The Gaming Den

Exception based design. The reason you have you must either read through the adventure *completely* in advance or pause at the table to figure out what the hell is going to happen. Any new monster will literally have shit you haven't seen before (or be a minor variation on something you have seen before, which is even worse, because it means your more likely to make a mistake, because this power of 'pushing people away when the move adjacent' may be an interrupt instead of taking place after you hit the target. Or one of his friends. Or looking crossways at the blue moon on a tuesday night.

Its one more way that 4e kicks game mastery to the curb. Though this time, the usual simplified shit is actually making things harder for the GM. He has to completely learn a monster every time he pulls a new one out of the book. And after 3-4 encounters, he'll probably never use it again during that campaign.

Voss wrote:Exception based design. The reason you have you must either read through the adventure completely in advance or pause a table. Any new monster will literally have shit you haven't seen before (or be a minor variation on something you have seen before, which is even worse, because it means your more likely to make a mistake, because this power of 'pushing people away when the move adjacent' may be an interrupt instead of taking place after you hit the target. Or one of his friends. Or looking crossways at the blue moon on a tuesday night.

Maybe the GM doesn't have to pause the table or even read anything, because it's not like there's a need of tactics for anything.

Note: the "playtesters'" TPKs probably have a lot to do with playing eladrin warlocks with pact blades or something like that, because "it's flavorful" (and, interestingly enough, it's not they who have a problem, what with being seemingly unable to push flavor into an actually good character). Also, with "storytellers" throwing level 5 solos at level 1 parties.

As for TPKs, they seem to largely come from bad encounter design. The first official module has two places where you're almost certain to TPK. Both involve encounters that are roughly twice the size the should be, and of course, elite bosses.

Particularly in the final encounter, which is laughable since its 5 3rd level characters against a level 8 elite boss with environmental effects that push his absurdly high defenses even higher, and heal him. Aside from the dice horribly fluking out, there isn't any way to kill him. The math just doesn't work.

Any use of tactics [including the encounter's suggested tactics] by the DM is going make the TPK even more inevitable. Which strikes me as bad adventure design, but hey, this one is all Mearls, and it literally is entirely full of fail.

Bigode wrote:Yeah, because the earlier and lesser failure didn't use EBD, you know.

Yeah that's true.

Though I sort of like EBD for that stuff, because it makes your monsters more original. I mean, in the 3E version, he's just another fucking cleric. Yeah, he grows tentacles and shit that has some minor effect that you don't care about. But at the end of the day, just another cleiric.

It's one of the problems of non-EBD, is that you get the feeling of Deja Vu. 8th levle cleric, yeah I've actually fought that monster before.

EBD is kind of cool for something like that because ti can give even jaded players who've seen it all the chance to fight something new.

Yeah, of course it means you have to learn the monster each time as a DM, but that's because ti may well be a different monster. Where as in 3.5, it's the same monster. He iosn't some far realms horror, he's just another 8th level cleric. Lame.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Seriously, just follow that algorithm or a variation thereof, and you'll be fine playing against a shit deck with an awesome one. And that's a realistic strategy a newbie could use, and takes virtually no brains to execute.

Everyone's already touched on why the specific strategy mentioned is awful, but you're vastly overestimating the strategic abilities of new players in general. They can and will punt the game, sometimes making multiple game-losing mistakes per turn. As long as the good player is still there, he can win the game with relative ease.

And Type One decks aren't universal powerhouses. Moxes and Black Lotus just allow you to execute your strategy faster, they don't win the game for you. Most Vintage decks have such immense decision trees that I would actually expect newer players to lose with them even against terrible creature decks. If you wanted to spend 20 minutes explaining the deck, they could probably win some games with Ichorid, but anything else would be really tough.

Jacob_Orlove wrote: Everyone's already touched on why the specific strategy mentioned is awful, but you're vastly overestimating the strategic abilities of new players in general.

It is awful, but thats the point. It may be awful but it will still win against a shit deck. I mean try ti out. Pick out one of those store bought peices of crap pregen decks and try it against a hardcore type I deck that has a basic strategy. A type I rush deck actually wouldn't work too bad either.

And Type One decks aren't universal powerhouses. Moxes and Black Lotus just allow you to execute your strategy faster, they don't win the game for you. Most Vintage decks have such immense decision trees that I would actually expect newer players to lose with them even against terrible creature decks. If you wanted to spend 20 minutes explaining the deck, they could probably win some games with Ichorid, but anything else would be really tough.

Well yeah, you probably don't want to give them any kind of control deck with counters and otyher stuff that they're expected to use. You want to give them something basic, like land destruction + creatures, or weenie rush or something like that.

Or a single card deck like a Yawgmoth's bargain deck. WIth a little strategy explanation, it'd be pretty easy for a newbie to play that deck to win.

Now what a newbie can't do is put together the decks. YOu can give a newbie literally every card in existence and he's going to probably put together shit. While a good player can build a pretty good deck from even mediocre cards. There's a great deal of skill involved in deck building. Make the newbie put together his own deck and his loss is almost assured.

RandomCasualty2 wrote: Yeah, of course it means you have to learn the monster each time as a DM, but that's because ti may well be a different monster. Where as in 3.5, it's the same monster. He iosn't some far realms horror, he's just another 8th level cleric. Lame.

I fail to see how a monster that pushes and blinds people in a slightly different way is any better. Its just another monster that pushes and blinds people.

Is your argument that between two crappy players, the one with a better deck will win? Or is it that you're capable of crippling the expert player enough to lose against a crappy player (through deck disparity)? Neither of those mean much of anything, other than you stating the obvious.

And you find it lame that you don't have to completely relearn tactics with your monsters, assuming that EBD actually worked (rather than the pitiful variance you see in 4E)? Forcing an inability to ever be familiar with your world is a recipe for frustration, while also destroying any hope for balance because you keep adding more and more rules where you're unable to predict the synergistic effects.

virgileso wrote:Is your argument that between two crappy players, the one with a better deck will win? Or is it that you're capable of crippling the expert player enough to lose against a crappy player (through deck disparity)? Neither of those mean much of anything, other than you stating the obvious.

The latter. They're saying that an expert player with a shit deck can beat a newbie player with an awesome deck.

In fact, this does seem to be stating the obvious to me, though the others arguing against me seem to disagree.

And you find it lame that you don't have to completely relearn tactics with your monsters, assuming that EBD actually worked (rather than the pitiful variance you see in 4E)? Forcing an inability to ever be familiar with your world is a recipe for frustration, while also destroying any hope for balance because you keep adding more and more rules where you're unable to predict the synergistic effects.

Well, yeah, honestly I don't really like having monsters that work exactly the same. It's just boring. That's the problem with most 3E NPCs, they're basically a bunch of work and play pretty much alike.

As far as balance goes, that just requires good monster creation systems. The 3E system sucked anyway, so it's not like you got anything more balanced out of it.

it requires some kind of basic bonus and damage table similar to what 4E does, but also guidelines on what abilities to give creatures. Like "Low damage + incapacitating status condition" is okay at level 12 or something.

Jacob_Orlove wrote:They can and will punt the game, sometimes making multiple game-losing mistakes per turn.

Could you give an example, please?

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Well, yeah, honestly I don't really like having monsters that work exactly the same. It's just boring. That's the problem with most 3E NPCs, they're basically a bunch of work and play pretty much alike.

Every cleric plays the same? Hand me some of that, it's good stuff.

Didn't you know that beatstick clerics, archer clerics, area destruction clerics, denial clerics, healbot clerics and summon-mastery clerics play exactly the same? For shame.

Don't forget Necromancer Clerics, Elemental commanding Clerics, Plant commanding Clerics, Magic domain Clerics, and Trickery domain Clerics. They are also exactly the same.

Bigode wrote:

Jacob_Orlove wrote:They can and will punt the game, sometimes making multiple game-losing mistakes per turn.

Could you give an example, please?

Sure! Here are some Vintage examples, because that's the format I play:

Chump blocking with Goblin Welder to preserve valuable life points.
Not casting Force of Will because they're too attached to all their spells.
Not mulliganing terrible hands.
Poor mulliganing in general.
Wasting bounce spells at ineffective times.
Casting Yawgmoth's Will when their opponent has Tormod's Crypt.
Not counting to 10 for Tendrils of Agony.
Going all in on Tinker when they don't have to.
Running spells into Mana Drain when they don't have to (I drew Fact or Fiction! Time to cast it!).
Boarding out all their card drawing spells for narrow answers.
Poor sideboarding in general.
Using Necropotence to draw only one card each turn.

If I have time, I'll play some bad players this weekend and post highlights.

I'm amused by the term Vintage when I recognize all of 1 of those spells. Does it mean something different to Magic players?

Four of the cards mentioned are individually over 10 years old (Mana Drain and Tormod's Crypt are 94, while Necro and Force are 95/96). Yawgmoth's Will, Goblin Welder, and Tinker are all from 98/99, and Tendrils of Agony is admittedly more modern (03).

"Vintage" is what used to be called "Type One". It's the format where every set and card is legal, except for a small banned/restricted list.

Jacob_Orlove wrote:

Bigode wrote:

Jacob_Orlove wrote:They can and will punt the game, sometimes making multiple game-losing mistakes per turn.

Could you give an example, please?

Sure! Here are some Vintage examples, because that's the format I play (...)

Thanks much. But IIRC, sideboarding isn't per round ... and, is Vintage still a format for the rich, or does it nowadays actually help people with non-relaunched old edition cards?

The benefit to Vintage is that your cards are never outdated. The bad part is that your cards cost hundreds of dollars each and the combos are insanely hard to put together.

The current standard for non-sanctioned Vintage tournaments (i.e., every Vintage event not run directly by Wizards) is 10 proxies, but some venues allow more. If you happen to own Black Lotus, great, but if not, you can just proxy it. Same goes for the rest of those $$$ out of print cards.

The format still isn't cheap, but you can pick up most of the rest of the staples for less than the most expensive Standard ("Type Two") cards go for these days. And your can use your cards forever.

You're right, sideboarding is only once per game, but it's one of those cascading mistakes that leads to further errors as the game progresses.

Voss wrote:Didn't you know that beatstick clerics, archer clerics, area destruction clerics, denial clerics, healbot clerics and summon-mastery clerics play exactly the same? For shame.

Well honestly, NPC clerics tend to play the same unless you want to go through a bunch of backflips trying to make them good.

Melee cleric/cleric archer isn't really possible except at high levels or with persistent spell/divine meta. At like level 5-8, clerics basically either heal ro do basic support spells, unless the build is very specific.

But that's one thing I hated about NPCs in 3E, if you want to do stuff that's good with them, you've basically got to make them like they were a PC, and that takes fucking forever.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Voss wrote:Didn't you know that beatstick clerics, archer clerics, area destruction clerics, denial clerics, healbot clerics and summon-mastery clerics play exactly the same? For shame.

Well honestly, NPC clerics tend to play the same unless you want to go through a bunch of backflips trying to make them good.

Bullshit, just choice different spells

Melee cleric/cleric archer isn't really possible except at high levels or with persistent spell/divine meta. At like level 5-8, clerics basically either heal ro do basic support spells, unless the build is very specific.

You don't need persistent spell or DMM, just have the spells already casted.

But that's one thing I hated about NPCs in 3E, if you want to do stuff that's good with them, you've basically got to make them like they were a PC, and that takes fucking forever.

At first it takes a long time but once you figure out what you are going for you don't have to make it perfect. For casters just use the elite array give it spells that you know work together for it's level. Give it gear (don't sweat the mundane) and there you go.

Psychic Robot wrote:4e really is more like Guild Wars. Except Guild Wars has shinier graphics.

Hey, Guild Wars has many sensible mechanics that I wouldn't mind seeing some more of.

4e, on the other hand...

Leress wrote:

But that's one thing I hated about NPCs in 3E, if you want to do stuff that's good with them, you've basically got to make them like they were a PC, and that takes fucking forever.

At first it takes a long time but once you figure out what you are going for you don't have to make it perfect. For casters just use the elite array give it spells that you know work together for it's level. Give it gear (don't sweat the mundane) and there you go.

[/quote]

And really it's a lot easier for a cleric than a wizard. You don't have to worry about a spellbook or known spells for the cleric, so you basically only have to figure out which spells he'll use frequently.

Someone fix the mother fucking quote tags.

Working to push this onto the next page because goddamn it's annoying.

Spambotting to next page.