget logic!" at me, and doesn't fit any fantasy book I've ever read.

It fits every fantasy book I have ever read, and I think that it also fits every fantasy book you have ever read. Outwardly, the message could be to think critically and be intellegent and rational beyond compare, but behind the scenes, most fiction is pure escapism.

The idea behind fantasy is that you read it so you can pretend you are a knight saving a damsel in distress or a mighty wizard or a cunning barbarian and that you always know all the answers. You're not expected to think, you are expected to watch and see the character do all awesome and wonderful things while looking like everything you want to be and then live vivicariously through that. You're not supposed to think critically, and you are not supposed to quibble and question what the character is doing, you are supposed to watch and enjoy. Your mind is supposed to go "That is soo awesome, I want to be that guy." not "He really should have used finger of death there, not magic missle." when reading a fantasy or fiction.

DnD's model makes these sorts of tactics errors and dis-logic that makes for good fiction stick out like a sore thumb because one half of the game is trying to lull you into Ooohing and Ahhing at the awesome while the other half is making you weigh Finger of Death Vs. Magic Missle and try to figure out what's the bast plan to hero your way into a castle/princess's pants. People who like 4E as is do so by making poor tactical choices in exchange for awesome and then force the DM to adjust for their poor tactics in addition to providing the awesome. The Den tries to flavour their awesome into something like Shadowrun or Nethack where the awesome is a result of subverting traditional fantasy tropes into stuff like Wish Economy, Damocles' Ingot and Cocktrice Croquet. I think an attempt at a more traditional game would be good for the Den, but alot of the people here don't seem to want that sort of game.

As a side discussion, what makes people come here, of all places, advocating that 4E is the best game ever? What do they think? That they are the chosen ones to bring knowledge of 4E greatness to people who do not like it? That 4E is such a great system that no-one can not like it, and those who do are mistaken?

I mean, I know that not liking the RPG system someone is playing is often an insult greater than any other, but come on... Seriously, what?

Grek wrote: The idea behind fantasy is that you read it so you can pretend you are a knight saving a damsel in distress or a mighty wizard or a cunning barbarian and that you always know all the answers. You're not expected to think, you are expected to watch and see the character do all awesome and wonderful things while looking like everything you want to be and then live vivicariously through that. You're not supposed to think critically, and you are not supposed to quibble and question what the character is doing, you are supposed to watch and enjoy. Your mind is supposed to go "That is soo awesome, I want to be that guy." not "He really should have used finger of death there, not magic missle." when reading a fantasy or fiction.

Friendly advice. Take and read Donaldson's fantasy series. Its what fantasy genre would have been had it not been turned into a pulp genre as you suggest.

Kobajagrande wrote:As a side discussion, what makes people come here, of all places, advocating that 4E is the best game ever? What do they think? That they are the chosen ones to bring knowledge of 4E greatness to people who do not like it? That 4E is such a great system that no-one can not like it, and those who do are mistaken?

I mean, I know that not liking the RPG system someone is playing is often an insult greater than any other, but come on... Seriously, what?

People at the Den say what they think, no matter who it offends. A few such offended individuals insist on proving wrong the people who offended them, sometimes with genuinely positive goals, but most of the time because they're arrogant assholes whose pride we have infringed upon. That pretty much explains it.

Grek wrote:

Fuchs wrote:Basically, 4E screams "Don't think! Forget logic!" at me, and doesn't fit any fantasy book I've ever read.

It fits every fantasy book I have ever read, and I think that it also fits every fantasy book you have ever read. Outwardly, the message could be to think critically and be intellegent and rational beyond compare, but behind the scenes, most fiction is pure escapism.

You're wrong then. In the books I read there's usually an economy that makes sense, magical compulsion is magical and taunting doesn't work on mindless zombies. Flight either doesn't exist, or lasts longer than a few "rounds". Wounds are not spoken away. Magic also usually has charm and compulsion spells, and there are other ways to solve problems than killing stuff.

And people generally try to act smart, unless they're portrayed as dumb. People do focus on who's killing them, they do not attack the tin can if there's a robed figure nearby who's raining death down on them.

In short, the books I read do not try to copy a damn MMOG where NPCs are controlled by a primitive routine.

Grek wrote:DnD's model makes these sorts of tactics errors and dis-logic that makes for good fiction

Good fiction? Sure, I can enjoy a story despite it's flaws. I can sometimes ignore glaring logic errors, if the rest of the story is good. But I would certainly prefer a story without such errors.

Grek wrote:The Den tries to flavour their awesome into something like Shadowrun or Nethack where the awesome is a result of subverting traditional fantasy tropes into stuff like Wish Economy, Damocles' Ingot and Cocktrice Croquet.

I might have misunderstood Frank, but from what I can tell the Wish Economy is a desperate attempt to make some sort of sense of both the rules and the universe at the same time, without changing the entire game. The Wish economy stinks - but the "normal" DnD economy is a radioactive toxic dump.

By the way, what fantasy trope did Shadowrun subvert?

Murtak wrote:

Roy wrote:Yeah? Last I checked, Epic Fail is a completely valid response to someone who just ran in circles, and blatantly fucking contradicted herself.

The trouble is, you spew memes constantly (way less than when you joined though). Once is funny. Once gets your point across. Twice is fine. Thrice is tedious. 500 times is retarded. Why is anyone supposed to even read what you write when fully half of it is an repeat of the same stuff you always write?

Routine drivel means routine smites. In any case, I've only declared Epic Fail here once. Although...

AlexandraErin wrote:Well, I'll be darned. Guess I've got a houserule, then.

AlexandraErin wrote:I love playing the game as written.

Roy wrote:

AlexandraErin wrote:You guys don't like the game we're playing, which is 4E as written. I'm not interested in the game you're playing, which is the 3E character generation metagame. To me, that's pretty much the end of the story. I just have a hard time understanding how you get past the massive dissonance between conflicting views I see espoused here. I still don't have an answer to that, but I don't really care. There are more fun things I could be doing with 4E than arguing its merits to people who aren't interested in the things it's meant to do.

...

AlexandraErin wrote:The climactic battles she's set up... and she likes the Boss Battle model... are against foes that probably would TPK us if we're not careful or that would devolve into a boring grind if we didn't come up with a creative solution... some being "puzzle fights" where elements in the room can be used to defeat the boss once bloodied, and some being creative use of skills and roleplay... yes, this is Magic Tea Party land, but what's the point of playing a game with a human brain adjudicating results on the fly if it's not so you can do things that exceed the scope of the system's programmed results?

Not even going to touch all the other blatant fucking contradictions.

Still being the usual drivel spamming troll, throwing delusions about everywhere in a handwaving justification for why a sociopathic stalker/mass murder is actually the epitome of Good... sorry, why such a blatantly unusable system is actually the epitome of quality design.

Kaelik wrote:Wow, I've never seen such a huge dick in my life.

You are so full of Strawmen that I can only assume you actually shit actual straw.

And to say it all with that condescending tone as you lie through your teeth. It's simply amazing.

Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.

Anyways. The reason why stacking up the same build * 4 + one Warlord is the only way to go is because everyone is the same anyways, therefore effectiveness is only measured by your numbers against their numbers, since no one is capable of actual tactics since they lack any and all real abilities. The much maligned 3.5 FIGHTER with Knockback, Dungeoncrasher, and Knockdown has more tactical options than anything from 4.Fail. Not because 3.5 Fighters get a lot of options, they don't. But because that Fighter can do anything they can, while actually hitting and hurting things. None of this scratch for piddly shit bullshit. He also has much more ability to influence the world than anything from 4.Fail.

Oh and the Warlord's only there so you can stay on the RNG (and possibly go off the other side, but whatever).

The bot loves doing the handwaving thing so fast I'm surprised its arm has not engaged time travel by now. It will cry about how we reduce the game to 'attack', 'item', 'run' and blatantly refuse to realize we didn't tamper with the evidence. The crime scene was like this when we arrived. And because it was already fucking like that, that means 4.Fail as written is a pure stat contest. Which is why it shouldn't surprise anyone the game breaks right in half the moment you apply even a modicum of intelligence to either side. Mongols? Orbizards? MOB picks up bow? All are extremely solid reasons to call 'good game'. Granted, the last one calls it for the other side, but as everything there is a simple stat contest against sprites all outcomes can be predicted before the triggering factor even occurs.

And that's trivial shit, causing the system to break right in half. For all the talk about how messed up 3.5 was and I know the bot will try to whine and spout delusions about that you did have to work to break it. Often pretty damn hard. Raise your hand if you found wish loops on your own, without specifically looking for them.

Compare that to the odds that someone would want to play a mounted archer. I'll wait.

The bot will also try to whine that it only works against 99.9% of the MOBs, and not 100% so the other 0.1% will become far more common or something. This last part isn't expressly stated, but it is implied because you have 290 fights ever period, and there are not many lol hydras. So the odd chances they do come up, you just lock them down with a different effect, and good game.

That's 4.Fail rules as written. The bot loves Schrodinger's Houserules, where it both is and is not using the rules depending on which is more convenient at this exact moment. And that's the only way it can handwave justify its actions.

But seriously. The fucking delusions need to stop. Get medical help or reprogrammed or whatever RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

Mister_Sinister wrote:

Kobajagrande wrote:As a side discussion, what makes people come here, of all places, advocating that 4E is the best game ever? What do they think? That they are the chosen ones to bring knowledge of 4E greatness to people who do not like it? That 4E is such a great system that no-one can not like it, and those who do are mistaken?

I mean, I know that not liking the RPG system someone is playing is often an insult greater than any other, but come on... Seriously, what?

People at the Den say what they think, no matter who it offends. A few such offended individuals insist on proving wrong the people who offended them, sometimes with genuinely positive goals, but most of the time because they're arrogant assholes whose pride we have infringed upon. That pretty much explains it.

If you look at her blog, she obliquely indicates that someone kept messaging her with links to this board. Anyway, it's good to have people like that come over here and rant. Every so often, they storm off in a huff and then come back a bit later to be regular contributors (presumably having seen the error in their ways). Not many, mind you, but it tends to be the smart ones that have the mental flexibility to change.

K and I were talking while he was considering how he was gong to get out of Bakersfield and he threw down a very interesting assessment:

If you just made the opposite design decision from absolutely every single thing 4e did, you could have a pretty great game on your hands.

Instead of a greater reliance on squares to the point where it takes over everything, drop squares entirely.
Instead of making a skill challenge system where one person makes a gajillion rolls to determine binary success or failure, make a system where every player makes one roll and creates a variable degree of success.

And so on for the whole game. 4e made all the wrong decisions. In such a manner that 180 degree turns from them may well be right decisions.

-Username17

4e is the George Costanza of RPGs?

In 4E, hot snow falls up?

hogarth wrote:In 4E, hot snow falls up?

In 4.Fail, MOBs farm you?

Is 4e Soviet Russia?

I'm still irritated that the math hammer was ignored so completely. *sigh*

NineInchNall wrote:I'm still irritated that the math hammer was ignored so completely. *sigh*

Everyone knows balancing a game has nothing to do with the NUMBERS. Oh wait, that's the Paizils. Nevermind.

CatharzGodfoot wrote: If you look at her blog, she obliquely indicates that someone kept messaging her with links to this board. Anyway, it's good to have people like that come over here and rant. Every so often, they storm off in a huff and then come back a bit later to be regular contributors (presumably having seen the error in their ways). Not many, mind you, but it tends to be the smart ones that have the mental flexibility to change.

Well I mean she made some good points. It was just that the whole counter to the orbizard was pretty poor, because it relied pretty much on a very small subset of enemies that happen to be stun/daze resistant, which is basically just the hydras. Anything that limits you so severely in your encounter design is broken, especially if it involves using that many solos in an encounter (talk about grind city). Would anyone really use 5+ solo monsters in a single encounter?

Roy wrote:

hogarth wrote:In 4E, hot snow falls up?

In 4.Fail, MOBs farm you?

The point is actually that it's a ROLE playing game, and you shouldn't be "farming mobs" at all. Instead of giving every monster an XP total for killzoring it and putting out a very small number of "drops" to make people grind through a large number of medusa archers to get the bow they want, the game should just not do that. 4e took the XP value for killing a monster and made it static rather than relative, meaning that there are no longer cutoffs when you no longer get power for grinding orcs. That's the exact opposite of what should have been done. You should not get anything for grinding orcs except the knowledge that various orcs are dead.

Similarly for equipment. 4e took the 3e gold => Power thing and ran with it even farther. You get even less stuff per fallen elven warrior and you need stuff even more. And there's nothing else to do but grind mobs to get the swag you need. Fuck that. What should happen is that the "magical swag" that people baseline need to be adventurers and worthwhile NPCs to combat should just be available in the world. Guns are fucking amazing, and provide a much bigger relative benefit than magic swords do in most fantasy RPGs - and yet people rarely run around sticking guns in bags when they beat enemy soldiers or gangsters in games revolving around modern heroism. If you're going to treat equipment as mandatory, you need to treat it as mundane.

-Username17