4th Edition Quirks

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
Iron Mongler
Apprentice
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

Post by Iron Mongler »

So why the crap do sorcerers, the arcane backline spellcasters have a mechanic that lets them use strength modifier for their AC but no other class does?

Are we really expected to believe that sorcerers can do something with their physical strength that no other strength-primary class can do? That sorcerers are actually tougher than barbarians?
The thing is, a Dragon Sorcerer NEEDS the Str to AC in order to have any AC at all. He's going to have mediocre Dexterity and Intelligence due to him focusing on Strength and Charisma. Even with that, their Reflex still takes a pretty big hit.

If anyone's seen it, the Artificer class looks pretty nice. I went and built one (who dual-wields staff implements because Dual Implement Spellcaster is too good not to take) and it seems WoTC listened to people about the playtest for Artificer changes.
Maxus wrote:Geology has massive apathy toward events which take less then three million years to happen or don't wipe out 80% of life on Earth.

But, on the plus side, we're able to tell you where the oil is.
sake
Knight
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by sake »

Iron Mongler wrote: If anyone's seen it, the Artificer class looks pretty nice. I went and built one (who dual-wields staff implements because Dual Implement Spellcaster is too good not to take) and it seems WoTC listened to people about the playtest for Artificer changes.
I'm kind of annoyed that didn't do anything about the ranged weapon/implement juggling problem that became obvious like five minutes after they had first put the Artificer playtest up. Apparently they're convinced that letting proper ranged weapons like a bow or xbow be used as an implement is so overpowered that only elf warlocks who blow money on an enchantment for it and the worst Bard paragon path ever made is allowed to do it. So you're instead stuck with stupid work arounds like that floating hand familar or one handed throwing weapons.
Last edited by sake on Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Orion
Prince
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Orion »

What difference does it make? The throwing weapons work fine.
sake
Knight
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by sake »

Boolean wrote:What difference does it make? The throwing weapons work fine.
It's a flavor thing I guess. When you think of a fantasy gadgeteer or magical archer you don't really imagine them using a javelin or throwing knife. It would be like wanting to play a knight but then discovering your character can only use a dagger and cloth tunic.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

Can't you take that one feat to let you use a crossbow/bow as an implement.

The same one that let's Wizards use cunning swords?
MartinHarper
Knight-Baron
Posts: 703
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by MartinHarper »

http://media.gleemax.com/podcasts/DnD_20090527.mp3

re: MM1 minions being broken and MM1 solos being broken.
WOTC wrote:We decided not to errata that. Just because we made a mistake doesn't mean we get to fix that.
I love how they spin refusing to patch their brain-dead non-working monsters as some kind of noble restraint.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

I have a DDI account so I might have to end up transcribing what was on the podcast.

On one hand, I'm somewhat sympathetic to them saying that because the issue of minions and solos are so broken and so prevalent that you would have to reprint a monster manual for it to work.

On the other hand, the fact that such a large part of the combat system is so broke and the fact that they won't fix it is the biggest indictment against 4th Edition I've heard.

I honestly think that we're going to get a 5th Edition within the next three years after the current development team gets their naughty asses fired.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

I really dislike how Mike Mearls sounds like a smug Kung Fu Jesus.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I honestly think that we're going to get a 5th Edition within the next three years after the current development team gets their naughty asses fired.
Why would they be fired now when they've been failing upward for years?
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Because when 4E bottoms out and the edition implodes someone is going to have to point fingers at someone. You can only cut staff so much; they've already kicked Ed Stark (who really deserved it) off of the team, so who's left?
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

Ryan Dancey.

OH WAIT.

4e won't implode, unfortunately. It will succeed for the same reason that Twilight has.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
User avatar
Ganbare Gincun
Duke
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:42 am

Post by Ganbare Gincun »

Psychic Robot wrote:4e won't implode, unfortunately. It will succeed for the same reason that Twilight has.
Teenage girls are going to be part of the formula for their success? :lol:
Last edited by Ganbare Gincun on Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

4e already has imploded. They got a new edition bump in sales, but they didn't get a new edition crest of sales to ride. Martial Power sold like Complete Divine 2. That's not going to make corporate masters happy. Heads have to roll over that. This isn't a minor company where a designer can say "Yeah, but who else do you got?" This is WotC, they could get anyone. They could get Steve Jackson.

-Username17
User avatar
Gelare
Knight-Baron
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:13 am

Post by Gelare »

FrankTrollman wrote:4e already has imploded. They got a new edition bump in sales, but they didn't get a new edition crest of sales to ride. Martial Power sold like Complete Divine 2.

-Username17
Pics? I'd like to have these figures handy to mock my 4E-playing friends with.

EDIT: Never mind, read your post in the other thread.
Last edited by Gelare on Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Meikle641
Duke
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by Meikle641 »

MartinHarper wrote:http://media.gleemax.com/podcasts/DnD_20090527.mp3

re: MM1 minions being broken and MM1 solos being broken.
WOTC wrote:We decided not to errata that. Just because we made a mistake doesn't mean we get to fix that.
I love how they spin refusing to patch their brain-dead non-working monsters as some kind of noble restraint.

Man, that made me rage so hard when I heard it. Sounding all apologetic and shit. Fuck you, buddy. You make a mistake, you fucking fix it.
Iron Mongler
Apprentice
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

Post by Iron Mongler »

I find it hilarious how they mention how long-lasting Solos are and then make things like the Beholder Ultimate Tyrant who can daze everyone. The old solos were better.

"The hydra doesn't do enough damage to actually be threatening."

"Just because we made a mistake doesn't mean we get to fix it."

Good God. This just reinforces my opinions about 4e in general - great system when playing at level 8 or higher (inb4 no it's not; rocket launcher tag sucked), horrible marketing and such shit design with the Monster Manual. DMG is great, PHB is great, but then they go and do things like THAT.

If they aren't going to fix the Monster Manual, then how do you even begin to use it again? I'll get back to them when they actually know what the hell they're doing again, for it seems right now that homebrew is the way to go (on the other hand, I'm pleased with what I've seen from Eberron so far).
Last edited by Iron Mongler on Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Post by Starmaker »

Iron Mongler wrote:DMG is great
I'd be offended if the crap that is chapter 1 was in any product I paid for.
Iron Mongler
Apprentice
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

Post by Iron Mongler »

I'd be offended if the crap that is chapter 1 was in any product I paid for.
How so? It gives genuinely good advice and gives descriptions of player's that happen to fit mine perfectly. The only problem with it is, of course, the "LOL YOU NEED MINIS TO PLAY" shit, but that's always been in the DMG's.
Maxus wrote:Geology has massive apathy toward events which take less then three million years to happen or don't wipe out 80% of life on Earth.

But, on the plus side, we're able to tell you where the oil is.
User avatar
Absentminded_Wizard
Duke
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by Absentminded_Wizard »

The only problem with it is, of course, the "LOL YOU NEED MINIS TO PLAY" shit, but that's always been in the DMG's.
IIRC, minis were recommended in previous editions but not listed as required. Of course, 4e really does need minis and a grid to work, so it would have been disingenuous not to list them.
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Post by Starmaker »

Iron Mongler wrote:How so? It gives genuinely good advice and gives descriptions of player's that happen to fit mine perfectly.
Confirmation bias.

Also, giving zero information means you're never wrong:
WotC basically wrote:There are many aspects to a game session, and people can enjoy one or more of them, such as stabbing people in the face, taking their stuff, learning facts about the game world, chatting up NPCs, hanging around with their friends and eating pizza.
Thanks WotC, we knew that already.

And then they forget an episode may be enjoyable or not for many other reasons - theme, party composition, success of an individual action, description details, movies the player likes/recently watched, vague associations the player wouldn't be able to place more precisely than "that was sort of awesome".

Teh Ultimate Lists of Player Types have been circulating since pre-www times as jokes, and there's a reason for it.

More of the same in Types of Games. What really needs to be said is
1. Don't hesitate to wrap up the story while it's still awesome
2. Don't get overambitious and plan for a grand 10year LotR-style campaign; instead, run an adventure and see how it goes from there.
Iron Mongler
Apprentice
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

Post by Iron Mongler »

Bias? If I don't see anything wrong with a chapter, that would imply that I've noticed that the amount of things 'right' within the chapter (or are referenced elsewhere in the book) make the chapter a good chapter. I only try to look at books objectively. If you can prove to me that this chapter is bad, then it's a bad chapter (which still doesn't disprove the book as a whole, of course).
Of course, 4e really does need minis and a grid to work, so it would have been disingenuous not to list them.
Mike Mearls has mentioned in his blog ways to do 4e without minis. The option is there, but they're going to hide it very well behind 'BUY OUR STUFF'.
Thanks WotC, we knew that already.
To someone new to RP'ing, that's not so bad.
And then they forget an episode may be enjoyable or not for many other reasons - theme, party composition, success of an individual action, description details, movies the player likes/recently watched, vague associations the player wouldn't be able to place more precisely than "that was sort of awesome".
All but the last one are actually referenced to, but in other chapters. That does not make chapter 1 in itself a bad chapter.
Teh Ultimate Lists of Player Types have been circulating since pre-www times as jokes, and there's a reason for it.
And the reason is? It fits many player types rather well, even if a combination of them is possible. I'm not sure what you're looking for them to describe here. Do you prefer for them to leave out 'player types', or expand them to be more 'realistic'?
More of the same in Types of Games. What really needs to be said is
1. Don't hesitate to wrap up the story while it's still awesome
2. Don't get overambitious and plan for a grand 10year LotR-style campaign; instead, run an adventure and see how it goes from there.
While the second bit of advice could be useful, the first was mentioned within another chapter again.
Maxus wrote:Geology has massive apathy toward events which take less then three million years to happen or don't wipe out 80% of life on Earth.

But, on the plus side, we're able to tell you where the oil is.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

Iron Mongler wrote:And the reason is? It fits many player types rather well, even if a combination of them is possible. I'm not sure what you're looking for them to describe here. Do you prefer for them to leave out 'player types', or expand them to be more 'realistic'?
The reason is because Player types are exactly like Jungian Personalities:

As vague and predictive as Nostradamus, with all the differentiation and specificity of a sunday horoscope.

Ohhh, some people be roleplayers, and they wants to be all cool by convincing the king! Some people be all rollplayers and they be wanting to kill the monsters.

You said they have a good selection of types that including hybrids represents most people.

That's fucking retarded. If you create a scale from stupid to really stupid in the opposite way, yes, people will find where they fit on that scale, and associate themselves with it. It's still only a useful DMing tool if you trick your players into reading it so that they can brain wash themselves into accepting that whatever description is a good example of what they want.

Player types lists are fucking retarded. Always.

I will follow this rant with looking at the actual one in the 4e DMG and specifically decrying that shit.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

For an example, I'm going to use 3 players to show how everyone fits in every category. Myself, Judging Eagle, and Prak. I have gamed with all three of these. I'll also provide comments on the actual advice.
stupid people wrote:Actor
The actor likes to pretend to be her character. She emphasizes character development that has nothing to do with numbers and powers, trying to make her character seem to be a real person in the fantasy world. She
enjoys interacting with the rest of the group, with characters and monsters in the game world, and with the fantasy world in general by speaking “in character” and describing her character’s actions in the first person.
The actor values narrative game elements over mechanical ones. Unlike the storyteller, she values her character’s personality and motivations over other story elements.
aN actor . . .
✦ Provides PC background, emphasizing personality.
✦ Plays according to her character’s motivations.
✦ Prefers scenes where she can portray her character.
✦ often prefers social encounters to fights.

eNgage the actor bY . . .
✦ Facilitating her PC’s personality and background
development.
✦ Providing roleplaying encounters.
✦ emphasizing her character’s personality at times.
✦ Recruiting her to help create narrative campaign elements.

be sure that the actor doesN’t . . .
✦ Bore the other players by talking to everyone and
everything.
✦ Justify disruptive actions as being “in character.”
Well fuck, likes being their character? Making their character a real person in a real world? I do that! So does Prak and Eagle.

I mean, play according to character motivations? Like to portray their character? That's everyone ever in the world. But they also prefer social encounters sometimes. Wow, that narrows it down to maybe half of everyone.

But look at that, they have to ignore numbers. So in other words this is for people who think people that "being a good fighter" has nothing to do with having a high AB. Guess what, I've seen those people, they don't act at freaking all.
stupid people wrote:Explorer
An explorer loves to see new places in the fantasy world and to meet the residents of such places, fair and foul. All the explorer needs is the promise of an interesting locale or different culture, and off he goes to see that place.
The explorer wants to experience the wonders the game world has to offer. He also wants to know that there’s more out there to find. He presses for details: proper names of characters and places, descriptions
of the environment, and some idea of what’s over the next hill. He’s sometimes interested in the adventure plot and his character’s motivations. (The explorer is close kin to both the actor and the storyteller.) The wonder of new discoveries is what is key to keeping the
explorer happy.
aN exPlorer . . .
✦ Seeks out new experiences in the game’s setting.
✦ Likes learning hidden facts and locating lost items and
places.
✦ enjoys atmosphere as much as combat and story.
✦ Advances the plot by being willing to move ever on.

eNgage the exPlorer bY . . .
✦ Including encounter elements that call for exploration.
✦ Rewarding curiosity and willingness to explore.
✦ Providing rich descriptions, and using cool maps and props.
✦ Recruiting him to map for the party.

be sure that the exPlorer doesN’t . . .
✦ use knowledge of the game world to his own advantage.
✦ Bore the other players or exhaust you with his thirst for
detail.
So an explorer wants to learn things, sometimes about the story, sometimes about mechanics, sometimes trivia about the world, whatever. I like learning things. I ask for the names of shit, and like discovering the plot, or finding out about the Mage's guild. I bet Eagle and Prak do too!

But remember, we have to make sure that no matter what the Explorer learns, it never benefits him. It's right in the advice. Knowledge of the game world should never be used to a characters advantage.
stupid people wrote:Instigator
An instigator enjoys making things happen. She has no patience for careful planning or deliberation. She’ll open an obviously trapped chest “ just to see what happens.” She provokes authority figures and opens dungeon doors to bring more monsters into an already difficult fight. The instigator loves the vicarious thrill of taking enormous risks and sometimes just making bad choices.
The instigator can be disruptive, but she can also be a lot of fun for the other players. Things rarely grind to a halt with an instigator in the group, and the stories that get retold after the game session often revolve around whatever crazy thing the instigator did this week.
aN iNstigator . . .
✦ Likes to make things happen.
✦ Takes crazy risks and makes deliberately bad choices.
✦ Thrives in combat and dislikes having nothing to do.
✦ Takes decisive action when things grind to a halt.

eNgage the iNstigator bY . . .
✦ Including objects and encounters that invite
experimentation.
✦ Letting her actions put the characters in a tight spot but not
kill them all.
✦ Including encounters with nonplayer characters who are as
feisty as she is.

be sure that the iNstigator doesN’t . . .
✦ Get the rest of the group killed.
✦ Attack the other PCs or their allies.
Okay, fine. Instead of everyone being every character. No one is this character. Deliberately makes bad choices? WTF! I had this one friend Zak, he fucking stole something from my families mansion, and lied about it, even though I had detect magic, and knew he had. He instigated right? Well, except for the part that he was just acting his character.

So I guess he's more of a Instigator/Actor/Storyteller/Watcher hybrid. Oh wait, that's like half the fucking types.
stupid people wrote:Power Gamer
A power gamer thrives on gaining levels and loves the cool abilities that come with those levels. He defeats monsters to take their stuff and use that stuff against future enemies. The story and roleplaying are secondary to action and awesome abilities and magic items.
Most players have a little power gamer in them. A couple of the core elements of fun in the D&D game are the accumulation of power and the use of that power to accomplish astonishing deeds. Nothing is wrong with enjoying that in the game.
a PoWer gamer . . .
✦ optimizes character attributes for combat performance.
✦ Pores over supplements for better character options.
✦ Spends less time on story and roleplaying elements.
✦ Prefers combat to other kinds of encounters.

eNgage the PoWer gamer bY . . .
✦ Stressing story element rewards, such as quest XP.
✦ using a desired magic item as an adventure hook.
✦ Facilitating access to new options and powers.
✦ Including encounters that emphasize his PC’s attributes.

be sure that the PoWer gamer doesN’t . . .
✦ Become a lot more powerful than the other characters.
✦ Try to take more than his share of treasure.
✦ Treat the other characters as his lackeys.
Well fuck. Powergamer. Everyone I know is a powergamer, and everyone who isn't I hate. But 3 on the list of what it is, "spends less time on roleplaying elements" Fuck. Cause I was going to say everyone was, but then I realized that 90% of the people who fit every single other part of this description spend just as much time on planning elaborate backstories.

Maybe they are Actor/Storyteller/Thinker/Powergamer/Slayer hybrids? Do you think that describes you Eagle?

And as for the advice. Number one on how to engage the powergamer, do something he doesn't give a flying fuck about. Number one on things to not let him do, play the type of game he wants. Fuck you. If you have 4 actors and a powergamer (if there were any such thing as people who fit in one category) that powergamer better be more powerful. Or else 1) he's going to be pissed. And 2) They are all going to fucking die.
stupid people wrote:Slayer
The slayer is like the power gamer, but she is even easier to please. She emphasizes kicking the tar out of monsters. Maybe she does so to let off a little steam in a safe way, or she likes the joy of feeling superior. Per-
haps it’s the pleasure of having the power to mete out punishment to villains.
D&D combat is thrilling. Few other aspects of the game put a character in such apparent jeopardy. Beating the bad guys is a clear success. Most players enjoy these D&D elements, but the slayer seeks them foremost.
a slaYer . . .
✦ optimizes like a power gamer.
✦ Might pick simple options to get into the action quicker.
✦ Spends less time on story and roleplaying elements.
✦ Wants to fight monsters and take bold action all the time.

eNgage the slaYer bY . . .
✦ Springing an unexpected battle when the slayer looks
bored.
✦ Making some battles simple and others more complex.
✦ Vividly describing the havoc the slayer wreaks with powers.
✦ Recruiting her to track initiative during combat.

be sure that the slaYer doesN’t . . .
✦ Ruin adventures by killing monsters the characters should
talk to.
✦ Rush past social and skill challenge encounters to the next
fight.
So a Powergamer who spends less time on character creation? That's not a different type, that's the same type but not as good at it. Fuck this shit.

At least the Slayer gets to kill monsters, unlike poor powergamer who can't be powerful. But of course, they encourage playing fucking smash brothers when skill challenges come up, because he's not allowed to 'rush past them.'
stupid people wrote:Storyteller
The storyteller is a player who prefers the narrative of the game to individual character motivations and personality. This player sees the game as an ongoing chronicle of events in the fantasy world, and he wants to see where the tale goes.
For the storyteller, the rules are there to support the game’s ongoing story. He believes that when the rules get in the way, the narrative should win. Compromise for the sake of the story is more important than individual character motivations.
a storYteller . . .
✦ often provides an extensive background for his PC.
✦ Works hard to make sure his character fits the story.
✦ Likes dramatic scenes and recurring characters.
✦ Prefers adventures that include at least some plot.

eNgage the storYteller bY . . .
✦ Facilitating his PCs background development.
✦ using his background to help define adventures and
nonplayer characters.
✦ Including at least a little plot in every adventure.
✦ Recruiting him to record important events and encounters.

be sure that the storYteller doesN’t . . .
✦ Insist on making his character the center of the story.
✦ Dictate other characters’ actions to fit his idea of the story.
Fuck. Slayer is bad Powergamer, and Storyteller is bad Actor. The Storyteller wants to tell stupid stories. He wants to tell the epic story of Lord of the rings, but without Boromir's betrayal, without the splitting, and ending with the 9 at mount doom facing the nine (or maybe the one?).

Right in the description, some dumb fuck who thinks that character motivations should subject themselves to the story. Go right a fucking novel and suck my cock.

As for the advice. He would never insist the story be about him, because he thinks his character motivations aren't as important as the whim of the DM, so even if he really really hates Kobolds, he'll protect the Kobolds from the demons given even a hint about that being the 'story' the Dm wants to tell. And dictating other characters actions, if he doesn't do that, then he's not a storyteller. If he lets other people's character motivations dictate their actions, then he has objectively failed in his endeavor.
stupid people wrote:Thinker
A thinker likes to make careful choices, reflecting on challenges and the best way to overcome them. She also enjoys herself most when her planning results in success with minimal risk and use of resources.
Solving a challenge in a creative way is more important to the thinker than character power or roleplaying issues. In fact, the thinker might prefer sound tactics to acting in character or straightforward, brute force
battle.
a thiNker . . .
✦ engages any challenge as a puzzle to be solved.
✦ Chooses her actions carefully for the best possible result.
✦ Is happy to win without action, drama, or tension.
✦ Prefers time to consider options over bold action.

eNgage the thiNker bY . . .
✦ Including encounters that require problem-solving skills.
✦ Rewarding planning and tactics with in-game benefits.
✦ occasionally allowing a smart plan to cause a one-sided
win.
✦ Recruiting her to help come up with quests.

be sure that the thiNker doesN’t . . .
✦ Constantly tell the other players what to do.
✦ Grind the game to a halt when considering tactical options.
I honestly can't tell whether this is supposed to be people like me, who play casters with elaborate spell combos and actual plans of attack (I spent two fucking pages discussing how we were going to teleport into a fight once) or stupid fucks who think saying shit like "I ignore all tactics and sense and rules, by running behind the boss and grabbing the Mcguffin, I win teh gamzor!" Either way it's fucking dumb.

Let's look at some of the brilliant advice:
Reward planning and tactics with in game benefits. Okay, so this is bullshit 4e, where tactics don't actually matter, but fuck. Tactics and planning have actual benefits, that's why you fucking do them.

Occasionally allow planning to be useful, but not often, heaven forbid planning be a good idea or something, then all the Actors and Slayers and Powergamers might do it. And then where would we be? Without any distinctions in player types, you might have to actually DM instead of being a damn fool.

But whatever you do, don't let the fucking person with the plan tell the other people how to implement the plan, cause fuck, that would make sense.
stupid people wrote:Watcher
A watcher is a casual player who comes to the game because he wants to be part of the social event. A watcher might be shy or just really laid back. He wants to participate, but he doesn’t really care if he’s deeply
immersed, and he doesn’t want to be assertive or too involved in the details of the game, rules, or story. He enjoys the game by being part of a social circle.
a Watcher . . .
✦ Shows up to be a part of the group.
✦ helps calm disputes by not being as attached to the game.
✦ often fills a hole in the PC group, facilitating the fun.

eNgage the Watcher bY . . .
✦ never forcing him to be more involved than he wants.
✦ Accepting that he’s fine with his watcher status.
✦ Prompting him when he needs it.

be sure that the Watcher doesN’t . . .
✦ Distract the other players with TV, a video game, or surfing
the Internet.
✦ Disappear from the table at crucial moments.
WTF? Social event, to be part of a group. Because they are shy and not involved? Fuck this shit. A fucking Chimp could right better shit than this. The Watcher player type is fucking mental diarrhea.
Last edited by Kaelik on Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Roy
Prince
Posts: 2772
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

Post by Roy »

Holy shit. That's fucking horrible. You missed some contradictions by the way.

'Never forcing him to be more involved than he wants.'

'Don't let him disappear from the table at crucial moments.'

What the fuck?

And that's not even the only one. You just referenced the onion of Fail - there's always another layer to peel back.

But seriously. Most of the Den falls under most of those categories, all at once. It's not just you three.
Iron Mongler
Apprentice
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

Post by Iron Mongler »

Let's start with the retort.
You said they have a good selection of types that including hybrids represents most people.

That's fucking retarded. If you create a scale from stupid to really stupid in the opposite way, yes, people will find where they fit on that scale, and associate themselves with it. It's still only a useful DMing tool if you trick your players into reading it so that they can brain wash themselves into accepting that whatever description is a good example of what they want.
Slippery slope.
Well fuck, likes being their character? Making their character a real person in a real world? I do that! So does Prak and Eagle.

I mean, play according to character motivations? Like to portray their character? That's everyone ever in the world. But they also prefer social encounters sometimes. Wow, that narrows it down to maybe half of everyone.

But look at that, they have to ignore numbers. So in other words this is for people who think people that "being a good fighter" has nothing to do with having a high AB. Guess what, I've seen those people, they don't act at freaking all.
It's a classic 'roleplayer, not rollplayer' kind of person. Keep in mind that most of this list is meant to get all different types of players that are normally shunned (such as watchers, actors, slayers, and power gamers) working together.
So an explorer wants to learn things, sometimes about the story, sometimes about mechanics, sometimes trivia about the world, whatever. I like learning things. I ask for the names of shit, and like discovering the plot, or finding out about the Mage's guild. I bet Eagle and Prak do too!

But remember, we have to make sure that no matter what the Explorer learns, it never benefits him. It's right in the advice. Knowledge of the game world should never be used to a characters advantage.
Not everyone else does. Some people just want to jump right in on the action. While people can always appreciate some detail, the explorer is the kind of person who thrives on them. You're also twisting the 'never used to a character's advantage' interpretation to your own liking. They are referring to metagame knowledge and being better than the other players due to rote, which would be retarded.
Okay, fine. Instead of everyone being every character. No one is this character. Deliberately makes bad choices? WTF! I had this one friend Zak, he fucking stole something from my families mansion, and lied about it, even though I had detect magic, and knew he had. He instigated right? Well, except for the part that he was just acting his character.

So I guess he's more of a Instigator/Actor/Storyteller/Watcher hybrid. Oh wait, that's like half the fucking types.
It's funny that you mention that 'no one is this character' when I know a player in my group is deliberately this kind of person, which just shows that yes, people are different (shouldn't be a surprise). It's a 'so wacky rofl xD' type of player who does stuff that can be funny without being generally disruptive.
Well fuck. Powergamer. Everyone I know is a powergamer, and everyone who isn't I hate. But 3 on the list of what it is, "spends less time on roleplaying elements" Fuck. Cause I was going to say everyone was, but then I realized that 90% of the people who fit every single other part of this description spend just as much time on planning elaborate backstories.

Maybe they are Actor/Storyteller/Thinker/Powergamer/Slayer hybrids? Do you think that describes you Eagle?

And as for the advice. Number one on how to engage the powergamer, do something he doesn't give a flying fuck about. Number one on things to not let him do, play the type of game he wants. Fuck you. If you have 4 actors and a powergamer (if there were any such thing as people who fit in one category) that powergamer better be more powerful. Or else 1) he's going to be pissed. And 2) They are all going to fucking die.
This is actually my favorite of the lists on the page, and is the one that fits me. Do you realize how many DM's I've seen (just look at /tg/ if you don't believe me) who STILL hate power gamers? I've been called a munchkin for wanting to play a competent character. There are definitely some power gamers who don't do well RP-wise (I don't think they needed to list that either) but that's why I mention some people can be multiple 'types'.

If you have a group of four actors and a powergamer then you're going to need to adjust your game to their needs. What do you think those needs will be? The book wasn't written with the expectation of million-to-one scenarios (just like how the PHB wasn't either, and I'm glad for that), but their guidelines indicate not to let the powergamer outshine the others to a degree that makes them feel incompetent.
So a Powergamer who spends less time on character creation? That's not a different type, that's the same type but not as good at it. Fuck this shit.

At least the Slayer gets to kill monsters, unlike poor powergamer who can't be powerful. But of course, they encourage playing fucking smash brothers when skill challenges come up, because he's not allowed to 'rush past them.'
Since Dnd isn't a competitive game (another concept this board has trouble with) it doesn't matter if the slayer is 'worse' at the game than the powergamer. This is, yet again, a type of player I know. I'm not even going to comment on the 'smash brothers' line because I have no idea what you mean. Did you know you can combine skill challenges and combat? This isn't even just an obscure article in Dungeon magazine, it mentions this right in the DMG.
Fuck. Slayer is bad Powergamer, and Storyteller is bad Actor. The Storyteller wants to tell stupid stories. He wants to tell the epic story of Lord of the rings, but without Boromir's betrayal, without the splitting, and ending with the 9 at mount doom facing the nine (or maybe the one?).

Right in the description, some dumb fuck who thinks that character motivations should subject themselves to the story. Go right a fucking novel and suck my cock.

As for the advice. He would never insist the story be about him, because he thinks his character motivations aren't as important as the whim of the DM, so even if he really really hates Kobolds, he'll protect the Kobolds from the demons given even a hint about that being the 'story' the Dm wants to tell. And dictating other characters actions, if he doesn't do that, then he's not a storyteller. If he lets other people's character motivations dictate their actions, then he has objectively failed in his endeavor.
So if a writer asks to join your group, you'll tell them to suck your cock? (Incidentally, this is yet -another- type of player that I know personally. The last paragraph just you wrote doesn't make any sense to me. Do you know what they're referring to when they say 'the narrative should win?' It's more of an anti-rules lawyer concept than 'whatever the DM says goes'.
I honestly can't tell whether this is supposed to be people like me, who play casters with elaborate spell combos and actual plans of attack (I spent two fucking pages discussing how we were going to teleport into a fight once) or stupid fucks who think saying shit like "I ignore all tactics and sense and rules, by running behind the boss and grabbing the Mcguffin, I win teh gamzor!" Either way it's fucking dumb.

Let's look at some of the brilliant advice:
Reward planning and tactics with in game benefits. Okay, so this is bullshit 4e, where tactics don't actually matter, but fuck. Tactics and planning have actual benefits, that's why you fucking do them.

Occasionally allow planning to be useful, but not often, heaven forbid planning be a good idea or something, then all the Actors and Slayers and Powergamers might do it. And then where would we be? Without any distinctions in player types, you might have to actually DM instead of being a damn fool.

But whatever you do, don't let the fucking person with the plan tell the other people how to implement the plan, cause fuck, that would make sense.
You are again exaggerating the point for the sake of your argument (hyperbole, I believe?). This is the type of person who enjoys being a strategist, far moreso than other characters. One player may consider kicking in a door and rushing a bunch of kobolds on the other side, while the thinker has another plan in mind that could make that decidedly easier. And no, not everyone is a tactical genius. That's not a prerequisite to play Dnd. What they want thinkers to avoid with the last two lines is to dictate absolutely fucking everything the others do, and I'm kind of surprised you don't see that yourself.
WTF? Social event, to be part of a group. Because they are shy and not involved? Fuck this shit.
...Yes. Believe it or not, some people like hanging around with their friends but aren't really sure what to say, especially in a game as strange as Dnd. Some of my friends still fit this type, because they just naturally aren't talkative.
Holy shit. That's fucking horrible. You missed some contradictions by the way.

'Never forcing him to be more involved than he wants.'

'Don't let him disappear from the table at crucial moments.'

What the fuck?

And that's not even the only one. You just referenced the onion of Fail - there's always another layer to peel back.

But seriously. Most of the Den falls under most of those categories, all at once. It's not just you three.
The two 'contradictions' involve comfort levels. Some people don't want to get too involved with the game as much as the others due to social issues or whatever the fuck, but you should try to encourage them to try as much as they can.

As I mentioned, people can have multiple 'types', or even change their types (though I am consistently a powergamer). This section is meant to give you the advice to adjust to those situations

This is the last post I'll be making regarding this particular subject. I think I've proven my reasoning quite well, and this is getting far, far too long (this post took about 20 minutes to type). Forgive me if I didn't touch on some points you made, but if you'd like an essay, you're going to have to pay me for my time. I'm sure I'm going to be flamed for trying to be objective as well, but hey, that's the Internet for ya. Perhaps I just interpret these types better than even the writers or something, but they've been helpful for me (and others, to avoid bias) and therefore fit within the DMG.
Last edited by Iron Mongler on Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Locked