So I'm running a game of D&D 4e for a bunch of new players,

>>53078532
>So I'm running a game of D&D 4e for a bunch of new players
Do you want them to hate tabletop?

>>53078587
Yeah, I know, but I don't own any other books any I don't have the money for more. Besides, it's not hard to make fun.

>>53078641
Probably the worst defense you can give for playing a shit system

>>53078691
Thanks for the help, buddy. You've accomplished a lot today.

File: 1462477225093.jpg (28KB, 350x335px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 350x335px

>>53078532
>D&D 4e

>>53078708
No problem. But base rulebooks for many systems cost less than $20 or you can just use pdfs. Why would you sully new players' first tabletop experience with 4e? It's probably more accurate to say that you're lazy.

>>53079009
Or that I'm not going to pass a phone around the table for everyone to look up rules in. And what part of "got no money" do you not get?
Maybe offer a good answer to the question instead of shitposting?

>>53079099
People have tablets and laptops.
>got no money
If you want to enjoy a hobby, is putting down a few bucks a big deal? I hate this "wahh wahh I am broke like I have literally 0 cents broke" meme. Are you driving to the meeting place? Do you buy takeout occasionally? Do you have a netflix subscription? Do you occasionally get the somewhat nicer food brands at walmart? If so then fuck off, your account balance is obviously not zero.

I've spent $500+ on books alone for my groups over the years. And if they want to play something I don't have and don't want to pay for it myself, I ask every one of them to chip in $5-10. I spend 4+ hours a week preparing and then another 5 hours running the game, having them crowdfund a new purchase two or three times a year isn't a big deal. Maybe you should consider it.

>>53079244
Not a one of my players is going to pay me to run this thing. No one owns a tablet or laptop. Is it weird that someone is poorer than you? That we're not all middle class America who get to eat out every week?
Go feel superior somewhere else.

>>53079404
Hobbies require sacrifices. Hobbies are a luxury. Just admit that you want to play 4e and it has nothing to do with "no money".

>>53078532
TG will give you a better system for free. Its like a needle exchange. If you're playing 4e we know you're going to hurt yourself, but we can at least minimize the damage. Id highly recommend checking a PDF thread for barbarians of Lemuria.

>>53078587
>>53078839
>>53079498
Who let 2008 in here?

>>53078532

Ignore the assholes OP. 4e is a good system with a focused design. If it does what you want it to, awesome, have fun with it.

As for home base stuff, 4e actually had rules for that. The Adventurers Vault 2 has a section on Lair Items, page 79 onwards. You can also find them in cbloader or on the funin.space compendium.

>>53079529
Look, 4e is not a good starting system. Its a decent game, but its in no way representative of ttrpgs as a whole and teaches several bad habits.

>>53079548

No more than any other edition of D&D.

In many ways, 4e is a perfect starting system. Everything you need is laid out on your character sheet, with very little need to look things up or quibble over the rules. The power structure makes it easy to understand your options both in and out of combat, while the simple and hard to screw up character creation means you're far, far less likely to run into trap options and seriously hurt your game experience just by picking something that seems fun.

>>53079603
While that is all true, what is effiencient/good play in 4e is metagaming in any other system, and thats probably the hardest habit to un-learn.

>>53079664

...What are you even talking about?

>>53079673
4e encourages things like encounter-counting and meta-resource management. It teaches players to pay attention to what dungeon layout is likely to be, not in an in-world sense but in an in-game sense so that healing surges and per-day powers can be used to their maximum potential. Other games have similar features, but 4e is the only fantasy roleplaying game Im aware of which justifies the rationing of resources in such an arbitrary way.

>>53079716

Maybe in high optimisation play? My groups have always played it like, y'know, D&D, and it's worked pretty much fine.

It's not like you can't do the exact same things in 3.PF/5e, they just obfuscate things more to make it more difficult.

>>53079739
Sure, but other editions of dont do as much to emphasize that sort of optimization and dont "break the 4th wall" as often with arbitrary power limitations.

Im not the crusader for 3/pf that you may think I am, but I do run a lot of open games at my FLGs and the majority of players with a metagaming problem come to me from a pure 4e background if they have any at all.

>>53079755

I'm still kinda confused by you using the term 'metagaming'.

Generally, that's used to refer to people using out of character knowledge to get an advantage in the game.

It's a completely different thing to using the mechanics of the game.

Then again, I guess it's the reason so many people dislike abstract narrative metacurrencies and such. 4e is, in many ways, a very narrative system- Per encounter powers are very much a narrative conceit. It's a design trend I like, and I don't think the behaviour it encourages is entirely negative, it's just a matter of playstyle. A player thinking of their characters role in the story and the overall flow of events as well as considering things from their characters perspective is something I often thinks add to the game, helping people realise when a bit of compromise or taking a certain action might help the game be more fun for everyone, justifying it IC of course but not being entirely motivated by that IC reason.

>>53078532

4e is a bad sytem, that' established in his threat by now.

My approach for this would be: First separate upgrades into a low/mid/high tier bases on the effect they have. After that, base each upgrade tier on the corresponding income you expect the heroes to get over the course of the tier.
We can't give you a guide on how to price what exactly, because it depens on how much gold/loot/magical items you hand out to your players. If you go 100% with random loot and calculate the average you'll have at least a guideline on how much ressources they'll have available.
Depending on how much shopping they do (or need to do, e.g. because their radom loo doesn'thelp them) you hould opt to modify their loot instead of trying to create a perfectly balanced pricing - imply becaue it won't be anyway.

Personally I would tend to lean to the "more expensive" side beforehand, and if necessary provide options for the party to get discounts if th RP well with the righ NPCs...

You could also look for homstead rule online, I guess someone created homebrew rules already, but I can't give you directions. Especially not for 4e.
If you can't find it for 4e, at least look into the rules of other systems, this could give you at least a rough how to o that in your game.

>>53079802
That sort of really deep theater of the minds is not something new players are very good at. The majority of new players do not see an arbitrary ability and think of a way to mesh it into their concept of the world: they see an arbitrary ability and assume that everything that goes on in the world is arbitrary, and therefore secondary to mechanical considerations. In reality, there's no reason a trick should work once per encounter, regardless of that encounter's makeup, but 4e requires that you think of the world as being arbitrarily subservient to the rules. Ive heard many people say that 4e does narrative well by leaving it alone and letting players engage the roleplay aspects of the game at their own comfort level, but I find that newer players do not know how to roleplay, and as such 4e only teaches them how to use rules well, but not how to help tell a story.

>>53078532
Don't listen to the "hurr durr 4e is le meme xDDD im too funny" crowd, OP. The system doesn't matter too much.

Anyway I was a player in a campaign where the DM had us rebuild a village that fuctionned as our base and gave bonuses.
The thing is, since you're base is gonna be static, it looses a ton of interest, because players are always going to want to travel and shit.
What worked for us was having ultra OP merchands that would sell high level magic stuff. But it worked because our DM was a greedy fuck that would never let us get high level stuff in our loots.

>>53079998

I've always expressed it in terms of a fight scene in a movie or a TV show.

Most of the time, people stick to simple seeming attacks, not achieving too much but keeping pressure on the opponent.

A few times in the scene, they'll pull off something significant, taking out a lesser foe or putting serious hurt or disadvantage on a greater one.

And, once every few scenes, someone will pull off something amazingly fucking awesome.

It's even more direct if you consider stuff like anime or toku stuff. Even if someone has a super strong signature attack, they don't just spam it all the time. They take the time to beat the enemy up first, softening them up until they notice a key moment in the fight to make best use of it.

This is what Encounters and Dailies are, and I've never met a new player who found the principle hard to grasp as part of the storytelling of combat.

>>53080040
Thats a great explanation, but a new group of new players with a new DM may not necessarily have that understanding. You're right, its not a hard principle to grasp, but its not an understanding that the system inherently builds, as opposed to something like mouseguard for example which explains why it segregates narratives into vignettes (as well as pretty much every other design decision).

>>53078532
If you're going to be throwing that much money at the players, Id just divide all their reward into "loot piles" with the approximate value of 1k gold.

>>53079537
>>53079956
Thanks, that helps quite a bit. I didn't know there was already stuff written about that.

I was actually rolling random loot with the tables they provide, but after level two they had basically nothing due to bad rolls.
I think I'll be handing out more loot due to it being a high-fantasy tale of heroes, with magic items being dropped regularly enough they should feel encouraged to spend it on the base.

>>53080561

Something that doesn't hurt is having each player give you a list of items that they think are cool.

You don't need to always give them all of them, but if someone has been getting fucked by random rolls for a while, handing them an item they really like isn't a bad thing.

>>53079716
There's nothing meta about tracking your available resources in 4e, or any other RPG. Characters in the world can be expected to know when they're getting tired, even if they don't express it in the terms the rules use.

>>53079956
>4e is a bad sytem, that' established in his threat by now.
Fucking where?

>>53080733
yes, but characters usually are more concerned with how many creatures are in a dungeon, not how many encounters it will be spread out into.

>>53080561
D&D characters need to get fairly frequent gear upgrades to keep up with monsters of their level - if someone isn't getting the weapon, armour and cloak/amulet with the highest bonus that they can use within a couple levels of it being available then give them a chance to find or buy it.

Or else replace these fundamental magic items with versions that level up with the character, or divine boons that grant the enhancement bonus by itself so you can just plant whatever magic items you think would be fun.

>>53080796
Both are a major concern. It's one thing to know there's thirty salamanders in this fortress, and another to realise you'll have to fight them all at once.

>>53078532
Introduce an actual competent rival party.
Can stir nice RP, make the players more engaged in order to not be surpassed and can help in a decisive big battle.

>>53080040
>And, once every few scenes, someone will pull off something amazingly fucking awesome.

That’s nice and all anon, but that is exactly the opposite of what 4e encourages. 4e encourages you to blow all your encounter powers in the first round of combat then try to mop up with at-wills. If the fight is a little bit harder, then maybe use a daily. The fights have the opposite of a climax - everyone blows their cool stuff in the first rounds (especially if they have action points) and then are stuck spamming at-wills until the combat grinds to a end.

>>53080834
Sure, but in any other game the difference between 8 and 10 encounters matters much less.

>>53080871
To be fair, you can easily end up with multiple at-wills and positional synergies, which is one of 4e's strengths: it manages to take long slugfests and make them at least a little bit interesting.

>>53080871

Really? It never seems to go like this when I play.

Not using an encounter power is a waste, but at the same time it's often worth figuring out the best time to use them, since a lot of them are better in some situations.

Then again, as I've mentioned elsewhere I play almost entirely in low optimisation games. There might be a lot of stuff you 'need' to do to play the game at 100% efficiency, but we don't do that and it all still works fine.

>>53080949
Frankly, I'm not sure that's true, most games have hard limits on how far your characters can push themselves.

The difference between 8 and 10 encounters in a 4e adventuring day is hard to judge until you've actually fought the first eight and can see how many surges and daily powers you have left. Unless you seriously outclass the opposition then 8 or 10 fights between a long rest is likely more than you can handle.

>>53080974
Slugfests have tension though
Some of my fondest memories are in BECMI with a faceoff where me and my party, already injured and most of our spells used for the day, take dozens of turns to finish off a fight because both sides have high AC. Fights that end in victory or defeat within a few rounds, or where the battle is determined in the opening due to powerful moves, are very boring.

>>53081033
Fine, then even 3 as compared to 4 is a major difference in difficulty, thanks entirely to the way that 4e structures powers and encounters. Just as a reminder, I dont think thats necessarily a huge problem, but it does force players to make considerations that have no bearing on the game as a narrative. And, again, its not that no other game does that, its that its at the forefront of efficient play in 4e.

>>53081077
Id say thats situational at best. Regardless of what system I play, Id rather have choices on how to deal with things rather than just rolling until somebody wins. There is tension in an all out slugfest, but thats only if the GM has things well balanced.

>>53081086
I've been trying, but I just can't get my head around your argument at all.

4e characters suffer attrition as they get into fights by depleting their health pool and limited-use powers. In the narrative this is described as the protagonists becoming progressively more bloodied, beaten and exhausted. Both the players and characters should be able to make judgements about how much more they can handle. What's the conflict here? Where are the "considerations that have no bearing on the game as a narrative"? Powers with daily limits have been in D&D for a long time, and not just spells that the characters would be expected to discuss in mechanical terms.

It's no weirder or more meta than if I was playing a game of Vampire and decided not to pick a fight because my character's Willpower pool was running low. It might not be a measurable resource to him in the same way as his points of Magic Vampire Blood Energy, but the numbers on the sheet still represent something he's aware of.

>>53078587
If you really want to cement the experience, make sure to put them through lots and lots of skill challenges. Always let them know when they stumble into one. Never hide it under the narrative. Also, be completely inflexible when it comes to the details of their powers. If the power descriptor doesn't say the lightning bolt can be conducted by water or metal, by the gods it cannot be. Don't forget to be super autistic about ritual costs so that pesky magic can never be used to solve anything. After all, you've got skill challenges!

>>53081283
Other editions don't have per encounter powers

>>53079603
In many ways, 4e is a perfect starting system.

Kek. 4e starter here, just wanted to let you know that's a load of shit. If you get an inflexible GM it quickly becomes hell. Also having to rely on a character sheet generator with a gorrillian options wasn't fun, it was overwhelming.

>>53081419

...So having a bad GM and having a character builder program somehow makes it a bad system for new players? What?

>>53081439
New GMs are seldom good, and he's saying that having a character builder for new players in a game with so many discrete options is counterproductive.

>>53081499

As opposed to having to navigate those same options without easy organisation or the ability to cross reference?

>>53081439
Guy I replied to said 4e was a perfect starter system. I pointed out that was wrong when its fun capacity could be so easily inverted.

>>53081511
Having a fuckton of minimally different options isn't beginner-friendly, it virtually demands handholding and assures confusion.

>>53081511
No, as opposed to a system with less options. Having too many options will overwhelm new players. It's why, while I love 1e and 2e, I would never get a group of newbies to play beyond what's in the PHB unless they had other experience. 3.5, PF, and 4e just have way too many bells and whistles right out of the gate. It's a kiss of death for a game of all noobs, especially if they're feeling "creative" on how they want to build and play their characters.

>>53081555

>Having a fuckton of minimally different options

So you're speaking out of your ass, got it

>>53081561

Except 4e is generally fine even if you're building characters based on what looks cool? There are some inferior options, but basically nothing on the same scale as 3.PF.

>>53081534

>fun capacity could be so easily inverted.

What the fuck does this even mean?

>>53081511
Yeah, at least then you can just take an approach where you grab the first ones that jump out at you rather than having a wall of power names to cross-reference

>>53081573
>my feefees!

Feats, bud. Right off the bat, fucking 4e feats. What a shitshow.

>>53081621

What?

>>53081641
>pick a feat, anon! You eaned it!
>oh cool let me just dig through this huge fucking pile for one that I might actually want
>surely every new player will love this complete lack of focus and definitely not pick something stupid just to get it over with

>>53081700

I find this confusing. Especially when the character builder puts your race and class feats at the top of the list, giving you a quick and easy selection of things which are basically all fun, flavourful and useful. Digging through the main feat list can be a pain, sure, and some of them are pretty dull, but those top two sections are generally all you need.

>>53079673
My best guess is he thinks this is a3.PF thread.

>>53081726
Something new players probably won't get unless you tell them specifically. So it seems we already have a 4e analogue to trap options (in this case less harmful than generally useless and ho-hum), which isn't looking terribly great in terms of the supposed perfect starter system.

>>53078691
Dude if your not going to be helpful get the fuck out.

Also op I'm prepping for a similar seting where my players are going to aquire a castle and some land to build a town later on. I'm using PF so it's a little easier for be cuz the SRD already had some stuff like alchemist workbenches priced. But I would make the basics like a stable and simple furnishings a few hundred, while alchemy labs or the teleportation pads several thousand. Also look at how much worth a player should have at a given level and price the items that you want to be able to get at that level based on their total worth. I'll give an example.

Say you have 4 players at lvl5. A lvl 5 character should have 10k Worth (in PF anyway)and around then is when I want them to get a forge and someone to run it who can make armor or weapons for them. The party has a net worth of about 40k so I would probably price it between 15%-25% of their total worth or about 6k - 10k.

You might find that's to much or too little but either way I think it's a pretty good rule of thumb to base your pricing on the party net worth at a certain level.

>>53081794

Given that as a new 4e player myself, seeing things at the top of the list felt extremely obvious and intuitive?

You might be right in some cases, but given the opposite experiences the best you can say is that the character builder is a net neutral. And the simple clarity of the rest of the system still makes it excellent for new players.

>>53078587
t. Only plays 3.PF

>>53081018
As someone who does play in relatively high op 4e games, I've barely ever seen this either.

Only time I have seen this is from people who played 3.PF most of their lives. They're usually thankful after I undo the brain damage that system is infamous for.

>>53079716
And narrative meta currencies do not? What are you smoking?

>>53081380
So? Encounter powers don't figure into players' or characters' strategic planning.

>>53081822
Also a guy who got started on 4e and who had a hard time with the character builder. The assertion was that 4e was a perfect entry rpg for newbies. I've already pointed to the obvious problems with that statement. It may be decent if you have a good GM, but the idea that it's somehow wonderful in that area is absolutely laughable. Now, we can go around and around about this if you want, but that won't change how absolutely aweful I've seen 4e be. In the wrong hands, it nearly killed my fledgeling desire for tabletop altogether.

>>53081822
The character builder is a major positive, the amount of useless crunch that makes a character builder necessary is a huuuge negative.

It's not an issue D&D didn't have before, but it's an issue no other games have to the same degree.

>>53081905
You can give us an accurate comparison when you start ttrpgs again for the first time with a different system.

>>53081905

Then errata that statement to 'It can be a perfect entry RPG for newbies'.

But nothing you've said has seemed like a system trait, more just a bad experience that's colouring your perceptions. A bad GM can make even the best system fucking suck.

>>53081934
I already pointed out it has far too many options that require sifting through, which frankly is part of the system. Requiring a character builder to make all that work is not a system positive.

>>53081855
Judging by your unrelenting smugness, I'm pretty sure no one has ever thank you for anything

>>53081970
so what system do you play?

>>53081934
Christ you're so hard headed
What he and others are saying is that, while a good GM can make 4e decent, the statement "it's a great/perfect/good system for newbies" is demonstrably false without adding a LOT of qualifiers on. It is just simply not that good for newbies as it creates a lot of bad habits and is unintuitive for those who try to switch out of 4e.

I assume you're op: fine, give them 4e. Just know that there are better options out there. Defending 4e and saying things that are untrue has no purpose.

>>53081888
Why wouldn't the powers that a character had figured into their strategy?

>>53082023
>It is just simply not that good for newbies as it creates a lot of bad habits and is unintuitive for those who try to switch out of 4e.
t. random neckbeard who has never actually played a ttrpg and thinks his opinion is fact

>>53081930
Different guy, but as I mentioned earlier I run a ton of games at my local game store with a lot of new players, and I find that those who have a starting background in 4th edition tend to not do very well in other games comma especially if they have no other experience

>>53082023

But none of that have been substantiated.

The systems positive traits that make it good for new players- Very clear and easily understood rules, good GM side support, a lot of easily available content- haven't been countered with anything beyond anecdotal evidence or arguments that it doesn't work with a bad GM, which applies to any system that ever existed.

>>53082047
Do you have an argument, or are you just going to call into question the basic idea that he plays tabletop games?

>>53082010
Ultimately? I went with 13th Age. I will not claim it is for everyone, nor that it's a perfect system for new players, and you absolutely must have a competent DM to run it. Character options are spread out all over the place and frankly do need to be compiled in one place. But I do like how it handles classes, feats, rituals, skills, movement, and just about everything else more than 4e did. For me, that's enough. For others, that isn't. That's fine.

>>53082123
>nor that it's a perfect system for new players
is it not a perfect system, or is it a bad one? because, you know, everything you listed is the exact same as what you claimed was wrong with 4e

>>53082060
To what degree can we substantiate any of these claims other than an anecdotal ways you can simply say no to

>>53082118
>Do you have an argument
nobody does, least of all you or the idiot claiming 4e creates bad habits
there's obviously no actual facts or statistics on this so its just idiots slinging anecdotes at each other

>>53082154
I claimed it made 4e not a perfect game for new players, and that is all. Now, if you're looking to start some sort of edition war then I'll go fuck right off and do something more useful, because I have no horse in that race.

Because, likewise, liking 4e in general is fine. It's just, again, imperfect and it's really hard to take people seriously when they say it somehow isn't.

>>53082195
I don't think there's any factual statistics about any of this stuff, no one's ever done a study on gaming habits of people based on, well, anything. If you can do a discussion about the subjective merits of role-playing game systems and expected data I'm not sure what to tell you

>>53082245
>It's just, again, imperfect and it's really hard to take people seriously when they say it somehow isn't

No one claimed it was perfect, just a good game for people starting out with TTRPGs.....which it is.

Honestly, the biggest problem with people arguing against 4e is that most of the complaints against it are completely fictional.

Which is strange when there's actual problems with 4e, like multi classing being meh, skill challenges being dumb as written, and monster math being wonky at the start.

>>53082406

Multiclassing is a mixed bag. Hybrid and paragon multiclassing sucks, but I actually prefer multiclass feats to the 3.PF style level by level multiclassing. It lets you add some flavour and variety without it needing to be a super mechanically intensive thing. It's better for building real characters, even if it's less good for optimisation.

>>53082406
It was specifically claimed to be nearly perfect for new players. At best, it's absolutely better than 3.X or perhaps even 13th Age just because there's less GM-May-I. There are far better first timer games out there.

>>53082406
>No one claimed it was perfect

>>53079603
>In many ways, 4e is a perfect starting system.

>>53082503

>in many ways

>>53082559
But...it's not
That's what we were arguing about.

>>53078532
>How much gold should I charge these guys to fix up their building?
None, make them earn it through favors. They save the carpenter's daughter? He fixes the walls and floors for free. Saved the lumberjacks from owlbears? There's the wood they needed. By the time they have a magnificent building they should also have a strong connection to the local community.

This also promotes actual in character interaction with the NPCs.

>>53082500
>nearly perfect, but there are many that are far better.

That doesnt sound nearly perfect, that sounds passable, which I would agree with.

>>53082605

Can you point them out? Actual system traits, not things reliant on the GM.

>>53082709
You're just trying to talk in circles
The claim:
>In many ways, 4e is a perfect starting system.
The counter claim:
>It's not

The arguments:

>>53079716
>>53079998
>>53080871
>>53081794
>>53081905

Your stupid post:
> Actual system traits, not things reliant on the GM.

People who play 4e and pathfinder are so fucking defensive about their system. Other than one or two autists, no one in this thread is saying that 4e is 100% bad. It just has problems, especially when it comes to new players.

>>53081077
No no no no no no no FUCK no I would take rocket tag over that without fail. Every single time anything like that has ever happened in any kind of game, it has immediately made me disengage with the game and stop caring about what's going on.

>>53082828
>if the battle doesn't end quickly without any tension, I disengage with the game
>D&D should be like an 80s action movie!

>>53082822

I'm just trying to understand your point. It all seems to be based on interpretations of or reactions to the system, rather than pointing to a specific part of the system and saying 'This is why it is not good for new players'.

It's just all kind of vague and ambiguous.

>>53082860
Both parties whiffing against each other for several rounds is not tense, it's boring as absolute fuck.

>>53082860
>D&D should be like an 80s action movie!
Yes, yes it should. That's exactly the kind of thing that makes people want to play D&D.

>>53082860
Your definition of tension is shit. Being in extreme danger every time you don't surprise your enemies or win initiative is far more tense than waiting 10 fucking rounds for someone to finally hit.

>>53082860
>D&D should be like an 80s action movie!
You're quoting D&D developers since the 80s, right?

>>53082709
>Can you point them out?

You can Google them. Dumb 4rries.

>>53082822
4e is bad for new players, but great for new DMs

I say this as someone who loves 4e to bits

>>53082872
Different guy here, and I need you to clarify something. What sort of things would you judge to be specific parts of the system vs "interpretations of or reactions to the system?" Becuase it seems like you could easily write anything of the former off as something of the latter and make this entire discussion pointless.

>>53083013
>but great for new DMs
Oh hell no it isn't. My GM started out with 4e and shat out the worst campaign experience I've ever suffered through.

>>53083053
Maybe your GM is just incompetent

>>53083053
Hmm, well, we have conflicting experiences with new DMs and 4e

But maybe that's false, my "new DM" was an experienced player of multiple RPGs and D&D editions, he'd just never DM-ed before. I imagine for someone who's never played or DM-ed before it could be quite difficult to handle the resources 4e throws at you

>>53083076
By definition, all new GMs are incompetent. He had a bad mindset starting out though. 4e didn't cure him of that.

>>53083162
I think the culture at the time played into it as well. Everything back then was very 3.X vs 4e to an obnoxious degree, and the big thing on the 4e side was balance Balance BALANCE. So everything he did had to be about keeping things balanced. This boiled down to painfully long battles in which he'd never allow anything if it didn't follow the rules-as-written to the letter. He also followed the old monster math and would never fudge the number of monsters we had to hack our way through.

He was also enamored with the idea that skill challenges were amazing on the old skill rolling conventions and never missed an opportunity to announce "it's tiiiime for a skillllll challennnnnnge~!"

I wanted to murder him so many times.

>>53083240
Oooh, was this with PHB1 maths?

Yeah, that would hurt, fortunately my group found 4e after MM3 had been released, so everything died much faster than it would have for you

>>53083028

So many of the points seem to be talking about various behaviours as if they're an implicit product of parts of the system, but they never cite the exact part that supposedly creates said behaviour or really explain the why, or really counter the people saying that those behaviours didn't really seem implicit in it to them.

It's just kinda weird.

>>53083291
That would have been pretty nice. Eventually, my group ended up dragging every battle on for ours simply because we kept trying to foster some level of excitement and the GM kept shooting us down. "No, you can't try to cut the rope to the chandelier above the bad guy's head, now pick a power and attack him like you're supposed to." If the battles were the least bit interesting or timely, we probably wouldn't have gone that route.

>>53083448

That's extra stupid given the rules for improvised actions are right there in the DMG.

>>53083404
Well, I've said repeatedly that the ridiculous number of feats is a bog-fest and that the character creator is overwhelming because of the plethora of options available, so those are two specific things that would be negative in the context of new and inexperienced players. The only halfway decent response I got was, "well, it's not /always/ like that for new players," which is true but does nothing to refute the initial point of all this.

So there's that.

>>53083448
Improvised actions are in the DMG, as are the damage rolls from environmental damage

Your DM was an idiot, and wasn't following the rules

>>53083495
Well, one of 4e's strengths is that the gulf between low and high optimization is notable, but fairly small compared to other crunch-heavy games

If you just do as the book tells you, you will have a functional character as long as you aren't playing a bladesinger

>>53083495
Let's just stop bothering. The guy(s) claims every point of criticism as something doesn't count.

>>53083462
>>53083496
To be fair, he did eventually start mixing things up with exploding death mushrooms we were able to use as grenades once. But skill challenges were still the biggest cancer of all. The straw that broke the camel's back was when he reduced approaching a sleeping dragon to a skill challenge-based minigame.

>>53082658
> “We Would like to purchase your services, good carpenter.”
> “Fuck off, You haven’t saved my daughter yet.

Brilliant anon.

>>53083544
>functional
That's very different from a fun character. Having so many options that you just start choosing randomly because you can't be arsed to analyze and cross-reference every single one isn't fixed by going "well at least it can handle itself in battle." Because then you get stuck with shit like "I am a sorcerer. I go pew pew. Chaos bolt. Again. Imagine that."

>>53083564
Not that guy, but in that case, you'd best go with "I can't possibly fill the job on my own and need my daughter, who has been kidnapped. But perhaps I can offer you a deal?"

Not that hard.

>>53083624

Having built every character I've ever played in 4e based on 'Ooh, that looks cool' (with, admittedly, the occasional glance at a charop guide just to make sure it wasn't complete garbage) I've been pretty much fine. I've ended up with fun, functional and interesting to play characters every time.

>>53079434
>Hobbies require sacrifices. Hobbies are a luxury.
The fuck kinda hobbies are you into?

>>53083655
And that's nice and all, but my first time was still "Zipzap McBoringbolt" because everyone was going on and on about optimization and pushing me to pick this or that option because it was perhaps slightly better than another. That, and none of the options really leapt out at me as remotely interesting.

>>53083713

And that's the systems fault because...?

>>53083664
tabletop, if you weren't a crossboarder you would know tabletop hobbies are fucking expensive in time and money.
I will buy a new sourcebook over clothes, expensive meals, or new tech any day. I also spend 9+ hours per week preparing as DM or running games.

That's a sacrifice.

>>53083166
Well, I appreciate you admitting 4e had nothing to do with it.

>>53083726
>overloads player with options
>has no fucking clue what they're doing
>have to rely on spergs for guidance
>suffer for it

Ideally the whole thing should have been very straightforward. At the beginning, with core only, it might have even been. But not at this point.

>>53081380
>What are 1/day abilities?

>>53083766
I'd expect a "near-perfect system for beginners" not to be sabotaged so easily.

>>53083624
I enjoy in-depth analysis of crunch so I enjoy looking through every power and making the optimal choice, but if you don't enjoy that sort of thing, you can always just pick whichever option matches best with the fluff you want.

I mean, a precise, calm fighter probably fits better with "Shift the Battlefield" than "Bone Crusher". A fire dragon sorcerer is probably going to take "explosive pyre", not "frostbind". And hell, chaos sorcerers have the easiest job, just take all the sorcerer powers with random effects

>>53081970
A lot of crunchy games like Shadowrun 5e or 3.PF have character builders to help move shit along. It's not that you have an issue with it having too many options, it's that you probably just don't like crunchy games in general.

>>53083726
>And that's the systems fault because...?
>Can you point them out?
>No one claimed it was perfect, just a good game for people starting out with TTRPGs.....which it is.
>t. random neckbeard who has never actually played a ttrpg and thinks his opinion is fact
>What?What?What?What?What?
>Really? It never seems to go like this when I play.
>I'm still kinda confused by you using the term 'metagaming'.
>In many ways, 4e is a perfect starting system.
>...What are you even talking about?


Why do you type like low grade bait? Is it the brain problems from too much 4e?

>>53083804
>I enjoy in-depth analysis of crunch so I enjoy looking through every power and making the optimal choice
And that's completely fine. The issue is that players new to RPGs as a whole generally aren't that. I sure wasn't. This was tantamount to being thrown into the river with a paddle and being told to figure it out. It wasn't fun, and I sure as hell didn't like the results. Yeah, my character wasn't a wimp, but if I had to rework it again nowadays I sure as hell wouldn't make the same choices.

>>53083777

It seems more like a problem with a shitty group than anything else.

Being forced to make a character you don't feel invested in by people demanding you be optimal will be no fun, regardless of system.

As has been said, you'd probably have been better off just choosing based on fluff, you'd have ended up with a more varied an interesting character.

>>53083881
I still don't recommend 4e to new players

I love it, but it's not for people who are new to RPGs as a whole, start them on 5e, or FATE, or an ultralight system

>>53083881

So it's about the system not matching up to your preferences, and you projecting those preferences onto all other new players without real evidence or justification?

Now it makes sense.

>>53083916
So you can't take that aspect of the system can confuse new players and dismiss any such experience out of hand?

Sure is convenient.

>>53083737
>tabletop, if you weren't a crossboarder you would know tabletop hobbies are fucking expensive in time and money.
All of my pdf's are either free or given to me from my GM's and whenever I ran games, I'd spend maybe an hour a week drawing up maps or writing down primers for my next session.
>I will buy a new sourcebook over clothes, expensive meals, or new tech any day. I also spend 9+ hours per week preparing as DM or running games.
Yeah, I remember when I was NEET and a newbie in the hobby, thankfully I didn't waste nearly as much resources as you did before I got gud at running and playing in games.
>That's a sacrifice.
A needless one, for a hobby, that's supposed to be done for kicks in one's spare time. If you're sacrificing anything for something that isn't family, friends, or work, you're doing something terribly terribly wrong.

>>53083855
Just because you play in a shitty group that demands that you be optimized as fuck when it's not required is more an issue with the group, rather than the system itself.

>>53083990
Tabletop is with friends and sometimes family. I don't play with strangers. We're all sacrificing for our mutual enjoyment.

>>53083899
One of my issues with that is that even the fluff options are very list-y
>pick one of fifty deities I don't know or care about to worship
>pick the place you were born and here's a mechanical effect to go with it for some reason

But my larger issue is just being told to pick via rule-of-cool is also very group-dependent. The game itself doesn't actually point you in that direction. I do think it's nice that it does offer advice on what ability scores to pick depending on your class. That's a plus for the newbie experience.

>>53083796
No system is going to stop people being stupid.

>>53084028

That's fair. Honestly, I think the mechanical choice of deity with actual character options stuck behind them is another stupid D&Dism that 4e should have abandoned.

The backgrounds are also super dumb, there's so fucking many of them, and most of the traits are meaningless except a couple which are crazy goddamn good.

>>53083404
Thats because those people who say that the behavior isnt implicit are just refusing to accept the implication,which is their right. If I make an "A therefore B" argument and you dont understand how I made the leap, there's little I can do other than provide anecdotes (which people have done) to clarify the mechanism, baring some form of scientific study.

>>53084028
You don't need to pick a deity to worship, that isn't a required character feature, not even for divine classes, nor are background benefits.

But even so, the deities are explained pretty succinctly, and since the only mechanical effect of a background is a small skill bonus, just pick whichever background gives you the skill bonus you feel your character should have

>>53084055
Mouseguard begs to differ. That system actually teaches players how to roleplay really aggressively.

>>53083961
Not him but any fucking concept is going to be confusing for a newbie who has no idea of what he's doing but that doesn't necessarily mean that the concept itself is actually confusing, it just means that the player might be rolling a few dice short of a pool, if you get my meaning.

I had a dude in my group, sweet guy, but every time we played any system, he'd always ask the same questions.
>What do I roll for defense?
>How much HP do I have?
>What do I roll again for attack?
>How many attacks do I get?
>Wait, what's the range of my spell again?
And he'd ask this every single time he needed to roll, even if the question was already answered less than a minute ago, in spite of the campaign itself going on for months.

If you balance around the idiot (and I mean this in the nicest way I can manage), you're just going to tie everything down for the rest of the group who does get it.

>>53084116
My experience differs, but meh.

>>53083907
Whats funny is that as Ive aged, Ive gone back to ultralight systems because I have no time to waste diving into mechanically dense systems. The turning point was when I tried to learn Shadowrun in grad school. After that I started trending towards lighter, purpose-built systems and never looked back.

>>53084019
>We're all sacrificing for our mutual enjoyment.
Then maybe you don't enjoy tabletop as much as you think.

>>53084067
I completely forgot about backgrounds. Pretty sure that I picked some nonsense one that it retrospect was pretty stupid.

>>53084096
That's good advice, anon. But the problem is there's nothing in the game proper to suggest you should do this.

>>53084136
Of mouseguard or 4e, because mouseguard is like a "how to roleplay" guidebook. It actually talks directly too the reader about things they should specifically keep in mind to improve their roleplay. Its the only system Ive ever seen thats so specifically prescriptive.

>>53084157
Oh fuck off, just leave him be. If he wants to make it work he will, you giving him a smart quip for everything he says isnt going to make him switch systems.

>>53084170
Both. I've seen people pick 4e up no problem, and people act like morons about mouse guard. Different people mind you.

>>53084125
>if my brand new, never-played-a-game-before player doesn't understand something in my super special favorite rpg, it's because they're stupid

I sincerely hope this wasn't your intended message.

>>53084154
Same here. Rules-heavy stuff just sort of ends up looking autistic to me.

>>53084191
That wasn't meant to be a smart quip, I'm telling him that if you view the act of playing a tabletop game with people as a "sacrifice" to your "mutual enjoyment" then maybe tabletop isn't the hobby for you.

If you're going to do a hobby, the bare minimum that's required is that you enjoy the time that you spend doing the hobby.

>>53084232
I wouldnt say that, specifically, but it doesnt add anything as far as Im concerned. You obviously need rules for conflict resolution, but overt simulationism is a fools errand.

I feel bad for OP, the trash descending on his thread from the word go.

>>53084236
Who said I didn't enjoy the time I spent doing the hobby? Just because I sacrifice doesn't mean I don't enjoy it.

I also run for a hobby. Buying shoes, running clothes, and race entries aren't cheap and running 4-5 days a week takes a lot of time. But I most certainly enjoy it. Sacrifices aren't bad but they are necessary.

>>53084256
>>53084232
>>53084154

And this is, y'know, why different systems exist. People have different preferences and expectations. And that's fine.

>>53084281
Until you have a thread about a game like this and have badwrongfun screamed at you for 2 hours/

>>53084236
Some sacrifices are worth while though, wouldnt you say?

Arguably, any trade that only a minority of people would make is a sacrifice.

>>53084201
I'm saying that not everyone is going to understand information the same way as everyone else.

Some people will dive into the system because they understand as soon as they read the rules, some may need more time for it all to sink in, and others might never get it no matter how much time you sink into teaching them what to do.

It's a consequence of teaching anyone anything that they have no backing in.

>>53084281
>>53084297
It only started with the ridiculous claim by the OP that 4e was "perfect in many ways for new players" which is simply wrong. This combined with the fact that every single point is deflected as "simply not counting" and a bad case of the "pretend to be dumb not to lose the argument" and we get where we are.

>>53084280
>Who said I didn't enjoy the time I spent doing the hobby?
Ahem >>53084019
>We're all sacrificing for our mutual enjoyment.
You may not have meant it this way, but the way you wrote it was similar to that of a person who only does something because they feel they must, not because they choose to.
>>53084306
>Some sacrifices are worth while though, wouldnt you say?
Only if it's in regards to work, friends, and family; even then, friends and family take precedence over everything else, including work.

>>53084297
Its not wrong fun, the argument here is that its not something that new players should be using. I would say the same thing about Exalted, Shadowrun, and Dark Heresy for different reasons.

I get that there's a defensive reaction because 4e may as well be the boy named sue at this point, but Ive got no problem with experienced players enjoying whatever they want.

>>53084337
>It only started with the ridiculous claim by the OP that 4e was "perfect in many ways for new players" which is simply wrong.
>...in my opinion
FTFY

>>53084337
Im not even sure that was OP at this point.

>>53084281
Well yeah, of course. All I'm saying is that my experience sitting at these games turns into "why do we even have to roll for this?" and so on. Plus >>53084297 is right. It's gotten pretty tiring to go "well I like this system personally" and some 400 lb neckbeard lurches into the thread and barfs out a fifteen post-long essay about how the balance in THIS game isn't quite as tight as the one in HIS favorite, therefore everyone who likes this one is trash.

Maybe the election got me hating tribalists in general. Hard to tell at this point.

>>53084337
>It only started with the ridiculous claim by the OP that 4e was "perfect in many ways for new players"
No, it started with OP asking for advice, and immediately became shitposting, then OP saying, when asked why he was running 4e, that those were the books he had, and what he was going to run.
You are simply continuing the line of shitposting, and I will abandon the thread as OP did. Do you feel proud of yourself, anon?

>>53084019

> what is anon's word of the day

>>53084379
>because they feel they must, not because they choose to.
Everyone in my group is an adult, we all choose to do this to have fun.

>>53084308
Alright. So 4e is too complex as whole for new players, then. They should start with something simpler.

>>53084385
The main argument for why people shouldn't view 4e as newbie friendly is because they FEEL as though it'll teach newbies bad habits, not because it actually does.

To be honest, I think that games like 5e teach more bad habits to people than 4e, but that's just my opinion and I'd still recommend both for newbies, even if I recommend one for more freeform games and another for more action-packed games.

>>53084450
>Everyone in my group is an adult, we all choose to do this to have fun.
If you're having fun then why do you feel as though you're sacrificing your mutual enjoyment?

>>53084476

I think you aren't giving people enough credit. At least in my experience, 4e goes down just fine, and the clarity of rules in it is excellent for people learning the system. Much better than more heavily obfuscated systems like 3.PF or 5e.

>>53078641
Go to Fifth General and get free books.

>>53084520
Reading skills?
Sacrificing for our mutual enjoyment. We sacrifice time and money to get mutual enjoyment.

>>53084495
Im that guy who keeps reposting this idea. It does. I have observed it. I cant vouch for the frequency with which it does, but of the new players who have single-game experience and meta-gaming habits, the majority come from a 4e environment.

I run a new game at my flgs every 3 months, and have done so on and off for about four years now. It is a thing.

>>53084554

Anecdotal evidence is worth the paper it's written on.

If you want to support your argument, say why. Actually detail and explain what aspects of the system create which specific problems.

Although if you're the same guy as earlier in the thread, it's less 'problems' and more 'different playstyles'.

>>53084476
4e is actually pretty simple once you get over the amount of options each class has thanks to each power having description and details the effects of what happens if you hit or miss. It's no more complex than learning how to play a TCG like MtG, YGO, or Pokemon.

>>53084581

>>53082822

>>53084337

>It only started with the ridiculous claim by the OP that 4e was "perfect in many ways for new players" which is simply wrong.

>which is simply wrong.

Is this really what it's come to?

>>53084522
>At least in my experience, 4e goes down just fine, and the clarity of rules in it is excellent for people learning the system
Okay. And in my experience the opposite is true.

Much better than more heavily obfuscated systems like 3.PF or 5e
That's not what I would call an accomplishment.

>>53084554
>unsubstantiated anecdotes
And y'know, anon, everyone has dealt with 3.PF purists with their host of problems.

>>53084554
>I cant vouch for the frequency with which it does, but of the new players who have single-game experience and meta-gaming habits, the majority come from a 4e environment.
What do you mean by meta-gaming habits out of curiosity? Because there's a difference between someone spending a fate point, someone bringing fire to a Troll hunt, and someone who reads the DM's notebook when he isn't looking.

>>53084585
>some new players are too stupid to get 4e
>maybe 4e is too complex for complete newbies
>no no it's simple really I swear

I definitely don't see this going in circles forever.

>>53084337
So why get all uppity about someone making a completely true statement?

>>53084581
I have, repeatedly. I believe it is due to meta-considerations figuring into decision making, specifically deployment of per-encounter abilities causing players to view things on a per encounter basis. I can substantiate this with my observation that those players with little experience who come to me from 4e tend to talk about dungeons as sets of encounters, and frequently reason with other players on the basis of what they expect me, the DM, to do rather than what they should expect in character.

Second, those players I have previously described tend to take an algorithmic approach to problem solving. They usually fall into developing an MO for an encounter and always opening the same way, which I suspect is a holdover from 4e as wel due to the way it compartmentalizes powers.

>>53084543
How are you sacrificing free time and why are you spending money for something you can get for free? Your post comes off like a martyr who works a 50hr/week job for his family, rather than someone who actually enjoys what he's doing.

>>53084618
I wont defend 3e/pf, not for a second. I will openly admit that for experienced players, 4e is a better in 90% of cases than 3e.

>>53084627
Just posted something about that below.

>>53084677

Again, that doesn't sound like problems. That sounds like different playstyles. You might not like it or prefer to play that way, but it doesn't make it implicitly bad.

>>53084652
As I said, some people will dive right in with no problem, others will require a bit of work to understand the basic concepts, and some people will never get it.

Just as there are people who don't understand how power/toughness works, so too are there people who don't understand how AC works or what bonuses they add when making an attack roll. It happens, but it doesn't mean that either of those things are inherently difficult to understand for most people.

>>53084706
I would disagree, I would only ever be willing to play 3.PF with experienced players, inexperienced players can too easily fall into it's devastating pitfalls, while experienced players can explore all the goofy shit the system contains

>>53084728
Listen, if all of the counterarguments in this thread are just "different playstyles" and don't count, then no system is a bad system and every criticism is just a matter of DM and playstyle.

>>53084732
Same arguments as before. Same answers are given. The circle continues.

>>53084728
As somebody who plays these games for character roleplay, it is bad. Unambiguously so.

I doubt anybody would disagree that what I have described is meta-gaming behavior, and that meta-gaming behavior is not benign in a situation where immersion is the endgame.

>>53084750

No? That doesn't make any sense or logically follow at all. I was talking about the very specific claims being made.

>>53084771
None of your deflections logically follow either yet you've been making them for around 150 posts.

>>53084744
We are not in disagreement. I did not post anything which is contradictory to what you just said.

>>53084766

As somebody who plays these games for character roleplay, it is fine.

I disagree that what you've described is metagaming behaviour, and disagree that it is inimical to immersion.

This is something that always confuses me. I've never had any problem being immersed in a character while also interacting with mechanics and meta-aspects of the game. I guess my sense of immersion is just more robust?

>>53084766
I don't see why having a strategic MO is meta-gaming, armies tend to end up with strategic MOs, why should adventuring parties?

And armies, just like adventuring parties, can be called out on this via an encounter with forces that have planned around their MO

>>53084781

I'm not even sure what you're talking about at this point. Could you focus on the two posts in question-

>>53084677
>>53084728

rather than relating the response to the specific points made to everything else in the thread, for some reason?

>>53084766
Frankly, I have to agree. From what I've seen, 4e does seem to encourage a mindset that's more useful in a wargame. For me that sucked out a lot of the fun that could have been had because I had to balance playing a character with playing Final Fantasy Tactics.

>>53081806
Dude ultimate campaign has everything you could want constructed priced, just find it on the srd

>>53084795
What would you consider meta gaming then?

Additionally, how is allowing factors outside of the instance in which you are trying to be immersed effect your decisions not anathema to said immersion?

>>53084821

This confuses me as well. I love 4e for the roleplaying the system allows.

The actions you choose in a crisis are part of roleplaying- When the chips are down, are you courageous or careful? When a dire foe appears, do you strike at the one you hate or the one who seems most dangerous?

Playing my character is playing my part in the combat, the choices I make there being an expression of their personality and themes, and in ways that have real mechanical effects and tangible differences based on my choices and actions.

>>53084827
Meta-gaming is using out of character knowledge to inform in-character decisions

>>53084814
Their respose is regular to the point that it takes nothing into account other than OOC efficiency considerations. That makes it meta. Moreover, its boring and uncreative.

>>53084759
So are you saying that because one dude doesn't understand how something works, it means that everyone else won't understand how it works?

>>53084852
Yes, but what of times when you are NOT in combat?

>>53084854
How does what I described not fall under that definiton? Characters do not know they can only use their powers once per encounter. Characters do not know that a good dungeon will only have 4-5 encounters and a boss. Characters do not know that the layout of the universe is subject to a fat bearded man sitting in a gamestore.

>>53084852
Maybe I was disenchanted by the whole "flip through my power cards and see what's the most damaging in this circumstance" thing.

Plus movement stuff. That made it feel like battle chess and took me out of the whole experience.

>>53084864
OOC efficiency should correspond to IC efficiency.

But I'm getting ahead of myself, I don't know what MO this particular party you're describing was using, so maybe it's some weird strategy that makes no sense and you're 100% right, but as it stands it sort of looks like you're complaining about rogues wanting to flank their targets or fighters rushing in and drawing everyone's attention

>>53084827

Meta-gaming is using outside knowledge to influence actions, generally in ways that are jarring or not intuitive.

And I suppose at this point it's just a playstyle difference. The genre, tone and style of the game are all parts of what I feel immersed in, not just my character. I play my character not in a vacuum or just in the purely 'real' sense of the world around them, but as part of a narrative which obeys those sorts of rules. Having my character follow those conventions and implicitly understand the rules of how their world works- Even if those rules do not have any direct manifestations- is a natural part of playing the game. I still think and choose and make decisions as my character, but the context they exist in is part of it. In a heroic, high fantasy world, their decisions are going to tend towards the bold and the courageous, simply because that is how the world they are in works.

>>53084896

>Yes, but what of times when you are NOT in combat?

Then it's no different to any other system?

>>53084896
Characters know how often they can cast certain spells or invoke their gods will or the aid of spirits.

For everything else, that's not 4e's fault, that's your DM's fault for getting predictable

>>53084766
>>53084821
How exactly is strategy decidedly a wargame only trait when every game requires a bit of strategy?

>>53084893
I am saying that 4e is not a perfect or even near-perfect system for beginners. That has always been my thesis. Since some people won't "get" the concepts presented therein, I can only continue to conclude that my initial assertion is not wrong.

>>53084897

That sounds like a playstyle difference, and that's fine. I'd never call 4e a system for everyone. It does high fantasy action focused games, and does them well. If that's not what you're into, or the level of crunch the system provides, then other games will serve you better.

>>53084920
OOC efficiency rarely corresponds to what should be IC efficiency, mainly because few games accurately simulate reality. As such, I would prefer that characters do what seems reasonable IC with little consideration for what is optimal in the system specifically, with the caveat that I promote staying away from things the system does poorly (grappling in 3.5, for example) if only to spare everybody the trouble. Luckily I dont play systems which have those sorts of problems.

>>53084827
>What would you consider meta gaming then?
Reading the DM's notes when he isn't looking and basing your decisions on what you've read, rather than what's happening in the given situation.

>>53084948
>Since some people won't "get" the concepts presented therein, I can only continue to conclude that my initial assertion is not wrong.
So if 9/10 people get it but one guy doesn't, it means that the system isn't (near) perfect for beginners?

>>53084939
Yes, but encounters do not exist in a metaphysical construct in even the most fantastic fantasy universe.

>>53084948

That's an odd way to warp it from the initial point. 'in many ways'.

I guess because if you actually dealt with the original point you'd be factually wrong.

Clearly laid out, easy to understand rules? Perfect for new players.

Extremely in depth, well written and useful GM side advice? Perfect for new players.

Digital tools like the character builder to streamline some of the more complex or fiddly parts of the process? Perfect for new players.

Those are just some of the broadest, simplest ways that could apply, and they're all undeniable- Any of them, taken alone, is explicitly an asset to a system with regard to new players.

Does that mean everyone should start with 4e, or that any group of new players would enjoy and have a good time with 4e? No. But that doesn't actually contradict the original statement.

>>53079244
$500
I recently appraised my RPG book collection. Since 2000 I've amassed like 14k in RPG books.

No regrets.

As for 4e, I'm not a fan of the gameplay on the player side, but it has a lot to admire for the GM side.

>>53084970

Wait, what?

Why does OOC efficiency not relate to IC efficiency? Why is realism relevant to that?

>>53084943
Let me put it this way: Chess is a whole lot more wargame-y than, say, basketball. Obviously there are still strategy and definite rules involved with both, but one is far more rigid than the other.

>>53079603
Everything specific to your character is right on your sheet.

This is one of the things it does right.

Every game should do the same.

>>53084994

Why not? Why wouldn't an adventuring party, based on their experiences, begin to notice patterns in events and make guesses based on it? Isn't that a perfectly logical and consistent thing to do?

>>53084943
Its the level at which the strategy operates. Its one thing to conduct strategy based on factors that exist IC. Its a whole other to make strategy based on OOC statistics and features.

>>53084978
How is that less meta-gamey than trying to intuit the DMs intent and therefore what his notes WOULD be, and making decisions on the basis of them? Its potentially the same information.

>>53085021
Im not talking about encounters as a unit of time, Im talking about encounters as a metaphysical lever that the gods themselves use as a measure of power-replenishment.

>>53084970
>OOC efficiency rarely corresponds to what should be IC efficiency, mainly because few games accurately simulate reality.
If I only have one level 3 spell slot left, both I (as a player) and the character will know that you only have enough juice to squeeze out one more spell that's at that relative power level.

I mean, a lot of spells in the book are named after famous mages for a reason, it's referenced in-universe, so how would a mage not know that he only has one level 3 spell slot left?

The only real reason /tg/ hates 4e so much is
1.It's a MEME to hate it
2.It is so different from previous and current D&D editions as to be an entirely different game

I for one like 4e a lot, it has a lot of mechanics and ideas I enjoy and I've had great experiences with it.

>>53085016
Free-balling to make yourself less predictable and purposefully making mistakes are strategies that you can do in chess though. Even then, there's a difference between playing chess with a friend who is at your relative skill level and playing a grand master in a tournament.

>>53085054

...What?

>>53085032
...What do you think OOC statistics and features are if not abstract representations of in-character aspects?

>>53085085

It's because they're 'dissociative mechanics', which doesn't actually mean anything and has existed in D&D for years and yet is uniquely brought up as a complaint about 4e for people trying to justify their dislike rather than admitting it's for one of the two reasons in >>53085071

>>53085055
Im not saying he shouldnt, Im saying that he shouldnt know that it has, for example, a 25% chance of doing enough damage to kill a mountain troll (accepting that this mage hasnt been casting this spell experimentally on similar creatures to diving just that sort of information). Its one thing to convert understanding to abstraction 1:1, its another to convert to an abstraction, leap to another, then move back down to an IC understanding. An example:

Your character has a certain knowledge skill level, therefore you know you can generate information and potentially a weakness about certain types of creatures. Such a creature jumps out and surprises the character. Logically his first response should be to DO SOMETHING, but if you take a meta approach, the efficient response should be to try to find its weakness before even considering defending yourself, especially when you can ask the barbarian across the table to get in the way on his turn.

>>53084992
>So if 9/10 people get it but one guy doesn't, it means that the system isn't (near) perfect for beginners?
If you could back up those statistics, I would happily concede you had a point.

But you can't, so you don't.

>>53085000
Modifiers on top of modifiers to remember? Shit for new players. As newbies, they have to keep track of enough already.

Rigid movement rules that turn everything into Final Fantasy Tactics? Shit for new players, same as above.

Being essentially forced to use a character builder because the options are too spread out and having to sift through dull do-nothing filler feats? Shit for new players.

Ritual economy that punishes you for trying to get creative through magic? Shit for new players.

What was it now, five different versions of skill challenges? Shit for new players.

Bad monster math you'd better know about right off the bat? Shit for new players.

But it so many ways, 4e is so good for new players! You just have to ignore all the bad stuff. What a wonderful strategy.

>>53085032
>Its one thing to conduct strategy based on factors that exist IC. Its a whole other to make strategy based on OOC statistics and features.
So you're saying that a character wouldn't know how much juice they can pump out to take out a monster that's standing in front of them?
>How is that less meta-gamey than trying to intuit the DMs intent and therefore what his notes WOULD be, and making decisions on the basis of them?
Because there's a difference between going "hmm, that NPC might fuck us over so I'll be careful" and "Okay, so I read in the DM's notes that this NPC WILL fuck us over once we reach this point in the campaign."

>>53078532
I'd suggest looking at Runequest guilds factions and cults. It's the only sourcebook I know of on the subject

>>53085071
Well golly gee everyone. The guy who reiterated this particular meme for the three-thousandth time on /tg/ really gets it! We were all fools all along!

>>53085085
They are, just as you said, abstractions. However, combining what you know about those abstractions is by very definition, meta. They are not there to be informative, they are there to trigger the rules. If you have a lightning spell, you should be able to (in a good system) simply assume it will do as much damage as lightning should and consult its rules when necessary rather than taking its specific damage range into account when making a tactical decision.

>>53085074
And that's nice and all, but it doesn't actually discount my point. Comparing a wargame to even as something so closely related as FATE would be idiotic.

>>53085162
>They are not there to be informative
Bullshit.

>>53085121
Ooooh, so they're doing that annyoing thing that metagamers in every edition ever have always done where they use knowledge they've gained by reading the Monster Manual in-game


Yeah, that's always been there and it's never going away, sorry buddy

As for your second example, I've played characters who's first response is generating information on the surprising creature, typically high-INT low-Wis because that's what it would take to be the kind of person who reacts to an orc leaping through a bush screaming at you with "hmmm... fascinating"

>>53085133

...Except, aside from the monster math (which was fucked, and fixed, but is still a legit problem to call out), that's all based on opinion? I mean, I agree with you on the rituals thing, but the rest is literally you saying 'I don't like this so nobody should like it'.

>>53085138
The character may know, Im not saying he wouldnt. However, there may be reasons he wouldnt.

As for your second counterexample, what Im talking about is less
"hmm, that NPC might fuck us over so I'll be careful"
and more
"this is an alternate path around a locked door, better be ready for an encounter".

>>53085196
More like all of those could be a stumbling block to new players, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

>>53085189
Given that will is derived from wis, I would say that you'd need high wis to know that it may be wise to think before attacking.

>>53085121

...So the scholarly character being overly interested rather than scared of a threat- a relatively common cliche- is metagaming? What?

>>53085189
Thats not what Im talking about at all. You dont even need to read the monster manual to be able to guestimate the health of a monster.

>>53085214

They could be? Sure. I never said they couldn't be. But they won't always be, whereas everything that was listed before is always an asset. Having clearly laid out rules, good GMing advice and a variety of support tools will never hurt new players trying to get into the system.

>>53085133
Answer the question anon.
>So if 9/10 people get it but one guy doesn't, it means that the system isn't (near) perfect for beginners?

>>53085216
It can be, and in most cases I would say that it is. If you define the character as "the sort that would do something like that" then sure, you can ridicule me till the cows come home, but outside of that one character type it IS metagaming.

File: 1493118417217.jpg (16KB, 500x359px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x359px

>>53078532
>D&D 4e

>>53085225
Oh, well in that case the PC can do the same

>>53085200
>However, there may be reasons he wouldnt.
Such as?
>"this is an alternate path around a locked door, better be ready for an encounter".
So if the (player) characters discover a hole in the wall that allows them to bypass a locked door, that means that it's meta-gaming to prepare in the off chance that an encounter occurs on the other side?

At some point anon, you have to accept that character knowledge will always be what the player knows and whether or not they choose to express that knowledge during play.

>>53085273
By what logic? Do you know how much harder it is to kill a cow than a man as a rough ratio? What about a rhino? A shark?

>>53085158
It's true though
The only reason 4e gets shit on so much is because it is a meme to shit on it and because people don't like the fact that a game so different from all other editions of D&D is still called D&D
If people just said "4e isn't what I'm into but I'm sure other people might enjoy it" we wouldn't have the problem of every thread that mentions 4e devolving into an edition war

>>53085172
I'm just saying, it's not as rigid as you think it is. You can have a robust ruleset that accounts for most things without being 3.PF levels of dumb, just as there's freeform where you can't do anything because the "GM" is a cock with control issues.

>>53085290

Because they're a professional adventurer who does this shit for a living. If they've been killing monsters for any amount of time and don't have the ability to make an educated guess about how tough the thing they're fighting is, I don't know what the fuck they're doing wrong.

>>53085227
>hereas everything that was listed before is always an asset
Interesting, let's analyze that assessment.

>Clearly laid out, easy to understand rules?
Depends on how complex they are, and this factors into my point about movement rules. "Easy to understand" is subjective and this not always an asset.

>Extremely in depth, well written and useful GM side advice?
Can easily be ignored, as I have had the misfortune to experience. Not always an asset to new players if the GM can't be arsed to actually use them (though it definitely is good that they're offered period, you are absolutely right about that).

>Digital tools like the character builder to streamline some of the more complex or fiddly parts of the process?
I pointed out how the character builder is not necessarily a boon if it just inundates the new player with too many options. It is also subject to the whims of WotC; they did replace a perfectly standalone with a shittier online version.

I mean, they /could/ be boons for sure. But that's not what you asserted I'm afraid.

>>53085280
Whether or not they express that knowledge is key. Thats the point. By the very nature of the player-character relationship the player always has more actionable knowledge than the character does. I would posit that the deployment of knowldge that the player knows that the character cannot is metagaming.

>>53085290
A cow is slow and easily manipulated, a rhino is covered in hard skin that's probably tough enough to deflect bullets, and a shark can easily catch a man who is swimming in the middle of the ocean, especially if they're bleeding.

If I can do that just from glancing at these animals, so too can an adventurer glance at a monster and gauge how tough it is based on appearances.

>>53085307
I think thats where we differ I suppose.

I like to play games with charters who are on an adventure, not a game where the characters are adventurers. Its actually one reason I despise PFs standard setting.

>>53085290
I roughly know the difference in size and how hard their hide is, but since I'm not actually experienced in the art of murderhoboing, I do not know how hard each would be to kill.

But a PC, skilled in the fine art of killing things and taking their stuff, would know, or at least would be able to make a guess

>>53085318

Man, you're really clutching at straws.

Are you actually trying to argue that a system, any system, would ever be better off not clearly explaining its rules? That not having easy to understand layouts, good templating and coherent, user friendly design isn't something every RPG should fucking aspire to?

Are you claiming that, because they can be ignored, the system would be improved by removing the GMing advice?

Are you actually saying that a system lacking digital tools could ever be considered a virtue?

Because if you're saying those things, you're just a fucking moron.

>>53085110
>Dissociative mechanics
It does mean something.

Older editions do have them, but also have Associative mechanics. People tolerate them. Those of us who complain about them in 4e also dislike them in 3.5. but they're less prevalent in 3.5, so it's possible to enjoy the rest of the game in spite of them.

4e, on the other hand, is filled with dissociative mechanics. It's what I hate most about 3.5, expanded to fill the entire system.

I also dislike 4e for reason 2 in
>>53085071. I typically want D&D to play the published dnd settings, like Planescape, Faerun, and Dragonlance. 5e mangled one and has enough drastic changes to make it a shitty fit to run the others or the unmangled version of Faerun.

>>53085338
None of those responses is akin to a ratio of two numbers.

>>53085345
see
>>53085340

>>53085357
But 4e Eberron and 4e Dark Sun are fucking amazing, so good that it's almost as if they were designed for the system, despite coming into being well before 4e even existed

>>53085340

But even then, if they adventure for any amount of time that kind of knowledge should be gained, just as a byproduct of what they're doing.

>>53085245
Get glasses, anon.

>>53085297
>i-it's never legitimate criticism about the system, i-it's just sperging out guys
This got old back in 2008, and fast.

>>53085305
Yes, and I understand that. That doesn't detract from something being more wargame-y than something else. Doing wargaming better than 3.PF is nice and all, but a horse is a horse is a horse, of course.

>>53085349
>wah wah wah someone doesn't think my system is a perfect paragon fuck you anon

You made the argument you couldn't back up, don't come whining to me it didn't work out the way you wanted.

>>53085323
So it's a player issue, not a problem in the system itself?

>>53085405

Ahh, resorting to insults. Good to know you can't actually disprove any of my points.

>>53085385
True. I've heard that. But they're the exception to the rule. And if I had found Eberron and dark sun more interesting, that would be one less thing to like about 4e.

>>53085405
>That doesn't detract from something being more wargame-y than something else.
Is it really wargame-y though, or do you feel that it is because you personally don't like crunchy games?

>>53085398
Again, and this is a personal revelation about the differences in our individual expectations of characters, combat isnt the core of most games I run. Its something that happens for a reason. As such, even the most muder-capable of my player characters may only have a half dozen monster kills under their belt at the end of an entire story arc.

>>53085379
Yeah, you should stay far away from 4e if you don't want to be exceptional

4e is actually very narrative in it's design, it expects PCs to be heroes, whether they be greek style or modern comic style is up to you

>>53085415
I already did point out the flaws, point-by-point, and you're the one who went for the insults first. No reason to hold back after that.

>>53085405
Answer the question anon.
>So if 9/10 people get it but one guy doesn't, it means that the system isn't (near) perfect for beginners?
It's not a difficult question. Say either yes or no.

>>53085411
Its a player problem that Im arguing 4e can foster by having information more information that only a player can possibly have, such as encounters being a unit of power-recharge as well as glut of grid-position based powers, and making the use of that information key to optimal play. Moreso than other editions of DnD by some degree, though, as Ive said, I wouldnt say any edtion of DnD is a good place for new players to start.

>>53085442

A conditional insult. But if you're accepting it, then you really were making points that stupid? Huh. I'm actually surprised. They all seem indefensibly dumb to me.

>>53085428
Well, let's look at the facts. As has been pointed out many times by 4e fans to 3.Xers, D&D started off as a mod for a wargame and never did manage to shake that. If anything, 3.X ramped up those aspects and 4e solidified them even more. I'd feel very confident in saying that 4e is inherently wargame-like. Definitely moreso than plenty of non-D&D-inspired games.

>>53085428
Ntgb it's really wargamey. It has little mechanical support outside combat.

>>53085424
Weird, I've always found all the other settings save for spelljammer to be painfully similar, with points of light just being the next one along in the chain of "generic fantasy settings"

>>53085438
I think power fantasy is the lowest and least cooperative form of roleplay. Thats just me though.

>>53085509

>least cooperative

Well, that at least is flatly untrue in 4e. Heck, the system has been criticised for not letting individual characters be competent and forcing teamwork to remain functional.

>>53085318
>"Easy to understand" is subjective and this not always an asset.
When is having easy to understand rules not an asset?
>Can easily be ignored, as I have had the misfortune to experience.
So can anything else written in the book. In fact, one of the most given pieces of advice on this board is to ignore the rules whenever it gets in the way of the narrative.
>I pointed out how the character builder is not necessarily a boon if it just inundates the new player with too many options.
Too many options aren't really a problem though when the game has a way to filter out the options that aren't relevant to what you need. It's the same reason why the SRD and D&Dtools (back before it got shut down) was so valuable for 3.PF players.

>>53085460
Depriving you of the opportunity to exercise those dilapidated neurons of yours would be criminal. I'm sure you can figure it out, anon.

>>53085483
>maybe if I shit my pants harder, anon-kun will take me seriously again

>>53085529

Aww, the fun has ended. He's given up pretending to argue and just resorted to direct insults. That's a shame.

>>53078532
>o I'm running a game of D&D 4e

Ok, I found the problem.

What you need to do, is take the group of players down to the park. Find some homeless dudes. Put a bunch of homeless dicks in your mouths. That should make you all a little LESS gay, than playing 4e.

>>53085358
Does it matter? you asked if it's possible to know if those creatures are harder to kill than a man. I did so, so what's the problem here?

>>53085521
Id actually agree with that sentiment, but I would still stand by what I said about power fantasy in general.

>>53085438
Another reason I prefer 5e. It's more suited to being run like Shadowrun, where the PCs aren't superheroes in comparison to soldiers or the city guard, they just have an inclination towards very dangerous freelance work.

>>53085547
>m-maybe sempai will give me a (You)
>i'll treasure it forever

>>53085572
No I did not, I asked if you knew how much harder they were to kill than a man. There is a difference.

Is a rhino twice as hard? Four times? Is a shark ten times as hard?

>>53085436
So you're telling me that you've never had a pack of wolves attack the party while in the woods? Or have bandits attack them along the main roads? Or have a camp of goblins just sitting somewhere in the woods?

Because if the world is that safe, to where the most combat capable person in the party only killed six creatures throughout the arc, why even give them class levels in the first place?

>>53085601
It depends on the game

I wouldn't use 5e to run an epic quest to save the world, and I wouldn't use 4e to run murderhobo adventures, but both game types are fun in their own way, and take nothing away from each other by coexisting

>>53085616
I didnt say six creatures, I said six monsters, i.e. non-mundane creatures.

>>53085481
>Its a player problem that Im arguing 4e can foster by having information more information that only a player can possibly have, such as encounters being a unit of power-recharge as well as glut of grid-position based powers, and making the use of that information key to optimal play.
Okay, well that's your opinion.

Convert "per encounter" to "per day" and "squares" to "5 ft." and most of your issues disappear entirely. Also, there's a difference between knowing the range of your attack (which a character would know as well) and knowing that the NPC that the DM introduced is going to betray the party as soon as they reach the end of the mountain trail.

You're conflating two concepts into being the same just because you don't like crunchy games. I have no issue with you not like crunchy games but don't sit there and pretend that it's going to cause someone to meta-game.

>>53085502
The generic fantasy setting I like is forgotten realms. I like it because it's so fleshed out and detailed, with more gray morality than most of the others, no "the PCs saved the world at level 5" nonsense because they're just not that important at low levels, and lots of competing factions. And if I want information on some cult or city or guild or historical event or religion, there's detailed information to be had. Dragonlance mostly just has some decent published adventures.

The other settings I tend to go for are Planescape and Spelljammer.

I would not choose 4e for any of them. I played in a 4e Faerun game and a 4e Planescape game. Both were disappointing.

>>53085659
There is a big difference both conceptually and functionally between per encounter and per day.

>>53085485
>Well, let's look at the facts.
What facts?
>Definitely moreso than plenty of non-D&D-inspired games.
Try saying that after giving Shadowrun 5e a whirl.

>>53085671
>more grey morality than others, no "The PCs saved the world at level 5" nonsense because they're just not that important at low levels, and lots of competing factions

Hey, yeah, those are exactly the reasons why I love Eberron so much

>>53085491
Do you really need MECHANICAL support for conventions that are best resolved through ROLEPLAY though? Do you really need to roll dice just to haggle with a dude over the price of a diamond you're trying to sell?

Really dude?

>>53085698

Eberron does give PCs a lot of importance though, even at 'low' levels (relative to what is common in other settings.)

It's one of the rather interesting things about the setting, a lot of the pivotal NPCs are actually relatively low level given just how many people died in the old war.

>>53085491
>>53085706

Being fair, 4e would be better off if it had better out of combat stuff. The Rituals system was never properly developed or utilised, and out of combat utility powers are cool, but constantly had to fight for space with combat powers.

Honestly, I'd love to split Utility powers into two categories, 'Support' and 'Utility', Support being purely combat utilities and Utility being pure out of combat, to let people select neat tricks without directly losing out on combat prowess.

>>53085716
They're "important", but still essentially powerless, because the factions are either in direct control of them or are actively trying to limit them

>>53085641
I'm generally disinclined to run an "epic quest to save the world", but if I did, I wouldn't want the PCs to have more of a gap between them and the authorities than like what exists with Iron Fist, Jackie Chan, or Daredevil, and 5e handles that just fine with minimal effort.

>>53085737

But it's also pretty easy to break through that ceiling. By mid paragon you're beyond the reach of most nations.

>>53085696
>ignore everything posted about D&Ds history

>thinking a single example refutes that entire assertion

What did he mean by this?

>>53085696
Shadowrun can be played in theater of the mind, sans grid. 4e cannot.

>>53085706
I actually really like shadowrun's negotiation rules. They add a lot to the game.

So uh, yeah.

4e's "just freeform it" IMO does not make for nearly as satisfying gameplay.

>>53085529
>Depriving you of the opportunity to exercise those dilapidated neurons of yours would be criminal. I'm sure you can figure it out, anon.
Yet here you are, still avoiding the question.

Of course, it's clear now that I'm arguing with a juvenile who doesn't like being wrong, so at this point I'm just left to conclude that you would actually believe that a game isn't good for beginners just because one guy is too stupid to understand basic concepts in the way the rules work.

I'm surprised you even have games honestly.

>>53085735
>but constantly had to fight for space with combat powers
You know, I'd never noticed that before. That was something that bothered me. It also seemed like you could never really get enough utility powers to be interesting. I'd also support your suggestion.

>>53085735
I'd rather have seen support powers in with the other combat powers. Utility powers then being strictly non-combat stuff.

>>53085706
Take Barbarians of Lemuria as an example:
You pick careers and get a bonus whenever you an argue that your career experience would come into play. That is a robust, responsive, and ordered way to provide mechanical support do deep and detailed roleplay, rather than 4e's solution of doing nothing.

There are even examples of open ended fluffy timmy feats in the shitpile that is PF that are more supportive of roleplay than nothing.

>>53085611
>No I did not, I asked if you knew how much harder they were to kill than a man.
Which I did.

>>53085641
>and take nothing away from each other by coexisting
Meanwhile, in the land of having my 4E game cancelled so the DM can run a 5E game...

>>53085798

Well, I think combat utilities have a place in the system. Small, secondary effects that aren't quite worth a full encounter or daily slot is a fun little bit of design space to explore.

>>53085811
Campaigns end.

>>53085652
Semantics.

You're basically telling me that in your setting, monsters are so rare that one dude can rack up a kill count of six monsters throughout an entire arc.

Fucking Berserk kills more monsters in one arc than you do, even during the arcs that were still generally low-fantasy.

>>53085804
You gave examples of information you could infer about the creatures that might inform such an assumption, but you never compared the tasks in a relative way as you can with HP values.

For example: what are the chances that a lighting strike will kill an elephant relative to a human. You can guess in real life and have no clue whether you're close to the truth, but in a TTRPG you can know with relative certainty if you ever fought an elephant with anything from a club to a bow how easy it would be to kill it with poison, lightning, or a magical heart attack.

>>53085694
Not really, they're both abilities that you can only use once before having to take a long rest.

>>53085830
I think the out of combat powers shouldn't have to compete with in combat powers in a game that heavily focuses on one or the other.

>>53085841
He could be saying he simply runs character centric campaigns, like a guilds and factions type thing, or wars, or urban intrigue, instead of dungeon crawls.

>>53085841
No. You asserted that the worlds I run games in are safe based off an incorrect reading of my post. They are not. That is not semantic. Other than that, I take no issue with the rest of your post, though Im not sure why breserk matters in this instance.

>>53085854
Do we have to go back to my gauntlet of encounters example?

>>53085775
Oh, Jesus Christ you stupid fuck.

>If you could back up those statistics, I would happily concede you had a point.
>I would happily concede you had a point
>would concede
>point

The answer is obviously yes. I don't know how you failed to comprehend that. But because you posted a theoretical scenario, it's absolutely useless. Congratulations! You won nothing!

>Of course, it's clear now that I'm arguing with a juvenile who doesn't like being wrong
Strangely enough, that's exactly how you yourself come off.

>I'm just left to conclude that you would actually believe that a game isn't good for beginners just because one guy is too stupid to understand basic concepts in the way the rules work.
I'm just going to conclude that you write off any criticism of your favorite game as people being too doltish to get it.

Am I being uncharitable and unfair toward you? Strongly possible! Do I care? Absolutely not.

>>53085861

I agree with you, which is why I think splitting them is a good idea, but I still think combat utilities have a right to exist.

>>53085835
Which does nothing to refute my point. I would be having more fun if 5E never existed.

>>53085756
Just because D&D started off as a hack doesn't mean that it's inherently a war-game anon. In fact, earlier D&D editions weren't dissimilar to more rules-lite dungeon crawls in their inception and combat was actively discouraged since your opponents were not only just as strong as you, but could afford to sacrifice numbers while the party couldn't.

>>53085773
Roleplay != freeform.

You shouldn't need to roll dice just to interact with the world if your perogative is based upon roleplay as opposed to mechanical aptitude.
>>53085801
At the same time though, what's the difference between that and the DM just going "okay senpai, your backstory says that you did a thing related to this shit so I'll give you a bonus for that."

>>53085915
You don't know that.

Maybe he would have played some other game instead, or some other company might have broken into the market and gained substantial following, with a vacuum created by discontinuing dnd after ending 4e.

>>53085958
Structure is helpful. It codifies what types of things players can use to argue for a bonus, which is in general what most good semi-freeform systems boil down to. Otherwise, players are free to invent the extent or details of their experience as suits their needs at the time. The purpose of rules is to ensure fairness, and allowing players wiggle room to adapt their character backstories after the fact is not fair.

>>53085848
I can honestly say that I have no idea, regardless of edition, how much HP an elephant has in D&D

I assume more than an average human and less than an adult dragon

>>53085888

Oh hey, you're still posting. Can you please try and defend your argument that a system having clearly explained rules and good, easy to understand layouts could be a bad thing? Please? It'd be fucking hilarious.

>>53085990
No, I do know that for sure. The only reason he looked at 5E was because it was D&D.

>>53085888
>The answer is obviously yes.
Now was that so hard to say?
>Strangely enough, that's exactly how you yourself come off.
I'm not the one throwing around insults so I fail to see how that's apparent.
>I'm just going to conclude that you write off any criticism of your favorite game as people being too doltish to get it.
Which isn't what I'm doing in the slightest, I'm just stating that just because one dude doesn't understand something, it doesn't mean that the rest of the group has the same deficiencies.

In every classroom, there's always going to be the dumb kid who never learns, if you never met them before then I have bad news for you...

>>53085992
As an experienced player, Id reflexively be able to tell you its between 40 and 80, and a quick google reveals that Im right in some systems and wrong in others. The point is, I can ballpark it. Which I cant do in real life.

>>53085958
>Freeform = roleplay without mechanics.
It's a slight hyperbole, because there are *some* out of combat mechanics.

But yes. I want mechanics that make gameplay better, including out of combat. If I didn't want mechanics, I'd just format roleplay.

>>53085848
Considering that it only takes a few amps to kill a man, I'd imagine that a lightning bolt could easily kill an elephant.

>>53085868
Berserk matters because even during the golden age arc, where most of the conflict was between the band of hawks and the midland royalties, you still saw your fair share of monsters throughout the story even though it was supposed to be low-fantasy.

So if a player only kills about six creatures in the entire campaign, it tells me that either you've hand-waved away a lot of the more prolific monsters that are native to the system (orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc.).

>>53086033
Only 10% of people who are struck by lightning die, anon. Care to revise your answer?

>>53085881
No, I don't feel like reading through your asinine points a second time, thanks.

>>53086072
What system do you think Im using? I can promise you that you are wrong.